content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
Recent years have seen a lot of research around the problem of authentication using approximate matching under a certain metric of similarity, while still enabling a secure storage of sensible authentication data. The typical, but not the only scenario, where such a system is needed, is in the use of biometric features, like fingerprints, for authentication purposes.
Several models have been proposed that may be more appropriate for different applications. For example the fuzzy commitment scheme \cite{ju99} models data as bit strings and compares strings in the Hamming metric; the fuzzy vault \cite{ju02} models data as sets of elements and compares sets in the set difference metric.
In this paper we present fuzzy authentication schemes using the rank metric by generalizing the schemes mentioned above for other model scenarios and highlighting possible applications. The structure of the paper is the following. Section \ref{sec:3} recalls some mathematical concepts and definitions concerning rank metric codes and linearized polynomials. Section \ref{sec:2} presents the fuzzy commitment scheme in the rank distance, a model whereby the tolerance needed in the authentication is not based on the number of different bits between two strings but on the similarity of two matrices, more precisely on the rank of their difference. Section \ref{sec:4} is devoted to a fuzzy vault scheme using linearized polynomials, which relates the set difference with the rank metric. The scheme is an alternative to the standard fuzzy vault based on Reed-Solomon decoding.
Section \ref{sec:5} gives hints on possible applications and model scenarios of the schemes presented in the previous sections.
\section{Rank Metric Codes and Linearized Polynomials}
\label{sec:3}
Let $q$ be a prime power and let $\mathbb{F}_q$ denote the finite field with $q$ elements.
Recall that
$\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ is isomorphic (as
a vector space over $\mathbb{F}_q$) to the vector space $\mathbb{F}_q^m$.
One then easily obtains the isomorphic description of matrices over
the base field $\mathbb{F}_q$ as vectors over the extension field, i.e.\
$\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}\cong \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{rank distance} $d_R$ on $\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$ is defined by
\[d_R(X,Y):= \rk(X-Y) , \quad X,Y \in \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}. \]
In the same way it is possible to define the rank distance between two elements
$\boldsymbol x,\boldsymbol y \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ as the rank of the
difference of the respective matrix representations in
$\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$.
\end{definition}
A \emph{rank metric code} $\mathcal C$ is a subset of $\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$ (or $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$) equipped with the rank distance. The \emph{minimum distance} of a rank metric code $\mathcal C$ is the quantity
$$d_R(\mathcal C):=\min\left\{d_R(u,v) \mid u,v\in \mathcal C, u\neq v\right\}. $$
We can define special classes of rank metric codes introducing linearity.
An $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-linear rank metric code of dimension $k$ is a rank metric code that is also a $k$-dimensional subspace of the $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-vector space $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$.
An $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear rank metric code of dimension $k'$ is a rank metric code that is also a $k'$-dimensional subspace of the $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space
$\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n\cong \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$.
Observe that an $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-linear rank metric code of dimension $k$ is also an $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear code of dimension $mk$.
We will use the notation $[n,k,d]$-code for a $k$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-linear code with minimum distance $d$, and $[nm,k',d']$-code for a $k'$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear code with minimum distance $d'$.
\begin{theorem}[Singleton-like Bound]\label{th:SB}
Let $\mathcal C\subseteq \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$ be a rank metric code. Then
$$|\mathcal C|\leq \min\left\{q^{m(n-d+1)},q^{n(m-d+1)}\right\}. $$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{ga85}, or \cite[Theorem 1]{ro91}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Codes attaining the Singleton-like bound are called \emph{Maximum Rank Distance (MRD) Codes}.
\end{definition}
When $n\leq m$ a class of codes attaining the Singleton-like bound was first proposed in \cite{ga85} and then generalized in \cite{ks05}. These codes are $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$-linear rank metric codes.
Let $(v_1,\dots, v_n) \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ be a vector, we denote the $k
\times n$ \emph{$s$-Moore matrix} by
\[M_{s,k}(v_1,\dots, v_n) := \left( \begin{array}{cccc} v_1 & v_2
&\dots &v_n \\ v_1^{[s]} & v_2^{[s]} &\dots &v_n^{[s]} \\
\vdots&&&\vdots \\ v_1^{[s(k-1)]} & v_2^{[s(k-1)]} &\dots
&v_n^{[s(k-1)]} \end{array}\right) ,\] where $[i]:= q^i$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:Gab}
Let $g_1,\dots, g_n \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ be linearly independent over
$\mathbb{F}_q$ and let $s$ be coprime to $m$. We define a \emph{generalized
Gabidulin code} $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^{n}$ of dimension
$k$ as the linear block code with generator matrix
$M_{s,k}(g_1,\dots, g_n)$. Using the isomorphic matrix
representation we can interpret $\mathcal{C}$ as a matrix code in
$\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$.
\end{definition}
These codes are optimum for rank distance, since they are $[n,k,n-k+1]$-codes. Moreover, for this class of codes there exist
polynomial-time decoding algorithms decoding up to their
error-correcting capability $t=\left\lfloor\frac{n-k}{2}\right\rfloor$, \cite{lo06, ri04, si09}.
Observe that when $s=1$, this definition of Gabidulin codes is the $q$-analog of Reed-Solomon codes with the Hamming distance. Here, a set of distinct elements is replaced by a set of linearly independent elements, and the power $g_i^j$ is replaced by the Frobenius power $g_i^{[j]}$. Reed-Solomon codes can also be seen as evaluation of polynomials of degree less than $k$ in $n$ distinct
points. We can give a $q$-analog of this interpretation for Gabidulin codes, as evaluation of linearized polynomials in $n$ linearly independent elements.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{linearized polynomial} over $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ is a polynomial $f(x)\in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}[x]/(x^{q^m}-x)$ of the form
$$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}f_ix^{[i]}.$$
We denote by $\mathcal L_m(\mathbb{F}_{q^m})$ the space of linearized polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$.
\end{definition}
Let $\mathcal G_{k,s} \subseteq \mathcal L_m(\mathbb{F}_{q^m})$ be the set defined as
$$ \mathcal G_{k,s}:= \left\{f_0x+f_1x^{[s]}+\ldots+f_{k-1}x^{[s(k-1)]} \mid f_i\in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}\right\}.$$
\begin{proposition}
Let $g_1,\dots, g_n \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ be linearly independent over
$\mathbb{F}_q$ and let $s$ be an integer coprime to $m$. Let moreover $\mathcal C$ be the Generalized Gabidulin code whose generator matrix is $M_{s,k}(g_1,\dots, g_n)$. Then
$$\mathcal C= \left\{(f(g_1),f(g_2),\ldots,f(g_n))\mid f\in \mathcal G_{k,s}\right\}.$$
\end{proposition}
From now on we will write $\mathcal G_{k,s}(g_1,\ldots, g_n)$ for such a code.
For many years Gabidulin codes have been the only known MRD codes over $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$. Recently some construction of non-Gabidulin MRD
codes have been discovered \cite{co16, cr15}, but many of these codes are not linear over $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$. Some constructions of linear
non-Gabidulin MRD codes can be found in \cite{ho16} and as a special class of the codes presented in \cite{sh15}.
Although there are few known constructions of MRD codes, it was shown in \cite{ne16} that most linear rank metric codes are MRD and that the Gabidulin codes are only a small franction among the MRD codes.
\section{Fuzzy Commitment Scheme with the Rank Distance}
\label{sec:2}
In 1999 Juels and Wattenberg \cite{ju99} proposed a fuzzy commitment scheme to allow fuzzy authentication with secure storage of biometric data in binary form. In \cite{sc10} the authors revisited the scheme in the setting of an arbitrary finite field by focusing on implementations and security concerns. In \cite{sc11} they proposed a dual version of the scheme, called fuzzy syndrome hashing, featuring some advantages in terms of security and use of iterative decoding. In \cite{sc12} they presented scenarios involving burst error correction and higher dimensional data.
Here we are going to describe a new fuzzy commitment scheme using the rank metric.
In a following section about applications, we will describe a few scenarios where this scheme can be applied.
In our authentication model, we wish to consider two vectors $b,b' \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ (or, equivalently, their matrix representations $B, B'\in \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n}$) as belonging to the same person or entity as long as their rank distance is less than a certain predetermined threshold. And for security concerns we do not want to store vectors (or matrices) unencrypted.
Suppose now that we have a rank metric code $\mathcal C\subseteq \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ whose minimum distance is $d=2t+1$ and assume there exists an efficient algorithm for decoding up to $t$ errors.
Let $h:\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times r}$ be a collision resistant hash function, i.e. such that it is not feasible to compute an $u\in h^{-1}(v)$ for any $v \in \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times r}$. Observe that a hash function $h':\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^{r}$ can be defined starting from $h$, as the diagram
$$\xymatrix{\mathbb{F}_q^{m\times n} \ar[r]^-{h} \ar[d] & \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times r} \ar[d] \\
\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n \ar@{.>}[r]^{h'} \ar[u] & \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^r\ar[u]\\
}$$
shows.
As in the standard fuzzy commitment scheme, we select at random a codeword $c_b \in \mathcal C$ and we store the tuple
$$(l, h(c_b))$$
where $l=b-c_b$.
This scheme is essentially
the analogue of the standard fuzzy commitment with the difference that we use rank metric codes instead of Hamming codes.
Analogously as in \cite{sc10} one can show the following result.
\begin{theorem
If $b \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ can be chosen uniformly over the entire ambient space $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$, then computing $ b \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^n$ from the stored data $(l,h(c_b))$ is computationally equivalent to invert the ‘restricted’ hash function
$$h_{|_\mathcal C}: \mathcal C \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q^m}^r.$$
\end{theorem}
\section{A Linearized Polynomial Fuzzy Vault Scheme}
\label{sec:4}
The polynomial fuzzy vault (PFV) scheme was introduced in \cite{ju02} and allows fuzzy authentication in the set-difference metric.
In \cite{ma16} the authors proposed
a fuzzy vault scheme using codes in another metric, relating the set difference with the subspace distance on the set of Grassmanians.
The PFV scheme can also be generalized in a natural way using linearized polynomials and codes over the rank metric as follows.
First, we make the following assumption about the set of features used for authentication, both the set initially used to build the vault and the one submitted later for authentication.
\begin{assumption}\label{as:lin}
Assume that the set of features ($A$ or $W$ in the following) is given by $n$ $\mathbb{F}_q$-linearly independent elements in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$, i.e. it is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-basis for $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$.
\end{assumption}
This is usually not a restrictive assumption given the follwing result:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lin}
If the features
are chosen with uniform distribution, then Assumption \ref{as:lin} is satisfied with probability
$$ \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{(q^n-q^i)}{(q^n-i)}\geq \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}(1-q^{i-n}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The number of $\mathbb{F}_q$-basis of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is $\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{n-1}(q^n-q^i)}{n!}$, while the number of subsets of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ with cardinality $n$ is $\binom{q^n}{n}$.
\end{proof}
Now, let $\ell< n$ be two positive integers and let $0<s<n$ be another integer coprime with $n$. Let $(k_0,\ldots, k_{\ell-1})\in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}^{\ell}$ the secret key and
$\kappa(x)=k_0x+k_1x^{[s]}+\ldots+ k_{\ell-1}x^{[s(\ell-1)]}\in \mathcal L_n(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})$ be the corresponding linearized polynomial. Consider a set of features $A=\left\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\right\}\subseteq \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ given by $n$ $\mathbb{F}_q$-linearly independent elements.
Choose a random map $\lambda:\mathbb{F}_{q^n}\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ such that $\lambda(x)\neq \kappa(x)$ for all $x\in B$, where $B= \mathbb{F}_{q^n}\smallsetminus A$.
Following the classical PFV scheme, we define the sets
\begin{align*}
\mathcal P_{auth} & = \left\{(x,\kappa(x)) \mid x \in A \right\}, \\
\mathcal P_{chaff} & = \left\{(x,\lambda(x)) \mid x \in B \right\}, \\
\mathcal V & = \mathcal P_{auth} \cup \mathcal P_{chaff}.
\end{align*}
$\mathcal P_{auth}$ is called \emph{set of authentic points}, $\mathcal P_{chaff}$ is the \emph{set of chaff points}, and $\mathcal V$ is called \emph{set of vault points}.
The last ingredients of the fuzzy vault scheme are the code
$$\mathcal C=\mathcal G_{\ell,s}(g_1,\ldots, g_n)$$
and an error correction decoding algorithm for $\mathcal C$.
For our constructions of the Linearized Polynomial Fuzzy Vault (LPFV), it is convenient to consider a Gabidulin code as a code whose codewords consist of evaluations of a linearized
polynomial $f\in \mathcal G_{\ell,s}$ over any set of $n$ linearly independent elements in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$. Concretely, we think of
a codeword as a set of pairs $\left\{(g_i, y_i)\right\}_{i=1}^n$, where $g_i \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$, are linearly independent over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and $y_i = f(g_i)$, for a linearized polynomial $f\in \mathcal G_{\ell,s}$.
In this framework, suppose that a witness attempts to gain access to the key, and submits a set of features $W\subset \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$.
Given Assumption \ref{as:lin}, if $Z\subseteq \mathcal{V}$ is the subset of vault points $(x,y)$ with $x\in W$, we can consider the $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear map
$$ L_Z:\mathbb{F}_{q^n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$$
such that $L_Z(x)=y$ for all $(x,y)\in Z$. Now, think of the received word $c'$ as consisting of the set of pairs $\left\{(g_i, L_Z(g_i))\right\}_{i=1}^n$, for $g_i \in A$. The secret codeword of the LPFV scheme is instead $c$, given by the set of pairs $\left\{(g_i, \kappa(g_i))\right\}_{i=1}^n$. With this notation it is easy to see that
$$d_R(c,c')= \rk(\kappa-L_Z).$$
The following results relate the rank distance with the set difference, showing that the rank metric can be a good approximation of the set-difference metric. Let $d_{\Delta}(A,W):=|(A\backslash W) \cup (W\backslash A) |$ denote the set-difference between $A$ and $W$.
\begin{proposition}\label{pr:delta}
In the setting of the LPFV scheme, suppose that the values $\lambda(x)$, for $x \in B$ are chosen at random uniformly and independently in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n} \smallsetminus \left\{\kappa(x)\right\}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $2d_R(c,c') \leq d_{\Delta}(A,W)$.
\item Let $0\leq u\leq n$ be an integer. Then
$$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W) \mid |A\cap W|=u\right\}= \prod_{i=0}^{n-u-1}\frac{(q^n-q^i)}{(q^{n}-1)}=1+O(q^{-u-1}).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $W$ be the set of features submitted, and let $u=|A\cap W|$. Then we have $d_{\Delta}(A,W)=2n-2|A\cap W|=2n-2u$. Consider now the $\mathbb{F}_q$-linear map $L_Z:\mathbb{F}_{q^n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ such that $L_Z(x)=y$ for $(x,y)\in Z$. The set of first coordinates of $Z$ is an $\mathbb{F}_q$-basis of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ and the linear map $\kappa-L_Z$ is $0$ on $A\cap W$. Therefore
$$ d_R(c,c')=\rk(\kappa-L_Z)\leq n-u=\frac{d_{\Delta}(A,W)}{2}.$$
\item Since the $\lambda(x)$, for $x \in B$, are chosen at random uniformly and independently in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n} \smallsetminus \left\{\kappa(x)\right\}$, then the values $(L_Z-\kappa)(x)$, for $x\in W\smallsetminus (A\cap W)$ are chosen at random uniformly and independently in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}\smallsetminus\{0\}$. Furthermore, the condition $2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W)$ is equivalent to the condition that the values $(L_z-\kappa)(x)$, for $x\in W\smallsetminus (A\cap W)$ are linearly independent. Hence,
$$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W) \mid |A\cap W|=u\right\}= \frac{\left| \left\{A\in \mathbb{F}_q^{n\times (n-u)}\mid \rk(A)=n-u \right\}\right|}{(q^{n}-1)^{(n-u)}}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:Set}
Under the same hypothesis of Proposition \ref{pr:delta}, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $d_{\Delta}(A,W)\leq 2\left\lfloor\frac{n-\ell}{2}\right\rfloor$, then the vault recovers the key $\kappa(x)$.
\item $$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W)\right\}=1+O(q^{-1}).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item By Proposition \ref{pr:delta} we have $2d_R(c,c') \leq d_{\Delta}(A,W)\leq 2\left\lfloor\frac{n-\ell}{2}\right\rfloor$. Therefore we are within the error-correction capability and we can correctly obtain the codeword $c$, and hence the key $\kappa(x)$.
\item We can write $\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W)\right\}$ as
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{u=0}^n\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W) \mid |A\cap W|=u\right\}\mathrm{Pr}\left\{|A\cap W|=u\right\} \\
=& \sum_{u=0}^n \left( 1+O(q^{-u-1})\right)\mathrm{Pr}\left\{|A\cap W|=u\right\} \\
= & \sum_{u=0}^n \left( 1+O(q^{-1})\right)\mathrm{Pr}\left\{|A\cap W|=u\right\} \\
= & \left( 1+O(q^{-1})\right) \sum_{u=0}^n \mathrm{Pr}\left\{|A\cap W|=u\right\} \\
= & 1+O(q^{-1}).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
{\em Remark.} Probabilistic results in Proposition \ref{pr:delta} and Theorem \ref{th:Set} do not depend on the probability distribution of the choice of the features. We are only assuming that our construction of the Linearized Polynomial Fuzzy Vault is made by choosing at random uniformly and independently the values $\lambda(x)$ for $x\in B$.
\subsection{Generalization of the LPFV Scheme}
In our construction of the LPFV we considered Gabidulin codes of length $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$. The motivation is that given a set of features $W$ satisfying Assumption \ref{as:lin}, the map $L_Z:\mathbb{F}_{q^n} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is uniquely determined, and hence also the received word $c'$.
We can generalize our LPFV considering Gabidulin codes of length $n$ over the field $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$, where $n<m$, but we need to define the map $L_Z$ in a suitable way.
Before explaining how to construct $L_Z$, we can observe that an analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:lin} holds and it can be proved in the same way, but in this case the probability that
the set of features is made of linearly independent elements is equal to
$$ \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{(q^m-q^i)}{(q^m-i)}=1+O(q^{-1-m+n}).$$
Now, let $\mathcal W$ and $\mathcal A$ be the $\mathbb{F}_q$-subspaces of $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ spanned respectively by $W$ and $A$. First, we can observe that, in order to build the received word $c'$ as the set $\left\{(g_i, L_Z(g_i))\right\}_{i=1}^n$, we only need to define map $L_Z$ on $\mathcal A$. We propose the following construction.
We first define the application $L_Z$ on $W$ as $L_Z(x)=y$ for all $(x,y)\in Z$. Then complete $W$ to a basis $B$ of $\mathcal A+\mathcal W$ , by adding the elements $g_i$ in increasing order with respect to the indices $i$. For those $g_i$, we set $L_Z(g_i)=\kappa(g_i)+\alpha^{q^i}$, where $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ and $\left\{\alpha^{q^i}\right\}_{i=0}^{m-1}$ is a normal basis of $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ as an $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space.
In this way, our map is uniquely determined on $\mathcal A+\mathcal W$, and in particular on $\mathcal A$. Let again $c$ be the codeword given by the set of pairs $\left\{(g_i, \kappa(g_i))\right\}_{i=1}^n$. With this notation it is easy to see that
$$d_R(c,c')=\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A}}\leq \rk(\kappa-L_Z).$$
The following results are the analogues of Proposition \ref{pr:delta} and Theorem \ref{th:Set}, and they relate the rank distance of $c$ and $c'$ with the set difference of $A$ and $W$.
\begin{proposition}\label{pr:deltam}
In the setting of the generalized LPFV scheme, suppose that the values $\lambda(x)$, for $x \in B$ are chosen at random uniformly and independently in $\mathbb{F}_{q^m} \smallsetminus \left\{\kappa(x)\right\}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let the subspace distance be $d_S(\mathcal A,\mathcal W):=\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A)+\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal W)-2\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W)$. Then
$$d_S(\mathcal A,\mathcal W) \leq 2d_R(c,c') \leq d_S(\mathcal A,\mathcal W)+2\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}\leq d_{\Delta}(A,W).$$
\item Let $0\leq u \leq v \leq n$ be two integers. Then
$$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W) \mid |A\cap W|=u, \dim(\mathcal A \cap \mathcal W)=v \right\}=\prod_{i=n-v}^{n-u-1}\frac{(q^m-q^{i})}{q^m-1}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Following the construction of the map $L_Z$, we can write the subspace $\mathcal A$ as the direct sum of $\mathcal A \cap \mathcal W$ and the subspace $\widehat{\mathcal A}$, where $\widehat{\mathcal A}=\langle g_i \mid i \in I\rangle$ and $I\subset \{1,\ldots, n\}$ with $|I|=n-\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A \cap \mathcal W)$. Therefore we can write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rk}
\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}} \leq \rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A}} \leq \rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}}+\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}.
\end{equation}
Let $r=\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\widehat{\mathcal A})$. By definition of the $L_Z$, we have
$$ \rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}}=\rk(\alpha^{q^{i_1}},\ldots, \alpha^{q^{i_r}}).$$
By construction $\{\alpha^{q^i}\}_{i=0}^{m-1}$ is a normal basis of $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, and hence we can conclude that
$$ \rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}}=r=\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\widehat{\mathcal A})=n-\dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W)=\frac{d_S(\mathcal A, \mathcal W)}{2}.$$
Substituting this equation in (\ref{eq:rk}) we obtain the first two inequalities.
For the last inequality we notice that the map $(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}$ is 0 on $|A\cap W|$, and therefore
$$\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}\leq \dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W)-|A\cap W|.$$
Hence we can conclude that
$$ d_S(\mathcal A,\mathcal W)+2\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}\leq 2n-2|A\cap W|=d_{\Delta}(A,W).$$
\item Let $u=|A\cap W|, v=\dim(\mathcal A \cap \mathcal W)$. Then we can write
$$W=\left\{u_1,\ldots,u_{n-v},w_{n-v+1},\ldots,w_{n-u},g_{j_1},\ldots, g_{j_u} \right\},$$
where $u_i\notin \mathcal A$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-v$ and $w_i\in \mathcal A\smallsetminus A$ for $ i=n-v+1,\ldots, n-u$.
Therefore $2\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}}=2n-2v$, and the condition
$$\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A}}=\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\widehat{\mathcal A}}}+\rk(\kappa-L_Z)_{|_{\mathcal A\cap \mathcal W}}=n-u$$
is equivalent to the condition
$$\rk(\alpha^{q^{i_1}},\ldots, \alpha^{q^{i_{n-v}}}, (\kappa-L_Z)(w_{n-v+1}),\ldots,(\kappa-L_Z)(w_{n-u}))=n-u.$$
By hypothesis the values $(L_Z-\kappa)(w_i)$, for $i=n-v+1,\ldots, n-u$ are chosen at random uniformly and independently in $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}\smallsetminus\{0\}$, and we can conclude that the probability we are looking for is equal to
$$ \frac{\left| \left\{A\in \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times (v-u)} \mid \rk(A\mid X)=n-u\right\}\right|}{(q^m-1)^{(v-u)}}, $$
where $X$ is the matrix representation over $\mathbb{F}_q$ of the vector $(\alpha^{q^{i_1}},\ldots, \alpha^{q^{i_{n-v}}})$. Since
$$ \left| \left\{A\in \mathbb{F}_q^{m\times (v-u)} \mid \rk(A\mid X)=n-u\right\}\right|=\prod_{i=n-v}^{n-u-1}(q^m-q^i) ,$$
this concludes the proof.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:Setm}
Under the same hypothesis of Proposition \ref{pr:deltam}, the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $d_{\Delta}(A,W)\leq 2\left\lfloor\frac{n-\ell}{2}\right\rfloor$, then the vault recovers the key $\kappa(x)$.
\item $$\mathrm{Pr}\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W)\right\}=1+O(q^{-1-m+n}).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Theorem \ref{th:Set}.1, using Proposition \ref{pr:deltam}.1.
\item In order to simplify the notation we introduce the events $D_u=\left\{ |A\cap W|=u\right\}$, $E_v=\left\{ \dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}(\mathcal A \cap \mathcal W)=v \right\}$ for $0\leq u, v \leq n$, and $X=\left\{2d_R(c,c') = d_{\Delta}(A,W)\right\}$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Pr}\left\{X\right\}&= \sum_{0\leq u\leq v\leq n}\mathrm{Pr}\left\{X \mid D_u \cap E_v \right\}\mathrm{Pr}\left\{D_u \cap E_v\right\} \\
&= \sum_{0\leq u\leq v\leq n}\left( 1+O(q^{-1-m-u+n})\right)\mathrm{Pr}\left\{D_u \cap E_v\right\} \\
&= \sum_{0\leq u\leq v\leq n}\left( 1+O(q^{-1-m+n})\right)\mathrm{Pr}\left\{D_u \cap E_v\right\} \\
&=\left( 1+O(q^{-1-m+n})\right) \sum_{0\leq u\leq v\leq n} \mathrm{Pr}\left\{D_u \cap E_v\right\} \\
&=1+O(q^{-1-m+n}).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
{\em Remark.} Suppose one wants to use a generalized LPFV scheme with $n$ genuine features, and suppose moreover that a field $\mathbb{F}_q$ and an extension field $\mathbb{F}_{q^m}$, with $m\geq n$, are given. By Theorem \ref{th:Setm}.2 we can see that the bigger is $m$ the better is the approximation of the set difference with the rank distance. On the other hand, increasing $m$ implies an increase of the computational cost of the operations. Then one can choose the best $m$ based on the application and the particular requirements of the context.
\section{Applications}
\label{sec:5}
The schemes presented above can be applied in several scenarios for different purposes.
In this section we would like to give just a few examples.
One scenario for the fuzzy commitment scheme in the rank metric is the following. Suppose $B$ is the matrix used to create the stored tuple and imagine it as an image. It may happen for some reason that $B$ gets somehow damaged in a way that a few rows (or columns) are erased or anyway not the same as before. One can then authenticate with the new matrix $B'$ as long as not too many rows (or columns) are different. In another situations the matrix $B$ may be slightly changed into $B'$ by having all elements increased by a common error, and again the difference between the two matrices is a matrix of low rank, exactly $1$ in this case.
Another scenario involves a multi-factor authentication problem. Suppose that in order to perform authentication one needs a large number of conditions fulfilled, namely imagine a matrix with a large number of columns whereby condition number $i$ is fulfilled whenever column number $i$ equals a predetermined vector $v_i$. If you want to allow authentication as long as a certain big enough number of conditions are satisfied, then the fuzzy commitment scheme in the rank metric can be used. Indeed having two matrices $A$ and $A'$ that both satisfy a certain condition corresponds to a zero column in the difference $A-A'$ which directly affects the rank distance between the two.
Applications for the linearized polynomial fuzzy vault scheme overlap with those of the standard fuzzy vault, i.e. we are considering authentication based on the set difference metric. It may be preferable to use the linearized version and decoding in the rank metric for certain choices and combinations of parameters which are usually dependent on the application. Also, the use of linear maps may be preferred for certain implementations.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors were supported by Swiss National Science Foundation grant n.169510.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
By the classification work \cites{S1997, M2002} there are only three symmetric notions of universal independences: classical independence, free independence, and Boolean independence \cite{SW1997}. From a combinatorial point of view, the main difference between these notions of independence is the lattice of partitions used to describe the moment-cumulant formula. The entire lattice of partitions is required to study classical independence whereas one restricts to the non-crossing partitions and further restricts to the interval partitions to study free independence and Boolean independence respectively.
Recently in \cite{V2014}, Voiculescu introduced bi-free probability as a generalization of free probability to enable the study of non-commutative left and right actions of algebras on a reduced free product space simultaneously. To study bi-free probability via moment-cumulant formula, permutations of the lattice of non-crossing partitions, known as bi-non-crossing partitions, are used. Since its inception, the theory has attracted a lot of attention and quickly developed by the substantial work of various authors. For a summary of the current stage of bi-free probability, we refer to the survey \cite{V2016-2} by Voiculescu himself and the references therein.
These notions of independence implement the use of a single state. By adding an additional state, extensions may be obtained. For example, the notion of conditionally free independence \cites{BLS1996, BS1991} includes both free independence and Boolean independence as special cases by choosing the states appropriately. In our previous paper \cite{GS2016}, the notion of conditionally bi-free independence was introduced as an extension of bi-free independence to the two-state setting and as an extension of conditionally free independence to pairs of algebras. By selecting pairs of states in the same manner as one does to obtain Boolean independence from conditional free independence, a notion of Boolean independence for pairs of algebras, called bi-Boolean independence, is obtained as a specific instance of conditional bi-free independence. The main purpose of this paper is to study bi-Boolean independence as an avenue for better understanding bi-free independence and as bi-Boolean independence is an intriguing case of conditional bi-free independence.
Excluding this introduction, this paper has seven sections organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:prelims}, several notions of non-commutative independences are recalled; namely free, Boolean, c-free, bi-free, and c-bi-free independences, with an emphasis on the combinatorial aspects and moment-cumulant formulae.
In Section \ref{sec:biboolean}, the notion of bi-Boolean independence for pairs of algebras is introduced as a rule of calculating mixed moments and is related to c-bi-free independence. The lattice of bi-interval partitions is introduced, from which the family of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants can be defined. It is then demonstrated that B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants have the required vanishing property and thus can be used to characterize bi-Boolean independence.
In Section \ref{sec:transforms}, some of the simplest bi-Boolean convolutions are considered. In particular, a bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform is constructed (which linearizes the additive bi-Boolean convolution) and a functional equation is derived relating it to the Cauchy transform. On the other hand, a slight curiosity arises when multiplication is involved as one needs to decide whether to use the usual multiplication or the opposite multiplication on the right variables. As it is not clear which multiplication is preferred, both convolutions will be studied, and it is demonstrated how the reduced bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform can be used to obtain the convolved distributions. However, it is not known whether there is a corresponding transform with the multiplicative property.
In Section \ref{sec:limitthms}, various limit theorems with respect to the additive bi-Boolean convolution are considered. Due to the fact that the additive bi-Boolean convolution is really just a special case of the additive c-bi-free convolution as studied in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 6}, only the statements are presented for illustration purposes. In particular, infinite divisibility is addressed and a bi-Boolean L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula is derived which, together with the work of \cite{HW2016}, naturally leads to a two-dimensional Bercovici-Pata bijection. Although every probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is infinitely divisible with respect to the additive Boolean convolution, the same is not true for probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with respect to the additive bi-Boolean convolution.
In Section \ref{sec:bifermi}, another special case of the additive c-bi-free convolution, called the additive bi-Fermi convolution, is considered as the two-dimensional version of the notion of additive Fermi convolution introduced in \cite{O2002}. It is shown that the extension from Fermi convolution to bi-Fermi convolution is completely analogous to the extension from Boolean convolution to bi-Boolean convolution from both combinatorial and analytic viewpoints. In particular, the two notions (i.e., bi-Boolean and bi-Fermi) coincide under special circumstances.
In Section \ref{sec:bifreeness}, the (general) bi-free ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform and bi-Boolean $\eta$-transform are studied in an algebraic framework for two-faced families of non-commutative random variables. The coefficients of these transforms are, by definition, $(\ell, r)$- and B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants of such families, and an explicit formula is derived relating these coefficients. Moreover, two bijections are defined and studied analogous to the results in \cite{BN2008-1}, and a special property of one of these bijections is proved. Consequently, another multiplicative bi-free convolution is re-considered where the usual multiplication is used on the left variables and the opposite multiplication is used on the right variables.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:op-valued}, the notion of bi-Boolean independence is extended to an amalgamated setting. Operator-valued bi-Boolean cumulants are defined and shown to linearize operator-valued bi-Boolean independence as expected. Moreover, an operator-valued bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform is constructed, which is a function of two variables, and a functional equation relating it to the moment series is presented.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelims}
In this section, we briefly review several notions of independence that are relevant to this paper. The main purpose is to develop notations that will be used later, and we shall only discuss the combinatorial aspects of the theories; namely the corresponding cumulants and moment-cumulant formulae.
\subsection{Free, Boolean, and c-free independences}
We begin with free and Boolean independences.
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ be a non-commutative probability space.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item A family $\{{\mathcal{A}}_k\}_{k \in K}$ of unital subalgebras of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is said to be \textit{freely independent} with respect to $\varphi$ if
\[\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = 0\]
whenever $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{k_j}$, $k_j \in K$, $k_1 \neq \cdots \neq k_n$, and $\varphi(a_j) = 0$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$.
\item A family $\{{\mathcal{A}}_k\}_{k \in K}$ of subalgebras of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is said to be \textit{Boolean independent} with respect to $\varphi$ if
\[\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \varphi(a_1)\cdots\varphi(a_n)\]
whenever $a_j \in \mathcal{A}_{k_j}$, $k_j \in K$, and $k_1 \neq \cdots \neq k_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Note that if ${\mathcal{A}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_2$ are two Boolean independent unital subalgebras in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then for all $a \in {\mathcal{A}}_1$ and $n \geq 1$
\[\varphi(a^n) = \varphi(a1a1\cdots a1) = \varphi(a)\varphi(1)\varphi(a)\varphi(1)\cdots\varphi(a)\varphi(1) = \varphi(a)^n.\]
Similarly $\varphi(b^n) = \varphi(b)^n$ for all $b \in {\mathcal{A}}_2$. In this case, the independence is rather trivial, and hence we restrict to non-unital subalgebras. For the same reason, the notion of bi-Boolean independence will be defined for non-unital pairs of algebras.
For the combinatorial approach, the main idea is to express moments in terms of other quantities, called cumulants, by summing over certain partitions.
\begin{defn}
Let $\pi = \{V_1, \dots, V_r\}$ be a partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The partition $\pi$ is said to be \textit{crossing} if there exist $a < b < c < d$ such that $a, c \in V_i$, $b, d \in V_j$, and $V_i \neq V_j$. If $\pi$ is not crossing, then it is said to be \textit{non-crossing}. The set of non-crossing partitions of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$.
\item A block $V_i$ of $\pi$ is said to be an \textit{interval} if $V_i$ is of the form $V_i = \{k, k + 1, \dots, k + \ell\}$ for some $k \geq 1$ and $0 \leq \ell \leq n - k$. The partition $\pi$ is said to be an \textit{interval partition} if every block of $\pi$ is an interval. The set of interval partitions of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{I}}(n)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
If $a_1, \dots, a_n$ are random variables in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ and $V = \{v_1 < \cdots < v_s\}$ is a block of some partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, then we set $(a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V := (a_{v_1}, \dots, a_{v_s})$. The free and Boolean cumulants are recursively defined as follows.
\begin{defn}[\cites{SW1997, S1994}]
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ be a non-commutative probability space. The families of \textit{free cumulants} and \textit{Boolean cumulants} with respect to $\varphi$ are respectively the families of multilinear functionals
\[\{\kappa_n: \mathcal{A}^n \to \mathbb{C}\}_{n \geq 1} \quad\text{and}\quad \{B_n: \mathcal{A}^n \to \mathbb{C}\}_{n \geq 1}\]
uniquely determined by the requirements that for all $n \geq 1$ and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathcal{A}$
\[\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)}\kappa_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)\qquad\text{and}\qquad \varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{I}}(n)}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)\]
where
\[
\kappa_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) =\prod_{V \in \pi}\kappa_{|V|}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V) \qquad\text{and}\qquad B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \prod_{V \in \pi}B_{|V|}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V).
\]
\end{defn}
Given a partition $\pi = \{V_1, \dots, V_r\}$ of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ with blocks $V_i = \{v_{i, 1} < \cdots < v_{i, s_i}\}$, set
\[\varphi_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) := \prod_{i = 1}^r\varphi(a_{v_{i, 1}}\cdots a_{v_{i, s_i}}).\]
For $\pi_1 \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$ and $\pi_2 \in {\mathcal{I}}(n)$, we obtain via M\"{o}bius inversions (see \cite{S1994, SW1997}) that
\begin{align*}
\kappa_{\pi_1}(a_1, \dots, a_n) &= \sum_{\substack{\sigma_1 \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)\\\sigma_1 \leq \pi_1}}\varphi_{\sigma_1}(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\sigma_1, \pi_1) \\
B_{\pi_2}(a_1, \dots, a_n) &= \sum_{\substack{\sigma_2 \in {\mathcal{I}}(n)\\\sigma_2 \leq \pi_2}}\varphi_{\sigma_2}(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma_2, \pi_2),
\end{align*}
where $\sigma \leq \pi$ denotes $\sigma$ is a refinement of $\pi$, $\mu_{{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}$ and $\mu_{\mathcal{I}}$ denote the M\"{o}bius functions on the lattices ${\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ of all non-crossing partitions and all interval partitions respectively.
One of the main advantages for switching from moments to cumulants is that the corresponding independence is much easier to describe on the level of cumulants. More specifically, a family $\{{\mathcal{A}}_k\}_{k \in K}$ of unital (respectively non-unital) subalgebras in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ is freely (respectively Boolean) independent with respect to $\varphi$ if and only if $\kappa_n(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0$ (respectively $B_n(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0$) whenever $n \geq 2$, $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{k_j}$, and there exist $i$ and $j$ such that $k_i \neq k_j$ (see \cites{S1994, SW1997}).
Consider now the framework where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a unital algebra equipped with two unital linear functionals $\varphi$ and $\psi$. In this setting, Bo\.{z}ejko, Leinert, and Speicher \cites{BLS1996, BS1991} introduced the notion of c-free independence as follows.
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$ be a two-state non-commutative probability space. A family $\{\mathcal{A}_k\}_{k \in K}$ of unital subalgebras of $\mathcal{A}$ is said to be \textit{conditionally freely independent} (\textit{c-free} for short) with respect to $(\varphi, \psi)$ if
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item $\psi(a_1\cdots a_n) = 0$,
\item $\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \varphi(a_1)\cdots\varphi(a_n)$
\end{enumerate}
whenever $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{k_j}$, $k_j \in K$, $k_1 \neq \cdots \neq k_n$, and $\psi(a_j) = 0$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$.
\end{defn}
Note that c-free independence with respect to $(\varphi, \psi)$ automatically implies free independence with respect to $\psi$, and hence implies the vanishing of mixed free cumulants. To characterize c-free independence in terms of cumulants, another family is required.
\begin{defn}
Given $\pi \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$, a block $V$ of $\pi$ is said to be \textit{inner} if there exists another block $W$ of $\pi$ and $a, b \in W$ such that $a < v < b$ for some (hence all) $v \in V$. A block of $\pi$ is said to be \textit{outer} if it is not inner.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[\cites{BLS1996, BS1991}]
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$ be a two-state non-commutative probability space. The family of \textit{c-free cumulants} with respect to $(\varphi, \psi)$ is the family of multilinear functionals $\{{\mathcal{K}}_n: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1}$ uniquely determined by the requirement that for all $n \geq 1$ and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathcal{A}$
\begin{align*}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) &= \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)}{\mathcal{K}}_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\end{align*}
where
\[
{\mathcal{K}}_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{inner}}}\kappa_{|V|}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right)\left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{outer}}}\mathcal{K}_{|V|}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right)
\]
and $\left\{\kappa_n: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\right\}_{n \geq 1}$ denotes the family of free cumulants with respect to $\psi$.
\end{defn}
The notion of c-free independence can now be described as the vanishing of mixed free and c-free cumulants (see \cites{BLS1996}).
\subsection{Bi-free and c-bi-free independences}
Bi-free independence was introduced by Voiculescu \cite{V2014} as a generalization of free independence for pairs of algebras, where a \textit{pair of algebra} in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \psi)$ is an ordered pair $({\mathcal{A}}_\ell, {\mathcal{A}}_r)$ of subalgebras of ${\mathcal{A}}$. We call ${\mathcal{A}}_\ell$ the \textit{left algebra} and ${\mathcal{A}}_r$ the \textit{right algebra} of the pair $({\mathcal{A}}_\ell, {\mathcal{A}}_r)$. In \cite{GS2016}, we introduced the notion of c-bi-free independence for pairs of algebras in the setting of a two-state non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$ such that c-bi-free independence reduces to bi-free independence when $\varphi = \psi$ and reduces to c-free independence when only left or only right algebras are considered. For the theoretical definitions of bi-free and c-bi-free independences in terms of actions on a reduced free product space, we refer to \cite{V2014}*{Definition 2.6} and \cite{GS2016}*{Definition 3.4} respectively. To describe the mixed moments of a family $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of pairs of algebras and the corresponding cumulants, we introduce the following definitions and notations.
Throughout the rest, a map $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is used to designate whether the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ random variable in a sequence of $n$ random variables is a left variable (when $\chi(j) = \ell$) or a right variable (when $\chi(j) = r$), and a map $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$ is used to designate the index in $K$ of the $j^{\mathrm{th}}$ random variable. Given a map $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ with $\chi^{-1}(\{\ell\}) = \{i_1 < \cdots < i_p\}$ and $\chi^{-1}(\{r\}) = \{i_{p + 1} > \cdots > i_n\}$, define a permutation $s_\chi$ on $\{1, \dots, n\}$ by $s_\chi(j) = i_j$ for $1 \leq j \leq n$, and define a total order $\prec_\chi$ on $\{1, \dots, n\}$ by $i_1 \prec_\chi \cdots \prec_\chi i_n$. A subset $V \subset \{1, \dots, n\}$ is said to be a \textit{$\chi$-interval} if it is an interval with respect to $\prec_\chi$. In addition, we define $\min_{\prec_\chi}(V)$ and $\max_{\prec_\chi}(V)$ to be the minimal and maximal elements of $V$ with respect to $\prec_\chi$ respectively.
\begin{defn}
A partition $\pi$ of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ is said to be \textit{bi-non-crossing} (with respect to $\chi$) if $s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\pi \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$; that is, the partition formed by applying $s_\chi^{-1}$ to the blocks of $\pi$ is a non-crossing partition. Equivalently, $\pi$ is a non-crossing partition with respect to $\prec_\chi$. The set of bi-non-crossing partitions with respect to $\chi$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, which is a lattice and the minimal and maximal elements (with respect to $\leq$) are denoted by $0_\chi$ and $1_\chi$ respectively.
\end{defn}
Bi-non-crossing partitions corresponding to a given map $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ can be represented diagrammatically by placing $n$ nodes labelled $1$ to $n$ on two vertical dashed lines from top to bottom in increasing order with node $j$ on the left or right depending on whether $\chi(j) = \ell$ or $\chi(j) = r$, and connecting the nodes which are in the same block using only horizontal and vertical lines in a non-crossing way. Moreover, given a bi-non-crossing partition $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, the vertical segment of a block $V$ of $\pi$ will be referred to as the \textit{spine} of $V$ and the horizontal segments connecting the nodes to the spine of $V$ will be referred to as the \textit{ribs} of $V$. To introduce the corresponding cumulants, we need the following analogues of inner and outer blocks.
\begin{defn}
Given $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ and $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, a block $V$ of $\pi$ is said to be \textit{interior} if there exists another block $W$ of $\pi$ such that $\min_{\prec_\chi}(W) \prec_\chi \min_{\prec_\chi}(V)$ and $\max_{\prec_\chi}(V) \prec_\chi \max_{\prec_\chi}(W)$. A block of $\pi$ is said to be \textit{exterior} if it is not interior.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}[\cites{MN2015, GS2016}]
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$ be a two-state non-commutative probability space. The families of \textit{$(\ell, r)$-cumulants} and \textit{c-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants} with respect to $\psi$ and $(\varphi, \psi)$ are respectively the families of multilinear functionals
\[\{\kappa_\chi: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}} \quad\text{and}\quad \{{\mathcal{K}}_\chi: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}\]
uniquely determined by the requirements that for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$
\[\psi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)}\kappa_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) \qquad\text{and}\qquad \varphi(a_1\cdots a_n)=\sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)}{\mathcal{K}}_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\]
where
\begin{align*}
\kappa_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) &= \prod_{V \in \pi}\kappa_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V) \qquad\text{and}\qquad \\
{\mathcal{K}}_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) &= \left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{interior}}}\kappa_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right)\left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{exterior}}}{\mathcal{K}}_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right).
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
Since ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$ inherits a special lattice structure from the set of all partitions of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, for $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$ we obtain via M\"{o}bius inversion (see \cite{CNS2015-1}) that
\[\kappa_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}\psi_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\sigma, \pi),\]
where $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}$ denotes the M\"{o}bius function on the lattice ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}$ of all bi-non-crossing partitions. Due to similar lattice structures, we have that $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\sigma, \pi) = \mu_{{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\sigma, s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\pi)$ for $\sigma, \pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$.
To obtain a moment formula and vanishing characterization for bi-free and c-bi-free independences, the following sets of shaded diagrams and terminology are required.
\begin{defn}
Let $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$ be given. Assign a shade to each $k \in K$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The set $\L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)$ of \textit{shaded $\L{\mathcal{R}}$-diagrams} is recursively constructed as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item For $n = 1$, $\L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)$ consists of two vertical dashed lines with a single node shaded $\omega(1)$ on the left or right depending on whether $\chi(1) = \ell$ or $\chi(1) = r$. Then either this node remains isolated or a rib and spine shaded $\omega(1)$ are drawn connecting to the top of the diagram.
\item For $n \geq 2$, let $\chi_0 = \chi|_{\{2, \dots, n\}}$ and $\omega_0 = \omega|_{\{2, \dots, n\}}$. Each diagram $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi_0, \omega_0)$ extends to two diagrams in $\L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)$ via the following process: Add to the top of $D$ a node shaded $\omega(1)$ on the side corresponding to $\chi(1)$ and extend all spines of $D$ to the top. If at least one spine was extended and the spine nearest to the new node is shaded $\omega(1)$, then connect the nearest spine to the node with a rib and choose to either extend the spine to the top or not. Otherwise leave the new node isolated, or connect the new node with a rib to a new spine shaded $\omega(1)$ to the top.
\end{itemize}
For $0 \leq k \leq n$, let $\L{\mathcal{R}}_k(\chi, \omega)$ denote the subset of $\L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)$ with exactly $k$ spines reaching the top.
\item For $0 \leq m \leq n$, let $\L{\mathcal{R}}_m^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$ denote the set of all diagrams with $m$ strings reaching the top that can be obtained from some diagram $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}_k(\chi, \omega)$ for some $k\geq m$ by removing potions of spines in $D$ either between ribs or between a rib and the top of the diagram. For $D' \in \L{\mathcal{R}}_m^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$ and $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}_k(\chi, \omega)$, $D'$ is said to be a \textit{lateral capping of} $D$, denoted $D \geq_{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}} D'$, if $D' = D$ or $D'$ can be obtained from $D$ by removing potions of spines. Moreover, let
\[\L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega) = \bigcup_{m = 0}^n\L{\mathcal{R}}_m^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega).\]
\item For $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}_m^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$, let $|D| = (\text{number of blocks of } D) + m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Finally, if $a_1, \dots, a_n$ are random variables in a two-state non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$, and $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$ with blocks $V_1, \dots, V_p$ whose spines do not reach the top and $W_1, \dots, W_q$ whose spines reach the top, writing $V_i = \{v_{i, 1} < \cdots < v_{i, s_i}\}$ and $W_j = \{w_{j, 1} < \cdots < w_{j, t_j}\}$ we set
\[\varphi_D(a_1, \dots, a_n) := \prod_{i = 1}^p\psi(a_{v_{i, 1}}\cdots a_{v_{i, s_i}})\prod_{j = 1}^q\varphi(a_{w_{j, 1}}\cdots a_{w_{j, t_j}}).\]
Under the above notation, the following moment type characterization and vanishing of mixed cumulants characterization were established in \cite{GS2016}*{Theorems 4.1 and 4.8}. Note that in equation \eqref{psi-Moment} below, the notation $\sigma \leq \omega$ denotes $\sigma$ is a refinement of the partition induced by $\omega$ with blocks $\{\omega^{-1}(\{k\})\}_{k \in K}$.
\begin{thm}\label{CBFMoments}
A family $\{(A_{k, \ell}, A_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of pairs of algebras in a two-state non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi, \psi)$ is c-bi-free with respect to $(\varphi, \psi)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{psi-Moment}
\psi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)}\left(\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)\\\pi \leq \sigma \leq \omega}}\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi, \sigma)\right)\psi_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{phi-Moment}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)}\left(\sum_{\substack{D' \in \L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)\{\mathcal{D}}' \geq_{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}} D}}(-1)^{|D| - |D'|}\right)\varphi_D(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\end{equation}
for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $a_j \in A_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$.
Equivalently, for all $n \geq 2$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_j$ as above, we have that
\[\kappa_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = {\mathcal{K}}_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0\]
whenever $\omega$ is not constant.
\end{thm}
\section{Bi-Boolean independence}\label{sec:biboolean}
In this section, the notions of bi-Boolean independence and B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants are introduced.
\subsection{Definition and connection with c-bi-free independence}
Unlike bi-free and c-bi-free independences, the definition of bi-Boolean independence is given as a (more straightforward) rule of calculating mixed moments. We begin with the following definition of a special partition.
\begin{defn}\label{Partition}
Given $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, let $\pi_{\omega, \chi}$ be the unique partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ with ordered blocks $V_1, \dots, V_m$ such that each $V_k$ is a $\chi$-interval, $\max_{\prec_\chi}(V_k) \prec_\chi \min_{\prec_\chi}(V_{k + 1})$, $\omega$ is constant on each $V_k$, and $\omega(V_k) \neq \omega(V_{k + 1})$ for all $1 \leq k \leq m - 1$. That is, $\pi_{\omega, \chi}$ is the unique maximal partition $\pi$ such that $\pi \leq \{\omega^{-1}(k)\}_{k \in K}$ and each block of $\pi$ is a $\chi$-interval.
\end{defn}
As an example, suppose $K = \{k_1, k_2\}$, $n = 8$, $(\chi(1), \dots, \chi(8)) = (\ell, r, r, \ell, r, \ell, \ell, r)$, and $(\omega(1), \dots, \omega(8)) = (k_1, k_1, k_2, k_1, k_2, k_2, k_1, k_1)$. Then $\pi_{\omega, \chi} = \{ \{1, 4\}, \{6\}, \{7, 8\}, \{3, 5\}, \{2\}\}$. This can be easily seen via the following diagram induced by $\chi$ and $\omega$ where solid lines and $\bullet$ denote the shade of $k_1$, and dotted lines and $\circ$ denote the shade of $k_2$:
\begin{align*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline]
\draw[thick, dashed, black] (0,4) -- (0,-.5) -- (3.5,-.5) -- (3.5,4);
\node[left] at (0,3.5) {1};
\draw[black,fill=black] (0,3.5) circle (0.05);
\node[right] at (3.5,3) {2};
\draw[black,fill=black] (3.5,3) circle (0.05);
\node[right] at (3.5,2.5) {3};
\draw[black, fill=white] (3.5,2.5) circle (0.05);
\node[left] at (0,2) {4};
\draw[black,fill=black] (0,2) circle (0.05);
\node[right] at (3.5,1.5) {5};
\draw[black, fill=white] (3.5,1.5) circle (0.05);
\node[left] at (0,1) {6};
\draw[black, fill=white] (0,1) circle (0.05);
\node[left] at (0,0.5) {7};
\draw[black,fill=black] (0,0.5) circle (0.05);
\node[right] at (3.5,0) {8};
\draw[black,fill=black] (3.5,0) circle (0.05);
\draw[thick, black] (0,3.5) -- (1.5,3.5) -- (1.5,2) -- (0,2);
\draw[thick, black] (0,0.5) -- (1.5,0.5) -- (1.5,0) -- (3.5,0);
\draw[thick, dotted, black] (3.45,2.5) -- (2.5,2.5) -- (2.5,1.5) -- (3.45,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{align*}
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ be a non-commutative probability space. A family $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of pairs of non-unital algebras in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ is said to be \textit{bi-Boolean independent} with respect to $\varphi$ if for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathcal{A}$ with $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$, we have that
\[\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \varphi_{\pi_{\omega, \chi}}(a_1, \dots, a_n),\]
where $\pi_{\omega, \chi}$ is the partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ induced by $\chi$ and $\omega$ as described in Definition \ref{Partition}.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
Let $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ be a bi-Boolean independent family in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, let $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item If $\chi$ is constant and $\omega(k) \neq \omega(k+1)$ for all $k$, then $\pi_{\omega, \chi} = \{\{1\}, \dots, \{n\}\}$ so that $\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \varphi(a_1)\cdots\varphi(a_n)$. Therefore, the family $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}\}_{k \in K}$ (respectively $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}\}_{k \in K}$) of left algebras (respectively right algebras) is Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$.
\item Suppose $n$ is even and that $\chi$ and $\omega$ are alternating; that is $\chi^{-1}(\{\ell\}) = \{1, 3, \dots, n - 1\}$ and
\[
\omega(1) = \omega(3) = \cdots = \omega(n - 1) \neq \omega(2) = \omega(4) = \cdots = \omega(n).
\]
Then $\pi_{\omega, \chi} = \{\{1, 3, \dots, n - 1\}, \{2, 4, \dots, n\}\}$ so that
\[
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \varphi(a_1a_3\cdots a_{n - 1})\varphi(a_2a_4\cdots a_n).
\]
Therefore, a left algebra ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_1, \ell}$ and a right algebra ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_2, r}$ are classically independent with respect to $\varphi$ (in the sense of \cite{V2014}*{Proposition 2.16}) whenever $k_1 \neq k_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rem}
Bi-Boolean independence is a specific instance of c-bi-free independence as illustrated below.
\begin{prop}\label{BiBandCBF}
Let $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ be a family of pairs of non-unital algebras in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. Then there exists a two-state non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}', \varphi', \psi')$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}'$ contains ${\mathcal{A}}_0 = \ast_{k \in K} ({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r} \ast {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})$, $\psi'|_{{\mathcal{A}}_0} \equiv 0$, and, if $\pi : {\mathcal{A}}_0 \to {\mathcal{A}}$ is the inclusion of ${\mathcal{A}}_0$ into ${\mathcal{A}}$, then $\varphi'|_{{\mathcal{A}}_0} = \varphi \circ \pi$. Moreover $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ if and only if $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is c-bi-free with respect to $(\varphi', \psi')$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ be a family of non-unital pairs of algebras. For each $k \in K$ let $\mu_k: {\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell} * {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r} \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be the linear functional induced by $\varphi$. For $k \in K$, let $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} := {\mathbb{C}} 1 \oplus {\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}$ and $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}} := {\mathbb{C}} 1 \oplus {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}$ be the unitizations of ${\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}$ respectively.
Via the identification $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} * \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}} \cong \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell} * {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}}$, let $\widetilde{\mu}_k$ be the unique unital linear extension of $\mu_k$ to $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} * \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}}$, and let $\delta_k: \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} * \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}} \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be the delta state (that is, $\delta_k(\alpha 1 + a) = \alpha$). Furthermore, let $\mu, \nu: *_{k \in K}(\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} * \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}}) \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be the unique unital linear functionals such that $\nu = \ast_{k \in K} \delta_k$, and $\mu$ is the unique unital linear extension of $\varphi \circ \pi$ to $*_{k \in K}(\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}} * \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}})$.
Notice that $\nu(a_1\cdots a_n) = 0$ for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$ and $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$ by construction. Hence equation \eqref{psi-Moment} will always be satisfied. Therefore $\{(\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}}, \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}})\}_{k \in K}$ is c-bi-free with respect to $(\mu, \nu)$ if and only if for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$ we have that
\[
\mu(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)}\left(\sum_{\substack{D' \in \L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)\{\mathcal{D}}' \geq_{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}} D}}(-1)^{|D| - |D'|}\right)\mu_D(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\]
Note that if $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$ such that there is a block $V$ of $D$ whose spine does not reach the top, then $\nu_{D|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V) = 0$ is a factor of $\mu_D(a_1, \dots, a_n)$. Thus the only non-vanishing $\mu_D(a_1, \dots, a_n)$ corresponds to the unique diagram $D \in \L{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}}(\chi, \omega)$ such that every block of $D$ has a spine reaching the top. For this $D$, the only $D' \in \L{\mathcal{R}}(\chi, \omega)$ such that $D' \geq_{\mathrm{lat}\mathrm{cap}} D$ is $D' = D$ so the coefficient of $\mu_D(a_1, \dots, a_n)$ is 1. It is then elementary to see that
\[
\mu(a_1\cdots a_n) = \mu_D(a_1\cdots a_n) = \mu_{\pi_{\omega, \chi}}(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\]
Hence $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ if and only if $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is c-bi-free with respect to $(\varphi', \psi')$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Combinatorial bi-Boolean independence and B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants}
One can see by combining Proposition \ref{BiBandCBF} and the c-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants that it is easy to describe bi-Boolean cumulants.
\begin{defn}
Let $n \geq 1$ and $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$. A partition $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}} (\chi)$ is said to be a \textit{bi-interval partition} if every block of $\pi$ is a $\chi$-interval. The set of bi-interval partitions is denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$, which is a sublattice of ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$ with the same minimal and maximal elements $0_\chi$ and $1_\chi$ respectively.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ be a non-commutative probability space. There exists a family of multilinear functionals $\{B_\chi: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}$, called the \textit{B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants},
uniquely determined by the requirement that for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$
\begin{equation}\label{BB-M-C}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\end{equation}
where
\[
B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)= \prod_{V \in \pi}B_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V).
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The family $\{B_\chi: {\mathcal{A}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}$ is defined recursively similar to the way how many other families of cumulants are defined. More specifically, we let $B_{\chi_\ell} = B_{\chi_r} = \varphi$ for both $\chi_\ell: \{1\} \to \{\ell\}$ and $\chi_r: \{1\} \to \{r\}$, and then recursively define
\[B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\pi \neq 1_\chi}}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}B_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right)\]
for all $n \geq 2$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{proof}
Unsurprisingly the bi-Boolean cumulants characterize bi-Boolean independence.
\begin{thm}\label{VanishingEquiv}
A family $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of non-unital pairs of algebras in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ if and only if for all $n \geq 2$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in \mathcal{A}$ with $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$, we have that
\[B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0\]
whenever $\omega$ is not constant.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}} = {\mathbb{C}} 1 \oplus {\mathcal{A}}$, let $\widetilde{\varphi}: \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}} \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be the unique unital linear extension of $\varphi$ to $\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}}$, and let $\widetilde{\psi}: \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}} \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be the unital linear functional $\widetilde{\psi} = 1_{{\mathbb{C}} 1} \oplus 0_{\mathcal{A}}$. Note that $(\widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}}, \widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{\psi})$ is a two-state non-commutative probability space containing $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ via the identification $a \mapsto 0 \oplus a$. Furthermore, let
\[
\{\widetilde{\kappa}_\chi: \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi:\{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}} \quad\text{and}\quad \{\widetilde{{\mathcal{K}}}_\chi: \widetilde{{\mathcal{A}}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\}_{n \geq 1, \chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}
\]
be the families of $(\ell, r)$- and c-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants with respect to $\widetilde{\psi}$ and $(\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{\psi})$ respectively. As $\widetilde{\psi}|_{\mathcal{A}} \equiv 0$, $\widetilde{\kappa}_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0$ for all $n \geq 1$ and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$. Therefore, we have for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $a_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$ that
\begin{align*}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \widetilde{\varphi}(a_1\cdots a_n) &= \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)}\left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{interior}}}0\right)\left(\prod_{\substack{V \in \pi\\V\,\mathrm{exterior}}}\widetilde{{\mathcal{K}}}_{\chi|_V}((a_1, \dots, a_n)|_V)\right)\\
&= \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)}\widetilde{{\mathcal{K}}}_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\end{align*}
Hence $\widetilde{{\mathcal{K}}}_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n)$ by the uniqueness of the B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants. By Proposition \ref{BiBandCBF}, $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\widetilde{\varphi}$ if and only if it is c-bi-free with respect to $(\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{\psi})$, and the result follows from Theorem \ref{CBFMoments}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The lattice of bi-interval partitions}
As the proofs for c-bi-freeness in \cite{GS2016} are rather difficult, to conclude this section, we present an independent proof of Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv}. In addition, the tools developed will be of great use in subsequent sections.
The \textit{lattice of bi-interval partitions} is
\[{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}} := \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi),\]
where the lattice structure on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ is induced by the partial order $\leq$ of refinement with minimal and maximal elements $0_\chi$ and $1_\chi$ respectively. Given the lattice ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$, the \textit{incidence algebra on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$}, denoted ${\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$, is the set of all functions
\[f: \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\left(\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi) \times {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\right) \to {\mathbb{C}}\]
such that $f(\sigma, \pi) = 0$ if $\sigma \not\leq \pi$ equipped with pointwise addition and a convolution product defined by
\[(f * g)(\sigma, \pi) = \sum_{\substack{\tau \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \tau \leq \pi}}f(\sigma, \tau)g(\tau, \pi)\]
for all $\sigma, \pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ and $f, g \in {\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$. It is easy to verify that ${\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$ is an associative algebra.
There are three important functions in ${\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$: namely the \textit{delta function on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$}, denoted $\delta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$, the \textit{zeta function on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$}, denoted $\zeta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$, and the \textit{M\"{o}bius function on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$}, denoted $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$. The delta and zeta functions on ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}$ are defined by
\[
\delta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi) = \begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } \sigma = \pi\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \zeta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi) = \begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } \sigma \leq \pi\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\]
whereas $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ is recursively defined by
\[
\sum_{\substack{\tau \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \tau \leq \pi}}\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\tau, \pi) = \sum_{\substack{\tau \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \tau \leq \pi}}\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \tau) = \begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } \sigma = \pi\\
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
for $\sigma, \pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ with $\sigma \leq \pi$.
Note $\delta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ is the identity element in ${\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$ and that $\zeta_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ and $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ are inverses in ${\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}})$.
Due to similar lattice structures, we note that
\[\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi) = \mu_{\mathcal{I}}(s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\sigma, s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\pi) = (-1)^{|\sigma| - |\pi|},\]
where $\mu_{\mathcal{I}}$ is the M\"{o}bius function on the lattice ${\mathcal{I}}$ of all interval partitions. In particular, $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ is multiplicative; that is, if $\sigma, \pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ are such that $\sigma \leq \pi$ and if $V_1, \dots, V_m$ are the blocks of $\pi$, then
\[\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi) = \mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma|_{V_1}, \pi|_{V_1})\cdots\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma|_{V_m}, \pi|_{V_m}).\]
Given $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$, equation \eqref{BB-M-C} implies
\[\varphi_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n).\]
Using the M\"{o}bius function $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$, the above equation can be inverted as
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}\varphi_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi) &= \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}\sum_{\substack{\tau \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\tau \leq \sigma}}B_\tau(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\tau \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\tau \leq \pi}}\left(\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\tau \leq \sigma \leq \pi}}\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi)\right)B_\tau(a_1, \dots, a_n)\\
&= B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}[Second proof of Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv}]
Given $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, note that if $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ and $\pi \leq \omega$, then $\pi \leq \pi_{\omega, \chi} \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$. Suppose first that $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ has vanishing mixed bi-Boolean cumulants. Then
\begin{align*}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) &= \sum_{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n) \\
& = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \omega}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n) \\
&= \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi_{\omega, \chi}}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi_{\omega, \chi}}}\sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\pi \leq \sigma}}\varphi_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}}(\pi, \sigma)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\pi \leq \pi_{\omega, \chi}}}\left(\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\pi \leq \sigma \leq \pi_{\omega, \chi}}}\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}}(\pi, \sigma)\right)\varphi_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n)\\
&= \varphi_{\pi_{\omega, \chi}}(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\end{align*}
Hence $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ by definition.
Conversely, suppose $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$. Then
\[
\sum_{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \varphi(a_1\cdots a_n) = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \omega}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n)
\]
where the first equality follows from the bi-Boolean moment-cumulant formula and the second equality follows from reversing the above computations. We will proceed inductively to show that $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ has vanishing mixed B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants with respect to $\varphi$. Note the base case $n = 2$ is trivial. For the inductive step, if $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$ is not constant notice by the inductive hypothesis that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n) &= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \neq 1_\chi}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n)\\
&= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{I}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \omega}}B_\sigma(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\end{align*}
Combining these equations, we have that $B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = 0$, completing the inductive step.
\end{proof}
\section{Bi-Boolean partial transforms}\label{sec:transforms}
In this section, we study some of the simplest convolutions on bi-Boolean independent pairs.
\subsection{Single-variable convolutions and transforms}
We begin by recalling some notation and single-variable results.
\begin{defn}
Let $a$ be a random variable in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. For $m \geq 1$, let $B_m(a)$ denote the $m^{\mathrm{th}}$ Boolean cumulant of $a$; that is, in the notation of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants, $B_m(a) = B_\chi(a, \dots, a)$ where $\chi: \{1, \dots, m\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is constant.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The \textit{Boolean $\eta$-transform} of $a$ is the power series
\[\eta_a(z) = \sum_{m \geq 1}B_m(a)z^m.\]
\item The \textit{moment series} of $a$ is the power series
\[M_a(z) = 1 + \sum_{m \geq 1}\varphi(a^m)z^m.\]
\item The \textit{Cauchy transform} of $a$ is the power series
\[G_a(z) = \varphi((z - a)^{-1}) = \frac{1}{z} + \sum_{m \geq 1}\frac{\varphi(a^m)}{z^{m + 1}} = \frac{1}{z} M_a\left(\frac{1}{z}\right).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
The Boolean $\eta$-transform linearizes the additive Boolean convolution; that is, if $a_1$ and $a_2$ are Boolean independent, then
\[\eta_{a_1 + a_2}(z) = \eta_{a_1}(z) + \eta_{a_2}(z).\]
Moreover, as shown in \cite{SW1997}*{Proposition 2.1}, we have the following functional equation
\[\eta_a(z) = 1 - \frac{1}{M_a(z)},\]
which allows one to calculate the distribution of the sum $a_1 + a_2$ by first computing $\eta_{a_1 + a_2}(z)$ and then obtaining $M_{a_1 + a_2}(z)$. Note that if we define the \textit{self-energy} of $a$ (see \cite{SW1997}*{Section 2}) by
\[E_a(z) := \sum_{m \geq 1}\frac{B_m(a)}{z^{m - 1}} =z\eta_a(1/z) = z - \frac{1}{G_a(z)},\]
then the self-energy also linearizes the additive Boolean convolution.
From an analytic point of view, the self-energy is sometimes more suitable for the calculation of the additive Boolean convolution.
If $a_1$ and $a_2$ are Boolean independent random variables in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then one may also consider the distribution of the product $a_1a_2$. However, since
\[\varphi((a_1a_2)^m) = \varphi(a_1a_2\cdots a_1a_2) = \varphi(a_1)^m\varphi(a_2)^m\]
for all $m \geq 1$, the distribution is rather uninteresting as only the first moments of $a_1$ and $a_2$ appear. As noted by Franz \cite{F2008}, a more interesting convolution is obtained by assuming $a_1 - 1$ and $a_2 - 1$ are Boolean independent or, equivalently, by considering the distribution of the product $(1 + a_1)(1 + a_2)$. Under this assumption, it was proved in \cite{F2008}*{Theorem 2.2} (see also \cites{B2006, P2009} for different approaches) that the corresponding transform with the multiplicative property is the Boolean $\eta$-transform divided by $z$; that is,
\[\frac{1}{z}\eta_{(1 + a_1)(1 + a_2)}(z) = \frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_2}(z).\]
We shall also adopt this convention when considering convolutions on bi-Boolean independent pairs.
\subsection{The bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform}
We now turn to two-variable transforms. Note that all series below are in commuting variables $z$ and $w$.
\begin{defn}
Let $(a, b)$ be a pair of elements in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. For $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$, let
\[B_{m, n}(a, b) = B_{\chi_{m, n}}(\underbrace{a, \dots, a}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{b, \dots, b}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}),\]
where $\chi_{m, n}: \{1, \dots, m + n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is defined by $\chi_{m, n}(k) = \ell$ if $k \leq m$ and $\chi_{m, n}(k) = r$ if $k > m$. Note that $B_{m, 0}(a, b) = B_m(a)$ and $B_{0, n}(a, b) = B_n(b)$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The \textit{bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform} of $(a, b)$ is the power series
\[\eta_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}B_{m, n}(a, b)z^mw^n.\]
\item The \textit{two-variable partial moment series} of $(a, b)$ is the power series
\[M_{(a, b)}(z, w) = 1 + \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}\varphi(a^mb^n)z^mw^n.\]
\item The \textit{two-variable Cauchy transform} of $(a, b)$ is the power series
\[G_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \varphi((z - a)^{-1}(w - b)^{-1}) = \frac{1}{zw} + \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}\frac{\varphi(a^mw^n)}{z^{m + 1}w^{n + 1}}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
The bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform plays a similar role as the Boolean $\eta$-transform when it comes to the additive bi-Boolean convolution. Indeed, if $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are bi-Boolean independent two-faced pairs, then by Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv}
\[\eta_{(a_1 + a_2, b_1 + b_2)}(z, w) = \eta_{(a_1, b_1)}(z, w) + \eta_{(a_2, b_2)}(z, w).\]
We now present a functional equation relating $\eta_{(a, b)}$ to $G_{(a, b)}$.
\begin{thm}\label{PartialEta}
Let $(a, b)$ be a pair of elements in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. The bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform $\eta_{(a, b)}$ of $(a, b)$ is given by
\[\eta_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \eta_{a}(z) + \eta_{b}(w) + \frac{G_{(a, b)}(1/z, 1/w)}{G_{a}(1/z)G_{b}(1/w)} - 1.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This immediately follows from the operator-valued version in Theorem \ref{OpVPartialEta} below. Alternatively, one may appeal to the functional equation for the c-bi-free partial ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform in \cite{GS2016}*{Corollary 5.7} via Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv}.
\end{proof}
Utilizing the above idea, i.e., by appealing to the c-bi-free case, \cite{GS2016}*{Lemmata 4.17 and 4.18} imply the following properties of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants under certain conditions.
\begin{lem}\label{Swapping}
Let $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ be such that $\chi(k_0) = \ell$ and $\chi(k_0 + 1) = r$ for some $k_0 \in \{1, \dots, n - 1\}$, and define $\chi': \{1, \dots n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ by
\[\chi'(k) = \begin{cases}
r &\text{if } k = k_0\\
\ell &\text{if } k = k_0 + 1\\
\chi(k) &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\]
If $a$ and $b$ are random variables in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ such that $\varphi(cabc') = \varphi(cbac')$ for all $c, c' \in {\mathcal{A}}$, then
\[B_\chi(c_1, \dots, c_{k_0 - 1}, a, b, c_{k_0 + 2}, \dots, c_n) = B_{\chi'}(c_1, \dots,c_{k_0 - 1}, b, a, c_{k_0 + 2}, \dots, c_n)\]
for all $c_1, \dots, c_{k_0 - 1}, c_{k_0 + 2}, \dots, c_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{Changing}
Let $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ be such that $\chi(n) = \ell$, and define $\chi': \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ by
\[\chi'(k) = \begin{cases}
r &\text{if } k = n\\
\chi(k) &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\]
If $a$ and $b$ are random variables in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ such that $\varphi(ca) = \varphi(cb)$ for all $c \in {\mathcal{A}}$, then
\[B_\chi(c_1, \dots, c_{n - 1}, a) = B_{\chi'}(c_1, \dots, c_{n - 1}, b)\]
for all $c_1, \dots, c_{n - 1} \in {\mathcal{A}}$.
\end{lem}
As a particularly important consequence of Lemma \ref{Swapping}, if $(a, b)$ is a commuting pair in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then
\[B_\chi(c_{\chi(1)}, \dots, c_{\chi(m + n)}) = B_{m, n}(a, b)\]
for all $\chi: \{1, \dots, m + n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ such that $|\chi^{-1}(\{\ell\})| = m$ where $c_\ell = a$ and $c_r = b$. Hence, the bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform (as well as the two-variable partial moment series and the two-variable Cauchy transform) completely determines the joint distribution of a commuting pair.
Another immediate consequence of Lemmata \ref{Swapping} and \ref{Changing} is the following bi-Boolean analogue of \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Theorem 10.2.1}.
\begin{thm}
If $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is a family of pairs of non-unital algebras in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item ${\mathcal{A}}_{m, \ell}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{n, r}$ commute in distribution for all $m, n \in K$, and
\item for every $b \in {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}$, there exists an $a \in {\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}$ such that $\varphi(ca) = \varphi(cb)$ for all $c \in {\mathcal{A}}$,
\end{enumerate}
then $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ if and only if $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}\}_{k \in K}$ is Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$. Therefore, if $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}\}_{k \in K}$ is Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$, then so is $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}\}_{k \in K}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{PartialSelfEnergy}
It is sometimes more convenient to consider the \textit{partial self-energy} of a pair $(a, b)$ which is the function $E_{(a, b)}$ defined by $E_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \eta_{(a, b)}\left(1/z, 1/w\right)$. Note the partial self-energy also linearizes the additive bi-Boolean convolution (see \cite{GS2016}*{Remark 6.30}). Using the equations $z\eta_{a}(1/z) = E_{a}(z)$ and $w\eta_{b}(1/w) = E_{b}(w)$, we have that
\[E_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}E_{a}(z) + \frac{1}{w}E_{b}(w) + \frac{G_{(a, b)}(z, w)}{G_{a}(z)G_{b}(w)} - 1.\]
\end{rem}
\subsection{Properties of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants}
In order to study other types of convolution on bi-Boolean independent pairs, we need to discuss some properties of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants. The first property deals with the situation when at least one of the arguments is a scalar. Unlike in many other non-commutative probability theories where the corresponding cumulant simply vanishes, the bi-Boolean cumulants need not vanish. The following extends \cite{P2009}*{Proposition 3.3} to the bi-Boolean setting. Note that for $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ and $j \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, we denote by $\chi|_{\setminus j}$ the restriction of $\chi$ to $\{1, \dots, n\} \setminus \{j\}$.
\begin{prop}\label{ScalarEntry}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ be a non-commutative probability space. If $n \geq 2$, $a_1, \dots, a_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, and $a_j = 1$ for some $1 \leq j \leq n$, then
\[B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_n) = \begin{cases}
0 &\text{if } j \in \{\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}), \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})\}\\
B_{\chi|_{\setminus j}}(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First suppose that $j = \min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})$. To proceed by induction on $n$ note the base case $n = 2$ is trivial as $B_\chi(a_1, a_2) = \varphi(a_1a_2) - \varphi(a_1)\varphi(a_2)$ for all $\chi: \{1, 2\} \to \{\ell, r\}$. For the inductive step, notice by the inductive hypothesis that
\begin{align*}
\varphi(a_1\cdots a_{j - 1}1a_{j + 1}\cdots a_n) &= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\pi \neq 1_\chi}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n)\\
&= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\{j\} \in \pi}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n)\\
&= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi|_{\setminus j})}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n)\\
&= B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \varphi(a_1\cdots a_{j - 1}a_{j + 1}\cdots a_n),
\end{align*}
from which the assertion follows. The proof for the case $j = \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})$ is similar.
Suppose $j \not\in \{\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}), \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})\}$. Again we will proceed by induction. For the base case $n = 3$, note either $j=2$ or $j=3$. We will assume that $j = 3$ as the case $j = 2$ is similar. In this case, $\{\chi(1), \chi(2)\} = \{\ell, r\}$ so by the above work we have that
\[\varphi(a_1a_21) = \varphi(a_1a_2a_3) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)} B_\pi(a_1, a_2, 1) = B_\chi(a_1, a_2, 1) + \varphi(a_1)\varphi(a_2).\]
On the other hand, we have that
\[\varphi(a_1a_2) = B_{\chi|_{\setminus 3}}(a_1, a_2) + \varphi(a_1)\varphi(a_2),\]
and thus $B_\chi(a_1, a_2, 1) = B_{\chi|_{\setminus 3}}(a_1, a_2)$.
For the inductive step, let $V_\pi$ be the block of $\pi$ containing $\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})$, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\varphi(a_1\cdots a_{j - 1}1a_{j + 1}\cdots a_n)\\
&= \varphi(a_1\cdots a_n)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\j \not\in V_\pi}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\j = \max_{\prec_\chi}(V_\pi)}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\j \in V_\pi\\j \neq \max_{\prec_\chi}(V_\pi)}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_n).
\end{align*}
By the $\{\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}), \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})\}$ case the second sum vanishes. By the inductive hypothesis the first and third sums add up to
\[B_\chi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, 1, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi|_{\setminus j})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi|_{\setminus j}}}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n).\]
On the other hand, we have that
\[\varphi(a_1\cdots a_{j - 1}a_{j + 1}\cdots a_n) = B_{\chi|_{\setminus j}}(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n) + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi|_{\setminus j})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi|_{\setminus j}}}}B_\pi(a_1, \dots, a_{j - 1}, a_{j + 1}, \dots, a_n),\]
from which the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{OnePlus}
Given a pair $(a, b)$ in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, for all $m, n \geq 1$ we have that
\[B_{m, n}(1 + a, b) = \sum_{i = 0}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{i}B_{i + 1, n}(a, b).\]
The obvious analogue for $B_{m, n}(a, 1 + b)$ also holds.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By the multilinearity of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants, we have that
\[B_{m, n}(1 + a, b) = \sum_{\substack{c_j \in \{1, a\}\\1 \leq j \leq m}}B_{m, n}(c_1, \dots, c_m, \underbrace{b, \dots, b}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}),\]
and the assertion immediately follows from Proposition \ref{ScalarEntry} as $c_1$ must be $a$ and there are $m - 1$ positions remaining to have $a$ as the argument.
\end{proof}
Next, we investigate B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants with products among their arguments. Remark that although it might be possible to find a general formula for arbitrary products by applying the product formula for c-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants in \cite{GS2016}*{Theorem 4.22}, the following result is sufficient for our purposes.
\begin{lem}\label{ProductEntry}
Let $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ be bi-Boolean independent two-faced pairs in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. The following properties of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants hold.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item For all $m, n \geq 0$, $0 \leq k \leq m$, $c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}$, and $d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_1b_2, b_2b_1\}$,
\begin{align*}
&B_{m + 1, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1)B_{m - k + 1, n}(a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n).
\end{align*}
\item For all $m, n \geq 0$, $0 \leq k \leq m$, $c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}$, and $d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_1b_2, b_2b_1\}$,
\begin{align*}
&B_{m + 2, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{m + 2, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_2, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{m + 2, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, a_1, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n) = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For assertion $(1)$, we proceed by induction on $m$. If $m = 0$, then
\begin{align*}
B_{1, n}(a_1a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n) &= \varphi(a_1a_2d_1\cdots d_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{1, n}}}}B_\pi(a_1a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= \varphi(a_1a_2d_1\cdots d_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{1, n}}}}\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})\\\sigma \leq \pi}}\varphi_\sigma(a_1a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi).
\end{align*}
By the definition of bi-Boolean independence, we have that
\[\varphi_\sigma(a_1a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n) = \varphi(a_1)\varphi_\sigma(a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n)\]
for all $\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})$. Hence
\begin{align*}
B_{1, n}(a_1a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n) &= \varphi(a_1)\left(\varphi(a_2d_1\cdots d_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{1, n}}}}\sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{1, n})\\\sigma \leq \pi}}\varphi_\sigma(a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi)\right)\\
&= B_1(a_1)B_{1, n}(a_2, d_1, \dots, d_n).
\end{align*}
For the inductive step, notice
\begin{align*}
&B_{m + 1, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= \varphi(c_1\cdots c_ka_1a_2c_{k + 1}\cdots c_md_1\cdots d_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m + 1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{m + 1, n}}}}B_\pi(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= \varphi(c_1\cdots c_ka_1)\varphi(a_2c_{k + 1}\cdots c_md_1\cdots d_n) - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m + 1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{m + 1, n}}}}B_\pi(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= \sum_{\pi_1 \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{k + 1, 0})}B_{\pi_1}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1)\sum_{\pi_2 \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m - k + 1, n})}B_{\pi_2}(a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&\quad - \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m + 1, n})\\\pi \neq 1_{\chi_{m + 1, n}}}}B_\pi(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n).
\end{align*}
For every pair $(\pi_1, \pi_2)$ where $\pi_1 \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{k + 1, 0})$ and $\pi_2 \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m - k + 1, n})$ with $(\pi_1, \pi_2) \neq (1_{\chi_{k + 1, 0}}, 1_{\chi_{m - k + 1, n}})$ there is a unique $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m + 1, n})$ obtained by taking $\pi_1 \cup \pi_1$, merging the block of $\pi_1$ containing $\max_{\prec_\chi}(\pi_1)$ with the block of $\pi_2$ containing $\min_{\prec_\chi}(\pi_2)$, and identifying $\max_{\prec_\chi}(\pi_1)$ and $\min_{\prec_\chi}(\pi_2)$ as the same element. This map is a bijection and, by the induction hypothesis, we have that
\[B_{\pi_1}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1)B_{\pi_2}(a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n) = B_\pi(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\]
under this bijection. Hence, the only remaining term is
\[B_{k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1)B_{m - k + 1, n}(a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\]
after cancellation thereby yielding (1).
For assertion $(2)$, we have that
\begin{align*}
&B_{m + 2, n}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1a_2, a_1a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_k, a_1)B_2(a_2, a_1)B_{m - k + 1, n}(a_2, c_{k + 1}, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_n)\\
&= 0
\end{align*}
by assertion $(1)$ and the vanishing of mixed B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants. The other two statements can be proved analogously by noting that regardless of what $c_1, \dots, c_k$ are, there will be a B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulant as a factor which contains both $a_1$ and $a_2$, and all other arguments are either $a_1$ or $a_2$, i.e., $a_1a_2$ is not one of the arguments of this factor.
\end{proof}
In addition, the following results hold by similar arguments.
\begin{lem}\label{ProductEntry2}
Let $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ be bi-Boolean independent pairs in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. The following properties of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants hold.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item For all $m, n \geq 0$, $0 \leq k \leq n$, $c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2, a_2a_1\}$, and $d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}$,
\begin{align*}
&B_{m, n + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_k, b_2b_1, d_{k + 1}, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{m, n - k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_m, b_1, d_{k + 1}, \dots, d_n)B_{k + 1}(d_1, \dots, d_k, b_2).
\end{align*}
\item For all $m, n \geq 0$, $0 \leq k \leq n$, $c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2, a_2a_1\}$, and $d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}$,
\begin{align*}
&B_{m, n + 2}(c_1, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_k, b_2b_1, b_2b_1, d_{k + 1}, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{m, n + 2}(c_1, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_k, b_1, b_2b_1, d_{k + 1}, \dots, d_n)\\
&= B_{m, n + 2}(c_1, \dots, c_m, d_1, \dots, d_k, b_2b_1, b_2, d_{k + 1}, \dots, d_n) = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\subsection{The reduced bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform}
Recall that if $(a, b)$ is a commuting two-faced pair, then the bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform $\eta_{(a, b)}$ uniquely determines the joint distribution of $(a, b)$. Equivalently, if the marginal distributions of $a$ and $b$ are known, then it suffices to compute the sum $\sum_{m, n \geq 1}B_{m, n}(a, b)z^mw^n$ in order to obtain the joint distribution of $(a, b)$.
\begin{defn}
Let $(a, b)$ be a two-faced pair in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. The \textit{reduced bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform} of $(a, b)$ is defined by
\[\widetilde{\eta}_{(a, b)}(z, w) = \sum_{m, n \geq 1}B_{m, n}(a, b)z^mw^n = \eta_{(a, b)}(z, w) - \eta_{a}(z) - \eta_{b}(w).\]
\end{defn}
For all of the convolutions considered below, the marginal distributions of the resulting pair may be obtained using the single-variable transforms mentioned above. Therefore, it remains to find the formulae for the reduced bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transforms in terms of the individual ones. Quite surprisingly, the single-variable transforms also appear.
Let $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ be bi-Boolean independent pairs. We begin by computing the bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform of the pair $((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), b_1 + b_2)$; that is, multiplication on the left variables and addition on the right variables. From the single-variable results, the marginal distributions of $(1 + a_1)(1 + a_2)$ and $b_1 + b_2$ may be obtained from the marginal distributions of the two-faced pairs $(1 + a_1, b_1)$ and $(1 + a_2, b_2)$ as
\[\frac{1}{z}\eta_{(1 + a_1)(1 + a_2)}(z) = \frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_2}(z) \quad\text{and}\quad \eta_{b_1 + b_2}(w) = \eta_{b_1}(w) + \eta_{b_2}(w).\]
The following result provides a formula for the reduced bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform.
\begin{thm}\label{T-Transform}
If $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are bi-Boolean independent pairs in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then
\[\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), b_1 + b_2)}(z, w) = \widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, b_1)}(z, w) + \frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, b_2)}(z, w)\]
and
\[\widetilde{\eta}_{(a_1 + a_2, (1 + b_2)(1 + b_1))}(z, w) = \widetilde{\eta}_{(a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w) + \frac{1}{w}\eta_{1 + b_2}(w)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(a_1, 1 + b_1)}(z, w).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To begin, note for all $m, n \geq 1$ that the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), b_1 + b_2)}(z, w)$ is given by
\[B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2) = \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}B_{k + 1, n}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2).\]
For $k \geq 0$ and $n \geq 1$, we have by Lemma \ref{ProductEntry} and by bi-Boolean independence that
\begin{align*}
&B_{k + 1, n}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2)\\
&= \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}B_{k + 1, n}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, b_1 + b_2, \dots, b_1 + b_2) \\
& \quad + \sum_{\substack{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}\\\text{at least one }c_i = a_1a_2}}B_{k + 1, n}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, b_1 + b_2, \dots, b_1 + b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{p = 0}^kB_{k + 1, n}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_1 + b_2, \dots, b_1 + b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{p = 0}^kB_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{k - p + 1, n}(a_2, b_1 + b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{p = 0}^kB_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{k - p + 1, n}(a_2, b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_2, b_2) \sum_{p = 0}^kB_{k + 1, n}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_1 + b_2, \dots, b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2).
\end{align*}
Hence the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), b_1 + b_2)}(z, w)$ is
\begin{align*}
B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2) &= \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}(B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, n}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2))\\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, b_1) + B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2).
\end{align*}
Now consider $\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, b_1)}(z, w) + \frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, b_2)}(z, w)$. Let $\alpha_{m, n}$ denote the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, b_2)}(z, w)$. Notice for all $m, n \geq 1$ that
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{m, n} &= \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}B_{k + 1}(1 + a_1)B_{m - k, n}(1 + a_2, b_2)\\
&= B_1(1 + a_1)B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2) + \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}B_{k + 1}(1 + a_1)B_{m - k, n}(1 + a_2, b_2)\\
&= (1 + B_1(a_1))B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2) + \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}\left(\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}\binom{k - 1}{p}B_{p + 2}(a_1)\right)\left(\sum_{q = 0}^{m - k - 1}\binom{m - k - 1}{q}B_{q + 1, n}(a_2, b_2)\right)
\end{align*}
by \cite{P2009}*{Corollary 3.4} and Corollary \ref{OnePlus}. Note the sum on the right-hand side is
\[S := \sum_{\substack{2 \leq s \leq m\\1 \leq t \leq m - 1\\3 \leq s + t \leq m + 1}}\beta_{s, t}B_s(a_1)B_{t, n}(a_2, b_2),\]
where
\[
\beta_{s, t} = \sum_{k = s - 1}^{m - t}\binom{k - 1}{s - 2}\binom{m - k - 1}{t - 1} = \sum_{k = s - 2}^{(m - 2) - (t - 1)}\binom{k}{s - 2}\binom{m - 2 - k}{t - 1} = \binom{m - 1}{s + t - 2}
\]
by the identity
\[\sum_{k = a}^{N - b}\binom{k}{a}\binom{N - k}{b} = \binom{N + 1}{a + b + 1}.\]
Therefore $\alpha_{m, n} = B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2) + B_1(a_1)B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2) + S$.
Notice
\[S = \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}B_{p + 2}(a_1)B_{k - p, n}(a_2, b_2).\]
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{ProductEntry} and Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv},
\begin{align*}
S &= \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, \underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p - 1\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2)\\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}\sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}}B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, c_1, \dots, c_k, b_2, \dots, b_2)\\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^{m - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}B_{k + 1, n}(a_1, \underbrace{a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2}_{k\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2)\\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, \underbrace{1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2}_{m - 1\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2).
\end{align*}
As
\[B_{m, n}(a_2, \underbrace{1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2}_{m - 1\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2) = B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2)\]
and
\[B_{m, n}(a_1a_2, \underbrace{1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2}_{m - 1\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2) = B_1(a_1)B_{m, n}(1 + a_2, b_2),\]
We obtain that $\alpha_{m, n} = B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2)$. Hence, as the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, b_1)}(z, w)$ is $B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, b_1)$, the first result follows.
Note the proof of the second assertion follow by using Lemma \ref{ProductEntry2} instead of Lemma \ref{ProductEntry}.
\end{proof}
Note that if we want to consider multiplication on the right variables instead, then there is a choice of whether the product $(1 + b_1)(1 + b_2)$ or the product $(1 + b_2)(1 + b_1)$ is preferred as it is not clear whether to use the usual multiplication or the opposite multiplication. This choice was irrelevant to the above transforms due to the commutativity of addition and the ability to interchange pairs. Thus Theorems \ref{S-Transform} and \ref{S-Transform2} will analyze the transforms for these two possibilities.
\begin{thm}\label{S-Transform}
If $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are bi-Boolean independent pairs in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then
\[\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), (1 + b_2)(1 + b_1))}(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w) + \frac{1}{w}\eta_{1 + b_2}(w)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1)}(z, w).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For $m, n \geq 1$, the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), (1 + b_2)(1 + b_1))}(z, w)$ is given by
\[
B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1) = \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}\sum_{\ell = 0}^{n - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}\binom{n - 1}{\ell}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1).\]
For $k, \ell \geq 0$, notice that
\begin{align*}
&B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)\\
&= \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1, \dots, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)\\
&\quad + \sum_{\substack{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}\\\text{at least one }c_i = a_1a_2}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1, \dots, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)\\
&:= S_1 + S_2.
\end{align*}
Using the vanishing of mixed bi-Boolean cumulants together with Lemmata \ref{ProductEntry} and \ref{ProductEntry2}, it is possible to calculate $S_1$ and $S_2$. Indeed
\begin{align*}
S_1 &= \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&\quad + \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}\sum_{\substack{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}\\\text{at least one }d_j = b_2b_1}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, \underbrace{b_2, \dots, b_2}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2b_1, \underbrace{b_1, \dots, b_1}_{\ell - p\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{k + 1, \ell - p + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, b_1, \dots, b_1)B_{p + 1}(b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{k + 1, \ell - p + 1}(a_1, b_1)B_{p + 1}(b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, \dots, a_1, \underbrace{b_2, \dots, b_2}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2b_1, \underbrace{b_1, \dots, b_1}_{\ell - p\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + \sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}\sum_{\substack{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}\\\text{at least one }d_j = b_2b_1}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, \dots, a_1, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1}) \\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1).
\end{align*}
Furthermore notice
\begin{align*}
S_2 &= \sum_{\substack{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}\\\text{at least one }c_i = a_1a_2}}\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&\quad + \sum_{\substack{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}\\\text{at least one }c_i = a_1a_2}}\sum_{\substack{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}\\\text{at least one }d_j = b_2b_1}}B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{k + 1}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&:= T_1 + T_2.
\end{align*}
Further computations yield
\begin{align*}
T_1 &= \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^kB_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&= \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^kB_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{k - p + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, \dots, a_2, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^kB_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{k - p + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2)\\
&= \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^kB_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2, \dots, b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2) - B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
T_2 &= \sum_{\substack{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_2b_1\}\\\text{at least one }d_j = b_2b_1}}\sum_{p = 0}^kB_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, d_1, \dots, d_{\ell + 1})\\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^k\sum_{q = 0}^\ell B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{k - p\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{b_2, \dots, b_2}_{q\,\mathrm{times}}, b_2b_1, \underbrace{b_1, \dots, b_1}_{\ell - q\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^k\sum_{q = 0}^\ell B_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{k - p + 1, \ell - q + 1}(a_2, b_1)B_{q + 1}(b_2)\\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have that
\begin{align*}
&B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)\\
&= S_1 + T_1 + T_2\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2) - B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_2, b_2)\\
&= B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2).
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
&B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)\\
&= \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}\sum_{\ell = 0}^{n - 1}\binom{m - 1}{k}\binom{n - 1}{\ell}(B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1, b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1) + B_{k + 1, \ell + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2))\\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1) + B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2).
\end{align*}
Next, for $m, n \geq 1$, let $\alpha_{m, n}$ denote the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w)$. Then $\alpha_{m, n}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{m, n} &= \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1}B_{k + 1}(1 + a_1)B_{m - k, n}(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2).
\end{align*}
By an identical proof to that used in Theorem \ref{T-Transform} (where, in the proof one replaces $b_2$ with $1 + b_2)$, one obtains that
\[\alpha_{m, n} = B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2).\]
Similarly the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\frac{1}{w}\eta_{1 + b_2}(w)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1)}(z, w)$ is equal to $B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_2b_1)$ for all $m, n \geq 1$. Hence the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{S-Transform2}
If $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are bi-Boolean independent pairs in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$, then
\[\widetilde{\eta}_{((1 + a_1)(1 + a_2), (1 + b_1)(1 + b_2))}(z, w) = \widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1)}(z, w) + \frac{1}{zw}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\eta_{1 + b_1}(w)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha_{m,n}$ denote the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w)\cdot\frac{1}{w}\eta_{1 + b_1}(w)$.
By the proof of Theorem \ref{S-Transform}, for $m, n \geq 1$ the coefficient of $z^mw^n$ in $\frac{1}{z}\eta_{1 + a_1}(z)\cdot\widetilde{\eta}_{(1 + a_2, 1 + b_2)}(z, w)$ is $B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2)$. Hence
\[\sum_{m, n \geq 1}\alpha_{m, n}z^mw^n = \left(\sum_{m, n \geq 1}B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2)z^mw^n\right)\frac{1}{w}\eta_{1 + b_1}(w).\]
For $m, n \geq 1$, notice
\begin{align*}
\alpha_{m, n} &= \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1}B_{m, n - k}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2)B_{k + 1}(1 + b_1)\\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2)(1 + B_1(b_1))\\
&\quad + \sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\left(\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}\binom{k - 1}{p}B_{p + 2}(b_1)\right)\left(\sum_{q = 0}^{n - k - 1}\binom{n - k - 1}{q}B_{m, q + 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2)\right).
\end{align*}
By similar arguments to those used in the proof of Theorem \ref{T-Transform}, the above sum can be written as
\[S := \sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\binom{n - 1}{k}\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}B_{p + 2}(b_1)B_{m, k - p}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2).\]
Thus by, Lemma \ref{ProductEntry2}, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
S &= \sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\binom{n - 1}{k}\sum_{p = 0}^{k - 1}B_{m, k + 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, \underbrace{b_1, \dots, b_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_1b_2, \underbrace{b_2, \dots, b_2}_{k - p - 1\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^n\binom{n - 1}{k}\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2, b_1b_2\}}B_{m, k + 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&\quad - \sum_{k = 1}^n\binom{n - 1}{k}\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}B_{m, k + 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&:= T_1 - T_2.
\end{align*}
However
\begin{align*}
T_1 &= \sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\binom{n - 1}{k}B_{m, k + 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, \underbrace{b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2, \dots, b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2}_{k\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1, \underbrace{1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2, \dots, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2}_{n - 1\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&\quad - B_{m, 1}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1),
\end{align*}
and, since for $\ell \geq 0$ and $k \geq 1$, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&= \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2\}}B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{\ell + 1}, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&\quad + \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{\substack{c_i \in \{a_1, a_2, a_1a_2\}\\\text{at least one }c_i = a_1a_2}}B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(c_1, \dots, c_{\ell + 1}, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&= B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1, b_1) + \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(\underbrace{a_1, \dots, a_1}_{p\,\mathrm{times}}, a_1a_2, \underbrace{a_2, \dots, a_2}_{\ell - p\,\mathrm{times}}, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&= B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1, b_1) + \sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}\sum_{p = 0}^\ell B_{p + 1}(a_1)B_{\ell - p + 1, k + 1}(a_2, \dots, a_2, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k)\\
&= B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1, b_1),
\end{align*}
we obtain that
\begin{align*}
T_2 &= \sum_{\ell = 0}^{m - 1}\sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\binom{m - 1}{\ell}\binom{n - 1}{k}\sum_{d_j \in \{b_1, b_2\}}B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1, d_1, \dots, d_k) \\
&= \sum_{\ell = 0}^{m - 1}\sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1}\binom{m - 1}{\ell}\binom{n - 1}{k} B_{\ell + 1, k + 1}(a_1, b_1) \\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1) - B_{m, 1}(1 + a_1, b_1).
\end{align*}
Hence, as $B_{m, 1}(1 + a_1 + a_1 + a_1a_2, b_1) = B_{m, 1}(1 + a_1, b_1)$,
\begin{align*}
S &= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1, \underbrace{1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2, \dots, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2}_{n - 1\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&\quad - B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1) \\
&= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2) - B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1)\\
&\quad -B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_2, \underbrace{1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2, \dots, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2}_{n - 1\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&\quad -B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, \dots, 1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, b_1b_2, \underbrace{1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2, \dots, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2}_{n - 1\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&:= B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2) - B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1) - T_3 - T_4.
\end{align*}
By similar calculations as above, it can be verified that
\[T_3 = B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2) \quad\text{and}\quad T_4 = B_1(b_1)B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_2).\]
Therefore, we obtain that
\[\alpha_{m, n} = B_{m, n}(1 + a_1 + a_2 + a_1a_2, 1 + b_1 + b_2 + b_1b_2) - B_{m, n}(1 + a_1, 1 + b_1)\]
for all $m, n \geq 1$, from which the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Additive bi-Boolean limit theorems and infinite divisibility}\label{sec:limitthms}
In this section, we study limit theorems and infinite divisibility with respect to the additive bi-Boolean convolution. Essentially all of the results below either can be directly obtained using the techniques developed in \cite{HW2016} for the bi-free case or immediately follow from the results in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 6} using the fact that the additive bi-Boolean convolution is in fact a special case of the additive c-bi-free convolution. Consequently, we shall often omit the details and only present the statements with some remarks.
\subsection{Combinatorial aspects}
Recall from \cite{V2014}*{Definition 2.5} that if $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ is a two-faced family in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ then the \textit{joint distribution} $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ of $\widehat{a}$ is by definition the unital linear functional
\[\mu_{\widehat{a}} := \varphi \circ \tau : {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle \to {\mathbb{C}}\]
where $\tau: {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle \to {\mathcal{A}}$ is the unital homomorphism such that $\tau(Z_k) = a_k$ for $k \in I \sqcup J$. Given two bi-Boolean independent two-faced families $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ and $\widehat{b} = ((b_i)_{i \in I}, (b_j)_{j \in J})$ in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ with joint distributions $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{b}}$ respectively, the \textit{additive bi-Boolean convolution} of $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{b}}$, denoted $\mu_{\widehat{a}} \uplus\uplus \mu_{\widehat{b}}$ is defined to be the joint distribution of the two-faced family
\[\widehat{a} + \widehat{b} := ((a_i + b_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j + b_j)_{j \in J}).\]
A two-faced family $\widehat{a} =((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ has a \textit{bi-Boolean central limit distribution} (or \textit{centred bi-Boolean Gaussian distribution}) with covariance matrix $C$ if there exists a complex matrix $C = (C_{k, \ell})_{k, \ell \in I \sqcup J}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item $\varphi(a_{\alpha(1)}a_{\alpha(2)}) = C_{\alpha(1), \alpha(2)}$ for all $\alpha: \{1, 2\} \to I \sqcup J$,
\item $B_{\chi_\alpha}(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)}) = 0$ for all $n \neq 2$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$, where $\chi_\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ such that $\chi_\alpha(k) = \ell$ if $\alpha(k) \in I$ and $\chi_\alpha(k) = r$ if $\alpha(k) \in J$ for $1 \leq k \leq n$.
\end{enumerate}
The algebraic bi-Boolean central limit theorem immediately follows from \cite{GS2016}*{Theorem 6.2} with the given sequence being bi-Boolean independent and the limiting distribution being a centred bi-Boolean Gaussian distribution. Similarly, it is easy to see that a Kac/Loeve type theorem also holds in the bi-Boolean setting (see \cite{S2016-2}*{Theorem 3.2} for the bi-free version) and a general bi-Boolean limit theorem can be deduced from \cite{GS2016}*{Theorem 6.5}, which we record as follows without proof.
\begin{thm}
For every $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $\{\widehat{a}_{N, m} = ((a_{N, m, i})_{i \in I}, (a_{N, m, j})_{j \in J})\}_{m = 1}^N$ be a sequence of bi-Boolean independent, identically distributed two-faced families in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}_N, \varphi_N)$. Furthermore, let $\widehat{S}_N = ((S_{N, i})_{i \in I}, (S_{N, j})_{j \in J})$ be the two-faced family in $({\mathcal{A}}_N, \varphi_N)$ defined by
\[S_{N, k} = \sum_{m = 1}^Na_{N, m, k}, \quad k \in I \sqcup J.\]
The following assertions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item There exists a two-faced family $\widehat{s} = ((s_i)_{i \in I}, (s_j)_{j \in J})$ in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ such that $\widehat{S}_N$ converges in distribution to $\widehat{s}$ as $N \to \infty$.
\item For all $n \geq 1$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$, the limits
\[\lim_{N \to \infty}N\cdot\varphi_N(a_{N, m, \alpha(1)}\cdots a_{N, m, \alpha(n)})\]
exist and are independent of $m$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if these assertions hold, then the B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants of $\widehat{s}$ are given by
\[B_{\chi_\alpha}(s_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, s_{\alpha(n)}) = \lim_{N \to \infty}N\cdot\varphi_N(a_{N, m, \alpha(1)}\cdots a_{N, m, \alpha(n)})\]
for all $n \geq 1$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$.
\end{thm}
We now turn our attention to Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Let $\delta_{(0, 0)}$ denote the point mass at the origin of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Consider first the case of measures with compact supports. Given two such measures $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ the \textit{additive bi-Boolean convolution} of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, denoted $\mu_1 \uplus\uplus \mu_2$, is defined to be the measure $\mu$ such that
\[(\mu, \delta_{(0, 0)}) = (\mu_1, \delta_{(0, 0)}) \boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}} (\mu_2, \delta_{(0, 0)}),\]
where $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ denotes the additive c-bi-free convolution. If $\mu$ is a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$, we denote the $(m, n)^{\mathrm{th}}$ moment of $\mu$ by
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) := \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}s^mt^n\,d\mu(s, t).\]
Moreover, since $\mu$ can be realized as the joint distribution of a self-adjoint commuting pair in a $C^*$-probability space, Lemma \ref{Swapping} implies that the B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants of $\mu$ are completely determined by cumulants of the form $B_{m, n}(\mu)$, which can be obtained from the moments of $\mu$ by the bi-Boolean moment-cumulant formula.
For $\lambda > 0$, denote by $D_\lambda\mu$ the dilation of $\mu$ by the factor $\lambda$ (i.e., $D_\lambda\mu(B) = \mu(\lambda^{-1}B)$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$). The probabilistic version of the bi-Boolean central limit theorem states that if ${\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu) = {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu) = 0$, ${\mathbb{M}}_{2, 0}(\mu) = a$, ${\mathbb{M}}_{0, 2}(\mu) = b$, and ${\mathbb{M}}_{1, 1}(\mu) = c$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:CentLimit}
\lim_{N \to \infty}\underbrace{D_{1/\sqrt{N}}\mu \uplus\uplus \cdots \uplus\uplus D_{1/\sqrt{N}}\mu}_{N\,\mathrm{times}} = \mu_{(a, b, c)},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{(a, b, c)}$ has a centred bi-Boolean Gaussian distribution such that the only non-vanishing B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants are $B_{2, 0}(\mu_{(a, b, c)}) = a$, $B_{0, 2}(\mu_{(a, b, c)}) = b$, and $B_{1, 1}(\mu_{(a, b, c)}) = c$.
In analogy with other types of compound Poisson distributions, given $\lambda \geq 0$ and a compactly supported Borel probability measure $\sigma \neq \delta_{(0, 0)}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, the \textit{compound bi-Boolean Poisson distribution} $\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with rate $\lambda$ and jump distribution $\sigma$ is characterized by the requirement that
\[B_{m, n}(\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}) = \lambda\cdot{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\sigma)
\]
for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$. The following compound bi-Boolean Poisson limit theorem justifies the name of $\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}$. The proof easily follows from the additivity of the B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants and the bi-Boolean moment-cumulant formula (see also \cite{GS2016}*{Theorem 6.11} for the c-bi-free version).
\begin{thm}
Let $\lambda \geq 0$ and let $\sigma \neq \delta_{(0, 0)}$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. For $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $\mu_N = \left(1 - \frac{\lambda}{N}\right)\delta_{(0, 0)} + \frac{\lambda}{N}\sigma$. Then $\lim_{N \to \infty}\underbrace{\mu_N \uplus\uplus \cdots \uplus\uplus \mu_N}_{N\,\mathrm{times}} = \pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}$.
\end{thm}
Before moving on to the analytic aspects, we mention that if $\mu$ is a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, then the bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform $\eta_\mu$ of $\mu$ is naturally defined as the B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulant generating series
\[\eta_\mu(z, w) = \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}B_{m, n}(\mu)z^mw^n,\]
which converges absolutely for $|z|$, $|w|$ sufficiently small. However, in view of Theorem \ref{PartialEta} and Remark \ref{PartialSelfEnergy}, we will actually take $E_\mu$ as the linearizing transform with respect to $\uplus\uplus$, which has the advantage of being an analytic function on $({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
\subsection{Analytic aspects}
Recall the \textit{Cauchy transform} of a finite Borel measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by
\[G_\mu(z) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{z - s}\,d\mu(s), \quad z \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}}),\]
which is an analytic function and determines the underlying measure uniquely. Note that $G_\mu(\bar{z}) = \overline{G_\mu(z)}$, thus the behaviour of $G_\mu$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{-}$ is determined by $G_\mu$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{+}$. Denote the reciprocal of $G_\mu$ by $F_\mu$ so that $F_\mu(z) = 1/G_\mu(z)$ for $z \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})$. For $\alpha, \beta > 0$, the \textit{Stolz angle} and \textit{truncated Stolz angle} are defined by
\[\Gamma_\alpha = \{z = x + iy \in {\mathbb{C}}^{+}\,|\,|x| < \alpha y\} \quad\text{and}\quad \Gamma_{\alpha, \beta} = \{z = x + iy \in \Gamma_\alpha\,|\,y > \beta\},\]
respectively. As shown in \cite{BV1993}, for every $\alpha > 0$, there exists a $\beta = \beta(\mu, \alpha) > 0$ such that the compositional inverse $F_\mu^{-1}$ of $F_\mu$ is defined on $\Gamma_{\alpha, \beta}$. The \textit{free Voiculescu transform} of $\mu$ is defined by
\[\phi_\mu(z) = F_\mu^{-1}(z) - z, \quad z \in \Gamma_{\alpha, \beta},\]
which linearizes the additive free convolution $\boxplus$ in the sense that
\[\phi_{\mu_1 \boxplus \mu_2}(z) = \phi_{\mu_1}(z) + \phi_{\mu_2}(z)\]
on the common domain of the three functions involved. On the other hand, as mentioned in Section \ref{sec:transforms} above, the \textit{self-energy} of $\mu$ is defined by
\[E_\mu(z) = z - F_\mu(z), \quad z \in {\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}},\]
which linearizes the additive Boolean convolution $\uplus$ in the sense that
\[E_{\mu_1 \uplus \mu_2}(z) = E_{\mu_1}(z) + E_{\mu_2}(z).\]
In classical probability theory, an important class of measures occurs in connection with the study of limit theorems; namely the class of infinitely divisible measures. Analogously, a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is said to be \textit{$\boxplus$-infinitely divisible} (respectively \textit{$\uplus$-infinitely divisible}) if for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a Borel probability measure $\mu_n$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that
\[\mu = \underbrace{\mu_n \boxplus \cdots \boxplus \mu_n}_{n\,\mathrm{times}} \quad \left(\mathrm{respectively}\,\mu = \underbrace{\mu_n \uplus \cdots \uplus \mu_n}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}\right).\]
It is well-known that the L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula provides a complete charactization of infinitely divisible measures. For the free situation, the most general case was obtained in \cite{BV1993} that a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if there exist a real number $\gamma \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and a finite positive Borel measure $\sigma$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that
\[\phi_\mu(z) = \gamma + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma(s), \quad z \in {\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}}.\]
The pair $(\gamma, \sigma)$ is unique, and every such pair $(\gamma, \sigma)$ determines a $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure, which is usually denoted as $\mu_{\boxplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$ to indicate this correspondence. For the Boolean situation, things are much simpler as every self-energy can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{BooleanLH}
E_\mu(z) = \gamma + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma(s), \quad z \in {\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}}
\end{equation}
for $\gamma \in {\mathbb{R}}$ a real number and $\sigma$ a finite positive Borel measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$, and conversely every such pair $(\gamma, \sigma)$ uniquely determines a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that equation \eqref{BooleanLH} holds. We denote $\mu$ by $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$ in this case, and it follows that all Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}$ are $\uplus$-infinitely divisible. This bijection between the set of $\uplus$-infinitely divisible/all measures and the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures is known as the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection, where a more explicit relation between $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$ and $\mu_{\boxplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$ appears in \cite{BP1999}*{Theorem 6.3} as follows. Note that we have removed the statement about the additive classical convolution (which is actually one of the main results of \cite{BP1999}) as it is irrelevant here.
\begin{thm}
Fix a sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}$, a sequence $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of positive integers with $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n = \infty$, and a pair $(\gamma, \sigma)$ where $\gamma \in {\mathbb{R}}$ is a real number and $\sigma$ is a finite positive Borel measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$. The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \boxplus \cdots \boxplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges weakly to $\mu_{\boxplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$.
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \uplus \cdots \uplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges weakly to $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma, \sigma)}$.
\item The limit
\[\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{s}{1 + s^2}\,d\mu_n(s) = \gamma\]
holds, and the finite positive Borel measures
\[d\sigma_n(s) = k_n\frac{s^2}{1 + s^2}\,d\mu_n(s)\]
converge weakly to $\sigma$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Note that both $\boxplus$ and $\uplus$ can be studied in terms of the additive c-free convolution $\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ which is defined on pairs of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Given such a pair $(\mu, \nu)$, the \textit{c-free Voiculescu transform} of $(\mu, \nu)$ is defined by
\[\Phi_{(\mu, \nu)}(z) = F_{\nu}^{-1}(z) - F_\mu(F_{\nu}^{-1}(z))\]
on a domain where $F_{\nu}^{-1}$ is defined. Given two pairs $(\mu_1, \nu_1)$ and $(\mu_2, \nu_2)$, their additive c-free convolution is another pair $(\mu, \nu)$ where $\nu = \nu_1 \boxplus \nu_2$ and $\mu$ is the unique measure such that
\[\Phi_{(\mu, \nu)}(z) = \Phi_{(\mu_1, \nu_1)}(z) + \Phi_{(\mu_2, \nu_2)}(z)\]
on the common domain of the three involved functions. It is immediate that
\[\Phi_{(\mu, \mu)} = \phi_\mu \quad\text{and}\quad \Phi_{(\mu, \delta_0)} = E_\mu.\]
The notion of $\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$-infinite divisibility is defined analogously, and a c-free L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula was obtained in \cite{K2007}*{Theorem 8.1} in the compactly supported case and extended in full generality in \cite{W2011}*{Theorem 4.1} that given a pair $(\mu, \nu)$ of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}$ with $\nu$ being $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, the pair $(\mu, \nu)$ is $\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$-infinitely divisible if and if there exists a pair $(\gamma, \sigma)$ similar as above such that
\[\Phi_{(\mu, \nu)}(z) = \gamma + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma(s), \quad z \in {\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}}.\]
Next we discuss measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Recall the \textit{Cauchy transform} of a finite positive Borel measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is defined by
\[G_\mu(z, w) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\mu(s, t), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2,\]
and is an analytic function which uniquely determines the underlying measure. Let $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)}$ denote the marginal distributions of $\mu$, namely
\[\mu^{(1)}(B) = \mu(B \times {\mathbb{R}}) \quad\text{and}\quad \mu^{(2)}(B) = \mu({\mathbb{R}} \times B)\]
for all Borel subsets $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$. For $\alpha, \beta > 0$, let $\overline{\Gamma_{\alpha, \beta}} = \{\bar{z}\,|\,z \in \Gamma_{\alpha, \beta}\}$ and set
\[\Omega_{\alpha, \beta} = \left\{(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2\,|\,z, w \in \Gamma_{\alpha, \beta} \cup \overline{\Gamma_{\alpha, \beta}}\right\}.\]
The \textit{bi-free partial Voiculescu transform} of $\mu$ is defined by
\[\phi_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}\phi_{\mu^{(1)}}(z) + \frac{1}{w}\phi_{\mu^{(2)}}(w) + \widetilde{\phi}_\mu(z, w), \quad (z, w) \in \Omega_{\alpha, \beta},\]
for some $\alpha, \beta > 0$, where $\widetilde{\phi}_\mu$ is the \textit{reduced bi-free partial Voiculescu transform} of $\mu$ defined by
\[\widetilde{\phi}_\mu(z, w) = 1 - \frac{1}{zwG_\mu\left(F_{\mu^{(1)}}^{-1}(z), F_{\mu^{(2)}}^{-1}(w)\right)}.\]
The additive bi-free convolution $\boxplus\boxplus$ is characterized by
\[\phi_{\mu_1 \boxplus\boxplus \mu_2}(z, w) = \phi_{\mu_1}(z, w) + \phi_{\mu_2}(z, w)\]
on the common domain of the three functions involved whenever $\mu_1 \boxplus\boxplus \mu_2$ is defined. This is due to the fact that the operation $\boxplus\boxplus$ is only defined for compactly supported and/or infinitely divisible measures as of now. These restrictions are also in place for the operation $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 6} and the operation $\uplus\uplus$ to be considered below. Consequently a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is said to be \textit{$\boxplus\boxplus$-infinitely divisible} if for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exists a Borel probability measure $\mu_n$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\phi_\mu = n\phi_{\mu_n}$ on a common domain of the form $\Omega_{\alpha, \beta}$. The notion of $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$-infinite divisibility for pairs of measures was similarly defined in \cite{GS2016}*{Definition 6.24} in terms of the corresponding linearizing transforms, and hence $\mu$ is said to be \textit{$\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible} if for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $E_\mu = E_{\mu_n}$ (see Definition \ref{defn:partialselfenergy} below) for some $\mu_n$.
As shown in \cites{HW2016, GS2016}, the additive bi-free and c-bi-free limit theorems do not depend on whether or not $\boxplus\boxplus$ and $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ are defined for arbitrary measures. In particular, a bi-free L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula was obtained in \cite{HW2016} demonstrating that a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is $\boxplus\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if there exists a unique quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$, where $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ are real numbers, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are finite positive Borel measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, and $\sigma$ is a finite signed Borel measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\sigma_1(s, t) = \frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t)$,
\item $\frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\sigma_2(s, t) = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t)$,
\item $|\sigma(\{(0, 0)\})|^2 \leq \sigma_1(\{(0, 0)\})\sigma_2(\{(0, 0)\})$,
\end{itemize}
and the bi-free partial Voiculescu transform $\phi_\mu$ of $\mu$ can be continued analytically to $({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$ via
\begin{equation}\label{BiFreeLH}
\begin{split}
\phi_\mu(z, w) &= \frac{1}{z}\left(\gamma_1 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma_1(s, t)\right) + \frac{1}{w}\left(\gamma_2 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1 + tw}{w - t}\,d\sigma_2(s, t)\right)\\
&\quad + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\sigma(s, t).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the marginal distributions $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)}$ of $\mu$ are $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible determined by $\mu^{(1)} = \mu_{\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1^{(1)})}$ and $\mu^{(2)} = \mu_{\boxplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2^{(2)})}$. Conversely, every such quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$ uniquely determines a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that equation \eqref{BiFreeLH} holds, and we denote $\mu$ by $\mu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}$ in analogy with the free and Boolean situations. Similarly, a c-bi-free L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula was obtained in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 6} characterizing $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$-infinitely divisible pairs of measures where each such pair consists of two measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ such that $\nu$ is $\boxplus\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and $\mu$ is determined by a quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$ similar as above.
We now move on to the bi-Boolean situation. As mentioned above, the following function linearizes $\uplus\uplus$ and will be used as the bi-Boolean analogue of $\phi_\mu$.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:partialselfenergy}
Let $\mu$ be a Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The \textit{partial self-energy} of $\mu$ is defined by
\[E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}E_{\mu^{(1)}}(z) + \frac{1}{w}E_{\mu^{(2)}}(w) + \widetilde{E}_\mu(z, w), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2\]
where
\[\widetilde{E}_\mu(z, w) = \frac{G_\mu(z, w)}{G_{\mu^{(1)}}(z)G_{\mu^{(2)}}(w)} - 1.\]
The function $\widetilde{E}_\mu$ will be referred to as the \textit{reduced partial self-energy} of $\mu$.
\end{defn}
Recall that in the one-dimensional situation, the self-energy of a measure is equal to the c-free Voiculescu transform of the measure with $\delta_0$. Similarly, if $\Phi_{(\mu, \nu)}$ denotes the c-bi-free partial Voiculescu transform (as defined in \cite{GS2016}*{Definition 6.15}) of a pair of measures $(\mu, \nu)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, then it is easy to check that $E_\mu = \Phi_{(\mu, \delta_{(0, 0)})}$. Consequently, the results in \cite{GS2016}*{Subsections 6.3 to 6.6} immediately imply the following bi-Boolean analogues by taking the second component to be $\delta_{(0, 0)}$, which we record as follows. Note that by $z \to \infty$ \textit{non-tangentially} we mean $|z| \to \infty$ but $z$ stays within a Stolz angle $\Gamma_\alpha$ for some $\alpha > 0$.
To begin, we have the following basic properties of the partial self-energy function which follow from \cite{GS2016}*{Lemma 6.16, Corollary 6.17, and Proposition 6.18}.
\begin{lem}
If $E_\mu: ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2 \to {\mathbb{C}}$ is the partial self-energy of some Borel probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$, then
\[\lim_{|z| \to \infty}E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{w}E_{\mu^{(2)}}(w),\quad \lim_{|w| \to \infty}E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}E_{\mu^{(1)}}(z), \quad\text{and}\quad \lim_{|z|, |w| \to \infty}E_\mu(z, w) = 0\]
non-tangentially.
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}
If $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are two Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $E_{\mu_1} = E_{\mu_2}$, then $\mu_1 = \mu_2$.
\end{cor}
\begin{prop}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ be a sequence of Borel probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^2$. The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ converges weakly to a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
\item The pointwise limits $\lim_{n \to \infty}E_{\mu_n}(z, w) = E(z, w)$ exist for all $(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$, and the limit $E_{\mu_n}(z, w) \to 0$ holds uniformly in $n$ as $|z|, |w| \to \infty$ non-tangentially.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if these assertions hold, then $E = E_\mu$ on $({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
\end{prop}
Furthermore, \cite{GS2016}*{Theorem 6.19, Proposition 6.20, Theorems 6.23 and 6.25} imply the following additive bi-Boolean limit theorems.
\begin{thm}\label{LimitThm}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ be a sequence of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ be a sequence of positive integers with $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n = \infty$. Assume the sequences $\{[\mu_n^{(1)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ and $\{[\mu_n^{(2)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ converge weakly to $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}$ and $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}$ respectively, where $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ are real numbers, and $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ are finite positive Borel measures on $\mathbb{R}$. The following assertions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The pointwise limits
\[\lim_{n \to \infty}k_nE_{\mu_n}(z, w) = E(z, w)\]
exist for all $(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
\item The pointwise limits
\[\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{st}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\mu_n(s, t) = \widetilde{E}(z, w)\]
exist for all $(z, w) \in (\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})^2$.
\item The finite signed Borel measures
\[d\widetilde{\sigma}_n(s, t) = k_n\frac{st}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\mu_n(s, t)\]
converge weakly to a finite signed Borel measure $\sigma$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if these assertions hold, then the function $\widetilde{E}$ from assertion $(2)$ has a unique integral representation
\[\widetilde{E}(z, w) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\sigma(s, t),\]
and the function $E$ from assertion $(1)$ can be written as
\[E(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}}(z) + \frac{1}{w}E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}}(w) + \widetilde{E}(z, w)\]
for all $(z, w) \in (\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})^2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ and $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ be sequences of measures and positive integers satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{LimitThm}. Assume furthermore that each $\mu_n$ is compactly supported. Then the sequence $\{\mu_n^{\uplus\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ converges weakly to a Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^2$ if and only if the sequences $\{[\mu_n^{(1)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$, $\{[\mu_n^{(2)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$, and $\{\widetilde{\sigma}_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ are weakly convergent, where $\{\widetilde{\sigma}_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ is defined as in assertion $(3)$ of Theorem \ref{LimitThm}. Moreover, if $\{\mu_n^{\uplus\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$, $\{[\mu_n^{(1)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$, $\{[\mu_n^{(2)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$, and $\{\widetilde{\sigma}_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ converge weakly to $\mu$, $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}$, $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}$, and $\sigma$ respectively, then $\mu^{(1)} = \mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}$, $\mu^{(2)} = \mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}$, and
\[G_\mu(z, w) = G_{\mu^{(1)}}(z)G_{\mu^{(2)}}(w)\left(G_{\sigma'}(z, w) + 1\right), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2,\]
where $d\sigma'(s, t) = \sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}\,d\sigma(s, t)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{thm}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ and $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ be sequences of measures and positive integers satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{LimitThm}. If the pointwise limits $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_nE_{\mu_n}(z, w) = E(z, w)$ exist for all $(z, w) \in (\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})^2$, then there exists a unique Borel probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $E = E_\mu$ on $(\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})^2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
Let $\mu$ be a Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^2$ with partial self-energy $E_\mu$. The measure $\mu$ is $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if there exist a sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of Borel probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a sequence $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of positive integers with $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n = \infty$ such that the sequences $\{[\mu_n^{(1)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ and $\{[\mu_n^{(2)}]^{\uplus k_n}\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ converge weakly to $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)}$ respectively, and $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_nE_{\mu_n} = E_\mu$ on $(\mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{R})^2$.
\end{thm}
Consequently, every $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ has a partial self-energy of the form
\[E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}}(z) + \frac{1}{w}E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}}(w) + \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\sigma(s, t), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2,\]
where $\mu^{(1)} = \mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)} = \mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)}$. Note that if $\widehat{\sigma}_1$ is a finite positive Borel measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\widehat{\sigma}_1^{(1)} = \sigma_1$, then
\[\frac{1}{z}E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)}}(z) = \frac{1}{z}\left(\gamma_1 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\widehat{\sigma}_1(s, t)\right).\]
Clearly, such an extension from $\sigma_1$ to $\widehat{\sigma}_1$ is not unique. However, if we impose the additional requirement that
\[\frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\widehat{\sigma}_1(s, t) = \frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t),\]
then it follows from \cite{HW2016}*{Lemma 3.10} that $\widehat{\sigma}_1$ is unique. Similarly, there is a unique finite positive Borel measure $\widehat{\sigma}_2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\widehat{\sigma}_2^{(2)} = \sigma_2$ and
\[\frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\widehat{\sigma}_2(s, t) = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t).\]
Replacing $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ by their unique extensions to ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with the above conditions, every $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\mu$ has a unique quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$ associated to it such that
\begin{equation}\label{BiBooleanLH}
\begin{split}
E_\mu(z, w) &= \frac{1}{z}\left(\gamma_1 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma_1(s, t)\right) + \frac{1}{w}\left(\gamma_2 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{1 + tw}{w - t}\,d\sigma_2(s, t)\right)\\
&\quad + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}{(z - s)(w - t)}\,d\sigma(s, t), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Conversely, it follows from \cite{GS2016}*{Proposition 6.27} that every such quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$ uniquely determines a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that equation \eqref{BiBooleanLH} holds. Therefore, it makes sense to refer to equation \eqref{BiBooleanLH} as the \textit{bi-Boolean L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in representation} of the $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\mu$, and we denote $\mu$ by $\mu_{\uplus\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}$ to indicate this correspondence.
\begin{exam}
All product measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ are $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible. Indeed, if $\mu$ is a Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $\mu = \mu^{(1)} \otimes \mu^{(2)}$, then as $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)}$ are $\uplus$-infinitely divisible and as $\widetilde{E}_\mu \equiv 0$, there exist $(\gamma_1, \sigma_1)$ and $(\gamma_2, \sigma_2)$ such that
\[
E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z}\left(\gamma_1 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1 + sz}{z - s}\,d\sigma_1(s)\right) + \frac{1}{w}\left(\gamma_2 + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1 + tw}{w - t}\,d\sigma_2(t)\right), \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2.
\]
In this case, it is easy to see that $E_\mu/n$ is the partial self-energy of the measure $\mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_1/n, \sigma_1/n)} \otimes \mu_{\uplus}^{(\gamma_2/n, \sigma_2/n)}$ for $n \geq 1$.
In general, more examples of $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible measures can be obtained from the $\boxplus\boxplus$-infinitely divisible ones (e.g., the bi-free central and Poisson limits from \cite{HW2016}) via the two-dimensional Bercovici-Pata bijection (Theorem \ref{TDBP}) below. For instance, if $\mu$ denotes the bi-Boolean Gaussian distribution $\mu_{(1, 1, c)}$ from equation \eqref{eqn:CentLimit} above, then
\[E_\mu(z, w) = \frac{1}{z^2} + \frac{1}{w^2} + \frac{c}{zw}, \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2.\]
It is known (see \cite{SW1997}*{Section 3}) that $\mu^{(1)} = \mu^{(2)}$ is the Bernoulli distribution $\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{-1} + \delta_1)$ with Cauchy transform $G_{\mu^{(j)}}(z) = \frac{z}{z^2 - 1}$, from which we obtain
\[G_\mu(z, w) = \frac{c + zw}{(z^2 - 1)(w^2 - 1)}, \quad (z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2,\]
and the Stieltjes inversion formula (see, e.g., \cite{HW2016}*{Section 2}) gives
\begin{align*}
d\mu(s, t) &= -\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0^+}[G_\mu(s + i\varepsilon, t + i\varepsilon) - G_\mu(s + i\varepsilon, t - i\varepsilon) - G_\mu(s - i\varepsilon, t + i\varepsilon) + G_\mu(s - i\varepsilon, t - i\varepsilon)]dsdt\\
&= \frac{1}{\pi^2}\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0^+}\left[\frac{\varepsilon^2[4cst + (s^2 + \varepsilon^2 + 1)(t^2 + \varepsilon^2 + 1)]}{[s^4 + 2s^2(\varepsilon^2 - 1) + \varepsilon^2(\varepsilon^2 + 2) + 1][t^4 + 2t^2(\varepsilon^2 - 1) + \varepsilon^2(\varepsilon^2 + 2) + 1]}\right]dsdt.
\end{align*}
The above formula shows that the measure $\mu$ vanishes outside of the square $\{(s, t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2\,:\,|s| = 1, |t| = 1\}$, and the uncorrelated case (i.e., $c = 0$) corresponds to $\mu = \frac{1}{2}(\delta_{-1} + \delta_1) \otimes \frac{1}{2}(\delta_{-1} + \delta_{1})$.
\end{exam}
\subsection{Some Bercovici-Pata type bijections}
The discussion in the previous subsection together with results in \cites{GS2016, HW2016} imply some two-dimensional Bercovici-Pata type bijections, which are summarized as follows. Note that we implicitly assume the additive convolutions are well-defined, which is the case at least for compactly supported and/or infinitely divisible measures. The limiting distributions, on the other hand, are allowed to have unbounded supports.
\begin{thm}\label{TDBP}
Fix a sequence $\{\mu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of Borel probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^2$, a sequence $\{k_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ of positive integers with $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n = \infty$, a quintuple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)$, where $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ are real numbers, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are finite positive Borel measures on $\mathbb{R}^2$, and $\sigma$ is a finite signed Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\sigma_1(s, t) = \frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t)$,
\item $\frac{s}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}}\,d\sigma_2(s, t) = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\sigma(s, t)$,
\item $|\sigma(\{(0, 0)\})|^2 \leq \sigma_1(\{(0, 0)\})\sigma_2(\{(0, 0)\})$.
\end{itemize}
The following assertions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \boxplus\boxplus \cdots \boxplus\boxplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges weakly to $\mu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}$.
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \uplus\uplus \cdots \uplus\uplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges weakly to $\mu_{\uplus\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}$.
\item The limits
\[\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{s}{1 + s^2}\,d\mu_n(s, t) = \gamma_1 \quad\text{and}\quad \lim_{n \to \infty}k_n\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{t}{1 + t^2}\,d\mu_n(s, t) = \gamma_2\]
hold, the finite positive Borel measures
\[d\sigma_{n}^{(1)}(s) = k_n\frac{s^2}{1 + s^2}\,d\mu_n^{(1)}(s) \quad\text{and}\quad d\sigma_{n}^{(2)}(t) = k_n\frac{t^2}{1 + t^2}\,d\mu_n^{(2)}(t)\]
converge weakly to $\sigma_1^{(1)}$ and $\sigma_2^{(2)}$ respectively, and the finite signed Borel measures
\[d\widetilde{\sigma}_n(s, t) = k_n\frac{st}{\sqrt{1 + s^2}\sqrt{1 + t^2}}\,d\mu_n(s, t)\]
converge weakly to $\sigma$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if these assertions hold, then
\[\phi_{\mu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}}(z, w) = E_{\mu_{\uplus\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}}(z, w)\]
for all $(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence of assertions $(1)$ and $(3)$ was achieved in \cite{HW2016}, and the equivalence of assertions $(2)$ and $(3)$ follow from the one-dimensional Bercovici-Pata bijection and the results in the previous subsection.
\end{proof}
If in addition $\{\nu_n\}_{n = 1}^\infty$ is another sequence of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that the sequence
\[\underbrace{\nu_n \boxplus\boxplus \cdots \boxplus\boxplus \nu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}\]
converges weakly to some $\boxplus\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\nu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1', \gamma_2', \sigma_1', \sigma_2', \sigma')}$, then the results in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 6} imply that assertion $(2)$ of Theorem \ref{TDBP} is equivalent to the weak convergence of the sequence
\[\underbrace{(\mu_n, \nu_n) \boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}} \cdots \boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}} (\mu_n, \nu_n)}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}\]
to $(\mu, \nu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1', \gamma_2', \sigma_1', \sigma_2', \sigma')})$ for some Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. In this case, the pair $(\mu, \nu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1', \gamma_2', \sigma_1', \sigma_2', \sigma')})$ is $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$-infinitely divisible and
\[\Phi_{(\mu, \nu_{\boxplus\boxplus}^{(\gamma_1', \gamma_2', \sigma_1', \sigma_2', \sigma')})}(z, w) = E_{\mu_{\uplus\uplus}^{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma)}}(z, w)\]
for all $(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
We conclude this section with an example/counterexample. As mentioned above, all Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}$ are $\uplus$-infinitely divisible. On the other hand, given a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, due to the (relatively) simple form of $E_\mu$ (compared to $\phi_\mu$ for example) as given in Definition \ref{defn:partialselfenergy}, it is tempting to hypothesize that all Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ are $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible. However, this is not true as illustrated by the following example. Consequently, the bi-Boolean L\'{e}vy-Hin\v{c}in formula \eqref{BiBooleanLH} best characterizes the class of $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
\begin{exam}
Let $\mu$ be the probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined by
\[\mu = \frac{1}{2}\delta_{(1, 0)} + \frac{1}{2}\delta_{(0, 1)}.\]
Then for $p, q \geq 0$, the $(p, q)^{\mathrm{th}}$ moment of $\mu$ is given by
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{p, q}(\mu) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}s^pt^q\,d\mu(s, t) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } p = q = 0\\
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if } (p, q) \in \{(k, 0), (0, k)\,\mid\,k \geq 1\}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\]
Using the bi-Boolean moment-cumulant formula \eqref{BB-M-C}, it is easy to compute some of the low order B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants, which are given as follows:
\[B_{1, 0}(\mu) = B_{0, 1}(\mu) = \frac{1}{2}, \quad B_{2, 0}(\mu) = B_{0, 2}(\mu) = \frac{1}{4}, \quad B_{1, 1}(\mu) = -\frac{1}{4},\]
\[B_{2, 1}(\mu) = B_{1, 2}(\mu) = -\frac{1}{8}, \quad\text{and}\quad B_{2, 2}(\mu) = -\frac{1}{16}.\]
If $\mu$ is $\uplus\uplus$-infinitely divisible, then for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a probability measure $\mu_n$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ such that $E_\mu = nE_{\mu_n}$, and hence
\[B_{p, q}(\mu_n) = \frac{1}{n}B_{p, q}(\mu)\]
for all $p, q \geq 0$. Consequently, we have that
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{M}}_{2, 2}(\mu_n) &= B_{2, 2}(\mu_n) + B_{2, 1}(\mu_n)B_{0, 1}(\mu_n) + B_{1, 0}(\mu_n)B_{1, 2}(\mu_n) + B_{2, 0}(\mu_n)B_{0, 2}(\mu_n)\\
& \quad + B_{2, 0}(\mu_n)B_{1, 0}(\mu_n)^2 + B_{1, 0}(\mu_n)B_{1, 1}(\mu_n)B_{0, 1}(\mu_n) + B_{1, 0}(\mu_n)^2B_{0, 2}(\mu_n) + B_{1, 0}(\mu_n)^2B_{0, 1}(\mu_n)^2\\
&= -\frac{1}{16n} - \frac{1}{16n^2} - \frac{1}{16n^2} + \frac{1}{16n^2} + \frac{1}{16n^3} - \frac{1}{16n^3} + \frac{1}{16n^3} + \frac{1}{16n^4}\\
&= -\frac{1}{16n} - \frac{1}{16n^2} + \frac{1}{16n^3} + \frac{1}{16n^4}
\end{align*}
which is negative for $n > 1$, contradicting the assumption that $\mu_n$ is a positive measure.
\end{exam}
\section{Additive bi-Fermi convolution}\label{sec:bifermi}
In this section, we consider another special case of the additive c-bi-free convolution.
\subsection{Additive Fermi convolution}
In \cite{O2002}, Oravecz defined the additive Fermi convolution using the additive Boolean convolution with shifts, and it was shown in \cite{O2004} that the two convolutions are minimal in a certain sense in terms of the corresponding combinatorics. For simplicity, we assume all measures are compactly supported Borel probability measures so that all moments are finite. Given two such measures $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ let $\widetilde{\mu}_j$ denote the zero-mean shift of $\mu_j$; that is,
\[d\widetilde{\mu}_j(s) = d\mu_j(s + {\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_j)).
\]
The \textit{additive Fermi convolution} of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, denoted $\mu_1 \bullet \mu_2$, is defined by
\[d\mu_1 \bullet \mu_2(s) = d\mu(s - ({\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_2))),\]
where $\mu = \widetilde{\mu}_1 \uplus \widetilde{\mu}_2$ is the additive Boolean convolution of $\widetilde{\mu}_1$ and $\widetilde{\mu}_2$. Equivalently, $\mu_1 \bullet \mu_2$ can be defined in terms of the additive c-free convolution as
\[(\mu_1 \bullet \mu_2, \delta_{{\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_2)}) = (\mu_1, \delta_{{\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_1)}) \boxplus_{\mathrm{c}} (\mu_2, \delta_{{\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu_2)}).\]
On the combinatorial side, the \textit{Fermi cumulants} of a given compactly supported Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is the sequence $\{\gamma_n(\mu)\}_{n \geq 1}$ defined by
\[{\mathbb{M}}_n(\mu) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{I}}(n)}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V|}(\mu)\right)\]
for all $n \geq 1$, where ${\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{I}}(n)$ denotes the set of \textit{almost interval partitions} of $\{1, \dots, n\}$; that is, if $\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{I}}(n)$, then $\pi$ does not contain inner blocks other than singletons. As shown in \cite{O2002}*{Corollary 2.1},
\[\gamma_n(\mu_1 \bullet \mu_2) = \gamma_n(\mu_1) + \gamma_n(\mu_2)\]
for all $n \geq 1$, which justifies the name `Fermi cumulants'. On the analytic side, the linearizing transform with respect to $\bullet$ is
\[H_\mu(z) = \sum_{n \geq 1}\gamma_n(\mu)z^n\]
and it follows from \cite{O2002}*{Proposition 2.1} that
\[H_\mu(z) = {\mathbb{M}}_1(\mu)z + \eta_{\widetilde{\mu}}(z),\]
where $\widetilde{\mu}$ denotes the zero-mean shift of $\mu$.
\subsection{Bi-Fermi cumulants and transform}
In view of the relation between the additive Fermi and c-free convolutions, we define the additive bi-Fermi convolution as follows. Recall that for $\mu$ a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$, we denote the $(m, n)^{\mathrm{th}}$ moment of $\mu$ by ${\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu)$.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be compactly supported Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The \textit{additive bi-Fermi convolution} of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, denoted $\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2$, is defined by
\[(\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2, \delta_{({\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_2), {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_2))}) = (\mu_1, \delta_{({\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_1), {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_1))}) \boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}} (\mu_2, \delta_{({\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_2), {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_2))}),\]
where $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ denotes the additive c-bi-free convolution.
\end{defn}
Like the additive Fermi convolution, $\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2$ can be equivalently defined using the additive bi-Boolean convolution as follows: Let
\[d\widetilde{\mu}_j(s, t) = d\mu_j(s + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_j), t + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_j))\]
for $j = 1, 2$, then $\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2$ is defined by
\[d\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2(s, t) = d\mu(s - ({\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu_2)), t - ({\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_1) + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu_2))),\]
where $\mu = \widetilde{\mu}_1 \uplus\uplus \widetilde{\mu}_2$ is the additive bi-Boolean convolution of $\widetilde{\mu}_1$ and $\widetilde{\mu}_2$. As will be seen below, it is more convenient to work with this definition in terms of $\uplus\uplus$, but we choose to define $\bullet\bullet$ in terms of $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$ because it does not involve any shifts, and $\uplus\uplus$ is itself a special case of $\boxplus\boxplus_{\mathrm{c}}$.
To define the cumulants corresponding to the additive bi-Fermi convolution, we introduce the following set of partitions.
\begin{defn}
Let $n \geq 1$ and $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$. A partition $\pi$ of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ is said to be an \textit{almost bi-interval partition} (with respect to $\chi$) if $s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{I}}(n)$. Equivalently, $\pi$ is an almost bi-interval partition if $\pi$ does not contain interior blocks other than singletons. The set of almost bi-interval partitions is denoted by ${\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$.
\end{defn}
Note that both $0_\chi$ and $1_\chi$ are elements of ${\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$, but ${\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ is not a lattice (with respect to the partial order $\leq$ of refinement) for the same reason that ${\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{I}}(n)$ is not a lattice. Moreover, if $V$ is a block of $\pi$, then denote
\[V_\ell := V \cap \chi^{-1}(\{\ell\}) \quad\text{and}\quad V_r := V \cap \chi^{-1}(\{r\}).\]
Finally, recall that for $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$, $\chi_{m, n}: \{1, \dots, m + n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is the map such that $\chi_{m, n}(k) = \ell$ if $k \leq m$ and $\chi_{m, n}(k) = r$ if $k > m$.
\begin{defn}\label{BiFermiCumulants}
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The \textit{bi-Fermi cumulants} of $\mu$ is the sequence $\{\gamma_{m, n}(\mu)\}_{m, n \geq 0, m + n \geq 1}$ defined by
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\mu)\right)\]
for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$.
\end{defn}
Note that if $\mu$ has zero-mean marginal distributions then
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{m, n})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\mu)\right),\]
where ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{m, n})$ denotes the set of bi-interval partitions with respect to $\chi_{m, n}$ without any singletons. On the other hand, we have that
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{m, n})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}B_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\mu)\right),\]
where $\{B_{m, n}(\mu)\}_{m, n \geq 0, m + n \geq 1}$ denotes the set of B-$(\ell, r)$-cumulants of $\mu$. Hence, in this case, $\gamma_{m, n}(\mu) = B_{m, n}(\mu)$ for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$.
Note that as shown in \cite{O2002}*{Proposition 2.1}, we have that $\gamma_{m, 0}(\mu) = \gamma_{m, 0}(\widetilde{\mu})$ and $\gamma_{0, n}(\mu) = \gamma_{0, n}(\widetilde{\mu})$ for all $m, n \geq 2$. Therefore, the following shows that for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 2$, we have that $\gamma_{m, n}(\mu) = B_{m, n}(\widetilde{\mu})$, while $\gamma_{1, 0}(\mu) = {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu)$, $\gamma_{0, 1}(\mu) = {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)$, and $B_{1, 0}(\widetilde{\mu}) = B_{0, 1}(\widetilde{\mu}) = 0$.
\begin{prop}\label{ZeroMeanShift}
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and define $\widetilde{\mu}$ by
\[d\widetilde{\mu}(s, t) = d\mu(s + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu), t + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)).\]
Then $\gamma_{m, n}(\mu) = \gamma_{m, n}(\widetilde{\mu})$ for all $m, n \geq 1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For $m, n \geq 1$, we have that
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) &= \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\mu)\right) \\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^m\sum_{q = 0}^n\binom{m}{m - p}\binom{n}{n - q}{\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu)^{m - p}{\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)^{n - q}\sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{p, q})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\mu)\right)
\end{align*}
by Definition \ref{BiFermiCumulants} whereas, since $\widetilde{\mu}$ has zero-mean marginal distributions, we have that
\[{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\widetilde{\mu}) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{m, n})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\widetilde{\mu})\right).\]
On the other hand, we have that
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\mu) &= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}s^mt^n\,d\mu(s, t)\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}s^mt^n\,d\widetilde{\mu}(s - {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu), t - {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu))^m(y + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))^n\,d\widetilde{\mu}(x, y)\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\sum_{p = 0}^m\binom{m}{p}x^p{\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu)^{m - p}\sum_{q = 0}^n\binom{n}{q}y^q{\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)^{n - q}\,d\widetilde{\mu}(s, t)\\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^m\sum_{q = 0}^n\binom{m}{p}\binom{n}{q}{\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu)^{m - p}{\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)^{n - q}{\mathbb{M}}_{p, q}(\widetilde{\mu})\\
&= \sum_{p = 0}^m\sum_{q = 0}^n\binom{m}{p}\binom{n}{q}{\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu)^{m - p}{\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu)^{n - q}\sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}^*(\chi_{p, q})}\left(\prod_{V \in \pi}\gamma_{|V_\ell|, |V_r|}(\widetilde{\mu})\right).
\end{align*}
Thus the result follows by induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be compactly supported Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, we have that
\[\gamma_{m, n}(\mu_1 \bullet\bullet \mu_2) = \gamma_{m, n}(\mu_1) + \gamma_{m, n}(\mu_2)\]
for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$.
\end{cor}
In view of the above corollary, the linearizing transform with respect to the additive bi-Fermi convolution is defined as follows.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The \textit{bi-Fermi transform} of $\mu$ is defined by
\[H_\mu(z, w) = \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}\gamma_{m, n}(\mu)z^mw^n.\]
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The bi-Fermi transform $H_\mu$ of $\mu$ is given by
\[H_\mu(z, w) = H_{\mu^{(1)}}(z) + H_{\mu^{(2)}}(w) + \frac{G_\mu(1/z + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu), 1/w + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))}{G_{\mu^{(1)}}(1/z + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu))G_{\mu^{(2)}}(1/w + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))} - 1\]
for $(z, w) \in ({\mathbb{C}} \setminus {\mathbb{R}})^2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu^{(1)}$ and $\mu^{(2)}$ be the marginal distributions of $\mu$, we have that
\[H_\mu(z, w) = H_{\mu^{(1)}}(z) + H_{\mu^{(2)}}(w) + \sum_{m, n \geq 1}\gamma_{m, n}(\mu)z^mw^n.\]
Moreover, with $\widetilde{\mu}$ as defined in Proposition \ref{ZeroMeanShift}, we have by Theorem \ref{PartialEta}that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{m, n \geq 1}\gamma_{m, n}(\mu)z^mw^n = \sum_{m, n \geq 1}\gamma_{m, n}(\widetilde{\mu})z^mw^n &= \sum_{m, n \geq 1}B_{m, n}(\widetilde{\mu})z^mw^n \\
&= \frac{G_{\widetilde{\mu}}(1/z, 1/w)}{G_{\widetilde{\mu}^{(1)}}(z)G_{\widetilde{\mu}^{(2)}}(w)} - 1\\
&= \frac{G_\mu(1/z + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu), 1/w + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))}{G_{\mu^{(1)}}(1/z + {\mathbb{M}}_{1, 0}(\mu))G_{\mu^{(2)}}(1/w + {\mathbb{M}}_{0, 1}(\mu))} - 1
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Limit theorems}
In terms of limit theorems, if the measures have zero-mean marginal distributions, then the additive bi-Fermi convolution coincides with the additive bi-Boolean convolution, and thus the bi-Fermi central limit theorem and centred bi-Fermi Gaussian distributions are same as the bi-Boolean ones. For Poisson type limit theorems, recall that a compactly supported Borel probability measure $\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is said to have a compound bi-Boolean Poisson distribution with rate $\lambda \geq 0$ and jump distribution $\sigma \neq \delta_{(0, 0)}$ if
\[B_{m, n}(\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\uplus\uplus}) = \lambda\cdot{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\sigma)\]
for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$. Analogously, a compound bi-Fermi Poisson distribution $\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\bullet\bullet}$ with rate $\lambda \geq 0$ and jump distribution $\sigma \neq \delta_{(0, 0)}$ is characterized by the requirement that
\[\gamma_{m, n}(\pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\bullet\bullet}) = \lambda\cdot{\mathbb{M}}_{m, n}(\sigma)\]
for all $m, n \geq 0$ with $m + n \geq 1$. For simplicity, let $\sigma = \delta_{(1, 1)}$ so that
\[\eta_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus}}(z, w) = H_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet}}(z, w) = \frac{\lambda z}{1 - z} + \frac{\lambda w}{1 - w} + \frac{\lambda zw}{(1 - z)(1 - w)}.\]
Therefore
\[\frac{G_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus}}(1/z, 1/w)}{G_{(\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus})^{(1)}}(1/z)G_{(\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus})^{(2)}}(1/w)} = \frac{G_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet}}(1/z + \lambda, 1/w + \lambda)}{G_{(\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet})^{(1)}}(1/z + \lambda)G_{(\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet})^{(2)}}(1/w + \lambda)} = \frac{\lambda zw}{(1 - z)(1 - w)} +1.\]
Hence, the distributions of $\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus}$ and $\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet}$ are quite different since
\[G_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\uplus\uplus}}(z, w) = \frac{\lambda + (z - 1)(w - 1)}{zw(z - 1 - \lambda)(w - 1 - \lambda)},\]
whereas
\[G_{\pi_{\lambda, \delta_{(1, 1)}}^{\bullet\bullet}}(z, w) = \frac{\lambda + (z - 1 - \lambda)(w - 1 - \lambda)}{((z - \lambda)^2 - z)((w - \lambda)^2 - w)}.\]
Using the additivity of the bi-Fermi cumulants, the following compound bi-Fermi Poisson limit theorem can be easily obtained.
\begin{thm}
Let $\lambda \geq 0$ and let $\sigma \neq \delta_{(0, 0)}$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. For $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $\mu_N = \left(1 - \frac{\lambda}{N}\right)\delta_{(0, 0)} + \frac{\lambda}{N}\sigma$. Then $\lim_{N \to \infty}\underbrace{\mu_N \bullet\bullet \cdots \bullet\bullet \mu_N}_{N\,\mathrm{times}} = \pi_{\lambda, \sigma}^{\bullet\bullet}$.
\end{thm}
\section{Connection with bi-free independence}\label{sec:bifreeness}
In this section, we extend some of the results in \cite{BN2008-1} to pairs of algebras. Due to similar lattice structures, most of the combinatorial arguments for ${\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$ immediately generalize to ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$. In that which follows, a general two-faced family will be denoted as $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$, and an arbitrary $n$-tuple of elements from $\widehat{a}$ is recorded by a map $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$ so that $\alpha$ corresponds to $(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)})$. In this case, the corresponding map $\chi_\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is defined by $\chi_\alpha(k) = \ell$ if $\alpha(k) \in I$ and $\chi_\alpha(k) = r$ if $\alpha(k) \in J$ for $1 \leq k \leq n$.
\subsection{A two-faced extension of the maps $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathrm{Reta}$}
In \cite{BN2008-1}, Belinschi and Nica introduced two bijections, $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathrm{Reta}$, where $\mathbb{B}$ is a multi-variable analogue of the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection and $\mathrm{Reta}$ is a bijection which converts the free ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform to the Boolean $\eta$-transform. Various properties of $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathrm{Reta}$ were proved including an explicit formula describing $\mathrm{Reta}$. The goal of this subsection is to extend these maps to the two-faced setting.
Denote by ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(I \sqcup J)$ the set of all joint distributions of two-faced families with left index set $I$ and right index set $J$, which is naturally identified as the set of unital linear functionals from ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$. On the other hand, denote by ${\mathbb{C}}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$ the set of series with complex coefficients in the non-commuting indeterminates $\{z_k\}_{k \in I \sqcup J}$ with vanishing constant term.
\begin{defn}\label{MultiTransforms}
Let $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ be a two-faced family in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$. We define the following series in ${\mathbb{C}}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The \textit{moment series} of $\widehat{a}$ is
\[M_{\widehat{a}}= \sum_{n \geq 1}\sum_{\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J}\varphi(a_{\alpha(1)}\cdots a_{\alpha(n)})z_{\alpha(1)}\cdots z_{\alpha(n)}.\]
\item The \textit{bi-free ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform} of $\widehat{a}$ is
\[{\mathcal{R}}_{\widehat{a}}= \sum_{n \geq 1}\sum_{\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J}\kappa_{\chi_\alpha}(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)})z_{\alpha(1)}\cdots z_{\alpha(n)}.\]
\item The \textit{bi-Boolean $\eta$-transform} of $\widehat{a}$ is
\[\eta_{\widehat{a}}= \sum_{n \geq 1}\sum_{\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J}B_{\chi_\alpha}(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)})z_{\alpha(1)}\cdots z_{\alpha(n)}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Note given a series $f \in \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$, one can always find some $\widehat{a}$ in $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ such that $M_{\widehat{a}} = f$ (or ${\mathcal{R}}_{\widehat{a}} = f$ or $\eta_{\widehat{a}} = f$) by taking ${\mathcal{A}} = {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle$, $a_k = Z_k$, and define $\varphi(a_{\alpha(1)}\cdots a_{\alpha(n)})$ (respectively $\kappa_{\chi_{\alpha}}(a_{\alpha(1)},\ldots, a_{\alpha(n)})$, respectively $B_{\chi_{\alpha}}(a_{\alpha(1)},\ldots, a_{\alpha(n)})$) to be the coefficient of $z_{\alpha(1)}\cdots z_{\alpha(n)}$ in $f$. Consequently, the maps
\[M, {\mathcal{R}}, \eta: {\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J) \to \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle\]
are bijections.
\begin{defn}
Let $I$ and $J$ be disjoint index sets. The maps $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathrm{bReta}$ are bijections
\[\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}: {\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J) \to {\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J) \quad\text{and}\quad \mathrm{bReta}: \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle \to \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle\]
defined by $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B} = {\mathcal{R}}^{-1} \circ \eta$ and $\mathrm{bReta} = \eta \circ {\mathcal{R}}^{-1}$.
\end{defn}
Following \cite{BN2008-1}*{Definition 3.2}, if $f \in \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$, then $\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n))}(f)$ denotes the coefficient of $z_{\alpha(1)}\cdots z_{\alpha(n)}$ in $f$. More generally, if $\pi$ is a partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, then $\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)); \pi}(f)$ denotes the product
\[\prod_{V \in \pi}\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n))|_V}(f),\]
which is in general not a coefficient in $f$. In deriving an explicit formula relating the coefficients of $f$ to those of $\mathrm{bReta}(f)$ for $f \in \mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$, the following partial order on bi-non-crossing partitions will be used.
\begin{defn}
Let $n \geq 1$ and $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$. For two bi-non-crossing partitions $\sigma$ and $\pi$ in ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, we write $\sigma \ll_\chi \pi$ to mean that $\sigma \leq \pi$ and, in addition, for every block $V$ of $\pi$, there exists a block $W$ of $\sigma$ such that $\min_{\prec_\chi}(V), \max_{\prec_\chi}(V) \in W$.
\end{defn}
Note that if $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ is constant, then $\sigma, \pi \in {\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(n)$ and $\ll_\chi$ is exactly the partial order $\ll$ inroduced in \cite{BN2008-1}*{Definition 2.5}.
\begin{prop}\label{bRetaFormula}
Let $f$ and $g$ be series in $\mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$ such that $\mathrm{bReta}(f) = g$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item For all $n \geq 1$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$, we have that
\[\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n))}(g) = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)\\\pi \ll_{\chi_\alpha} 1_{\chi_\alpha}}}\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)); \pi}(f).\]
\item For all $n \geq 1$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$, we have that
\[\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n))}(f) = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)\\\pi \ll_{\chi_\alpha} 1_{\chi_\alpha}}}(-1)^{|\pi| - 1}\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)); \pi}(g).\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is identical to that in \cite{BN2008-1}*{Proposition 3.9} once permutations are applied and thus is omitted.
\end{proof}
Returning to the transforms introduced in Definition \ref{MultiTransforms}, note that the operations $\boxplus\boxplus$ and $\uplus\uplus$ can be defined on ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J)$ by the requirements that for $\mu, \nu \in {\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J)$, $\mu \boxplus\boxplus \nu$ and $\mu \uplus\uplus \nu$ are the unique elements of ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J)$ such that ${\mathcal{R}}_{\mu \boxplus\boxplus \nu} = {\mathcal{R}}_{\mu} + {\mathcal{R}}_{\nu}$ and $\eta_{\mu \uplus\uplus \nu} = \eta_{\mu} + \eta_{\nu}$. Using Proposition \ref{bRetaFormula}, a mutli-variable version of the equivalence of assertions $(1)$ and $(2)$ in Theorem \ref{TDBP} can be easily obtained in the current algebraic framework. The proof is nearly identical to the one-sided case considered in \cite{BN2008-1}*{Section 5}, and hence omitted.
\begin{prop}
Let $\{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence in ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(I \sqcup J)$ and $\{k_n\}_{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence of positive integers with $\lim_{n \to \infty}k_n = \infty$. The following assertions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \boxplus\boxplus \cdots \boxplus\boxplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges in moments to some $\mu \in {\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(I \sqcup J)$.
\item The sequence $\underbrace{\mu_n \uplus\uplus \cdots \uplus\uplus \mu_n}_{k_n\,\mathrm{times}}$ converges in moments to some $\nu \in {\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(I \sqcup J)$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if these assertions hold, then $\mu = \mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\nu)$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{The twisted multiplicative bi-free convolution}
The second main result of \cite{BN2008-1} concerns a special property of $\mathbb{B}$; namely that $\mathbb{B}$ is a homomorphism with respect to the multiplicative free convolution $\boxtimes$. It is thus natural to expect that a similar property holds for $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}$. However, it turns out that $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}$ is not a homomorphism with respect to the `usual' multiplicative bi-free convolution $\boxtimes\boxtimes$ in the literature (see \cites{V2016, S2016-1}) but with respect to the one in \cites{CNS2015-1, CNS2015-2}. Consequently, we consider the following operation.
\begin{defn}
Let $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ and $\widehat{b} = ((b_i)_{i \in I}, (b_j)_{j \in J})$ be bi-free two-faced families in a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ with joint distributions $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{b}}$ respectively. The \textit{twisted multiplicative bi-free convolution} of $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{b}}$, denoted $\mu_{\widehat{a}} \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \mu_{\widehat{b}}$, is defined to be the joint distribution of the two-faced family $((a_ib_i)_{i \in I}, (b_ja_j)_{j \in J})$.
\end{defn}
Note that the usual multiplicative bi-free convolution $\mu_{\widehat{a}} \boxtimes\boxtimes \mu_{\widehat{b}}$ of $\mu_{\widehat{a}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{b}}$ is defined to be the joint distribution of the two-faced family $((a_ib_i)_{i \in I}, (a_jb_j)_{j \in J})$. On the other hand, this twisted multiplicative bi-free convolution is not new, and has been previously considered in \cites{CNS2015-1, CNS2015-2} for the following reason. In \cite{NS1996}, the operation of \textit{boxed convolution} $\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}$ was defined using the Kreweras complementation map $K_{{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}$ on the lattice of non-crossing partitions, which plays an important role in proving the mentioned property of $\mathbb{B}$. On the other hand, the \textit{bi-non-crossing Kreweras complementation map} $K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}$ on the lattice of bi-non-crossing partitions was defined in \cite{CNS2015-1}*{Definition 5.1.1} by
\[K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi) = s_\chi\cdot K_{{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(s_\chi^{-1}\cdot\pi)\]
for $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ and $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$. As shown in \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Proposition 9.2.1}, the map $K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}$ can be used to compute the twisted multiplicative bi-free convolution as follows. If $\widehat{a} = ((a_i)_{i \in I}, (a_j)_{j \in J})$ and $\widehat{b} = ((b_i)_{i \in I}, (b_j)_{j \in J})$ are bi-free, then
\begin{equation}\label{Kreweras}
\kappa_{\chi_\alpha}(c_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, c_{\alpha(n)}) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)}\kappa_{\pi}(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)})\cdot\kappa_{K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi)}(b_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, b_{\alpha(n)})
\end{equation}
for $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$, where $c_{\alpha(k)} = a_{\alpha(k)}b_{\alpha(k)}$ if $\alpha(k) \in I$ and $c_{\alpha(k)} = b_{\alpha(k)}a_{\alpha(k)}$ if $\alpha(k) \in J$ for $1 \leq k \leq n$. This motivates us to define following operation on ${\mathbb{C}}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$.
\begin{defn}
Let $f$ and $g$ be series in ${\mathbb{C}}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$. The series $f\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,g$ in $\mathbb{C}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$ is defined by
\[\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n))}(f\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,g) = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)}\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)); \pi}(f)\cdot\mathrm{Cf}_{(\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)); K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi)}(g)\]
for all $n \geq 1$ and $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$.
\end{defn}
Note that if $\mu, \nu \in {\mathcal{D}}_\mathrm{alg}(I \sqcup J)$, then
\[{\mathcal{R}}_{\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu} = {\mathcal{R}}_{\mu}\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,{\mathcal{R}}_{\nu}\]
by equation \eqref{Kreweras}. Moreover, if $\pi \leq \rho \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, then the \textit{relative bi-non-crossing Kreweras complement} of $\pi$ in $\rho$, denoted $K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}; \rho}(\pi)$, is defined by
\[K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}; \rho}(\pi) = \{K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi|_V)\}_{V \in \rho},\]
where for every block $V$ of $\rho$, $K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}}(\pi|_V)$ is the bi-non-crossing Kreweras complement of $\pi|V$ (which is a bi-non-crossing partition with respect to $\chi|_V$). Under this notion, equation \eqref{Kreweras} can be generalized to
\[\kappa_{\rho}(c_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, c_{\alpha(n)}) = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)\\\pi \leq \rho}}\kappa_{\pi}(a_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, a_{\alpha(n)})\cdot\kappa_{K_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}; \rho}(\pi)}(b_{\alpha(1)}, \dots, b_{\alpha(n)})\]
for $\alpha: \{1, \dots, n\} \to I \sqcup J$ and $\rho \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi_\alpha)$. We are now ready to present the main result of this subsection whose proof trivially follows that of \cite{BN2008-1}*{Theorem 7.2} with a permutation.
\begin{thm}\label{BN2008-1Thm7.2}
For two series $f$ and $g$ in ${\mathbb{C}}_0\langle\!\langle z_k : k \in I \sqcup J\rangle\!\rangle$, we have that
\[\mathrm{bReta}(f\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,g) = \mathrm{bReta}(f)\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,\mathrm{bReta}(g).\]
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}
For any two distributions $\mu$ and $\nu$ in ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(I \sqcup J)$, $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu) = \mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu) \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\nu)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{BN2008-1Thm7.2}, we have that
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{R}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu)} &= \eta_{\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu}\\
&= \mathrm{bReta}({\mathcal{R}}_{\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu})\\
&= \mathrm{bReta}({\mathcal{R}}_\mu\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,{\mathcal{R}}_\nu)\\
&= \mathrm{bReta}({\mathcal{R}}_\mu)\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,\mathrm{bReta}({\mathcal{R}}_\nu)\\
&= \eta_\mu\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,\eta_\nu\\
&= {\mathcal{R}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu)}\,\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}\,{\mathcal{R}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\nu)}\\
&= {\mathcal{R}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu) \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\nu)}.
\end{align*}
Since $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \nu)$ and $\mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\mu) \widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes} \mathrm{b}\mathbb{B}(\nu)$ have the same bi-free ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform, the result follows.
\end{proof}
By comparing the first equality with the fifth equality, we see that the bi-Boolean $\eta$-transform also turns $\widetilde{\boxtimes\boxtimes}$ to $\widetilde{\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}}$, which is not surprising since the Boolean $\eta$-transform behaves similarly when it comes to $\boxtimes$ and $\framebox[7pt]{$\star$}$ (see \cite{BN2008-1}*{Theorem 2'}).
\section{Bi-Boolean independence with amalgamation}\label{sec:op-valued}
We conclude this paper with an extension of bi-Boolean independence to the amalgamated setting over an arbitrary algebra.
\subsection{Definition and review of bi-free independence with amalgamation}
As the theory of bi-free independence with amalgamation is well-developed in \cite{CNS2015-2}, the same structures can be used with some slight modifications to fit the current framework. Throughout the rest, ${\mathcal{B}}$ denotes a unital algebra over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Recall first from \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Definition 3.2.1} that in order to discuss independence for pairs of algebras over ${\mathcal{B}}$, the usual notion of a non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, \varphi)$ should be replaced by a \textit{${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space}, which is a triple $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a unital algebra over ${\mathbb{C}}$, $\varepsilon: {\mathcal{B}} \otimes {\mathcal{B}}^{\mathrm{op}} \to {\mathcal{A}}$ is a unital homomorphism such that $\varepsilon|_{{\mathcal{B}} \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}}}$ and $\varepsilon|_{1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes {\mathcal{B}}^{\mathrm{op}}}$ are injective, and ${\mathbb{E}}: {\mathcal{A}} \to {\mathcal{B}}$ is a unital linear map such that
\[{\mathbb{E}}(\varepsilon(b_1 \otimes b_2)Z) = b_1{\mathbb{E}}(Z)b_2 \quad\text{and}\quad {\mathbb{E}}(Z\varepsilon(b \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}})) = {\mathbb{E}}(Z\varepsilon(1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes b))\]
for all $b_1, b_2, b \in {\mathcal{B}}$ and $Z \in {\mathcal{A}}$. Moreover, the unital subalgebras ${\mathcal{A}}_\ell$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_r$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ defined by
\begin{align*}
{\mathcal{A}}_\ell &= \{Z \in {\mathcal{A}}\,|\,Z\varepsilon(1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes b) = \varepsilon(1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes b)Z\,\text{ for all }\,b \in {\mathcal{B}}\}\\
{\mathcal{A}}_r &= \{Z \in {\mathcal{A}}\,|\,Z\varepsilon(b \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}}) = \varepsilon(b \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}})Z\,\text{ for all }\,b \in {\mathcal{B}}\}
\end{align*}
will be called the \textit{left and right algebras} of ${\mathcal{A}}$ respectively. For notational simplicity, we will write $L_b$ and $R_b$ instead of $\varepsilon(b \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}})$ and $\varepsilon(1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes b)$ and refer to them as \textit{left and right ${\mathcal{B}}$-operators} respectively.
As demonstrated in \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Theorem 3.2.4}, ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability spaces are the correct objects to study because every such space can be concretely represented as linear operators on a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-bimodule with a specified ${\mathcal{B}}$-vector state in an expectation-preserving way. We refer to \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Section 3} for more details. Furthermore, in order to discuss the corresponding moment and cumulant functions, one needs the notion of operator-valued bi-multiplicative functions.
\begin{defn}\label{BiMulti}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ be a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space and let
\[\Phi: \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi) \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(1)} \times \cdots \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(n)} \to {\mathcal{B}}\]
be a function that is linear in each ${\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$. It is said that $\Phi$ is \textit{operator-valued bi-multiplicative} if for every $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$, $b \in {\mathcal{B}}$, and $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi)$, the following four conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item Let
\[q = \max\{j \in \{1, \dots, n\}\,|\,\chi(j) \neq \chi(n)\}.\]
If $\chi(n) = \ell$, then
\[\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{n - 1}, Z_nL_b) = \begin{cases}
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_qR_b, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n) &\text{if } q \neq -\infty\\
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{n - 1}, Z_n)b &\text{if } q = -\infty
\end{cases}.\]
If $\chi(n) = r$, then
\[\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{n - 1}, Z_nR_b) = \begin{cases}
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_qL_b, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n) &\text{if } q \neq -\infty\\
b\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{n - 1}, Z_n) &\text{if } q = -\infty
\end{cases}.\]
\item Let $p \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and let
\[q = \max\{j \in \{1, \dots, n\}\,|\,\chi(j) = \chi(p), j < p\}.\]
If $\chi(p) = \ell$, then
\[\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{p - 1}, L_bZ_p, Z_{p + 1}, \dots, Z_n) = \begin{cases}
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_qL_b, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n) &\text{if } q \neq -\infty\\
b\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, Z_2, \dots, Z_n) &\text{if } q = -\infty
\end{cases}.\]
If $\chi(p) = r$, then
\[\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{p - 1}, R_bZ_p, Z_{p + 1}, \dots, Z_n) = \begin{cases}
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_qR_b, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n) &\text{if } q \neq -\infty\\
\Phi_{1_\chi}(Z_1, Z_2, \dots, Z_n)b &\text{if } q = -\infty
\end{cases}.\]
\item Suppose that $V_1, \dots, V_m$ are $\chi$-intervals ordered by $\prec_\chi$ which partition $\{1, \dots, n\}$, each a union of blocks of $\pi$. Then
\[\Phi_\pi(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = \Phi_{\pi|_{V_1}}((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V_1})\cdots\Phi_{\pi|_{V_m}}((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V_m}).\]
\item Suppose that $V$ and $W$ partition $\{1, \dots, n\}$, each a union of blocks of $\pi$, $V$ is a $\chi$-interval, and
\[\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}), \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}) \in W.\]
Let
\[p = \max_{\prec_\chi}\left(\left\{j \in W\,|\,j \prec_\chi \min_{\prec_\chi}(V)\right\}\right) \quad\text{and}\quad q = \min_{\prec_\chi}\left(\left\{j \in W\,|\,\max_{\prec_\chi}(V) \prec_\chi j\right\}\right).\]
Then
\begin{align*}
\Phi_\pi(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) &= \begin{cases}
\Phi_{\pi|_{W}}\left(\left(Z_1, \dots, Z_{p - 1}, Z_pL_{\Phi_{\pi|_{V}}\left((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V}\right)}, Z_{p + 1}, \dots, Z_n\right)|_{W}\right) &\text{if } \chi(p) = \ell\\
\Phi_{\pi|_{W}}\left(\left(Z_1, \dots, Z_{p - 1}, R_{\Phi_{\pi|_{V}}\left((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V}\right)}Z_p, Z_{p + 1}, \dots, Z_n\right)|_{W}\right) &\text{if } \chi(p) = r
\end{cases}\\
&= \begin{cases}
\Phi_{\pi|_{W}}\left(\left(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, L_{\Phi_{\pi|_{V}}\left((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V}\right)}Z_q, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n\right)|_{W}\right) &\text{if } \chi(q) = \ell\\
\Phi_{\pi|_{W}}\left(\left(Z_1, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_qR_{\Phi_{\pi|_{V}}\left((Z_1, \dots, Z_n)|_{V}\right)}, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n\right)|_{W}\right) &\text{if } \chi(q) = r
\end{cases}.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
Given an operator-valued bi-multiplicative function, conditions $(1)$ to $(4)$ above allow one to move ${\mathcal{B}}$-operators around and completely determine values on all bi-non-crossing partitions based on full non-crossing partitions.
For bi-Boolean independence, since the sublattice of bi-interval partitions is used instead, the corresponding functions need only satisfy some weaker conditions.
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ be a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space and let
\[\Phi: \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi) \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(1)} \times \cdots \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(n)} \to {\mathcal{B}}\]
be a function that is linear in each ${\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$. We say that $\Phi$ is \textit{operator-valued b-bi-multiplicative} if conditions $(1)$ to $(3)$ of Definition \ref{BiMulti} are satisfied for every $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$, $b \in {\mathcal{B}}$, and $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$.
\end{defn}
Note that condition $(4)$ of Definition \ref{BiMulti} is irrelevant here because if $W$ is a union of blocks of a bi-interval partition $\pi$ containing $\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})$ and $\max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})$, then $V$ does not exist as $W$ must be $\pi$. Moreover, as every operator-valued bi-multiplicative function is automatically operator-valued b-bi-multiplicative, the notion of bi-Boolean independence over ${\mathcal{B}}$ can be introduced using the \textit{operator-valued bi-free moment function}, which is defined in \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Definition 5.1.3} as the operator-valued bi-multiplicative function
\[{\mathcal{E}}: \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{C}}(\chi) \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(1)} \times \cdots \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(n)} \to {\mathcal{B}}\]
such that
\[{\mathcal{E}}_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = {\mathbb{E}}(Z_1\cdots Z_n)\]
for every $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ and $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$. (Note this really is the second operator-valued moment function from the operator-valued c-bi-free construction in \cite{GS2016-2} using the same ideas as in Proposition \ref{BiBandCBF}.)
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ be a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space.
\begin{enumerate}[$\qquad(1)$]
\item A \textit{non-unital pair of ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras} in $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ is an ordered pair $({\mathcal{C}}_\ell, {\mathcal{C}}_r)$ of non-unital subalgebras of ${\mathcal{A}}$ such that
\[\varepsilon({\mathcal{B}} \otimes 1_{{\mathcal{B}}}) \subset {\mathcal{C}}_\ell \subset {\mathcal{A}}_\ell \quad\text{and}\quad \varepsilon(1_{{\mathcal{B}}} \otimes {\mathcal{B}}^{\mathrm{op}}) \subset {\mathcal{C}}_r \subset {\mathcal{A}}_r.\]
\item A family $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of non-unital pairs of ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras in $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ is said to be \textit{bi-Boolean independent with amalgamation over ${\mathcal{B}}$} if for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $Z_1, \dots, Z_n \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$, we have that
\[{\mathbb{E}}(Z_1\cdots Z_n) = {\mathcal{E}}_{\pi_{\omega, \chi}}(Z_1, \dots, Z_n),\]
where $\pi_{\omega, \chi}$ is the partition of $\{1, \dots, n\}$ induced by $\chi$ and $\omega$ as described in Definition \ref{Partition}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
As with the scalar-valued case, by taking $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ to be constant and $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$ such that $\omega(1) \neq \cdots \neq \omega(n)$, the families $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}\}_{k \in K}$ and $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k, r}\}_{k \in K}$ are both Boolean independent over ${\mathcal{B}}$ if $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ is bi-Boolean independent over ${\mathcal{B}}$.
\subsection{Operator-valued bi-Boolean cumulants}
It is now straightforward to define the operator-valued bi-Boolean cumulant function via convolution over the lattice of bi-interval partitions and check that it has the vanishing property.
\begin{defn}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ be a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space and let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be the operator-value bi-free moment function on ${\mathcal{A}}$. The \textit{operator-valued bi-Boolean cumulant function} on ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the function
\[B: \bigcup_{n \geq 1}\bigcup_{\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}}{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi) \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(1)} \times \cdots \times {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(n)} \to {\mathcal{B}}\]
defined by
\[B_\pi(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}{\mathcal{E}}_\sigma(Z_1, \dots, Z_n)\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}(\sigma, \pi)\]
for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$, and $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$.
\end{defn}
Using the (bi-interval) M\"{o}bius inversion, an equivalent formulation of the above formula is
\[{\mathcal{E}}_\pi(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)\\\sigma \leq \pi}}B_\sigma(Z_1, \dots, Z_n)\]
for all $n \geq 1$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$, and $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$.
Since ${\mathcal{E}}$ is operator-valued bi-multiplicative and $\mu_{{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}}$ is multiplicative, a routine verification similar to (and simpler than) the proof of \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Theorem 6.2.1} shows that $B$ is operator-valued b-bi-multiplicative. Moreover, it is also easy to check that the operator-valued version of Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv} holds.
\begin{thm}\label{OpVVanishingEquiv}
A family $\{({\mathcal{A}}_{k, \ell}, {\mathcal{A}}_{k, r})\}_{k \in K}$ of non-unital pairs of ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras in a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ is bi-Boolean independent over ${\mathcal{B}}$ if and only if for all $n \geq 2$, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, $\omega: \{1, \dots, n\} \to K$, and $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega(j), \chi(j)}$, we have that
\[B_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = 0\]
whenever $\omega$ is not constant.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is completely identical to the second proof of Theorem \ref{VanishingEquiv} for the scalar-valued case where the fact that vanishing of mixed operator-valued bi-Boolean cumulants implies bi-Boolean independence over ${\mathcal{B}}$ follows from a calculation with M\"{o}bius inversion and the converse follows from an induction argument.
\end{proof}
Moreover, using operator-valued b-bi-multiplicativity, Proposition \ref{ScalarEntry} can be generalized as follows.
\begin{prop}
Let $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ be a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space, $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$ with $n \geq 2$, and $Z_j \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\chi(j)}$. If there exist $q \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ and $b \in {\mathcal{B}}$ such that $Z_q = L_b$ if $\chi(q) = \ell$ or $Z_q = R_b$ if $\chi(q) = r$, then $B_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) = 0$ if $q \in \{\min_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\}), \max_{\prec_\chi}(\{1, \dots, n\})\}$ and otherwise
\begin{align*}
B_{1_\chi}(Z_1, \dots, Z_n) =
B_{1_{\chi|_{\setminus q}}}(Z_1, \dots, Z_{p - 1}, Z_pZ_q, Z_{p + 1}, \dots, Z_{q - 1}, Z_{q + 1}, \dots, Z_n)
\end{align*}
where $p = \max\{j \in \{1, \dots, n\}\,|\,\chi(j) = \chi(q), j < q\}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{The operator-valued bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform}
In this subsection, we develop an operator-valued bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform and prove the operator-valued version of Theorem \ref{PartialEta}. The proof is combinatorial in nature following the techniques developed in \cite{S2016-2}*{Section 7}. The same techniques were also used in \cite{S2016}*{Section 5} and \cite{GS2016-2}*{Section 8} in deriving a functional equation for the operator-valued bi-free/c-bi-free partial ${\mathcal{R}}$-transform. However, these transforms are functions of three variables instead of two variables due to the fact that when one sums over bi-non-crossing partitions with the same block that contains both left and right indices, a ${\mathcal{B}}$-operator is created corresponding to the `bottom part' of the diagram below the common block and operator-valued bi-multiplicativity does not allow the ${\mathcal{B}}$-operator to escape. For bi-interval partitions, such `bottom part' does not exist due to the property that if $V$ is a block of a bi-interval partition that contains both a left index $s$ and a right index $t$, then $V$ contains all indices $j$ such that $s \prec_\chi j \prec_\chi t$. Consequently, the operator-valued bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform is a function of two-variables: one for a left ${\mathcal{B}}$-operator and one for a right ${\mathcal{B}}$-operator.
In that which follows, we require the additional assumption that ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a Banach algebra and all operators are elements of a \textit{Banach ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space}, which is a ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}$ are Banach algebras, and ${\mathbb{E}}$, $\varepsilon|_{{\mathcal{B}} \otimes 1_{\mathcal{B}}}$, and $\varepsilon|_{1_{\mathcal{B}} \otimes {\mathcal{B}}^{\mathrm{op}}}$ are bounded. To begin, let $Z_\ell \in {\mathcal{A}}_\ell$, $Z_r \in {\mathcal{A}}_r$, $b, d \in {\mathcal{B}}$, and consider the following series:
\begin{align*}
M_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) &= 1 + \sum_{m \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m)& & & M_{Z_r}^r(d) &= 1 + \sum_{n \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^n)\\
\eta_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) &= 1 + \sum_{m \geq 1}B_{1_{\chi_{m, 0}}}(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}) & & & \eta_{Z_r}^r(d) &= 1 + \sum_{n \geq 1}B_{1_{\chi_{0, n}}}(\underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}).
\end{align*}
By similar arguments as in \cite{S2016}*{Remark 5.2}, all of the series above converge absolutely for $b, d$ near $0$. It is known (see, e.g., \cite{P2009}*{Section 4}) that $M_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b)$ and $M_{Z_r}^r(d)$ are invertible and that
\[\eta_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) = 1 - M_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b)^{-1} \quad\text{and}\quad \eta_{Z_r}^r(d) = 1 - M_{Z_r}^r(d)^{-1}\]
for $b, d \in {\mathcal{B}}$ sufficiently small. In addition, consider the following two-variable series:
\begin{align*}
M_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) &= 1 + \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m(R_dZ_r)^n),\\
\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) &= \sum_{\substack{m, n \geq 0\\m + n \geq 1}}B_{1_{\chi_{m, n}}}(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}),
\end{align*}
which converge absolutely for $b, d$ near $0$ by similar arguments. Note that Theorem \ref{OpVVanishingEquiv} implies $\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}$ is the operator-valued analogue of $\eta_{(a, b)}$ for $(a, b)$ a (scalar-valued) pair in a non-commutative probability space. The goal of this subsection is to find a formula relating $\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}$ to $M_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}$.
\begin{thm}\label{OpVPartialEta}
Let $(Z_\ell, Z_r)$ be an operator-valued two-faced pair in a Banach ${\mathcal{B}}$-${\mathcal{B}}$-non-commutative probability space $({\mathcal{A}}, {\mathbb{E}}, \varepsilon)$. The operator-valued bi-Boolean partial $\eta$-transform $\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}$ of $(Z_\ell, Z_r)$ is given by
\[\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) = \eta_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) + \eta_{Z_r}^r(d) + M_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b)^{-1}M_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d)M_{Z_r}^r(d)^{-1} - 1\]
for $b, d \in {\mathcal{B}}$ sufficiently small.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For $\chi: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{\ell, r\}$, let ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi)$ denote the set of partitions in ${\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi)$ such that no block contains both left and right indices. For $m, n \geq 1$, using operator-valued b-bi-multiplicative properties, we have that
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m(R_dZ_r)^n) &= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})\\\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})}}B_\pi(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&\quad + \sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})\\\pi \notin {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})}}B_\pi(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}})\\
&= {\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m){\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^n) + \Theta_{m, n}(b, d),
\end{align*}
where $\Theta_{m, n}(b, d)$ denotes the sum
\[\sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})\\\pi \notin {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})}}B_\pi(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}).\]
For every partition $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n}) \setminus {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})$, there is exactly one block of $\pi$ with both left and right indices, let $V_\pi$ denote this block. Moreover, since $\pi$ is a bi-interval partition, we have $j \in V_\pi$ for all $\min_{\prec_\chi}(V_\pi) \prec_\chi j \prec_\chi \max_{\prec_\chi}(V_\pi)$. Rearrange the sum in $\Theta_{m, n}(b, d)$ (which may be done as it converges absolutely) by first choosing $s \in \{1, \dots, m\}$, $t \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, and then summing over all $\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n}) \setminus {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})$ such that $V_\pi = \{s, \dots, m, m + t, \dots, m + n\}$, we obtain
\[\Theta_{m, n}(b, d) = \sum_{s = 1}^m\sum_{t = 1}^n\sum_{\substack{\pi \in {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}(\chi_{m, n})\\\pi \notin {\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{vs}}(\chi_{m, n})\\V_\pi = \{s, \dots, m, m + t, \dots, m + n\}}}B_\pi(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n\,\mathrm{times}}).\]
Furthermore, using operator-valued b-bi-multiplicative properties, the right-most sum is
\[{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^{s - 1})B_{1_{\chi_{m - (s - 1), n - (t - 1)}}}(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{m - (s - 1)\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{n - (t - 1)\,\mathrm{times}}){\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^{t - 1}).\]
Consequently, we obtain $\Theta_{m, n}(b, d)$ equals
\[\sum_{s = 1}^m\sum_{t = 1}^n{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^{m - s})B_{1_{\chi_{s, t}}}(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{s\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{t\,\mathrm{times}}){\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^{n - t}).\]
By choosing $b, d \in {\mathcal{B}}$ sufficiently small so that $M_{Z_\ell}^{\ell}(b)$ and $M_{Z_r}^r(d)$ are invertible, and by summing over the above expression over all $m, n \geq 1$, we have that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{m, n \geq 1}\Theta_{m, n}(b, d) &= M_{Z_\ell}^{\ell}(b)\sum_{s, t \geq 1}B_{1_{\chi_{s, t}}}(\underbrace{L_bZ_\ell, \dots, L_bZ_\ell}_{s\,\mathrm{times}}, \underbrace{R_dZ_r, \dots, R_dZ_r}_{t\,\mathrm{times}})M_{Z_r}^r(d)\\
&= M_{Z_\ell}^{\ell}(b)(\eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) - \eta_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) - \eta_{Z_r}^r(d))M_{Z_r}^r(d).
\end{align*}
On the other hand, expanding $M_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d)$ using the fact it converges absolutely produces
\begin{align*}
M_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) &= 1 + \sum_{m \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m) + \sum_{n \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^n) + \sum_{m, n \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m(R_dZ_r)^n)\\
&= 1 + \sum_{m \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m) + \sum_{n \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^n) + \sum_{m, n \geq 1}{\mathbb{E}}((L_bZ_\ell)^m){\mathbb{E}}((R_dZ_r)^n) + \sum_{m, n \geq 1}\Theta_{m, n}(b, d)\\
&= M_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b)M_{Z_r}^r(d) + \sum_{m, n \geq 1}\Theta_{m, n}(b, d)\\
&= M_{Z_\ell}^{\ell}(b)(1 + \eta_{(Z_\ell, Z_r)}(b, d) - \eta_{Z_\ell}^\ell(b) - \eta_{Z_r}^r(d))M_{Z_r}^r(d),
\end{align*}
and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some final remarks}
In this final subsection, we briefly discuss how some of the known results also hold in the operator-valued bi-Boolean setting. As with Section \ref{sec:limitthms}, most of the details are omitted as the statements and proofs are essentially the same.
In \cite{CNS2015-2}*{Theorem 10.2.1}, it was demonstrated that if all left ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras commute with all right ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras, then under certain circumstances bi-free independence over ${\mathcal{B}}$ can be deduced from free independence over ${\mathcal{B}}$ of either the left ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras or the right ${\mathcal{B}}$-algebras. The quantitative realizations of the arguments were proved in \cite{S2016}*{Lemmata 2.16 and 2.17} and shown to be useful in proving \cite{S2016}*{Theorem 3.2}. As the c-bi-free, operator-valued c-bi-free, and bi-Boolean analogues of these results are available in \cite{GS2016}*{Section 4}, \cite{GS2016-2}*{Section 7}, and Section \ref{sec:transforms} above respectively, it can be shown without any difficulty that similar results also hold in the framework of the current section.
Furthermore, like any other non-commutative probability theory, whenever a notion of independence (scalar-valued or operator-valued) is defined, a number of limit theorems can be obtained for various purposes. Since we do not have any immediate applications of the operator-valued bi-Boolean limit theorems available at the moment, we will simply mention that the bi-Boolean analogues of the operator-valued bi-free/c-bi-free limit theorems in \cite{GS2016-2}*{Section 9} can be easily proved by the same techniques.
\section*{Errata to ``Bi-Boolean Independence for Pairs of Algebras" - Joint with Takahiro Hasebe}
As it was realized during the study of \cite{GHS2017}, an essential assumption was omitted in many results of \cite{GS2016}: namely, the results hold provided the conditional bi-free product of states (unital positive linear functionals) is again a state. When studying bi-Boolean independence above (a specific instance of conditional bi-free independence), this assumption was not verified. In fact, this assumption cannot be verified as it is false.
To see this, suppose $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are two pairs of commuting elements that are bi-Boolean independent with respect to $\varphi$ and whose distributions with respect to $\varphi$ are probability measures.
For the distribution of $(a_1+a_2,b_1+b_2)$ to be a probability measure on $\mathbb R^2$, it is necessary that for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and every polynomial $p(x, y) = \sum^n_{k,m = 0} c_{k,m} x^k y^m$ where $c_{k,m} \in {\mathbb{C}}$ we have
\[
0 \leq \varphi(p(a_1+a_2, b_1+b_2)^*p(a_1+a_2, b_1+b_2)) = \sum^n_{i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2 = 0} c_{i_1, i_2} \overline{c_{j_1, j_2}} \varphi((a_1+a_2)^{i_1+j_1} (b_1+b_2)^{i_2+j_2}).
\]
Therefore, for a fixed $n$ we consider the $(n+1)^2 \times (n+1)^2$ matrix
\[
X_n = [\varphi((a_1+a_2)^{i_1+j_1} (b_1+b_2)^{i_2+j_2})]
\]
where the rows are indexed (starting at 0 up to $n$) by the pairs $(i_1, i_2)$ and the columns are indexed by the pairs $(j_1, j_2)$. Then
\[
\varphi(p(a_1+a_2, b_1+b_2)^*p(a_1+a_2, b_1+b_2)) = \langle X_n\vec{v}, \vec{v}\rangle,
\]
where $\vec{v}$ is a vector of the $c_{k,m}$'s. For example the matrix $X_1$ is given by
\[
X_1 = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & \varphi(a_1+a_2) & \varphi(b_1 + b_2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)) \\
\varphi(a_1 + a_2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)^2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)^2(b_1+b_2)) \\
\varphi(b_1 + b_2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)) & \varphi((b_1 + b_2)^2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)^2) \\
\varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)^2(b_1+b_2)) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)(b_1+b_2)^2) & \varphi((a_1+a_2)^2(b_1+b_2)^2)
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
Assume that $(a_1,b_1)$ and $(a_2,b_2)$ both have the probability distribution $\mu = \frac{1}{2}(\delta_{(0,1)}+\delta_{(1,0)})$. Notice that
\[
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} x^m y^n \, d\mu(x,y) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if }m= n=0, \\
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if }(m,n) \in \{(k, 0), (0, k) \, \mid \, k \in {\mathbb{N}}\}, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Then one can verify using the definition of bi-Boolean independence in \cite{GS2017} to obtain
\[
X_1 = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\
1 & \frac{3}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{4} \\
1 & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{2} & \frac{3}{4} \\
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{3}{4} & \frac{3}{4} & \frac{9}{8}
\end{bmatrix}.
\]
One can check that $\det(X_1) = - \frac{1}{8}$. This implies that $X_1$ is not positive semidefinite and thus the distribution of $(a_1+a_2, b_1+ b_2)$ is not a probability measure. This also shows that bi-Boolean product of states is not a state in general and the general non-existence of conditionally bi-free convolution of probability measures.
Furthermore, the compound bi-Boolean Poisson distribution defined in \cite{GS2017} is not a probability measure in general. Suppose that $(a,b)$ is a pair of elements in a non-commutative space such that
its bi-Boolean cumulants are given by
$$
B_{m,n}(a,b) := \int_{\mathbb R^2}s^m t^n\, d\tau(s,t),
$$
where $\tau = 3\delta_{(1,1)}+3 \delta_{(-1,1)}+3\delta_{(1,-1)}$. Then $B_{m,n}(a,b)=3[(-1)^m + (-1)^n +1]$ for $m,n \geq0, (m,n) \neq (0,0)$. The two-variable $E$-transform is related to $B_{m,n}(a,b)$ via
$$
E_{(a,b)}(z,w) = \sum_{\substack{ m,n=0 \\ (m,n)\neq(0,0)}}^\infty \frac{B_{m,n}(a,b)}{z^m w^n}.
$$
The Boolean cumulant generating functions of marginals are
\begin{align*}
E_a(1/z) &= \sum_{m=1}^\infty B_{m,0}(a,b) z^m = \sum_{n=1}^\infty B_{0,n}(a,b) z^n = E_b(1/z)
\end{align*}
and so the Cauchy transforms of marginals are
\begin{align*}
G_a(1/z) = z/(1-E_a(1/z)) = z + 3 z^2 + 18z^3 + \cdots=G_b(1/z).
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
G_{(a,b)}(1/z,1/w) &= G_a(1/z) G_b(1/w)\left(1+ \sum_{m,n\geq1} B_{m,n}(a,b) z^m w^n\right) \\
&= z w+ 3z^2 w + 3 z w^2 + 18 z^3 w + 6 z^2 w^2 + 18 z w^3 + 48z^3w^2 + 48 z^2 w^3 + 324z^3w^3+ \cdots.
\end{align*}
Denote by $M_{m,n}$ the coefficient of $z^{m+1} w^{n+1}$ in the above expression of $G_{(a,b)}(1/z,1/w)$. The determinant of $4 \times 4$ matrix $(M_{m_1+ m_2,n_1+n_2})$, with the 4 pairs $\{(m_1, m_2): m_1, m_2 =0,1\}$ indexing the column and 4 pairs $\{(n_1,n_2):n_1,n_2=0,1\}$ indexing the row, is
$$
\left|\begin{matrix}
1 & 3 & 3 & 6 \\
3 & 18 & 6 & 48 \\
3 & 6 & 18 & 48 \\
6 & 18 & 18 & 324
\end{matrix}\right|
= -864 <0.
$$
Hence $M_{m,n}$ are not moments of a probability measure on $\mathbb R^2$.
Due to the bi-Boolean examples given above, the conditional bi-free product of states need not be a state and the conditional bi-free convolution of two positive probability measures need not be a probability measure. Hence the results of Sections 6.2-6.6 of \cite{GS2016} are false as stated. The results in these later sections should be stated only for conditional bi-free products where conditional bi-free product of states is a state. Currently, the only non-trivial example known of when this is true is when the conditional bi-free product state is the bi-free product state. Thus a natural question would be to determine all conditional bi-free products of states that produce states.
Due to the bi-Boolean examples given above, the bi-Boolean product of states need not be a state and the bi-Boolean convolution of two positive probability measures need not be a probability measure. In particular, the results of Sections 5 and 6 of this paper for probability measures are false as stated, modulo those in Section 5.1 where the notion of probability measure is replaced with an arbitrary distribution. As was demonstrated via Example 5.13, there existed a probability measure that was not bi-Boolean infinitely divisible inside the collection of probability measures as one of the asymptotic moments involved would have to be negative. Due to the above, it is natural to ask whether the bi-Boolean (and, more generally, conditional bi-free) convolution of finite signed measures is a finite signed measure.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:overviewpart2}
It is natural to ask whether there exist ``Schur algebras" for arbitrary Artin algebras. That is, given an Artin algebra $A$, we would like to have an $A$-module whose endomorphism algebra is quasihereditary, so that it has finite global dimension and a highest weight theory. Such modules do exist. A suitable candidate was introduced by Auslander in \cite{MR0349747}. He showed that the endomorphism algebra of
\[G=\bigoplus_{i = 1}^{\LL{A}} A/\RAD{i}{A}\]
has finite global dimension (here $\LL{A}$ denotes the Loewy length of $A$). Subsequently, Dlab and Ringel proved that this endomorphism algebra is actually a quasihereditary algebra (\cite{MR943793}). For practical purposes one considers the basic version of $\End{A}{G}\normalfont{^{op}}$ instead. We denote this `Schur-like' endomorphism algebra by $R_A$ and call it the Auslander--Dlab--Ringel algebra (ADR algebra) of $A$. The original algebra $A$ is then Morita equivalent to $\xi R_A \xi$ for an idempotent $\xi$ in $R_A$, and this is also analogous to the situation of symmetric groups and Schur algebras.
It was recently proved in \cite{MR3510398} that the ADR algebra has a particularly neat quasihereditary structure. The ADR algebra is not only right strongly quasihereditary in the sense of Ringel (\cite{RingelIyama}); $R_A$ is actually a right ultra strongly quasihereditary algebra (RUSQ algebra) as defined in \cite{MR3510398} (see also \cite[Chapter 2]{thesis}). The ADR algebra is not the only strongly quasihereditary algebra arising from a module theoretical context. Other examples of strongly quasihereditary algebras include: the Auslander algebras, associated to algebras of finite type; the endomorphism algebras constructed by Iyama, used in his famous proof of the finiteness of the representation dimension of Artin algebras (\cite{iyama}); certain cluster-tilted algebras studied by Gei{\ss}--Leclerc--Schr{\"o}er (\cite{KacMoodyAdv}, \cite{GeissLeclercSchroerArxiv}), Buan--Iyama--Reiten--Scott (\cite{MR2521253}) and Iyama--Reiten (\cite{IyamaReiten}). The cluster-tilted algebras in \cite{MR2521253}, \cite{KacMoodyAdv}, \cite{GeissLeclercSchroerArxiv} and \cite{IyamaReiten} are actually RUSQ up to dualisation, as implicitly proved in \cite{KacMoodyAdv} (see also \cite{thesis}).
This paper complements the investigation on RUSQ algebras and on ADR algebras initiated in \cite{MR3510398}. We start by studying the $\Delta$-filtrations of modules over RUSQ algebras. In Section \ref{sec:deltass}, we show that the RUSQ algebras satisfy the following key property: every submodule of a direct sum of standard modules is still a direct sum of standard modules. This has several consequences. In particular, it gives rise to special (uniquely determined) filtrations of $\Delta$-good modules over RUSQ algebras, called $\Delta$-semisimple filtrations. These can be described recursively as follows. Given a $\Delta$-good module $N$, let $\delta_1(N)$ be the largest submodule of $N$ which is a direct sum of standard modules, and for $i\geq 1$ define $\delta_{i+1}(N)$ as the module satisfying the identity $\delta_{i+1}(N)/\delta_{i} (N) = \delta_1\B{N/\delta_{i} (N)}$.
The ideas in Section \ref{sec:deltass} are then applied to the ADR algebra. As a main contribution of Section \ref{sec:manuela}, we prove the following (which corresponds to Lemma \ref{lem:soc0} and Theorem~\ref{thm:socdelta}).
\begin{thma}
Let $M$ be in $\Mod{A}$. Then $N=\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ and the socle series of $M$ determines the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration of $N$. Formally,
\[
\delta_m \B{N} = \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}},
\]
for all $m$. The factors of the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration of $N$ only depend on the factors of the socle series of $M$ and on the Loewy length of the projective indecomposable $A$-modules.
\end{thma}
Next, we describe the right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximations of rigid modules in $\Mod{A}$, or equivalently, the projective covers of the $R_A$-modules $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$, with $M$ rigid. Recall that a module is said to be rigid if its radical series coincides with its socle series. We prove the following theorem in Section \ref{sec:thma}.
\begin{thma}
Let $M$ be a rigid module in $\Mod{A}$, with Loewy length $m$. Then the projective cover of $M$ in $\Mod{(A/ \RAD{m}{A})}$ is a right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation of $M$.
\end{thma}
This simple yet useful result, combined with the conclusions in Section \ref{sec:manuela}, is then used to provide a counterexample to a claim by Auslander, Platzeck and Todorov in \cite[§7]{MR1052903}, about the projective resolutions of modules over the ADR algebra, for which no proof was given. To be precise, we show the following.
\begin{propa}
ADR algebras need not satisfy the descending Loewy length condition on projective resolutions.
\end{propa}
\section{Preliminaries}
In this section we introduce the language of preradicals and give some background on quasihereditary algebras, RUSQ algebras and the ADR algebra.
Throughout this paper the letters $B$ and $A$ shall denote arbitrary Artin algebras over some commutative artinian ring $C$. All the modules will be finitely generated left modules. The notation $\Mod{B}$ will be used for the category of (finitely generated) $B$-modules. Given a class of $B$-modules $\Theta$, let $\Add{\Theta}$ be the full subcategory of $\Mod{B}$ consisting of all modules isomorphic to a summand of a direct sum of modules in $\Theta$. The additive closure of a single module $M$ is denoted by $\Add{M}$.
\subsection{Preradicals}
\label{sec:preradicals}
Preradicals generalise the classic notions of radical and socle of a module. The results and definitions stated in this section are elementary and most of the proofs may be found in \cite{MR655412}, \cite[Chapter 2]{MR2253001} and \cite[Chapter VI]{MR0389953} (see also \cite[Section $1.3$]{thesis}).
\subsubsection{Definition and first properties}
\label{subsec:defisandfirst}
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:preradical}
A \emph{preradical}\index{preradical} $\tau$ in $\Mod{B}$ is a subfunctor of the identity functor $1_{\Mod{B}}$, i.e., $\tau$ assigns to each module $M$ a submodule $\tau\B{M}$, such that each morphism $f:M\longrightarrow N$ induces a morphism $\tau\B{f}: \tau\B{M} \longrightarrow \tau\B{N}$ given by restriction.
\end{defi}
A submodule $N$ of a $B$-module $M$ is called a \emph{characteristic submodule} of $M$ if $f\B{N} \subseteq N$, for every $f$ in $\End{B}{M}$. By definition, it is clear that the module $\tau\B{M}$ is a characteristic submodule of $M$, for every preradical $\tau$ and for every module $M$. It is also evident that every preradical is an additive functor which preserves monics.
To each preradical $\tau$ we may associate the functo
\[
1/ \tau: \Mod{B} \longrightarrow \Mod{B},
\]
which maps $M$ to $M/\tau\B{M}$. Note that the functor $1/ \tau$ preserves epics.
\begin{ex}
\label{ex:tracereject}
For any class $\Theta$ of $B$-modules, the operators defined by
\begin{gather*}
\Tr{\Theta}{M}:=\sum_{f: \, f\in \Hom{B}{U}{M},\, U \in \Theta} \Ima{f},\\
\Rej{M}{\Theta}:=\bigcap_{f: \, f\in \Hom{B}{M}{U},\, U \in \Theta} \Ker{f},
\end{gather*}
for $M$ in $\Mod{B}$, are preradicals in $\Mod{B}$. The module $\Tr{\Theta}{M}$, called the \emph{trace of $\Theta$ in $M$}, is the largest submodule of $M$ generated by $\Theta$. Symmetrically, $\Rej{M}{\Theta}$, the \emph{reject of $\Theta$ in $M$}, is the submodule $N$ of $M$ such that $M/N$ is the largest factor module of $M$ cogenerated by $\Theta$. If $\varepsilon$ is a complete set of simple $B$-modules, then $\Tr{\varepsilon}{-}= \Soc{(-)}$ and $\Rej{-}{\varepsilon} = \Rad{(-)}$.
\end{ex}
The statements below are immediate consequences of the definition of preradical.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:preradicalprops}
Let $\tau$ be a preradical in $\Mod{B}$. Let $N$ and $M$ be $B$-modules, with $N \subseteq M$, and let $(M_i)_{i \in I}$ be a finite family of $B$-modules. The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tau\B{N}\subseteq N\cap \tau\B{M}$;
\item $\B{\tau\B{M}+N}/N \subseteq \tau\B{M/N}$;
\item $\tau\B{\bigoplus_{i \in I} M_i}=\bigoplus_{i \in I} \tau\B{M_i}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\subsubsection{Hereditary and cohereditary preradicals}
\label{subsec:herecohere}
We shall now look at preradicals which satisfy specific properties.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:idempotent}
A preradical $\tau$ is called \emph{idempotent} if $\tau \circ \tau=\tau$. Symmetrically, we say that $\tau$ is a \emph{radical} if $\tau \circ \B{1/ \tau} =0$.
\end{defi}
Note that $\Tr{\Theta}{-}$ is an idempotent preradical for every class of $B$-modules $\Theta$. Similarly, the functor $\Rej{-}{\Theta}$ is a radical.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:hereditary}
A preradical $\tau$ is \emph{hereditary} if $\tau\B{N}=N \cap \tau\B{M}$, for all $M$ and $N$ in $\Mod{B}$ such that $N\subseteq M$. Dually, a preradical $\tau$ is said to be \emph{cohereditary} if $\B{\tau\B{M}+N}/N = \tau\B{M/N}$ for $N\subseteq M$, $M$ and $N$ in $\Mod{B}$.
\end{defi}
\begin{ex}
\label{ex:socrad}
The functors $\Soc{\B{-}}$ and $\Rad{\B{-}}$ are the typical examples of a hereditary preradical and of a cohereditary preradical, respectively.
\end{ex}
\begin{lem}[{\cite[Chapter VI, §1]{MR0389953}}]
\label{lem:hereditary}
Let $\tau$ be a preradical in $\Mod{B}$. The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tau$ is hereditary;
\item $\tau$ is a left exact functor;
\item the functor $1/\tau$ preserves monics.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, any hereditary preradical is idempotent.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:dual-hereditary-cohereditary}
There is a result `dual' to Lemma \ref{lem:hereditary} for cohereditary preradicals.
\end{rem}
It is possible to construct hereditary (and cohereditary) preradicals out of special classes of modules.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:hereditaryclass}
A class $\blacktriangle$ of modules in $\Mod{B}$ is \emph{hereditary} if every submodule of a module in $\Add{\blacktriangle}$ is generated by $\blacktriangle$.
\end{defi}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:hereditaryclass}
If $\blacktriangle$ is a hereditary class of modules then $\Tr{\blacktriangle}{-}$ is a hereditary preradical in $\Mod{B}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider $N\subseteq M$, with $M$ and $N$ in $\Mod{B}$. The module $\Tr{\blacktriangle}{M}$ is generated by some module $M'$ which is a (finite) direct sum of modules in $\blacktriangle$. Consider the pullback square
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
M'' \arrow[two heads, dashed]{r} \arrow[hook, dashed]{d} \& N \cap \Tr{\blacktriangle}{M} \arrow[hook]{d} \\
M' \arrow[two heads]{r} \& \Tr{\blacktriangle}{M}
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
As $\blacktriangle$ is a hereditary class, $M''$ is generated by $\blacktriangle$. Hence $N \cap \Tr{\blacktriangle}{M}$ is generated by $\blacktriangle$ as well. Since $\Tr{\blacktriangle}{N}$ is the largest submodule of $N$ generated by $\blacktriangle$, we must have $N \cap \Tr{\blacktriangle}{M} \subseteq \Tr{\blacktriangle}{N}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quasihereditary algebras, RUSQ algebras and the ADR algebra}
We now introduce some notation and state basic results about RUSQ algebras and ADR algebras.
\subsubsection{Quasihereditary algebras}
Given an Artin algebra $B$, we may label the isomorphism classes of simple $B$-modules by the elements of a finite poset $(\Phi , \sqsubseteq )$. Denote the simple $B$-modules by $L_i$, $i \in \Phi$, and use the notation $P_i$ (resp.~$Q_i$) for the projective cover (resp.~injective hull) of $L_i$.
Let $\Delta\B{i}$ be the \emph{standard module} with label $i\in\Phi$, that is
\[\Delta\B{i}= P_i/\Tr{\bigoplus_{j:\, j\not\sqsubseteq i} P_j}{P_i}.\]
The module $\Delta\B{i}$ is the largest quotient of $P_i$ whose composition factors are all of the form $L_j$, with $j\sqsubseteq i$. Dually, denote the \emph{costandard modules} by $\nabla\B{i}$. The module
\[\nabla\B{i}=\Rej{Q_i}{\bigoplus_{j:\, j\not\sqsubseteq i} Q_j}\]
is the largest submodule of $Q_i$ with all composition factors of the form $L_j$, with $j \sqsubseteq i$.
Let $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ be the category of all $B$-modules which have a $\Delta$-filtration, that is, a filtration whose factors are standard modules. The category $\mathcal{F}\B{\nabla}$ is defined dually. We call $M \in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$ a \emph{$\Delta$-good module}.
The notation $[M:L]$ will be used for the multiplicity of a simple module $L$ in the composition series of $M$. In a similar manner, $(M:\Delta (i))$ shall denote the multiplicity of $\Delta (i)$ in a $\Delta$-filtration of a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}(\Delta)$ (this is well defined).
\begin{defi}
We say that $\B{B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ is \emph{quasihereditary} if the following hold for every $i \in \Phi$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[\Delta (i): L_i]=1$;
\item $P_i \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$;
\item $\B{P_i: \Delta\B{i}}=1$, and $\B{P_i: \Delta\B{j}}\neq 0 \Rightarrow j\sqsupseteq i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}
Let $\B{B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ be quasihereditary. It was proved by Ringel in \cite{last} (see also \cite{donkin}) that there is a unique indecomposable $B$-module $T\B{i}$ (up to isomorphism) for every $i$ which has both a $\Delta$- and a $\nabla$-filtration, with one composition factor labelled by $i$, and all the other composition factors labelled by $j$, $j\sqsubset i$. The standard module $\Delta(i)$ can be embedded in $T(i)$ -- the corresponding monomorphism is a left minimal $\mathcal{F}(\nabla)$-approximation of $\Delta (i)$ and $T(i)/ \Delta (i)$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\subsubsection{Strongly and ultra strongly quasihereditary algebras}
Following Ringel (\cite{RingelIyama}), a quasihereditary algebra $\B{B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ is said to be \emph{right strongly quasihereditary} if $\Rad{\Delta\B{i}} \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ for all $i \in \Phi$. This property holds if and only if the category $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under submodules (see \cite{yey}, \cite[Lemma $4.1$*]{MR1211481} and \cite[Appendix]{RingelIyama}).
Let $(B, \Phi , \sqsubseteq )$ be an arbitrary quasihereditary algebra, as before. Additionally, suppose that $B$ satisfies the following two conditions:
\begin{description}
\item[(A1)\label{item:A1n}] $\Rad{\Delta\B{i}} \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ for all $i \in \Phi$ (i.e.~$B$ is right strongly quasihereditary);
\item[(A2)\label{item:A2n}] $Q_i \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ for all $i \in \Phi$ such that $\Rad{\Delta\B{i}}=0$.
\end{description}
We call these algebras \emph{right ultra strongly quasihereditary} algebras (RUSQ algebras, for short).
\begin{rem}
It was proved in \cite[§$2.5.1$]{thesis} that the definition of RUSQ algebra given in \cite{MR3510398} is equivalent to the one above.
\end{rem}
Let $\B{B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq }$ be a RUSQ algebra. It is always possible to label the elements in $\Phi$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phiforultrastronglyqhalg}
\Phi = \{(i,j):\, 1 \leq i \leq n ,\, 1 \leq j \leq l_i \},
\end{equation}
for certain $n,l_i \in \Z_{> 0}$, so that $[\Delta\B{k,l}:L_{i,j}]\neq 0$ implies that $k=i$ and $j\geq l$ (see \cite[§5]{MR3510398}). We shall always assume that the elements in $\Phi$ are labelled in such a way.
The following proposition summarises some properties of the RUSQ algebras.
\begin{prop}[{\cite[§5]{MR3510398}}]
\label{prop:newprop}
Let $\B{B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq }$ be a RUSQ algebra. The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under submodules;
\item $\Rad{\Delta\B{i,j}}=\Delta \B{i,j+1}$ for $j < l_i$, and $\Delta\B{i,l_i}=L_{i,l_i}$;
\item each $\Delta\B{i,j}$ is uniserial and has composition factors $L_{i,j}, \ldots, L_{i,l_i}$, ordered from the top to the socle;
\item $Q_{i,l_i} = T\B{i,1}$;
\item for $M\in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, the number of standard modules appearing in a $\Delta$-filtration of $M$ is given by $\sum_{i=1}^n [M:L_{i,l_i}]$;
\item a module $M$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ if and only if $\Soc{M}$ is a (finite) direct sum of modules of type $L_{i,l_i}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\subsubsection{The ADR algebra}
Fix an Artin algebra $A$. Given a module $M$ in $\Mod{A}$, we shall denote its \emph{Loewy length} by $\LL{M}$. Let $A$ have Loewy length $L$ (as a left module). We want to study the basic version of the endomorphism algebra of $\bigoplus_{j=1}^L A/ \RAD{j}{A}$.
For this, let $\{P_1, \ldots, P_n\}$ be a complete set of projective indecomposable $A$-modules and let $l_i$ be the Loewy length of $P_i$. Define
\[
G=G_A:=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{n} \bigoplus_{j=1}^{l_i} P_i/ \RAD{j}{P_i}.
\]
The \emph{Auslander--Dlab--Ringel algebra of $A$} (ADR algebra of $A$) is defined as
\[
R=R_A:=\End{A}{G}\normalfont{^{op}} .
\]
The projective indecomposable $R$-modules are given by
\[
P_{i,j}:=\Hom{A}{G}{P_i/ \RAD{j}{P_i}},
\]
for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq l_i$.
Denote the simple quotient of $P_{i,j}$ by $L_{i,j}$ and define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:posetadr}
\Lambda := \{ (i,j):\, 1 \leq i \leq n, \, 1 \leq j \leq l_i \},
\end{equation}
so that $\Lambda$ labels the simple $R$-modules. Define a partial order, $\unlhd$, on $\Lambda$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:guentanaborrabo}
(i,j) \lhd (k,l) \Leftrightarrow j> l.
\end{equation}
According to \cite[§4]{MR3510398}, $(R, \Lambda, \unlhd)$ is a RUSQ algebra and the labelling $\Lambda$ is compatible with \eqref{eq:phiforultrastronglyqhalg}.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[§3, §4]{MR3510398}}]
\label{prop:standard}
The ADR algebra $(R, \Lambda, \unlhd)$ is a RUSQ algebra. For every $(i,j)$ in $\Lambda$, we have $\Delta\B{i,j}\cong \RAD{j-1}{P_{i,1}}$ and there are short exact sequences
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:elreidsebastiao}
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \& \Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_i}/ \RAD{j}{P_i}} \arrow{r} \& P_{i,j} \arrow{r} \& \Delta\B{i,j} \arrow{r} \& 0
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\section{\texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple modules and \texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple filtrations}
\label{sec:deltass}
For a quasihereditary algebra $\B{B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq}$, we say that a $B$-module is \emph{$\Delta$-semisimple} if it is a direct sum of standard modules. Every module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ has some submodule $N$ such that:
\begin{description}
\item[(B)\label{item:b}] $N$ is $\Delta$-semisimple and $M/N$ is in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\end{description}
Given a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, we may consider the submodules of $M$ which are maximal with respect to property \ref{item:b}. The module $M$ may have more than one such submodule (see Example $2.20$ in \cite{MR2642018}). However, according to \cite{MR2642018}, the submodules of $M$ which are maximal with respect to \ref{item:b} are unique up to isomorphism.
Suppose now that $B$ is a RUSQ algebra. The $\Delta$-sem\-i\-sim\-ple modules over RUSQ algebras are particularly well behaved. As we will see in Corollary \ref{cor:ultrastronglyqhdeltass}, the property of being $\Delta$-semisimple is closed under submodules in this case. Furthermore, every module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ has exactly one submodule $D_M$ which is maximal with respect to property \ref{item:b}. The module $D_M$ is actually the unique maximal $\Delta$-semisimple submodule of $M$ (with respect to inclusion). Moreover, $D_M$ will be obtained by applying a certain hereditary preradical (as in Definition \ref{defi:hereditary}) to the module $M$. Since $M/D_M$ still lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, we may proceed iteratively and define the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration (which will be unique) and the $\Delta$-semisimple length of any module in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple modules}
\label{subsec:moti}
We are interested in submodules of $\Delta$-good modules which are maximal with respect to property \ref{item:b}. As a consequence of Theorem $2.17$ in \cite{MR2642018}, these are unique up to isomorphism.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Theorem $2.17$]{MR2642018}}]
Let $\B{B, \Phi , \sqsubseteq}$ be a quasihereditary algebra, and let $M$ be in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Any two submodules of $M$ which are maximal with respect to property \ref{item:b} are isomorphic.
\end{thm}
Note that $\Delta$-semisimple modules are in general well behaved with respect to quotients in the following way: every $\Delta$-good factor module of a $\Delta$-semisimple module is still $\Delta$-semisimple. This assertion follows from the fact that $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under taking kernels of epimorphisms (\cite[Lemma $1.5$]{MR1211481}) and from Theorem $3.2$ in \cite{MR2642018}.
We wish to study the $\Delta$-semisimple modules over a RUSQ algebra $\B{B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq}$. We shall assume that the set $\Phi$ is as described in \eqref{eq:phiforultrastronglyqhalg}. In this subsection we prove some key properties of the $\Delta$-semisimple modules over RUSQ algebras. Namely, we show that the property of being $\Delta$-semisimple is closed under taking submodules.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ultrastronglyses}
Let $\B{B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ be a RUSQ algebra. Let $M$ be in $\Mod{B}$ and suppose that there is a short exact sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:christophlisboa}
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \& \Delta\B{k,l} \arrow{r}{f} \& M \arrow{r}\& \Delta \B{i,j} \arrow{r} \& 0
\end{tikzcd},
\end{equation}
with $(k,l), (i,j) \in \Phi$. If $\Soc{M}\not\cong \Soc{\Delta\B{k,l}}$, then \eqref{eq:christophlisboa} splits.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\Soc{\B{\Ima{f}}}= \Soc{\Delta\B{k,l}}= L_{k,l_k}$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, part 3). As $\Soc{M}\not\cong \Soc{\Delta\B{k,l}}$, there is some nonzero submodule $M'$ of $M$ such that $\Ima{f} \cap M'=0$. Let $g: \Ima{f} \oplus M' \longrightarrow Q_{k,l_k}$ be the morphism which embeds $\Ima{f}$ in $Q_{k,l_k}$ and maps $M'$ to zero. By the injectivity of $Q_{k,l_k}$, $g$ extends to a map $g': M \longrightarrow Q_{k,l_k}$. Note that $\Ima{f}\cap \Ker{g'} =0$ as $g'|_{\Ima{f}}=g|_{\Ima{f}}$ is an injective map. Thus $\Ima{f}\oplus\Ker{g'}$ is a submodule of $M$.
By part 4 of Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, $Q_{k,l_k}$ is in $\mathcal{F}(\Delta)$. Since $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under taking submodules, then both $\Ima{g'}$ and $\Ker{g'}$ lie in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Denote by $\Delta |N|$ the number of standard modules appearing in a $\Delta$-filtration of $N\in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. As $\Delta |M|=2$, $\Delta |\Ima{g'}|>0$ and $\Delta |\Ker{g'}| > 0$, it follows that $\Delta |\Ima{g'}|=\Delta |\Ker{g'}|=1$. So either $\Ima{g'}\cong \Delta(k,l)$ and $\Ker{g'}\cong \Delta(i,j)$, or $\Ima{g'}\cong \Delta(i,j)$ and $\Ker{g'}\cong \Delta(k,l)$.
If $\Ker{g'}\cong \Delta(i,j)$, then the submodule $\Ima{f} \oplus \Ker{g'}$ of $M$ must coincide with $M$ (as both modules have the same Jordan--H\"{o}lder length). In this case the monic $f$ splits.
If $\Ima{g'}\cong \Delta(i,j)$, then $(k,l) \sqsubseteq (i,j) $ as
\[\Delta\B{k,l}\cong \Ima{f} \cong \Ima{g} \subseteq \Ima{g'}.\]
But then part $(b)$ of Lemma $1.3$ in \cite{MR1211481} implies that \eqref{eq:christophlisboa} is a split exact sequence.
\end{proof}
We now use the previous result to give a characterisation of the $\Delta$-semisimple modules over a RUSQ algebra.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:ultrastronglyqhdeltass}
Let $\B{B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ be a RUSQ algebra and let $M$ be in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Then $M$ is $\Delta$-semisimple if and only if the number of simple summands of $\Soc{M}$ coincides with the number of factors in a $\Delta$-filtration of $M$. Moreover, any submodule of a $\Delta$-semisimple module is still $\Delta$-semisimple.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Denote by $\mathcal{P}(M)$ the following assertion: ``the number of simple summands of $\Soc{M}$ coincides with the number of factors in a $\Delta$-filtration of $M$". By parts 5 and 6 of Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, $\mathcal{P}(M)$ is true if and only if the composition factors of $M$ of type $L_{x,l_x}$ are exactly the summands of its socle. From this equivalence, it is easy to see that the truth of $\mathcal{P}(M)$ implies the truth of $\mathcal{P}(N)$ for $N\subseteq M$. Let $N \in \mathcal{F}(\Delta)$ be a submodule of $M$ such that $M/N \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Using Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, we also conclude that the truth of $\mathcal{P}(M)$ implies the truth of $\mathcal{P}(M/N)$.
If $M$ is a $\Delta$-semisimple module then $\mathcal{P}(M)$ is clearly true. Suppose now that $\mathcal{P}(M)$ holds for $M\in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. We wish to show that $M$ is $\Delta$-semisimple. We prove this by induction on the number $z$ of factors in a $\Delta$-filtration of $M$. If $z=1$ the result is obvious. Suppose now that $z \geq 2$. Let $M_1$ be a submodule $M$ satisfying $M/M_1\in\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ and $M_1\cong \Delta (i,j)$ for some $(i,j) \in \Phi$. By the remark in the first paragraph, $\mathcal{P}(M/M_1)$ holds. Using induction, we conclude that $M/M_1$ is $\Delta$-semisimple. Therefore $M/M_1=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{z-1} N_i/M_1$, where each $N_i/M_1$ is isomorphic to a standard module. Applying again the observations in the first paragraph, we deduce that assertion $\mathcal{P}(N_i)$ must hold, so, by induction, each $N_i$ is a $\Delta$-semisimple module. Using that both $M_1$ and $N_i/M_1 $ are standard modules, we conclude that $N_i= M_1 \oplus M_{i+1}$, where $M_{i+1}$ is a submodule of $M$ isomorphic to a standard module. Note that $\bigoplus_{i=1}^z M_i$ is a submodule of $M$ which has the same Jordan--H\"{o}lder length as $M$. This implies that $M=\bigoplus_{i=1}^z M_i$, which proves that $M$ is $\Delta$-semisimple. We have just shown that $M$ is a $\Delta$-semisimple module if and only if assertion $\mathcal{P}(M)$ holds.
Let now $N$ be a submodule of a $\Delta$-semisimple module $M$. Then $\mathcal{P}(M)$ is true, which implies that $\mathcal{P}(N)$ holds. Therefore $N$ is a $\Delta$-semisimple module.
\end{proof}
In the next subsection we are going to show that every $\Delta$-good module over a RUSQ algebra has a unique maximal $\Delta$-semi\-sim\-ple submodule. First, we check that arbitrary quasihereditary algebras do not possess this property.
\begin{ex}
\label{ex:karinparker}
Consider the quiver
\[
Q=
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \& 1 \arrow[bend left]{l}{\alpha} \arrow[bend right]{l}[swap]{\varepsilon} \\
3 \arrow{u}{\delta}\arrow[bend left]{r}{\gamma_1}\& 2 \arrow{u}{\beta} \arrow[bend left]{l}{\gamma_0}
\end{tikzcd},
\]
and the bound quiver algebra $B=KQ/ I$, where $I$ is the ideal generated by the elements $\varepsilon \beta - \delta \gamma_0$ and $\gamma_0 \gamma_1$. The algebra $B$ is quasihereditary with respect to the labelling poset $0 < 1 < 2 < 3$. The modules
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
0
\end{tikzcd}, \, \,
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& 1 \arrow[dash]{dl}[swap]{\varepsilon} \arrow[dash]{dr}{\alpha} \& \\
0 \& \& 0
\end{tikzcd} , \, \,
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
2 \arrow[dash]{d}
\\ 1 \arrow[dash]{d}{\alpha} \\
0
\end{tikzcd}, \,\,
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& 3 \arrow[dash]{dl} \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \\
0 \& \& 2 \arrow[dash]{d} \\
\& \& 1\arrow[dash]{d}{\alpha} \\
\&\& 0
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
are the corresponding standard $B$-modules. The projective cover $P_2$ of the simple module with label 2 has the following structure
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& \& 2 \arrow[dash]{dl} \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \&\\
\& 3 \arrow[dash]{dl} \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \& 1 \arrow[dash]{dl}[swap]{\varepsilon} \arrow[dash]{dr}{\alpha}\& \\
2\arrow[dash]{d} \& \& 0\& \& 0 \\
1 \arrow[dash]{d}{\alpha} \&\&\&\& \\
0 \&\&\&\&
\end{tikzcd}.\]
The modules $\Delta\B{1} \oplus \Delta\B{2}$ and $\Delta\B{3} \oplus \Delta\B{0}$ are both maximal $\Delta$-semisimple submodules of $P_2$. The quotient of $P_2$ by each of these submodules does not belong to $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, i.e.~none of these submodules of $P_2$ satisfies property \ref{item:b}.
\end{ex}
\subsection{The preradical \texorpdfstring{$\delta$}{[delta]} and \texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple filtrations}
\label{subsec:thepreradicaldelta}
Let $\B{B ,\Phi, \sqsubseteq}$ be an arbitrary quasihereditary algebra. As pointed out in the previous subsection, the submodules of a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ which are maximal with respect to property \ref{item:b} are all isomorphic, but they are not necessarily unique. We have also seen that a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ may have more than one maximal $\Delta$-semisimple submodule with respect to inclusion (Example \ref{ex:karinparker}). We shall prove that both these maximal submodules are unique and actually coincide when the underlying algebra is a RUSQ algebra. For this, we use the general theory of preradicals introduced in Subsection \ref{sec:preradicals}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Deltahereditary}
Let $(B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq)$ be a RUSQ algebra. The corresponding set $\Delta$ of standard $B$-modules is a hereditary class in $\Mod{B}$. In particular, $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ is a hereditary preradical in $\Mod{B}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $N$ be a submodule of a module in $\Add{\Delta}$, so $N$ is contained in some $\Delta$-semisimple module $M$. By Corollary \ref{cor:ultrastronglyqhdeltass}, $N$ is still $\Delta$-semisimple, so it is trivially generated by $\Delta$. Hence the set $\Delta$ is hereditary. Lemma \ref{lem:hereditaryclass} implies that $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ is a hereditary preradical in $\Mod{B}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The preradical $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ is not usually hereditary for an arbitrary quasihereditary algebra $B$ (not even if $B$ is right strongly quasihereditary).
\end{rem}
From now onwards we shall denote the functor $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ by $\delta$.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:preradicaldelta}
For a RUSQ algebra $(B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq)$, let $\delta$ be the hereditary preradical $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ in $\Mod{B}$.
\end{defi}
Next, we give a description of the submodule $\delta\B{M}$ of a module $M\in\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:deltahereditary2}
Let $(B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq)$ be a RUSQ algebra, and let $M \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Then $\delta\B{M}$ is the largest $\Delta$-semisimple submodule of $M$. Furthermore, $M/ \delta\B{M}$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. In particular, $\delta\B{M}$ is the largest submodule of $M$ satisfying property \ref{item:b}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$, there is an epic $f$ from a $\Delta$-semisimple module $M'$ to $\delta\B{M}$. Note that both $\delta\B{M}$ and $\Ker{f}$ are in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, since this category is closed under submodules. As a consequence, $f$ must be a split epic. Hence $\delta\B{M}$ is $\Delta$-semisimple. By the definition of $\Tr{\Delta}{-}$ it is clear that every $\Delta$-semisimple submodule of $M$ must be contained in $\delta\B{M}$. This shows that $\delta\B{M}$ is the largest $\Delta$-semisimple submodule of $M \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
To conclude this proof it is enough to show that $M/\delta\B{M}$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. We start by proving that this holds for the injective modules $Q_{i,l_i}=T\B{i,1}$ (recall Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}). Note that $\Delta\B{i,1} \subseteq \delta\B{Q_{i,l_i}}$, as $\Delta\B{i,1}$ is a submodule of $T\B{i,1}$. Since $Q_{i,l_i}$ has simple socle $L_{i,l_i}$, then $\delta\B{Q_{i,l_i}}$ has to be isomorphic to some standard module $\Delta\B{i,j}$. But then we must have $\Delta\B{i,1}=\delta\B{Q_{i,l_i}}$, and consequently $Q_{i,l_i}/ \delta\B{Q_{i,l_i}} = T\B{i,1}/\Delta\B{i,1}$ is in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Let now $Q$ be a finite direct sum of injective modules of type $Q_{i,l_i}$. The module $Q/\delta\B{Q}$ still lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ because preradicals preserve finite direct sums (see part 3 of Lemma \ref{lem:preradicalprops}). Consider now $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. By Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, the injective hull $q_0: M \longrightarrow Q_0\B{M}$ of $M\in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is such that $Q_0\B{M}$ is a direct sum of injectives of type $Q_{i,l_i}$. By part 3 of Lemma \ref{lem:hereditary}, $q_0$ gives rise to a monic $M/\delta\B{M} \longrightarrow Q_0\B{M}/ \delta(Q_0\B{M})$, and by our previous observation $Q_0\B{M}/ \delta(Q_0\B{M})$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. As $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under submodules, the module $M/ \delta\B{M}$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}
Note that for an arbitrary quasihereditary algebra the modules $\delta\B{M}$, $M \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, are not usually $\Delta$-semisimple (not even $\Delta$-good). Indeed, for the algebra in Example \ref{ex:karinparker}, we have $\delta\B{P_2}=\Tr{\Delta}{P_2}=\Rad{P_2}$, which is not $\Delta$-semisimple.
\end{ex}
\subsubsection{Filtrations arising from preradicals}
\label{subsec:filpreradicals}
Our next goal is to define $\Delta$-semisimple filtration and $\Delta$-semisimple length for modules in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, over some RUSQ algebra $B$. For this, some elementary results about preradicals are needed.
Let $\tau$ and $\upsilon$ be preradicals (over an arbitrary Artin algebra $B$). Write $\tau \leq \upsilon$ if $\tau$ is a subfunctor of $\upsilon$. The functor $\tau \circ \upsilon$ is a preradical, and $\tau \circ \upsilon \leq \upsilon$. For $M$ in $\Mod{B}$ define $\tau \bullet \upsilon \B{M}$ as the submodule of $M$ containing $\upsilon\B{M}$, satisfying
\[
\tau \B{M / \upsilon \B{M}}= \tau \bullet \upsilon \B{M}/ \upsilon\B{M}.
\]
The operator $\tau \bullet \upsilon$ is still a predadical. By construction, $\upsilon \leq \tau \bullet \upsilon$.
By the characterisation of hereditary radicals given in Lemma \ref{lem:hereditary}, it follows that $\tau \circ \upsilon$ is hereditary if both $\tau$ and $\upsilon$ are hereditary. We also have that $\tau \bullet \upsilon$ is hereditary, whenever $\tau$ and $\upsilon$ are both hereditary -- the functor $1/ \B{\tau \bullet \upsilon}$ is naturally isomorphic to $\B{1/ \tau} \circ \B{1/ \upsilon}$.
Similarly to the composition of preradicals, the operation $\bullet$ is associative. Given a preradical $\tau$, let $\tau^0$ be the identity functor in $\Mod{B}$ and let $\tau_0$ be the zero preradical. For $m \in \Z_{> 0}$, define $\tau^m:= \tau \circ \tau^{m-1}$ and $\tau_m:= \tau \bullet \tau_{m-1}$. We summarise the properties of these preradicals.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:summary}
Let $\tau$ be a preradical in $\Mod{B}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $m \geq 1$, $\tau^m \leq \tau^{m-1}$ and $\tau_{m-1} \leq \tau_m$.
\item For every $M$ in $\Mod{B}$ there is $m \geq 0$ such that $\tau^{m} \B{M}= \tau^{m+1}\B{M}$.
\item For every $M$ in $\Mod{B}$ there is $m \geq 0$ such that $\tau_{m} \B{M}= \tau_{m+1}\B{M}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
The preradicals $\tau_m$ (and $\tau^m$), $m \in \Z_{\geq 0}$, give rise to special filtrations.
\begin{lem}[{\cite[§$1.3.3$]{thesis}}]
\label{lem:lemita1}
Let $\tau$ be a preradical. Suppose that $\tau\B{M}\neq 0$ for every nonzero $B$-module $M$. Given $M$ in $\Mod{B}$, there is a unique integer $l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{M} = n \geq 0$ such that $\tau_{n}\B{M}=M$, and $ \tau_{m-1}\B{M} \subset \tau_m \B{M}$ for every $m$ satisfying $1 \leq m \leq n$. Moreover, for $m \leq l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{M}$, we have
\[
l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{M/ \tau_m \B{M}} = n -m.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}[{\cite[§$1.3.3$]{thesis}}]
\label{lem:lemita2}
Let $\tau$ be a hereditary preradical. Then $\tau_m$ is also a hereditary preradical, and $\tau_m \circ \tau_{m'}=\tau_{\min\{m,m'\}}$ for every $m, m' \geq 0$. Furthermore, if $\tau\B{M}\neq 0$ for every $M\neq 0$, the following hold for $N$ and $M$ in $\Mod{B}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $N \subseteq M$ then $l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{N} \leq l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{M}$;
\item if $m \leq l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{M}$, then $\tau_m\B{M}$ is the largest submodule $N$ of $M$ such that $l^{\B{\tau , \bullet}}\B{N}=m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\subsubsection{\texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple filtrations and \texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple length}
Suppose once again that $(B, \Phi, \sqsubseteq)$ is a RUSQ algebra, and consider the hereditary preradical $\delta$. Note that $\delta\B{M}\neq 0$ for every nonzero module $M$ in $\Mod{B}$ as
\[ \Soc{M} \subseteq \Tr{\Delta}{M} =\delta\B{M}. \]
In fact, we have $\Soc{M}=\Soc{\delta\B{M}}$. We may construct the preradicals $\delta_m$ in $\Mod{B}$ defined recursively in §\ref{subsec:filpreradicals}. Then Lemmas \ref{lem:summary}, \ref{lem:lemita1} and \ref{lem:lemita2} hold for the preradicals $\delta_{m}$. In particular, $\delta_{m}$ is a hereditary preradical for every $m \in \Z_{\geq 0}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:deltasemisimplefiltration}
Let $(B,\Phi, \sqsubseteq)$ be a RUSQ algebra. If $M$ is in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ then so is $M/ \delta_m \B{M}$, for any $m \geq 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:deltahereditary2}, the claim holds for $m=1$. Suppose $m \geq 2$. Then
\begin{align*}
M/ \delta_m \B{M} & \cong \B{M / \delta\B{M}} / \B{\delta_{m-1} \bullet \delta \B{M} / \delta\B{M} } \\ &= \B{M/ \delta\B{M}} / \B{\delta_{m-1}\B{M / \delta\B{M}}},
\end{align*}
so by induction $M / \delta_m \B{M}$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\end{proof}
Given a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, we may consider the filtration
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltasemisimplefiltartion}
0 \subset \delta\B{M} \subset \cdots \subset \delta_{m}\B{M}=M ,
\end{equation}
where $m=l^{\B{\delta, \bullet}}\B{M}$ is as defined in Lemma \ref{lem:lemita1}. The factors of this filtration are $\Delta$-semisimple: by Lemma \ref{lem:deltasemisimplefiltration} and Proposition \ref{prop:deltahereditary2} the modules $ \delta_i (M)/\delta_{i-1} (M)= \delta(M/\delta_{i-1}(M))$ are $\Delta$-semisimple. We call \eqref{eq:deltasemisimplefiltartion} the \emph{$\Delta$-semisimple filtration} of $M \in \mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi:deltasemisimplelength}
The \emph{$\Delta$-semisimple length} of a module $M$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, denoted by $\dssl{M}$, is the length of the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration of $M$, i.e.~it is given by the number $l^{\B{\delta, \bullet}}\B{M}$ (as in Lemma \ref{lem:lemita1}).
\end{defi}
\section{\texorpdfstring{$\Delta$}{[Delta]}-semisimple filtrations of modules over the ADR algebra}
\label{sec:manuela}
The ADR algebra of an Artin algebra $A$, $R=\B{R_A, \Lambda, \unlhd}$, is our prototype of a RUSQ algebra. We now prove some results specific to the $\Delta$-semisimple filtrations of $\Delta$-good modules over the ADR algebra. Throughout this section the underlying quasihereditary algebra will be $\B{R, \Lambda, \unlhd}$, where the poset $\B{\Lambda, \unlhd}$ is as defined in \eqref{eq:posetadr} and \eqref{eq:guentanaborrabo}. For the proof of the next results note that the left exact functor $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$ is fully faithful since $G$ is a generator of $\Mod{A}$ (see \cite[§8--§10]{MR0349747}).
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:P_{i,L}}
Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be in $\Mod{A}$, with $M_1 \subseteq M_2$. There is a canonical embedding
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota} \& \Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
and the induced morphisms
\begin{gather*}\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline= (a).base]
\node[scale=.9] (a) at (0,0){
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=normal]
\Hom{R}{P_{i,l_i}}{\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1}} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota_*} \& \Hom{R}{P_{i,l_i}}{\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}},
\end{tikzcd}
};
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline= (a).base]
\node[scale=.9] (a) at (0,0){
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=normal]
\Hom{R}{\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}}{Q_{i,l_i}}\arrow[two heads]{r}{\iota^*} \& \Hom{R}{\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1}}{Q_{i,l_i}}
\end{tikzcd}
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{gather*}
are isomorphisms.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The functor $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$ is left exact. Thus, it maps the canonical epic $\pi:M_2 \longrightarrow M_2/ M_1$ to the morphism $\pi_*$, which factors as
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=tiny]
\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}\arrow[two heads]{rd}[swap]{\varpi} \arrow{rr}{\pi_*} \& \& \Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1} \\
\& \Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/ \Hom{A}{G}{M_1} \arrow[hook]{ru}[swap]{\iota}\&
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
Consider the monic $\iota_*$ obtained by applying the functor $\Hom{R}{P_{i,l_i}}{-}$ to $\iota$. Let $f_*$ be in $\Hom{R}{P_{i,l_i}}{\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}}$. Then $f_*=\Hom{A}{G}{f}$, for a map $f:P_i \longrightarrow M_2/ M_1$ in $\Mod{A}$. Since $P_i$ is projective, $f= \pi \circ t$ for some $t: P_i \longrightarrow M_2$. So $f_*=\pi_* \circ t_*= \iota \circ \varpi \circ t_*=\iota_*(\varpi \circ t_*)$, where $t_*=\Hom{A}{G}{t}$. This shows that $\iota_*$ is surjective, hence it is an isomorphism. The proof that $\iota^*$ is an isomorphism is analogous.
\end{proof}
Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be in $\Mod{A}$, with $M_1 \subseteq M_2$. We shall regard the canonical embedding in Lemma \ref{lem:P_{i,L}},
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1} \arrow[hook]{r}{\iota} \& \Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}
\end{tikzcd},
\]
as an inclusion of $R$-modules. According to Lemma $3.6$ in \cite{MR3510398}, $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ for every $M$ in $\Mod{A}$. Since the category $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under submodules then both $\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1}$ and $\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}$ are $\Delta$-good modules. Lemma \ref{lem:P_{i,L}} is hinting at a close relation between the $\Delta$-filtrations of the modules $\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1}$ and $\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}$. We spell out this idea below.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:neweasyses}
Let $M_1$ and $M_2$ be in $\Mod{A}$, with $M_1 \subseteq M_2$. Write $M=\Hom{A}{G}{M_2/M_1}$ and $M'=\Hom{A}{G}{M_2}/\Hom{A}{G}{M_1}$. All the composition factors of $M$ of type $L_{i,l_i}$ appear as composition factors of its submodule $M'$. In particular, $M$ and $M'$ have the same number of composition factors of type $L_{i,l_i}$. Moreover, $M$ and $M'$ lie in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$, $\Soc{M}= \Soc{M'}$, and the modules $M$ and $M'$ are filtered by the same number of standard modules.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:P_{i,L}}, all the composition factors of $M$ isomorphic to $L_{i,l_i}$ appear as composition factors of its submodule $M'$. As $M$ lies in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ then, by Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}, $\Soc{M}$ is a direct sum of simples of type $L_{i,l_i}$. Thus $\Soc{M'}=\Soc{M}$. Part 5 of Proposition \ref{prop:newprop} implies that the $\Delta$-filtrations of $M$ and $M'$ have the same number of factors.
\end{proof}
As we shall see next, the socle series of an $A$-module $M$ gives rise to the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration of $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:soc0}
Let $M$ be in $\Mod{A}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:teresapreguicosa}
\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}}=\Tr{\bigoplus_{(k,l):\, l \leq j}P_{k,l}}{\Hom{A}{G}{M}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $\SOC{j}{M}/ \SOC{j-1}{M} = \bigoplus_{\theta \in \Theta} L_{x_{\theta}}$, then
\[
\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}}/ \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j-1}{M}} = \bigoplus_{\theta \in \Theta} \Delta\B{x_{\theta},j}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Proposition $10.2$]{MR0349747} (see also \cite[Lemma $3.3$]{MR3510398}), $\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}}$ is generated by projectives $P_{k,l}$ satisfying $l \leq j$. This proves one of the inclusions in \eqref{eq:teresapreguicosa}. Consider now an arbitrary morphism $f_*: P_{k,l}\longrightarrow \Hom{A}{G}{M}$, with $l\leq j$. Note that $f_*= \Hom{A}{G}{f}$ for a certain map $f: P_{k}/ \RAD{l}{P_k} \longrightarrow M$.
Clearly, $\Ima{f} \subseteq \SOC{j}{M}$. But then
\[
\Ima{f_*} \subseteq \Hom{A}{G}{\Ima{f}} \subseteq \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}}.
\]
As $f_*$ was chosen arbitrarily, the other inclusion follows. This proves identity \eqref{eq:teresapreguicosa}.
To prove the second claim in the statement of the lemma, set
\[
M':=\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}}/ \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j-1}{M}},
\]
and assume that $\SOC{j}{M}/ \SOC{j-1}{M}$ is isomorphic to $\bigoplus_{\theta \in \Theta} L_{x_{\theta}}$. Recall that $\Delta (i,1)$ is isomorphic to $\Hom{A}{G}{L_i}$ (see Theorem \ref{prop:standard}). Lemma \ref{lem:P_{i,L}} and Corollary \ref{cor:neweasyses} imply that $M'$ is contained in
\[
\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{j}{M}/ \SOC{j-1}{M}}=\bigoplus_{\theta \in \Theta} \Hom{A}{G}{L_{x_{\theta}}}= \bigoplus_{\theta \in \Theta} \Delta\B{x_{\theta},1}
\]
and that these modules have the same socle. By Corollary \ref{cor:ultrastronglyqhdeltass}, $M'$ is $\Delta$-semisimple. Finally, by the identity \eqref{eq:teresapreguicosa} (applied to $j$ and $j-1$), the module $M'$ must be generated by projectives of type $P_{i,j}$. This proves the second assertion of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:soc0} and Theorem \ref{thm:socdelta} are very useful to compute examples. For the proof of the next result, recall the characterisation of the preradical $\delta$ in Subsection \ref{subsec:thepreradicaldelta}, namely Proposition \ref{prop:deltahereditary2} and Lemma \ref{lem:deltasemisimplefiltration}.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:socdelta}
Let $M$ be in $\Mod{A}$. The socle series of $M$ induces the $\Delta$-semisimple filtration of $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$. Formally,
\[
\delta_m \B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}} = \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}},
\]
for all $m \in \Z_{\geq 0}$. In particular, $\dssl{(\Hom{A}{G}{M})}=\LL{M}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
For $m$ satisfying $1 \leq m \leq \LL{M}$ we prove the claim by induction on $m$, starting with $m=1$. Note that $\Hom{A}{G}{\Soc{M}}$ is a direct sum of standard modules of type $\Hom{A}{G}{L_{i}}=\Delta\B{i,1}$, so $\Hom{A}{G}{\Soc{M}} \subseteq \delta\B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}}$. Since the functor $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$ preserves injective hulls (see \cite[Lemma $4.4$]{MR3510398}), the modules $\Hom{A}{G}{\Soc{M}}$ and $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ have the same socle. Hence the previous inclusion must be an equality.
Suppose now that $2 \leq m \leq \LL{M}$, and set
\begin{gather*}
Z_1:=\Hom{A}{G}{M}/ \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m-1}{M}} \\
Z_2:= \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}}/ \Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m-1}{M}}.
\end{gather*}
Since $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$ preserves injective hulls, the modules $\Hom{A}{G}{M/\SOC{m-1}{M}}$ and $\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}/\SOC{m-1}{M}}$ have the same socle. But then, by Corollary \ref{cor:neweasyses}, $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ have the same socle. Moreover, $Z_1$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:soc0}, $Z_2$ must be contained in $\delta\B{Z_1}$. So both $\delta\B{Z_1}$ and $Z_2$ are $\Delta$-semisimple modules with the same socle. By Corollary \ref{cor:neweasyses}, $Z_1/Z_2$ must be in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. Since $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$ is closed under submodules, then $\delta\B{Z_1}/ Z_2$ is in $\mathcal{F}\B{\Delta}$. We must have $\delta\B{Z_1}/ Z_2=0$, otherwise this factor module would have some composition factor of type $L_{i,l_i}$. By induction, we may suppose that $\delta_{m-1}(\Hom{A}{G}{M})=\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m-1}{M}}$. Then, the identity $Z_2=\delta\B{Z_1}$ translates to
\begin{multline*}
\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}}/ \delta_{m-1}\B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}} \\
=\delta_{m}\B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}}/ \delta_{m-1}\B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}}.
\end{multline*}
This implies that $\delta_{m}\B{\Hom{A}{G}{M}}=\Hom{A}{G}{\SOC{m}{M}}$, $1 \leq m \leq \LL{M}$. The same identity holds trivially for $m=0$ and for $m \geq \LL{M}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Projective covers of modules over the ADR algebra}
\label{sec:thma}
We would like to determine the projective covers of modules over the ADR algebra $R_A$ of $A$. For a module $M$ in $\Mod{A}$, the projective cover $p_*$ of $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ in $\Mod{R_A}$ is the image of an epic $p$, with domain in $\Add{G}$, through the functor $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$. The morphism $p$ is a special kind of map: it is the right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation of $M$ in $\Mod{A}$.
The problem of finding approximations is hard in general. However, as we shall see in Theorem \ref{customthm:addGapprox}, it is very easy to compute right $\Add{G}$-approximations of rigid modules. Recall that a module is \emph{rigid} if its radical series coincides with its socle series.
Theorem \ref{customthm:addGapprox} (or rather consequences of this result -- Corollary \ref{cor:lemmaa} and Proposition \ref{prop:pink2}) will be very useful when dealing with examples. In Subsection \ref{subsec:counterexample}, we will use Corollary \ref{cor:lemmaa} and Proposition \ref{prop:pink2} to give a counterexample to a claim by Auslander, Platzeck and Todorov (\cite{MR1052903}) about the projective resolutions of modules over the ADR algebra.
\subsection{Approximations of rigid modules}
\label{subsec:approx}
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a class of $A$-modules. We recall the definition of right $\mathcal{X}$-approximation and of right minimal morphism. A morphism $f: X \longrightarrow M$ in $\Mod{A}$, with $X$ in $\mathcal{X}$, is said to be a \emph{right $\mathcal{X}$-approximation} of $M$ if $\Hom{A}{X'}{f}$ is an epic for all $X'$ in $\mathcal{X}$. A map $f:M \longrightarrow N $ in $\Mod{A}$ is called a \emph{right minimal morphism} if every endomorphism $g: M \longrightarrow M$ satisfying $f=f \circ g$ is an automorphism.
The right $\Add{G}$-approximations of a module $M$ in $\Mod{A}$ are in bijection with epics in $\Mod{R_A}$,
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\Hom{A}{G}{X} \arrow[two heads]{r} \& \Hom{A}{G}{M},
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where $X \in \Add{G}$. This bijection restricts to a one-to-one correspondence between right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximations in $\Mod{A}$ and projective covers in $\Mod{R_A}$. Since $G$ is a generator, the functor $\Hom{A}{G}{-}$ is particularly well behaved: it is fully faithful and it is such that the projective cover of a module $M$ in $\Mod{A}$ factors through its $\Add{G}$-approximation. The latter statement implies that every right $\Add{G}$-approximation is an epimorphism.
\begin{thm}
\label{customthm:addGapprox}
Let $M$ be a rigid module in $\Mod{A}$ such that $\LL{M}=m$. The projective cover of $M$ in $\Mod{(A/ \RAD{m}{A})}$ is a right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation of $M$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a rigid module with Loewy length $m$. Consider the projective cover of $M$ as an $(A/ \RAD{m}{A})$-module,
\[
\varepsilon: P_0\B{M} \longrightarrow M.
\]
We want to prove that $\varepsilon$ is a right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation. By definition, $\varepsilon$ is a right minimal morphism, so it is enough to prove that every map $f:P_i/\RAD{j}{P_i} \longrightarrow M$, with $(i,j) \in \Lambda$, factors through $\varepsilon$. Note that this holds for $j \geq m$, as $\varepsilon$ is an epic in $\Mod{(A/\RAD{j}{A})}$ and $P_i/ \RAD{j}{P_i}$ is a projective $(A/ \RAD{j}{A})$-module. So suppose that $j < m$. Then
\[
\Ima{f} \subseteq \SOC{j}{M} = \RAD{m-j}{M},
\]
using that $M$ is rigid. Observe that both $\RAD{m-j}{M}$ and $\RAD{m-j}{(P_0\B{M})}$ are annihilated by $\RAD{j}{A}$, i.e.~they lie in $\Mod{(A/\RAD{j}{A})}$. Now note that the functor $\RAD{m-j}{\B{-}}$ preserves epics. This can be seen directly, or can be deduced by looking at Example \ref{ex:socrad} and Remark \ref{rem:dual-hereditary-cohereditary}, recalling that the composition of cohereditary preradicals is still a cohereditary preradical. Therefore we have the diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
P_i/ \RAD{j}{P_i} \arrow{rr}{f}\arrow[dashed]{dd}{\exists\, t} \arrow[two heads]{rd} \& \& M \\
\& \Ima{f} \arrow[hook]{d}\arrow[hook]{ur} \& \\
\RAD{m-j}{(P_0\B{M})} \arrow[two heads]{r}{\RAD{m-j}{\varepsilon}} \& \RAD{m-j}{M} \arrow[hook]{ruu}[swap]{\iota_M}.
\end{tikzcd},
\]
where $t$ exists because $P_i/ \RAD{j}{P_i} $ is a projective in $\Mod{(A/\RAD{j}{A})}$. Thus
\[
f= \iota_M \circ (\RAD{m-j}{\varepsilon}) \circ t = \varepsilon \circ \iota_{P_0\B{M}} \circ t,
\]
where $\iota_{P_0\B{M}}$ denotes the inclusion of $\RAD{m-j}{(P_0\B{M})}$ in $P_0\B{M}$.
\end{proof}
As an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{customthm:addGapprox}, we get the following result.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:lemmaa}
Let $M$ be a rigid module in $\Mod{A}$ with $\LL{M}=m$. Suppose that $\varepsilon$ is the projective cover of $M$ in $\Mod{(A/ \RAD{m}{A})}$. Then $\Hom{A}{G}{\varepsilon}$ is the projective cover of $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ in $\Mod{R_A}$.
\end{cor}
The simple modules over the ADR algebra $R_A$ are ``linked to each other" in a neat way. When all projective indecomposable modules are rigid then the `glueing' of the simple modules (and of the standard modules) is even nicer.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:pink2}
Let $(i,j)$ and $(k,l)$ be in $\Lambda$. Then $\Ext{R_A}{1}{L_{i,j}}{L_{k,l}}\neq 0$ implies that either $(k,l)=(i,j+1)$ or $l \leq j-1$. If the $A$-module $P_i/\RAD{j}{P_i}$ is rigid then $\Ext{R_A}{1}{L_{i,j}}{L_{k,l}}\neq 0$ implies that either $(k,l)=(i,j+1)$ or $l = j-1$. In particular, the latter statement holds when all the projective indecomposable $A$-modules are rigid.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $\Ext{R_A}{1}{L_{i,j}}{L_{k,l}} \neq 0$ if and only if the simple module $L_{k,l}$ is a summand of $\Rad{P_{i,j}}/ \RAD{2}{P_{i,j}}$. The short exact sequence \eqref{eq:elreidsebastiao} in the statement of Theorem \ref{prop:standard} gives rise to the exact sequence
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, column sep=scriptsize]
0 \arrow{r} \& \Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_i}/\RAD{j}{P_i}} \arrow{r} \& \Rad{P_{i,j}} \arrow{r} \& \Rad{\Delta\B{i,j}} \arrow{r} \& 0
\end{tikzcd},
\]
where $\Rad{\Delta\B{i,j}}=\Delta\B{i,j+1}$. If $L_{k,l}$ is a summand of the top of $\Rad{P_{i,j}}$ then either $(k,l)=(i,j+1)$ or $L_{k,l}$ is a summand of the top of $\Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_i}/\RAD{j}{P_i}}$. In the latter case, we must have $l \leq j-1$ by \cite[Proposition $10.2$]{MR0349747} (see also \cite[Lemma $3.3$]{MR3510398}).
If $P_i / \RAD{j}{P_i}$ is rigid, then $\Rad{P_i}/\RAD{j}{P_i}$ is also rigid. In this case, Corollary~\ref{cor:lemmaa} implies that the summands of the top of $\Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_i}/\RAD{j}{P_i}}$ are of type $L_{k,j-1}$.
\end{proof}
The next example shows that the rigidity condition in the statement of Theorem \ref{customthm:addGapprox} cannot be omitted.
\begin{ex}
\label{ex:quiver}
Consider the quiver
\[
Q=
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\& 1 \arrow{ld}{\alpha} \arrow{d}{\beta} \arrow{rd}{\gamma} \&\\
2 \& 3 \arrow{d}{\varepsilon} \& 4 \arrow{d}{\eta} \\
\& 5 \& 6
\end{tikzcd}
\]
and the path algebra $A=KQ$. Let $M$ be the $A$-module $P_1/L_6$, that is,
\[
M:=\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& 1 \arrow[dash]{ld} \arrow[dash]{d} \arrow[dash]{rd} \&\\
2\& 3 \arrow[dash]{d} \& 4 \\
\& 5 \&
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
Observe that $\LL{M}=\LL{A}=3$, and that $M$ is not a rigid module.
Consider the epic $\pi: P_1 \longrightarrow M$ and note that the simple module $L_4$ can be embedded in $M$. It is not difficult to check that the epic
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:usingtheepic}
\begin{bmatrix}
\pi & 1_{L_4}
\end{bmatrix}:
P_1 \oplus L_4 \longrightarrow M
\end{equation}
is a right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation of $M$. This map is not a projective cover of $M$, so the rigidity condition in the statement of Theorem \ref{customthm:addGapprox} is necessary.
Using the approximation \eqref{eq:usingtheepic}, one easily sees that the $R_A$-module $\Hom{A}{G}{M}$ can be represented as
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& (1,3) \arrow[dash]{ld} \arrow[dash]{d} \arrow[dash]{rd} \& (4,1)\arrow[dash]{d} \\
(2,1) \& (3,2) \arrow[dash]{d} \& (4,2) \\
\& (5,1) \&
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
\end{ex}
\subsection{An application}
\label{subsec:counterexample}
Motivated in part by the theory of quasihereditary algebras, Auslander, Platzeck and Todorov studied in \cite{MR1052903} the homological properties of idempotent ideals. In this paper the authors defined a new class of algebras -- the Artin algebras satisfying the descending Loewy length condition -- and proved, in Theorem $7.3$, \cite{MR1052903}, that every such algebra is quasihereditary.
\begin{defi}[{\cite[§7]{MR1052903}}]
\label{def:dllc}
An Artin algebra $B$ satisfies the \emph{descending Loewy length condition} (DLL condition, for short) if for every $M$ in $\Mod{B}$, a minimal projective resolution
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\cdots\arrow{r}
\& P_{i}\B{M} \arrow{r}
\& \cdots \arrow{r}
\& P_0\B{M} \arrow{r}{\varepsilon}
\& M \arrow{r}
\& 0
\end{tikzcd}
\]
satisfies $\LL{P_{i+1}\B{M}} < \LL{P_{i}\B{M}}$, for all $i \geq 1$ such that $P_i\B{M} \neq 0$.
\end{defi}
In \cite{MR1052903} the authors claim that the Artin algebras of global dimension 2, the ADR algebras $R_A$, and the $l$-hereditary algebras (introduced in \cite{MR607166}) all satisfy the DLL condition. The main purpose of Theorem $7.3$ in \cite{MR1052903} was thus to give a unified proof of results in \cite{MR987824}, \cite{MR943793} and \cite{MR964453}, already established in the literature.
It is not difficult to check that Artin algebras of global dimension $2$ and that $l$-hereditary algebras do satisfy the DLL condition. Unfortunately, it is not true that the ADR algebra $R_A$ satisfies the DLL condition for every choice of $A$. As we shall see, the Loewy length of the projectives in a projective resolution in $\Mod{R_A}$ may increase by an arbitrarily large number.
In order to see this, consider the following example: define $A:= KQ/ I$, where $K$ is a field, $Q$ is the quiver
\[
Q=
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
\overset{1}{\circ} \arrow[loop left]{}{\varepsilon} \arrow[bend left]{r}{\alpha_1}\& \overset{2}{\circ}\arrow[bend left]{l}{\beta_1} \arrow[bend left]{r}{\alpha_2}\& \overset{3}{\circ} \arrow[bend left]{l}{\beta_2}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
and $I$ is the admissible ideal
\[
I= \langle \alpha_2\alpha_1, \, \beta_1 \beta_2, \, \beta_2 \alpha_2 - \alpha_1 \beta_1, \, \varepsilon \beta_1, \, \alpha_1 \varepsilon, \, \varepsilon^n \rangle ,
\]
with $n >1$ fixed.
We may represent the projective indecomposable $A$-modules as
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& 1 \arrow[dash]{dl} \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \\
1 \arrow[dash]{d} \& \& 2 \arrow[dash]{d} \\
1 \arrow[dash]{d} \& \& 1 \\
\vdots \arrow[dash]{d} \& \& \\
1 \& \&
\end{tikzcd} , \, \,
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
\& 2 \arrow[dash]{dl} \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \\
1 \arrow[dash]{dr} \& \& 3 \arrow[dash]{dl} \\
\& 2\&
\end{tikzcd}, \,\,
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
3 \arrow[dash]{d}
\\ 2 \arrow[dash]{d} \\
3
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
Note that the $A$-module $L_3$ is in the socle of $P_3$. Thus, using the labelling in \eqref{eq:posetadr}, the $R_A$-module $P_{3,3}$ contains a copy of $\Delta\B{3,1}$. The module $\Delta\B{3,1}$ has socle $L_{3,3}$, so we may consider the corresponding quotient module $M:=P_{3,3}/ L_{3,3}$.
\begin{prop}
\label{label:annedorme}
Let $A$ be the algebra introduced previously and consider the corresponding ADR algebra $R_A$. Let $M$ be the $R_A$-module defined above. The DLL condition fails for the $R_A$-module $M$ when $n \geq 5$. Indeed, we have $\LL{P_1\B{M}}\leq 6$ and $\LL{P_2\B{M}}\geq 1+n$, so $\LL{P_2\B{M}}\geq \LL{P_1\B{M}}$ for $n \geq 5$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using that $\LL{P_3}=3$, together with Theorem \ref{prop:standard}, we conclude that $\Rad{P_{3,3}}=\Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_3}}$. Since $\Rad{P_3}$ is rigid, Corollary \ref{cor:lemmaa} implies that the minimal projective presentation of $L_{3,3}$ is of the form
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
P_{2,2} \arrow{r} \& P_{3,3} \arrow{r} \& L_{3,3} \arrow{r} \& 0.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
We claim that $\LL{P_{3,3}}\leq 6$ and $ \LL{P_{2,2}}\geq 1+n \geq 5$. Note that this will imply the statement in the proposition, as $P_{i+1}\B{M}=P_i\B{L_{3,3}}$.
We start by showing that $ \LL{P_{2,2}}\geq 1+n $. To see this, note that the $A$-module $L_1$ is in the socle of $P_2/\RAD{2}{P_2}$. Thus, the $R_A$-module $P_{2,2}$ contains a copy of $\Delta\B{1,1}$. Note that $\LL{\Delta\B{1,1}}=n$ (see Proposition \ref{prop:newprop}), so $\LL{P_{2,2}}\geq 1+n$ (actually this is an equality).
Using that $P_{3,3}=\Hom{A}{G}{P_3}$, we deduce through a routine computation that $P_{3,3}$ has dimension $6$. Consequently, $P_{3,3}$ has Jordan--H\"{o}lder length $6$ and $\LL{P_{3,3}} \leq 6$.
\end{proof}
We have just shown that the module $P_{3,3}$ has Loewy length at most 6. One can actually prove that $\LL{P_{3,3}}=5$ and, as a consequence, refine the statement of Proposition \ref{label:annedorme} for $n \geq 4$.
In order to emphasise the usefulness of the results in Subsection \ref{subsec:approx}, we compute the exact Loewy length of $P_{3,3}$.
\begin{lem}
The module $P_{3,3}$ has Loewy length equal to $5$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that
\begin{align*}
\LL{P_{3,3}} &=1 + \LL{\Rad{P_{3,3}}} \\
& =1 + \LL{\Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_3}}} .
\end{align*}
Define $N_1:=\Hom{A}{G}{\Rad{P_3}}$. We claim that $\LL{N_1}=4$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:soc0} and Theorem \ref{thm:socdelta}, the module $N_1$ has a $\Delta$-semisimple filtration
\[
0 \subset \Hom{A}{G}{L_3} \subset N_1,
\]
with factors $\Delta\B{3,1}$ and $\Delta\B{2,2}$. In particular, $N_1$ has socle $L_{3,3}$. Consider now the pullback diagram
\[\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r}\& \Delta\B{3,1} \arrow{r}\arrow[equal]{d} \& N'_2\arrow{r}\arrow[hook]{d} \& L_{2,3} \arrow[hook]{d} \arrow{r}\& 0 \\
0 \arrow{r} \& \Delta\B{3,1} \arrow{r} \& N_1 \arrow{r} \& \Delta\B{2,2} \arrow{r} \& 0
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
There is a (unique) submodule $N_2$ of $N_1$ with $\Top{N_2}=L_{2,3}$. In fact, by looking at the diagram above we see that $N_2 \subseteq N'_2$, so
\[
\Rad{N_2} \subseteq \Rad{N_2'} \subseteq \Delta\B{3,1}.
\]
Note that $P_2$ is rigid. Using Proposition \ref{prop:pink2} (and the structure of $\Delta (3,1)$), we conclude that $\Rad{N_2}$ must have top $L_{3,2}$. Thus, $N_2$ has the following structure
\[N_2=
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&, row sep =tiny, column sep = tiny]
(2,3) \arrow[dash]{d}
\\ (3,2) \arrow[dash]{d} \\
(3,3)
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
Recall that Lemma \ref{lem:hereditary} applies to $\Soc{\B{-}}$ and $\SOC{2}{\B{-}}$. The image of the monic $\Delta (3,1)\longrightarrow N_1$ through the functor $1/\Soc{(-)}$ gives rise to the inclusion $L_{3,2} \subseteq \SOC{2}{N_1}/\SOC{1}{N_2}$. By applying $1/\SOC{2}{(-)}$ to the monics $\Delta (3,1) \longrightarrow N_1$ and $N_2 \longrightarrow N_1$ we deduce that
\[L_{3,1} \oplus L_{2,3} \subseteq \SOC{3}{N_1}/\SOC{2}{N_1} .\]
Now observe that $\Rad{P_3}$ is a rigid module. Corollary \ref{cor:lemmaa} implies that $\Top{N_1}=L_{2,2}$. Since $N_1$ has exactly 5 composition factors (and we have looked at them all), we conclude that $\LL{N_1}=4$. This proves the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
In \cite{MR1216693}, Lin and Xi extended Dlab and Ringel's result in \cite{MR943793} to endomorphism algebras of semilocal modules. The authors noticed that this class of algebras (which contains the ADR algebra) does not generally satisfy the DLL condition (see Example 3 in \cite{MR1216693}).
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Although the DLL condition does not hold for the ADR algebra $R_A$ in general, $R_A$ satisfies a property similar to the DLL condition. The following was implicitly proved in \cite{MR0349747}, within the proof of Proposition~$10.2$.
Let $M$ be in $\Mod{A}$ with $\LL{M}=m$, and let $\varepsilon:X \longrightarrow M$ be the right minimal $\Add{G_{A/\RAD{m}{A}}}$-approximation of $M$. Then $\varepsilon$ is the right minimal $\Add{G}$-approximation of $M$ and $\LL{\Ker{\varepsilon}} < m=\LL{X}$.
As a consequence, the projective resolutions in $\Mod{R_A}$ come from exact sequences in $\Mod{A}$ whose Loewy length decreases strictly. To be precise, for every $N$ in $\Mod{R_A}$ there is an exact sequence of $A$-modules
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \&
X_t \arrow{r} \&
\cdots \arrow{r} \&
X_2 \arrow{r} \&
X_1 \arrow{r} \&
X_0
\end{tikzcd},\]
with $X_i$ in $\Add{G}$ satisfying $\LL{X_{i+1}} < \LL{X_i}$ for all $i \geq 1$, such that
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \&
\Hom{A}{G}{X_t} \arrow{r} \&
\cdots \arrow{r} \&
\Hom{A}{G}{X_0} \arrow{r}{\varepsilon} \&
N \arrow{r} \& 0
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is a minimal projective resolution for $N$ (see §$3.3.2$ in \cite{thesis} for details).
\end{rem}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Game theory as a sub field in mathematics \cite{Math} has enjoyed a tremendous growth and has been applied to wide range of fields such as economics \cite{Econ}, political science \cite{Pol}, biology \cite{Bio}, and computer science \cite{CS}. The successful application of the theory in the classical context inspired formulation of quantum games \cite{Meyer}. One key feature of a quantum game is that there are an infinite number of strategies possible, which can potentially lead to far more equilibria. In quantum game theory, concepts from quantum information theory are applied to game theory such that qubits represent the states of each player, quantum gates (unitaries) are used for implementing strategies, and entanglement is used to mediate communication between the players. Considerable interest was generated in this field when the quantization of a classical game using the Eisert-Wilkens-Lewenstein (EWL) formalism \cite{EWL} showed that the classical prisoner's dilemma (PD) could be resolved by including a new quantum strategy that is not available in the classical game. We employ the EWL formalism primarily because it is widely used in the literature. This formalism quantizes the strategy space of a classical game as opposed to other approaches where the payoff function is quantized \cite{Bleiler}, which can be advantageous for directly comparing a quantum game to mixed strategy classical games. Extension of a classical game into a quantum context gives rise to entirely new classes of games, depending on how that extinsion is made, and our focus here is again on games based on EWL formalism. There is also distinction between quantizing a classical game and gaming a quantum system \cite{Travis} as the former is concerned with applying quantum information to game theory, with the goal to learn something about the game that is produced, whereas the latter applies the rules of game theory to quantum physics, with the goal of learning something about the underlying physics. Our approach is the former.
In this work we are focused on quantizing classical Bayesian games that have players with incomplete knowledge about the payoff functions of their opponents. The uncertainty in knowledge of the players is encoded in types and priors or beliefs as classical probability distributions on types. Formally, a classical two person Bayesian game is a tuple $(\Omega\times\Omega, \rho\times\rho, \mathbb{A}\times\mathbb{A},\mathbb{X},\mathbb{F})$ where, $\Omega, \mathbb{A}$ represent the state and action spaces of the player, $\mathbb{X}$ is space of types from which nature assigns one member for each player. Lack of knowledge on the types makes this space a random variable and each player has priors or beliefs about it in the form of a probability distribution on it which is encoded in the probability measure $\rho$. This results in players choosing a strategy from $\mathbb{A}$ conditioned on the types and the cost function $\mathbb{F}$ is a mapping on $\mathbb{A}\times\mathbb{X}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Later, we describe the quantum version of this Bayesian set up, where the priors are still classical but $\Omega$ and $\mathbb{A}$ are based on quantum information. Our approach is similar in spirit to the quantized Bayesian game of battle of sexes \cite{iqbal} where the probabilities are calculated in accordance with quantum mechanics and the priors are classical, however, their approach relies only on probability distributions, our approach retains the quantum mechanical formalisms of state vectors and operators.
The primary advantage a quantum game has over its classical counterpart may be seen in the case of PD. When the initial state is maximally entangled, and the strategy space is restricted to those in the original (EWL) formalism \cite{EWL}, the payoff for the players at the Nash equilibrium (NE) in the quantum game exceeds the payoff of the players at the NE in the classical counterpart. The NE is the set of strategies where no player can benefit by unilaterally changing their strategy. It is possible in the classical game for the prisoners to choose strategies corresponding to a Pareto efficient (PE) solution which gives higher payoff than the NE, though this is only with cooperation or a contract, which require communication and can be broken. A PE solution is a set of strategies where no player can benefit without, unilaterally or not, hurting the other.
A second key feature of quantum games is that the player's initial states can be entangled. Though we only look at non-cooperative games where the players act rationally and only in their self interest, the entanglement can ensure that the outcome of the player's strategy choices are correlated in a quantum mechanical way. Once established, these correlations persist even if the players cannot communicate, exhibiting the non-local characteristic of quantum mechanics. In some cases, the correlations produced from entanglement cannot be described classically. The role of entanglement in a quantum game has been interpreted as a form of advice, contract, or mediated communication between the players \cite{Benjamin2001b}, and is given by the referee. However, in contrast to classical game theory, the advice or contract is established before the players make their strategy choices by using an initial entangled state, after which, there is no communication between the players, and they are physically prohibited from breaking the contract. Entanglement can also be thought of as an environment that acts to correlate the player's choices, since the entanglement is imposed by the referee.
The solutions to the game can vary greatly with the amount of entanglement such that new NE form with partial entanglement that are different from those at maximal entanglement or zero entanglement, or can also lead to the complete absence of a NE for an entangled game even when the classical game has a NE, such as in the maximally entangled PD game\cite{Landsburg}. Games with mixed strategies, that is, when the players choose the strategies with a probability, always have NE solutions, but may not have mixed strategy solutions for every possible probability distribution on the payoff functions. In other words there are distributions over the payoff functions that are not in the image of the mixed version of the original clasical game. One possible way to extend the games to realize other probability distributions over the payoff functions is to set up games where the strategies of the players are correlated by some form of advice or mediated communication. On the other hand, quantum games can realize every possible probability distribution on payoff functions through the use of entanglement which can facilitate correlated strategies. In fact, given one player's strategy the other player can choose strategies such that any possible distribution on the payoff function can be achieved\cite{Bleiler}, which can lead to the absense of NE in certain cases, such as in the maximally entangled PD game.
When there is incomplete information available to the players involved, the game can be treated using a Bayesian approach \cite{Noah}. This produces a game that is a classical mixture of two quantum games. Bayesian games have seen interest because they can be easily formulated to show a quantum advantage. This can be done by leveraging Bell's inequalities such that the payoff function of the game is cast in terms of the expectation values of observables employed in a form of a Bell's inequality. Thus, by using quantum correlations, a higher payoff at the NE can be achieved than is possible using only classical correlations. This shows the advantage for quantum games when the payoff function has the form of a Bell's inequality \cite{Situ2016,Iqbal2015}. We wish to study Bayesian games in a more general framework in order to shed light on how the non-local advice via the entanglement, functions in a game with incomplete information.
The ability to include multiple agents, allowance for incomplete information, and the incorporation of game theory concepts such as fairness or equilibria make quantum Bayesian games a useful tool for quantum network, which features entangled qubits shared non-locally across multiple nodes. When interacting with multiple agents on a network, a game theory analysis is often justified because agents are typically free to make their choices in their best interests, perhaps mitigated by some referee. It is also often the case in interacting with multiple agents on a network, that the players will have incomplete information about the other agents, which rationalizes the approach to include a classical Bayesian framework for prior information on a quantum game. The utilization of quantum games on a quantum network could potentially be used in applications such as the analysis of the quantum security protocols\cite{Maitra2015}, the development of distributed quantum computing algorithms\cite{Li2009}, or using non-locally shared quantum information to improve the efficiency of classical network algorithms \cite{Zabaleta2017}. In addition there have been several experimental implementations of the two-player PD game within this framework using nuclear magnetic resonance \cite{Du2002}, quantum circuits in optical \cite{Zeilinger}, and ion-trap platforms \cite{Shuichi}.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec:classical} we introduce the classical game we wish to quantize and summarize its solutions. In Section \ref{sec:quantum} we give some of the theoretical background necessary to employ a Bayesian game within a quantum probability space. In Section \ref{sec:1} we give details of the method we employ to find the solutions to the quantized game, where we vary the degree of entanglement and amount of incomplete information. In Section \ref{sec:2} we present solutions to the two-player games where we find that the structure of each NE is comprised of a class of strategy choices related to one another by a phase relationship, giving rise to a class of NE between the two players. In Section \ref{sec:3} we analyze the quantum Bayesian game and find that the NE form a phase-diagram like structure in the amount of entanglement, and amount of incomplete information. The NE are found to have a complex and sometimes surprising structure within this phase diagram. Finally we offer a discussion of what our results tell us about the role of entanglement and partial information in a quantum Bayesian game in Section \ref{sec:4}, and end with some conclusions.
\section{Classical game background}
\label{sec:classical}
The Bayesian game we considered here is a variation of PD, the District Attorney’s (DA's) brother, which involves three players, or equivalently, represents a situation where player B does not know what type player A is. In the first case, player A and B play the standard PD game. In the second case, player B believes player A is the DA's brother which gives player A an advantage resulting in an asymmetric payoff between the players.
First, we consider a version of the two-player PD game that is slightly modified from the canonical formulation such that the players have asymmetric payoffs. This has the payoff matrix given by:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ l || c | r }
$A| B_1$ & $ \Ket{0}(C)$ &$\Ket{1}(D)$\\
\hline
\hline
$\Ket{0}(C)$& $ (11,9)$ & $(1,10)$ \\
$\Ket{1}(D)$& $ (10,1)$ & $(6,6)$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The payoff is computed for example, if $A$'s qubit is measured to be in $\Ket{0}$ and $B_1$'s is measured in $\Ket{1}$, then player A receives a payoff of 1, and player $B_1$ receives a payoff of 10.
The interpretation of the classical game is that two prisoners, $A$ and $B_1$, are given the choice to implicate the other player in a crime, or to remain silent. Their classical strategy choices, are to defect or cooperate (implicate/remain silent), which we label D/C, with their payoff (i.e. jail sentence) determined by their joint choices. A higher payoff represents less time in jail. If they both play C, then neither admits to the crime, and their sentence is light, i.e. payoffs of 11 and 9 in our example. If they both implicate the other in the crime, that is, play strategy D, they receive a higher sentence both have payoff of 6. If one prisoner plays D while the other plays C, the player who plays D receives a payoff of 10 while the player who plays C receives the harshest sentence with a payoff of 1. The classical game has the NE of (D,D), even though the Pareto-optimal choice would be (C,C) where both players would do better.
The second two-player game we analyze is the two-player DA's brother game. The payoff matrix for this game is shown below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ l || c | r }
$A| B_1$ & $ \Ket{0}(C)$ &$\Ket{1}(D)$\\
\hline
\hline
$\Ket{0}(C)$& $ (11,9)$ & $(1,6)$ \\
$\Ket{1}(D)$& $ (10,1)$ & $(6,0)$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The payoffs for player $A$ are identical to that in the PD game, though player $B$'s are slightly changed. The interpretation of the classical DA brother's game is that player $B_2$'s payoffs change because player $A$ is the DA's brother, and player $B_2$ is afraid that if he remains silent, i.e. plays D, he will get more time in jail (i.e. lower payoff).
Classically, this game has the NE of (C,C), where players $A$ and $B_2$ receive payoffs 11 and 9 respectively, which are in this case, Pareto-optimal.
The Bayesian game follows the protocol by Harsanyi \cite{Harsanyi}. The Bayesian game is played between player $A$, and either player $B_1$ or $B_2$, with some probability $p$. This game can be interpreted as player $A$ playing with either player $B_1$ or $B_2$ with the probability $p$, or as a between two players, $A$ and $B$, with incomplete information, parametrized by $p$, where there are two types of player $B$, where type 1 believes $A$ is not the DA's brother, and type 2 believes he is.
The payoff for player $A$ is given by the weighted average of playing with $B_1$ and $B_2$:
\begin{equation}
\langle\$^A(A,B_1) \rangle (p)+ \langle\$^A(A,B_2) \rangle(1-p)
\label{eq:payoff}
\end{equation}
Whereas the payoff for the $B$ players is given by $\langle \$^{B1}(A,B_1)\rangle$ and $\langle \$^{B2}(A,B_2)\rangle$.
Classically, the Bayesian game has two NE depending on $p$. Player $B_1$ has the dominant strategy D, while player $B_2$'s dominant strategy is C. If player A cooperates, his payoff is $(1 p + 11(1-p))$, but if he plays D, his payoff is $(6 p + 10(1-p))$. If we assume that the $B$ players always play their dominant strategies, then player $A$ will play C if $p<1/6$ and will play D if $p>1/6$. Thus, the NE for $p<1/6$ is (C, D, C) with payoffs $(11-10 p, 10, 9)$ and for $p>1/6$ is (D, D, C) with payoffs $(10-4p, 6,1)$ for players $(A, B_1, B_2)$ respectively.
\section{Quantum Bayesian game theory background}
\label{sec:quantum}
The important aspects of a Bayesian game, namely, facility for cooperation, advice from a referee, the role of nature in introducing partial information, and a constraint to make the game fair, can be made precise in mathematical terms. Quantum probability spaces \cite{KP} are used to describe game situations \cite{Pitowsky} in which players have to choose strategies to maximize their payoffs in a cooperative or non-cooperative manner.
Let $H$ be a Hilbert space with finite dimension and states are positive operators with unit trace denoted by $ \mathscr{P}$. A quantum probability space is defined by the tuple $(H, P(H), \mathscr{P})$ where $P(H)$ is the set of projections on $H$. In this framework, the expectation of an observable $X$ in the state $\mathscr{P}$ is defined using the trace as $Tr \{\mathscr{P}X\}$ or notationally as $\mathscr{P}(X)$. This notation is justified because a quantum state is a generalization of probabilistic measure. Here, we describe a space for a two-player game with incomplete information to perform Bayesian type of reasoning. In Bayesian games, nature plays a role by assigning a type to each player.
Let $(\mathscr{C}^2\otimes$$\mathscr{C}^2,\mathbb{A}$$\otimes\mathbb{A}, \mathscr{P}$, $\mathbb{X}$) be a quantum probability space where $\mathscr{P}$ is an entangled state such as $\ket{\Psi_-}=(\ket{0}_A\ket{1}_B - \ket{1}_A\ket{0}_B)/\sqrt{2}$, $\mathscr{A} $ is the *-algebra of Pauli operators, and $\mathbb{X}$ is a set of types each individual player gets from nature. The lack of knowledge on the type received by the other players forces the players to act with incomplete information, thus requiring Bayesian strategies.
It can be shown that when the payoff function is of the following form, closely resembling Bell's inequality, non-classical correlations have an advantage \cite{Noah}:
\begin{equation}
\text{ Cost function} = \mathscr{P}(A_1, B_1) + \mathscr{P}(A_1, B_2) + \mathscr{P}(A_2, B_1) - \mathscr{P}(A_2, B_2), A_i, B_i \in \mathbb{A}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The non-classical correlation, can be thought of as a piece of advice received by each player from the referee who also makes the final measurements and computes the payoffs, between spatially separated entities. The expectation values of the two players outcomes must respect a no-signaling condition that can be defined as follows:
\begin {equation}
\mathscr{P}(A_1|X_1, X_2) = \sum\limits_{A_2}\mathscr{P}(A_1, A_2|X_1,X_2) = \mathscr{P}(A_1|X_1).
\end{equation}
In other words, in the absence of instantaneous communication, the marginal probability distribution of player A is independent of the
type of player B when we take the types as $X_1 = \text{Type 1}$ and $X_2=\text{Type 2}$. This means the statistics of advice received by player A is independent of type assigned to player B and vice versa, a requirement that would make it a fair game. This condition can be guaranteed by entangling spatially separated states that would prevent instant signaling of the types as part of respecting causality so as not to violate special relativity. In the games considered here the *-algebra is abelian as the observables used in cost functions are compatible whereas the games considered in \cite{Pitowsky} are based on more general non-commutative algebra of operators.
\section{Solution methods}
\label{sec:1}
We analyze a Bayesian game constructed from the two-player quantum game as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:QPD}. We give details of the solution of the two-player games first. We use the EWL quantization scheme\cite{EWL}. In this scheme, qubits that represents the states of individual players are initialized to $\Ket{0}$ followed by an entangling operation $\hat{J}$. Next, each player makes a strategy choice $\hat{U}$. Finally the conjugate transpose of the entangling operation is applied so that if the players do not take any action, the initial state is recovered. At the end of the circuit, the qubits for the two players are measured by the referee and the payoffs are awarded depending on the outcome of the measurement. Because the results of the measurement are probabilistic, all computed payoffs are expectation values. In order to compare the quantum game with the classical version, we can make a correspondence between the outcome $\ket{0}$ and the classical `cooperate' (C) strategy, (i.e. $\hat{U} = \hat{I}_2$, where $\hat{I}_2$ is the identity operator) and $\ket{1}$ with the `defect' (D) strategy (i.e. $\hat{U} = \hat{\sigma}_X$, the Pauli-X operator) and compute the payoff using the tables given in Section \ref{sec:classical}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{QPD.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:QPD}The quantum circuit for the two-player PD game. Both players qubits are initialized to the $\ket{0}$ state, followed by an entangling operation, $J$, that depends on the parameter $\gamma$. Then the players apply their strategy choice, $U_{A,B}(\theta,\phi,\alpha)$, which is followed by an un-entangling operation. The payoffs are determined from the final state $\ket{\psi_f}$.}
\end{figure*}
In the Bayesian game we analyze, there is one type of player $A$ and two types of player $B$, (i.e. $B_1$ and $B_2$). Player $A$ plays the game shown in Fig. \ref{fig:QPD} with either $ B_1$ or $ B_2$ depending on a probability $p \in [0,1]$. Player $A$'s payoff is the weighted average of playing with $B_1$ and $B_2$, and the $B$ players payoff is normalized by the probability with which they play against player $A$.
The structure of an un-entangling gate that can be used to define a game has well understood characteristics \cite{Lason}. To compare with other results, we use the commonly found form for our entangling operation:
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}(\gamma)=e^{ i \gamma \hat{\sigma}_x \otimes \hat{\sigma}_x }=
\begin{pmatrix}
Cos(\gamma/2) & 0 &0 &\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2)\\
0 & Cos(\gamma/2) &-\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2) &0) \\
0 & -\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2) &Cos(\gamma/2) & 0 \\
\imath \:Sin(\gamma/2) & 0 &0 & Cos(\gamma/2)
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:J}
\end{equation}
The parameter $\gamma \in [0,\pi/2]$ defines the amount of entanglement. There is no entanglement when $\gamma = 0$, (i.e. $\hat{J}(0) = \hat{I}_4$), and when $\gamma = \pi/2$, produces a maximally entangled Bell state when operated on the initial state such that $\hat{J}(\pi/2) \cdot \ket{00}= 1/\sqrt{2}(\ket{00} + \imath \ket{11})$.
Though many quantum games are analyzed in a restricted strategy space, it has been pointed out that the solutions to the games are very different if the strategy space is not restricted \cite{Benjamin2001}. The strategies we use are given by a single arbitrary $SU(2)$ rotation of a qubit. This choice allows for any pure strategy. Although the global phase of the two-qubit state is not physical, the relative phase of one qubit with respect to the other is. In order to be fair, we keep the potential strategy choices of the two players symmetric and thus we must specify each player's strategy choices with three parameters $(\theta,\phi,\alpha)$ given by the matrix:
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}(\theta, \phi,\alpha)=
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-\imath \phi} Cos(\theta/2) & e ^{\imath \alpha} Sin(\theta/2) \\
- e ^{-\imath \alpha} Sin(\theta/2)&e^{\imath \phi} Cos(\theta/2)
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:strat}
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in [0,\pi],\phi \in [0,2\pi],\alpha \in [0,2\pi]$. Because we will employ a numerical solution method, this range of parameters is discretized into a finite number of strategy choices for analysis, as is discussed below.
The outcome of the circuit in Fig. \ref{fig:QPD} is given by:
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_f(A,B)}= \hat{J}^{\dagger}(U_A \otimes U_B)\hat{J}\ket{00}
\label{eq:psif}
\end{equation}
If the payoff for a player $A$, $ \$^A$ is given by a vector in the normal form two-qubit representation (i.e ($\ket{00},\ket{01},\ket{10},\ket{11}$), which is derived from the payoffs in the left side of the bracket in the payoff matrices given in Section \ref{sec:classical}, then the expectation value of the payoff is given by:
\begin{equation}
\langle\$^A(A,B) \rangle = \sum\limits_{j}\Braket{\psi_f(A,B) | \psi_f(A,B)}_j \$^A_j
\label{eq:payoff}
\end{equation}
with analogous expressions for the other players.
To solve for the NE of the game, we use the method of best responses. Analytical solutions have been constructed for the symmetric two-player PD game \cite{Du2003} which allow one to compute the best response to a given strategy choice of an opponent. However, despite our solutions ultimately having a relatively simple representation, an extension of the analytic solution to include asymmetric payoffs and a Bayesian framework with three players remains elusive. In order to have a method of solution that computes all NE of a game, and can easily be used to compare to other payoff matrices (including asymmetric payoffs) in the two-player game and a three-player game, we adopt a numerical approach. Similar to a method that has been used to analyze two-player games and partially analyze a Bayesian game \cite{Avishai2012}.
We discretize the parameters of the strategy matrix to make list of all possible strategy choices. For example, if step through $\theta, \phi$, and $\alpha$ in steps of $\delta \theta = \delta \phi = \delta \alpha = \pi/8$, the list of strategy choices defines the strategy space, $\mathscr{S}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{S} =&\{\hat{U}(0,0,0),\hat{U}(0,0,\pi/8),\hat{U}(0,0,2\pi/8)... \\
&\hat{U}(\pi,2\pi,6\pi/8), \hat{U}(\pi,2\pi,7\pi/8),\hat{U}(\pi,2\pi,2\pi)\}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:strategies}
\end{equation}
Due to the definition of Eq. \ref{eq:strat}, there are several matrices that become redundant because, for example, when $\theta = 0$, $\alpha$ is undefined.
Next, we construct the best response function for each player, $\mathscr{B}^{A,B} $ with a brute-force method. This is done by computing all of the payoffs for a player against every possible strategy choice of his opponents within $\mathscr{S}$, and selecting the response with the highest payoff. For player $A$, for example, this gives a response function in the form, $\mathscr{B}^A = \{\hat{U}_j^{*A},\hat{U}_j^B\}$ , where $j$ runs over all possible strategy choices in Eq. \ref{eq:strategies} and $\hat{U}_j^{*A}$ is $A$'s best response to $B$'s strategy choice $j$. When this is done for all players, if if the intersection of the best-responses is non-empty, $(\hat{U}_k^{*A},\hat{U}_k^B) =(\hat{U}_k^A,\hat{U}_k^{*B}) $ for some $k$ where $(\hat{U}_k^{*A},\hat{U}_k^B) \in \mathscr{B}^A$ and $(\hat{U}_k^A,\hat{U}_k^{*B}) \in\mathscr{B}^B $, the intersection of the best response curves is a NE.
In analyzing games whose strategy choices are defined by descritazations of Equation \ref{eq:strat}, the numerical analysis becomes impractical. For example, the parameters $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha) = (\pi/8, \pi/8, \pi/8)$ yield 1824 unique strategy choices. The computation of all solutions to a two-player game for all values of entanglement for these parameters took nearly an hour, making solutions to the Bayesian game impractical with the current method. We find that the major structures of the games are already captured using the parameters $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha) = (\pi, \pi/2, \pi/2)$, which produces a total of eight unique strategy choices. The solutions to these games yielded zero, one, or two unique Nash equilibria, differing by a phase relationship, as will be described below. For games with zero or one Nash equilibrium, the further discretized strategy space yielded no additional solutions. For games with two Nash equilibria, the further discretization of the strategy space resulted in what appeared to be a continuoum of solutions bounded by the two original solutions. The structure and understanding of this continuoum of solutions is the subject of further study that will be reported elsewhere\cite{solmeyerSPIE}. For the remainder of our analysis, the strategy cohices is restricted to the set defined by the stepping parameters $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha) = (\pi, \pi/2, \pi/2)$.
\section{Two-player game results}
\label{sec:2}
For the quantum game, we compute the NE as a function of the entanglement parameter $\gamma$ and report the payoff to each player at the NE. As has been seen in previous analyses, there exists a NE for low values of entanglement, and the payoff for both players increases as the entanglement increases, until the entanglement reaches a critical value above which there is no NE. Though these results have been reported before, for completeness, we show the results of our calculation in Fig. \ref{fig:PD}. Our threshold for entanglement is around $\gamma = 1.15$, above which there is no NE. This matches the prediction from the analytic result for the symmetric prisoner's dilemma game \cite{Du2003} if, instead of the asymmetric case we have, we compute the analytic results for payoff for the outcome $\ket{00}$ for both players to be 9.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{PD.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:PD}Payoff for asymmetric, two-player PD game. The line represents the class of NE with $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} = \pi$. At $\gamma = 0$ the payoff at the classical (D,D) NE is recovered. As the entanglement is increased, the payoff increases until $\gamma = 1.15$, above which there are no Nash equilibrium which is consistent with earlier results that pure strategy NE is absent with maximal entanglement. }
\end{figure}
Each point on the NE plot actually represents a class of NE with an infinite set of strategy choices, all of which have the same payoff. The NE shown in Fig. \ref{fig:PD} has the values of $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} = \pi$. This means that the value of $\phi$ is not defined. The value of $\alpha_A$ can take any value as long as the phase difference between A and B1 takes one of two values, such that $\alpha_{B1} = -\alpha_{A} +\{\pi/2, 3\pi/2\}$. The interpretation of this is the global phase of the two qubit system is not physical, so one of the overall phases is free, while the phase of the other qubit must keep a fixed relationship to the phase of the first. Another way to represent the strategy choice matrices of the NE is as the outer product of Pauli matrices, $\hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Y$. Though this simple representation does not describe the freedom of the overall phase, it is useful when comparing the quantum strategies to the classical strategies and is added to increase physical intuition. The strategy choices $\hat{\sigma}_X$ and $\hat{\sigma}_Y$ both resemble the classical strategy choice D because they swap the initial state $\ket{0}$ to $\ket{1}$, although their $\alpha$ values differ. The symmetry of the strategy choices in the NE of the quantum game are indicative of the classical NE, and when there is no entanglement, $\gamma = 0$, the game maps onto the classical PD game such that the payoff is identical to the (D,D) NE in the classical PD.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{DA.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:DA}Payoff for asymmetric, DA's brother game. The NE labeled $\mathscr{E}_{DA1}$ has the structure $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} =0$, and is independent of the amount of entanglement. The second NE with $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} =\pi$, $\mathscr{E}_{DA2}$, does not exist below $\gamma = 0.55$ and approaches $\mathscr{E}_{DA1}$ as $\gamma$ approaches $\pi/2$. Here pure strategy NE is possible with maximal entanglement due to the fact the NE of the classical game is Pareto efficient.}
\end{figure}
In the quantum version of the DA's brother game, in addition to the multiplicity of solutions in a NE class, the solutions gave two stable NE with different payoffs. In the parametrization of the strategies described in Eqn. \ref{eq:strat}, the first NE ($\mathscr{E}_{DA1}$ of Fig. \ref{fig:DA}) is given by $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} =0$ and phase relationship $\phi_{B2} = -\phi_{A} +\{0, \pi\}$, where $\alpha$ is undefined when $\theta = 0$, and can be represented by the product of operators $\hat{I}_2 \otimes \hat{I}_2$. The NE $\mathscr{E}_{DA1}$ is constant and exists for all values of entanglement, and is equivalent to the classical NE.
A second NE ($\mathscr{E}_{DA2}$), which has no classical counterpart, appears as the entanglement is increased above $\gamma = 0.55$. This payoff has the structure $\theta_A = \theta_{B1} = \pi$ and phase relationship $\alpha_{B2} = -\alpha_{A} +\{\pi/2, 3\pi/2\}$, where $\phi$ is undefined at $\theta = \pi$. This has the Pauli matrix representation $\hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Y$. This NE has smaller initial payoffs, but increases towards the (C,C) payoff as the entanglement increases to a maximum of $\gamma = \pi/2$. It is notable that at maximal entanglement, this game has two competing NE with strategy choices differing by more than just a phase relationship, and that have equal payoffs.
\section{Bayesian game results}
\label{sec:3}
The solutions to the quantum Bayesian game could be computed by probabilistically combining two versions of the two-player circuit shown in Fig \ref{fig:QPD}. However, in order to present a fully quantum formalism, this game can alternatively be encoded in the quantum circuit shown in Fig. \ref{fig:quantumcircuit}. Where the entangling operations are now controlled operations such that A is entangled with $B_1$ or $B_2$ depending on the state of a control qubit $Q$. That is, if $Q$ is $\ket{0}$, then $\hat{J}$ entangles qubits $A$ and $B_1$, where if $Q$ is $\ket{1}$, then $\hat{J}$ entangles $A$ and $B_2$. These are represented in the 3-qubit representation as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{I}_2& \hat{0} \\
\hat{0}& \hat{J}
\end{pmatrix}
\text{ and }
\hat{J}_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\hat{J} & \hat{0} \\
\hat{0}& \hat{I}_2
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:controlledentangle}
\end{equation}
Where $\hat{J}_1$ acts on qubits in the normal representation $(Q, A, B_1)$, $\hat{J}_2$ acts on qubits $(Q, A, B_2)$, $\hat{J}$ is given by Eqn. \ref{eq:J}, and $\hat{0}$ is a 4$\times$4 matrix of zeros.
Allowing $\hat{U}_Q$ to be any arbitrary qubit rotation allows the circuit to realize any value of $p$ such that $p = Sin^2(\theta_Q/2)$ At the end of the game, the control qubit is measured, and the payoff is computed depending on the state of $Q$. A superposition of the control qubit has $A$ play the games with $B_1$ and $B_2$ in parallel.
From the Bayesian game circuit of Fig. \ref{fig:quantumcircuit}, it might appear that using an arbitrary rotation on the control qubit allows us to reach behavior that is not captured by taking a statistical mixture of the games with $B_1$ and $B_2$. However, in practice, we find that the full quantum circuit behaves the same as the statistical mixture, and depends only on the $\theta$, i.e. population, of the control qubit.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{quantumcircuit.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:quantumcircuit} Quantum circuit for implementing a Bayesian game. $Q$ is the control qubit, $\hat{U}_Q$ defines the probability $p$. The entangling operations are controlled entangling operations such that if the control qubit, $Q$, is in $\ket{0}$, then qubits $A$ and $B_1$ are entangled, where as if $Q$ is $\ket{1}$, then qubits $A$ and $B_2$ are entangled}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{Bayesian.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:Bayesian}Payoff for Bayesian game between $A$, $B_1$ and $B_2$. The red curve represents the payoff at NE for player $A$, the blue curve represents player $B_1$ and the green curve represents $B_2$. Along the axis with $p=1$, the curve is identical to the game in Fig. \ref{fig:PD}, and where $p=0$, it is identical to Fig. \ref{fig:DA}. The above view on the right hand side identifies the regions where $\mathscr{E}_1$-$\mathscr{E}_4$ exist, where they overlap, and where there are no NEs.}
\end{figure}
The results for the quantum Bayesian game are plotted for $\gamma \in [0,\pi/2]$ and $p \in [0,1]$, and are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Bayesian}. Along the axis with $\gamma = 0$ the results of the quantum game contain the results of the classical game, there are two distinct NE, the payoff of the $B$ players depends only on which NE is being played, and the payoff of player $A$ changes linearly with $p$ for both NE.
Extending this out into $\gamma \neq 0$ the parameter space is broken up into several regions resembling a phase diagram. Some of the regions have a single NE, some have several, and others have none. The different NE behave differently as functions of $\gamma$ or $p$, as will be described below. As can be seen along the left side of the graph where $P=1$, the result is identical to Fig. \ref{fig:PD}, as $A$ plays solely with $B_1$, and along the right side of the graph where $p=0$, the results are identical to Fig. \ref{fig:DA} as player $A$ plays solely with $B_2$. There are 4 distinct NE in this curve.
The first NE ($\mathscr{E}_1$) exists in the interval $p \in [1,0.7]$ and $\gamma \in [0,0.55]$ and also exists along the line with $\gamma = 0$ between $p\in[0,0.25] $. This equilibrium has the structure ($\theta_A,\theta_{B1}, \theta_{B2}$) = ($ \pi,\pi,0$) with phase relationships $\alpha_{B1} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$ and $\phi_{B2} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$, and can be represented by the operators $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Z$.
It should be noted that the operator representations are not unique, because of the possibility of the varying phase relationship between the strategy choices, but they are give more intuition than the parameter representation. The operator representation of NEs for the Bayesian PD game is similar to that of mixed strategies two players quantum PD where the they are shown to have support on Pauli matrices \cite{Landsburg}. The symmetry of the NE strategy choices in the operator representation is suggestive of the (D, D, C) classical NE, as both $ \hat{\sigma}_Y$ and $\hat{\sigma}_X$ have the symmetry of a spin flip which changes the initial cooperate strategy to defect. Similarly, both $\hat{\sigma}_Z$ and the identity operator have the symmetry of the identity operator, which leaves the cooperate strategy unchanged. The relative phase relationships between the player's strategy choices determines which of the operators with the same symmetry are used in the operator representation.
The payoff at $\mathscr{E}_1$ increases in payoff for the three players as the entanglement is increased. As a function of $p$, player $B_1$ and $B_2$'s payoff are constant while player $A$'s payoff increases linearly as $p$ decreases. It is interesting to note that, in the small values of $\gamma$, the NE disappears below $p=0.7$, long before the second NE takes over as $p<1/6$, leaving a gap where there is no NE. It is also notable that the classical $\gamma=0$ game has a NE for $p \in [.17,0.7]$, whereas for any value of entanglement in the region $\gamma \in (0,.55]$, there is none.
The constant NE of the two-player DA's brother game forms a second NE (labeled $\mathscr{E}_2$) and exists for small $p$ values, but ceases to exist for $\sim p>0.15$. This is intuitive since player $A$ is mostly playing with player $B_2$, so their behavior dominates the structure of the equilibria, with player $B_1$ playing his best response to their strategies at equilibria, which notably, is the highest payoff of all players in the region of $p \in [0.07,0.15]$. The payoff of this NE, and its extent along the $p$ axis are both independent of $\gamma$. Player $B_1$ and $B_2$'s payoffs are constant at 10 and 9 respectively. $A$'s payoff decreases linearly as $p$ is increased from 11 at $p=0$ to 9 at $p \sim 0.15$. $\mathscr{E}_1$ has the structure ($\theta_A,\theta_{B1}, \theta_{B2}$) = ($ 0,\pi,0$). It has the phase relationships given by $\alpha_{B1} = \phi_A - \{0,\pi\}$ and $\phi_{B2} = \phi_A - \{0,\pi\}$. $\mathscr{E}_2$ can be represented by the operators $\hat{I}_2 \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{I}_2$, which is suggestive of the classical NE (C, D, C).
When $\gamma > 0.5$, a third NE ($\mathscr{E}_3$) occurs with the structure ($\theta_A,\theta_{B1}, \theta_{B2}$) = ($ \pi,\pi,\pi$) with phase relationships $\alpha_{B1} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$ and $\alpha_{B2} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$, and can be represented by the operators $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X$. $\mathscr{E}_3$ looks in payoff like it is the continuation of $\mathscr{E}_2$ in the region $p \in [1,0.7]$, only with player $B_2$ changing his strategy. Though the intuitive interpretation of player $A$ and player $B_1$'s strategy choices map onto their classical two-player NE (D, D), since player $B_2$ changes his strategy from $\mathscr{E}_1$, this represents a NE that doesn't occur in the classical version of the game. There are more NEs of type $\mathscr{E}_3$ than others, as the phase relationship between the strategies is the most flexible indicating that the more opportunities to cooperate, the larger then number of equilibria.
A fourth NE ($\mathscr{E}_4$) exists with the structure $(\theta_A,\theta_{B1}, \theta_{B2}) = (\pi,0,\pi)$ with phase relationships $\phi_{B1} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$ and $\alpha_{B2} = \alpha_A - \{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}$, and can be represented by the operators $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Z \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X$. $\mathscr{E}_4$ has a small range of $p\sim \in [0,0.2]$ and $\gamma\sim \in [1.2,1.45]$. There is a small region of parameter space near $p \sim .2$ and $\gamma \sim 1.2$, where this is the only NE. In this small region, player $B_1$ has the highest payoff, followed by $A$ and then by $B_2$.
The results describing the parameters of the strategies of the various NE are summarized in Tables \ref{tab:table1} and the range as well as operator representations are summarized in Table \ref{tab:table2}.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l}
& $\{\theta_A,\theta_{B1},\theta_{B2}\}$ & $\{\phi_A,\phi_{B1},\phi_{B2}\}$ & $\{\alpha_A,\alpha_{B1},\alpha_{B2}\}$ \\
\hline
$\mathscr{E}_1$ &$\{\pi,\pi,0\}$& $\{\emptyset,\emptyset,X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}\}$ & $\{X,X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\},\emptyset\}$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_2$ &$\{0,\pi,0\}$ & $\{X,\emptyset,X-\{0,\pi\}\}$ & $\{\emptyset,X-\{0,\pi\},\emptyset\}$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_3$ &$\{\pi,\pi,\pi\}$ & $\{\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset\}$ &$\{X,X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\},X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}\}$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_4$ &$\{\pi,0,\pi\} $& $\{\emptyset,X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\},\emptyset\}$ & $\{X,\emptyset,X-\{\pi/2,3\pi/2\}\}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:table1}Summary of the strategy parameters of the NE of the three-person Bayesian game. $\emptyset$ means that the parameter is undefined. $X$ means that the parameter can take any value, so long as the parameters of the other players obey a given phase relationship. }
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
& Range $(p)$ & Range $(\gamma)$ &Operator representation \\
\hline
$\mathscr{E}_1$ &$[0.7, 1]$ & $[0, 0.55]$ & $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Z$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_1^*$ &$[0, 0.25]$ & $0$ & $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Z$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_2$ & $[0, 0.15]$ &$[0, \pi/2]$ & $ \hat{I}_2 \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{I}_2$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_3$ &$[0, 1]$ &$[0.55, 1.1]$ & $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X$ \\
$\mathscr{E}_4$ &$[0, 0.2]$ &$[1.2, 1.45]$ & $ \hat{\sigma}_Y \otimes \hat{\sigma}_Z \otimes \hat{\sigma}_X$
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:table2}Summary of the ranges of $\mathscr{E}_1$-$\mathscr{E}_4$ and their operator representation. The operator representation is not unique, and is only one of the possible strategy choices of player A and one of the possible phase relationships to player B}
\end{table}
In addition, there are two blocks of parameter space where there are no NE. They are given by $p \in [0.2,1.0] $ and $\gamma \in [\pi/2,1.15] $ and in the region $p \in [0.2,0.7] $ and $\gamma \in (0,0.55] $.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:4}
The interpretation of a NE is that by playing rationally, the players in a game will tend towards playing the NE strategy choices. The NE is stable in that players do not have any incentive to deviate, and is thus self-enforcing. The character of the equilibria that arise when entanglement is present seem to bear resemblance to the concept in classical games of a correlated equilibrium\cite{Auman1974}. A correlated equilibrium in classical games is achieved when mixed strategies are employed and there is communication between the players in the form of advice or a contract. If players receive some piece of advice, or react in a predetermined way to a random event, they can employ strategies that are correlated with one another and realize self-enforcing equilibria that are different from those in the mixed game without communication.
In contrast, our analysis includes only pure strategies and the role of the advice is played by the initial entanglement. When the player's qubits are entangled, the outcomes of the measurement following their strategy choices will be correlated in a specific way, determined by the type of entanglement. The entanglement is imposed on the players by a referee, and once it is initially established, no communication between the players is necessary, and in fact the players are physically prohibited from breaking the contract. The correlation will also persist even if the players make their strategy choices simultaneously and non-locally. In addition, the specific type of non-classical correlation, enabled by entanglement, can be such that the players can have correlated outputs that are not possible with classical probability distributions in the absence of communication.
However, as the amount of entanglement is changed, the effect that the imposed correlation has on the structure of the NE can change dramatically. At zero entanglement, the quantum formulation of the game strongly resembles the classical game, with the players playing quantum strategies that closely resemble the classical strategy choices (D,D). As the entanglement increases, the strategy choices of the NE do not change, rather, they continue to play the same strategies as in the case with no entanglement. Thus, the contract enforced by the initial entanglement does not induce the players to play a strategy that is different than the one they would play if there were no entanglement, rather it ensures that the outcome of their strategy choices is correlated in a certain way. The conditions of the NE guarantee that the resulting equilibrium is self-enforcing.
As the degree of entanglement, or amount of correlation, is increased, one might expect that the effective contract is more strictly enforced or that the advice is more closely followed, leading to a larger benefit for the players at equilibrium. This is true for a while, but as in the two-player quantum PD game with symmetric payoffs, the NEs are absent above a critical value of entanglement. This is similar to the phase-transition like behavior that has been seen in some quantum games \cite{Du2003}, and should be investigated further. This also contrasts with an intuition of a classical game with correlated equilibrium, where one might expect that the more strictly a contract is enforced, the greater the benefit from that contract.
In the Bayesian game, we see evidence of a structure with a much richer and sometimes surprising phase-transition like behavior that can occur both in the amount of entanglement, as has been seen in the two-player games, but also in the amount of incomplete information, i.e. $p$. If only looking at the classical Bayesian game, and the two versions of the two-player game, one would not necessarily predict that there is a region in the center with no NE, that new equilibria may appear (i.e. $\mathscr{E}_4$), or how each of the NE will depend on the parameters $p$ and $\gamma$ without solving for the full possibilities of the game. It is perhaps indicative of the structure of classical probability theory and quantum mechanical probability theory that the payoffs at the NE vary linearly along $p$ the classical probability and non-linearly (i.e. as trigonometric functions) along the quantum parameter $\gamma$, in which probabilities depend on the square of the components of the player's state (i.e. wave function).
The fact that the amount of entanglement can produce abrupt changes in the behavior of a quantum game underscores the importance of decoherence in a quantum game application, as the purity of the initially entangled state could dramatically influence the outcomes and the stability of the game. The behavior of the game can also abruptly changes as a function of the agents prior knowledge in a game, i.e. $p$. This could certainly impact any algorithm taking place on a network, where knowledge of the motivations and abilities of the other agents on the network is incomplete. The structure as a result of the amount of entanglement is due to the constraints imposed by the referee, while the structure in the priors is dependent on the beliefs of the players. Both are critical to the structure of the game, however, the referee can constrain the possible equilibria that may be achieved by adjusting the amount of entanglement, even if the player's preferences, i.e. payoffs, and prior knowledge remain unchanged.
As stated earlier, each NE solution in the quantum game is an infinite class of equilibria with a fixed phase relationship and equal payoffs. There remains an uncertainty in exactly which equal payoff NE, i.e. which phase, the players will end up playing. This uncertainty can also arise in classical games. In several cases, there are multiple NE that are different payoffs, and that differ by more than just a phase relationship, such as in the DA's brother game. The $\mathscr{E}_4$ equilibrium in the Bayesian game is an example of a NE that does not exist in the two-player games, and can occur simultaneously with other NE. When there are multiple NE, while playing a game, it would be possible for the players to be stuck on a lower payoff NE, as a local maximum in their payoff landscape, neither being willing to deviate.
It is interesting to note that in the two-player DA's brother game, or with the corresponding NE in the Bayesian games, the multiple NE that exist have strategy choices which differ by more than a phase relationship and even correspond to different classical strategy choices. At lower entanglement they have distinct payoffs, but as the entanglement approaches maximal, the payoff converges to the same value. This could complicate the NE when the two players cannot agree on which of the equivalent payoff NE to play.
\section {Conclusions and Future Work}
We have classified the solutions to a quantum Bayesian game based on the prisoner's dilemma where there are multiple Nash equilibria. The phase structure of the game in entanglement and probability space is non-trivial. The payoffs at these Nash equilibria are dependent on the entanglement parameter and the probability to play with either player, and we have also identified some regions with the absence of Nash equilibria. We solved for the phase relationships between the sets of strategy choices within each class of Nash equilibria. We have seen evidence of a phase-transition like behavior of the quantum Bayesian game varying both with the amount of entanglement and the degree of incomplete information.
The relationship of the equilibrium solutions produced in the quantum game with entanglement to the correlated equilibrium in classical games should be explored further. The role of entanglement is often interpreted as a type of communication or contract, yet the correlations induced by entanglement persist even when communication is not allowed. Entanglement is one of the more powerful and interesting properties of quantum mechanics and a referee may be able to expoit the effective non-local contract it forms in applications on a quantum network.
The phase-like behavior of the quantum games should be investigated further to determine the nature of the phase transitions that occur. The player's beliefs, or their priors, can result in entirely different equilibria forming and the role of entanglement as a contract could potentially be elucidated by better understanding how the amount and type of entanglement, and the player's prior beliefs can lead to phase transition-like structures in the Nash equilibria of a game.
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Experimental Results} \label{sec:exp}
In this section, we evaluate our proposed algorithms for the MAP inference on synthetic
and real-world DPP instances.
\footnote{The codes are available in \url{https://github.com/insuhan/fastdppmap}.}
\noindent {\bf Setups.}
The experiments are performed
using a machine with {a hexa-core} Intel CPU (Core i7-5930K, 3.5 GHz) and 32 GB RAM.
We compare our algorithms with following competitors:
the lazy greedy algorithm (\textsc{Lazy}) \cite{minoux1978accelerated},
double greedy algorithm (\textsc{Double}) \cite{buchbinder2015tight} and
softmax extension (\textsc{Softmax}) \cite{gillenwater2012near}.
In all our experiments,
\textsc{Lazy} is significantly faster than
the na\"ive greedy algorithms
described in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp},
while they produce the same outputs.
Hence, we
use \textsc{Lazy} as the baseline of evaluation.
Unless stated otherwise,
we choose parameters of $p=5$, $k=10$, $s=50$, $m=20$ and $n=15$,
regardless matrix dimension, for our algorithms.
{
We also run $\mathtt{CG}$ until it achieves convergence error less than $10^{-10}$
and typically $T_{\mathtt{CG}} \leq 30$.
}
\noindent {\bf Additional tricks for boosting accuracy.}
For boosting approximation qualities of our algorithms,
we use the simple trick in our experiments: recompute
top $\ell$ marginal gains exactly (using $\mathtt{CG}$) where
they are selected based on estimated marginal gains, i.e.,
$\Delta_i$ for {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
and $\Delta^{\text{Batch}}_i$ for {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}.
Then, our algorithms choose the best element among $\ell$ candidates,
based on their exact marginal gains.
Since we choose small $\ell=20$ in our experiments,
this additional process increases the running times of our algorithms marginally,
but makes them more accurate.
In fact, the trick is inspired from \cite{minoux1978accelerated}
where the authors also recompute the exact marginal gains of few elements.
In addition, for boosting further approximation qualities of
{Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}, we also run {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
in parallel and choose the largest one among $\{\Delta_i,
\Delta^{\text{Batch}}_i\}$ given the current set.
Hence, at most iterations, the batch with the maximal $\Delta^{\text{Batch}}_i$ is chosen
and increases the current set size by $k$ (i.e., making speed-up) as like {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}},
and the non-batch with the maximal $\Delta_i$ is chosen at very last iterations,
which fine-tunes the solution quality.
We still call the synthesized algorithm by {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} in this section.
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{
\ks{Despite} the improved approximation,
our algorithms \ks{can} still choose a wrong item (or batch) in greedy selection.
For more careful decision,
we select $t$ items (or batches) with the largest approximation gain
and compute their gain exactly.
This can be implemented via \ks{running $\mathtt{CG}$ $t$ times,}
which does not hurt the algorithm complexity
but makes our algorithm much tighter.
This idea comes from
the accelerated greedy algorithm of \cite{minoux1978accelerated}
where they recompute \ks{the} exact marginal gain \ks{with?} only a single element.
}
In {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}},
we use the marginal gains of single items via {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
and find the maximal set whether single or batch. \note{awkward!}
This makes algorithm
possible to add single item
without \ks{hurting} of the (asymptotic) complexity.
\fi
\noindent {\bf Performance metrics.}
For the performance measure on approximation qualities of algorithms,
we use the following ratio of log-probabilities:
$$
{\log \det L_X}/{\log \det L_{X_{\textsc{Lazy}}}}.
$$
where
$X$ and $X_{\textsc{Lazy}}$ are the outputs of an algorithm and
\textsc{Lazy}, respectively. Namely, we compare outputs of algorithms with that of
\textsc{Lazy} since the exact optimum is hard to compute.
Similarly, we report the running time speedup of each algorithm over \textsc{Lazy}.
\iffalse
The performance of each algorithm is evaluated against \textsc{Greedy}.
We compute a relative rate of log-determinant as an accuracy measurement, i.e.,
$
{\log \det L_X}/{\log \det L_{X_{\text{greedy}}}}
$
where $X$ and $X_{\textsc{Greedy}}$ is the output of an estimating algorithm and
\textsc{Greedy}, respectively.
If a function is \ks{monotone} and \textsc{Greedy} finds the optimal solution,
it is always greater than $(1- 1/e)$.
We also report \ks{the} latency speedup of each algorithm over \textsc{Greedy}.
\fi
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_logprob_all_v4}}
\label{fig:syn:logp}
\hspace{-0.12in}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_speedup_all_v4}}
\hspace{-0.12in}
\vskip -0.15in
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_speedup_all_v4_sm}}
\hspace{-0.12in}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_speedup_all_v4_lg}}
\label{fig:syn:speed}
\vskip -0.15in
\caption{Plot of (a) log-probability ratio and (b), (c) and (d) implies speedup for \textsc{Softmax}, \textsc{Double}, {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} and {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} compared to \textsc{Lazy}, respectively.
{Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} is about $3$ times faster the lazy greedy algorithm (\textsc{Lazy})
while loosing only $0.2\%$ accuracy at $d=10,000$.
{Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} has $2 \%$ loss on accuracy
but $9$ times faster than \textsc{Lazy} at $d=10,000$.
If dimension is $d=40,000$, it runs $19$ times faster.}
\label{fig:syn}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Synthetic Dataset}
In this section, we use synthetic DPP datasets generated as follows.
As \cite{kulesza2011learning,kulesza2012determinantal} proposed,
a kernel matrix $L$ for DPP can be re-parameterized as
$$L_{i,j} = q_i {\phi}_i^\top {\phi}_j q_j,$$
where $q_i \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ is considered as the quality of item $i$
and $\mathbf{\phi}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the normalized feature vector of item $i$
so that $\mathbf{\phi}_i^\top \mathbf{\phi}_j$ measures the similarity between $i$ and $j$.
We use $q_i = \exp\left( \beta_1 {x}_i + \beta_2 \right)$ for the quality measurement ${x}_i \in \mathbb{R}$ and choose $\beta_1 = 0.01, \beta_2 = 0.2$.
We choose each entry of $\phi_i$ and ${x}_i$ drawn from the normal distribution
$\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ for all $i \in \left[ d\right]$, and
then normalize $\phi_i$ so that $\norm{\phi_i}_2 = 1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_logprob_clusters_v4}\label{fig:cluster}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_logprob_batchsize_v4}\label{fig:batch}}
\vskip -0.15in
\caption{Log-probability ratios compared to \textsc{Lazy}:
(a) {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} changing the number of clusters $p$
and (b)
{Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} varying the batch size $k$. These experiments are done under {$d=1,000$}.}
\label{fig:perform}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first show how much the number of clusters $p$ and the batch size $k$ are sensitive for
{Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} and {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}, respectively.
Figure \ref{fig:cluster} shows the accuracy of {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} with different numbers of clusters.
It indeed confirms that a larger cluster improves its accuracy since
it makes first-order approximations tighter.
Figure \ref{fig:batch} shows the performance trend of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} as the batch size $k$ increases, which shows that
a larger batch might hurt its accuracy.
Based on these experiments, we choose $p=5, k=10$ in order to target
$0.01$ approximation ratio loss compared to \textsc{Lazy}.
We generate synthetic kernel matrices with varying dimension $d$ up to $40,000$,
and the performances of tested algorithms are reported in Figure \ref{fig:syn}(a).
One can observe that
\textsc{Lazy} seems to be near-optimal, where
only \textsc{Softmax} often provides marginally larger log-probabilities
than \textsc{Lazy} under small dimensions.
{
Interestingly, we found that
\textsc{Double} has the strong theoretical guarantee for general submodular
maximization \cite{buchbinder2015tight},
but its practical performance for DPP is worst among evaluating algorithms.
Moverover, it is slightly slower than \textsc{Lazy}.
In summary, one can conclude that
our algorithms can be at orders of magnitude faster
than \textsc{Lazy}, \textsc{Double} and \textsc{Softmax},
while loosing $0.01$-approximation ratio.
For example, {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} is
$19$ times faster than \textsc{Lazy} for $d=40,000$,
and the gap should increase for larger dimension $d$.
}
\subsection{Real Dataset}
We use real-world datasets of the following two tasks of
matched and video summarizations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_logprob_politic16_v4} \label{fig:match:logp}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_speedup_politic16_v4}\label{fig:match:speedup}}
\vskip -0.15in
\caption{Plot of log-probability ratio and speedup (log-scale) of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}, compared to \textsc{Lazy}, for matched summarization under 2016 Republican presidential primaries.}
\label{fig:match}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
{\bf Matched summarization.}
We evaluate our proposed algorithms
for matched summarization {that} is first proposed by \cite{gillenwater2012near}.
This task gives useful information for comparing {the} texts
addressed at different times by the same speaker.
Suppose we have two different documents
and each one consists of several statements.
The goal is to apply DPP for finding statement pairs
{that} are similar to each other, while they
summarize (i.e., diverse) well the two documents.
We use transcripts of debates in 2016 US Republican party presidential primaries
speeched by following $8$ participates:
Bush, Carson, Christie, Kasich, Paul, Trump,
Cruz and Rubio.\footnote{Details of the primaries are provided in
\url{http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/debates.php}.}
We follow similar pre-processing steps
of \cite{gillenwater2012near}.
First, every sentence is parsed and only nouns except the stopwords {are extracted} via NLTK \cite{bird2006nltk}.
Then, {we remove the} `rare' words occurring less than $10 \%$ of the whole debates,
and then ignore each statement which contains more `rare' words than 'frequent' ones in it.
This gives us a dataset containing $3,406$ distinct `frequent' words and $1,157$ statements.
For each statement pair $(i,j)$,
feature vector $\phi_{(i,j)} =w_{i} +w_{j} \in \mathbb{R}^{3406}$
where $w_i$ is generated
as a frequency of words in the statement $i$.
Then, we normalize $\phi_{(i,j)}$.
The match quality ${ x}_{(i,j)}$ is measured as the cosine similarity between two statements $i$ and $j$,
i.e., ${ x}_{(i,j)} = w_i^\top w_j$,
and we remove statement pairs $(i,j)$ such that its match quailty
${ x}_{(i,j)}$ is smaller than $15\%$ of the maximum one.
Finally, by choosing $q_{(i,j)} = \exp\left( 0.01 \cdot {x}_{(i,j)} \right)$,
we obtain $\binom{8}{2}=28$ kernel matrices of dimension $d$ from $516$ to $4,000$.
Figure \ref{fig:match} reports log-probability ratios and speedups of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} under
the 28 kernels.
We observe that {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} looses $0.03$-approximation ratio on average,
compared to \textsc{Lazy}, under the real-world kernels.
Interestingly, \textsc{Softmax} runs much slower than even \textsc{Lazy},
{
while our algorithm runs faster than \textsc{Lazy} for large dimension, e.g.,
$8$ times faster for $d=4,000$ corresponding to transcripts of Bush and Rubio.
}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_fscore_video_v4} \label{fig:fscore}}
\hspace{-0.15in}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./fig_speedup_video_v4} \label{fig:speedupvideo}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{./videosum_v99_v3} \label{fig:video99}}
\vskip -0.1in
\caption{Plot of (a) F-scores for {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} compared to \textsc{Lazy}
and (b) speedup of both algorithms.
(c) shows the summaries of YouTube video of index 99. Images in the first row are summaries produced by \textsc{Lazy} and the second row images illustrate those produced by {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}.
The bottom 2 rows reflect `real' user summaries.} \label{fig:video}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\noindent {\bf Video summarization.}
We evaluate our proposed algorithms
video summarization.
We use 39 videos from a Youtube dataset \cite{de2011vsumm},
and the trained DPP kernels from \cite{gong2014diverse}.
Under the kernels, we found that
the numbers of selected elements from algorithms are typically small (less than 10),
and hence we use {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} instead of its batch version
{Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}.
For performance evaluation, we use an F-score based on five sets of user summaries
where it measures the quality across two summaries.
Figure \ref{fig:fscore} illustrates F-score for \textsc{Lazy} and {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
and Figure \ref{fig:speedupvideo} reports its speedup.
Our algorithm achieves over 13 times speedup in this case,
while it produces F-scores that are very similar to those of \textsc{Lazy}.
For some video, it achieves even better F-score, as illustrated in \ref{fig:video99}.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Determinantal point processes (DPPs) are elegant probabilistic models, first introduced by \cite{macchi1975coincidence}, who called them `fermion processes'.
Since then, DPPs have been extensively studied in the fields of quantum physics
and random matrices \cite{johansson2006course}, giving rise to a beautiful theory \cite{daley2007introduction}.
The characteristic of DPPs is repulsive behavior, which makes them useful for modeling diversity.
Recently, they have been applied in many machine learning tasks such as
summarization \cite{gong2014diverse}, human pose detection \cite{kulesza2012determinantal},
clustering \cite{kang2013fast} and tweet time-line generation \cite{yao2016tweet}.
In particular, their computational advantage compared to other probabilistic models
is that many important inference tasks are computationally tractable.
For example, conditioning, sampling \cite{kang2013fast} and marginalization of DPPs
admit polynomial-time/efficient algorithms, while those on popular graphical
models \cite{jordan1998learning} do not, i.e., they are NP-hard.
One exception is the MAP inference (finding the most likely configuration), which is our
main interest; the MAP computation is known to be NP-hard even for DPPs \cite{kulesza2012determinantal}.
The distribution of diverse sets under DPPs is characterized by
determinants of submatrices formed by their features,
and the corresponding MAP inference reduces to finding a submatrix that
maximizes its determinant.
It is well known that the matrix log-determinant is a submodular function; that is,
the MAP inference of DPPs is a special instance of submodular maximization \cite{kulesza2012determinantal}.
Greedy algorithms have been shown to have the best worst-case approximation guarantees
for many instances of submodular maximization; for example, $(1-1/e)$-approximation for
monotone functions.
Furthermore, it has been often empirically observed that greedy algorithms provide
near optimal solutions \cite{krause2008near}.
Hence, greedy algorithms have been also applied for the DPP
task \cite{kulesza2012determinantal,yao2016tweet,zhang2016block}.
Known implementations of greedy selection on DPP require computation of log-determinants,
matrix inversions \cite{kulesza2012determinantal} or solving linear systems \cite{li2016gaussian}.
Consequently, they run in {$O(d^4)$} time where $d$ is the total number of items
(see Section \ref{sec:naiveimp}). In this paper, we propose faster greedy implementations
that run in {$O(d^3)$} time.
{\bf Contribution.}
Our high-level idea is to amortize greedy operations by utilizing log-determinant
approximation schemes.
A greedy selection requires computation of marginal gains of log-determinants; we
consider their first-order (linear) approximations.
We observe that the computation of multiple marginal gains can be amortized into a
single run of a linear solver,
in addition to multiple vector inner products.
We choose the popular conjugate gradient descent ($\mathtt{CG}$) \cite{saad2003iterative}
as a linear solver.
In addition, for improving the quality of first-order approximations, we partition remaining
items into $p\geq 1$ sets (via some clustering algorithm), and apply the first-order approximations
in each partition.
The resulting approximate computation of multiple marginal gains at each greedy selection
requires $2p$ runs of $\mathtt{CG}$ under the Schur complement, and the overall running time
of the proposed greedy algorithm becomes {$O(d^3)$} under the choice of
$p=O(1)$ (see Section \ref{sec:greedy}).
Next, for larger-scale DPPs, we develop an even faster greedy algorithm using a batch strategy.
In addition to using the first-order approximations of log-determinants under a
partitioning scheme, we add $k>1$ elements instead of a single element to the
current set, where we sample some candidates among all possible $k$ elements
to relax the expensive cost of computing all marginal gains.
Intuitively, the random batch selection makes the algorithm $k$ times faster, while potentially
hurting the approximation quality.
Now, we suggest running the recent fast log-determinant approximation scheme ($\mathtt{LDAS}$)
\cite{han2015large} $p$ times, instead of running $\mathtt{CG}$ $pk$ times under the Schur
complement, where $\mathtt{LDAS}$ utilizes high-order, i.e., polynomial, approximations
to the scalar log function with stochastic trace estimators.
Since the complexities of running $\mathtt{LDAS}$ and $\mathtt{CG}$ are comparable, running
the former $p$ times is faster than running the latter $pk$ times if $k>1$.
Finally, we discovered a novel scheme for boosting the approximation quality by
sharing random vectors among many runs of $\mathtt{LDAS}$, and also establish
theoretical justification why this helps.
Our experiments
on
both synthetic and real-world dataset show that
the proposed algorithms are significantly faster than competitors for large-scale instances,
while losing marginal approximation ratio.
{\bf Related work.}
To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first work that aims for developing faster greedy algorithms
specialized for the MAP inference of DPP,
while
there has been several efforts on those for
general submodular maximization.
An accelerated greedy algorithm, called lazy evaluation, was first proposed by \cite{minoux1978accelerated}
which maintains the upper bounds on the marginal gains instead of recomputing exact values.
In each iteration, only elements with the maximal bound compute the exact gain,
which still bounds on the exact value due to submodularity.
For the DPP case, we also observe that the lazy algorithm
is significantly faster than the standard greedy one, while the outputs of both are
equal. Hence, we compare our algorithms
with the lazy one (see Section \ref{sec:exp}).
Another natural approach is on stochastic greedy selections
computing marginal gains of randomly selected elements.
Its worst-case approximation guarantee was also studied \cite{mirzasoleiman2015lazier},
under the standard, non-batch, greedy algorithm.
The idea of stochastic selections
can be also applied to our algorithms, where
we indeed apply it
for designing our faster batch greedy algorithm as mentioned earlier.
Recently, \cite{buchbinder2015tight} proposed a `one-pass' greedy algorithm
where each greedy selection requires computing only a single marginal gain,
i.e., the number of marginal gains necessary to compute can be significantly reduced.
However, this algorithm is attractive only for the case when evaluating a marginal gain
does not increase with respect to the size of the current set, which does not hold
for the DPP case. As reported in Section \ref{sec:exp},
it performs significantly worse than ours in both their approximation qualities
and running times.
There have been also several efforts to design parallel/distributed implementations of
greedy algorithms: \citep{pan2014parallel} use parallel strategies for
the above one-pass greedy algorithm and
\citep{kumar2015fast} adapt a MapReduce paradigm
for implementing greedy algorithms in distributed settings.
One can also parallelize our algorithms easily since they
require independent runs of matrix-vector (or vector inner) products,
but we do not explore this aspect in this paper.
Finally, we remark that a non-greedy algorithm was studied in
\cite{gillenwater2012near} for better MAP qualities of DPP,
but it is much slower than ours
as reported in Section \ref{sec:exp}.
{\bf Organization.}
We introduce the necessary background in Section \ref{sec:prelim},
and present the proposed algorithms
in Section \ref{sec:greedy} and
Section \ref{sec:batch}.
Proofs and Experimental results are presented in Section \ref{sec:proof} and Section \ref{sec:exp}, respectively.
\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}
We {have presented} fast algorithms for the MAP inference task of large-scale DPPs.
Our main idea is to amortize common determinant computations via
linear algebraic techniques and recent log-determinant approximation methods.
Although we primarily focus on a special matrix optimization,
we expect that several ideas developed in this paper would be useful for other related matrix computational problems,
in particular, involving multiple determinant computations.
\section{Faster Greedy DPP Inference} \label{sec:greedy}
In this section, we provide a faster
greedy submodular maximization
scheme for the MAP inference of DPP.
We explain our key ideas in Section
\ref{sec:idea1} and then, provide the formal algorithm description
in Section \ref{sec:algdec1}.
\iffalse
Although greedy algorithm finds near-optimal solution in polynomial tim
, it still takes infeasible time to run.
In this section, we provide faster greedy algorithm based on linear approximation of log-determinant.
\fi
\subsection{Key Ideas}\label{sec:idea1}
\noindent {\bf First-order approximation of log-determinant.}
The main computational bottleneck of a greedy algorithm is to evaluate the marginal gain \eqref{eq:maxmarginalgain}
for every element not in the current set.
To reduce the time complexity,
we consider the following first-order, i.e., linear, approximation of log-determinant
as:\footnote{
$\nabla_X \log\det X=\left(X^{-1}\right)^\top$
\begin{align}
\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i\in \mathcal Y\setminus X}
\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \log \det {L}_{X}\notag
& =
\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i\in \mathcal Y\setminus X}
\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \log \det \overline{L}_{X} \notag \\
&\approx
\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i\in \mathcal Y\setminus X}
\left\langle {\overline{L}_{X}^{-1}}, L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - {\overline{L}_{X}} \right\rangle,
\label{eqn:linear}
\end{align}
where we recall that $\overline{L}_{X}$ is the average of $L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$.
Observe that
computing \eqref{eqn:linear} requires
the vector inner product of a single column (or row) of $\overline{L}_{X}^{-1}$ and $L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \overline{L}_{X}$
because $L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$ and $\overline{L}_{X}$ share almost {all} entries except {a} single row and {a} column.
To obtain a single column of $\overline{L}_X^{-1}$,
one can solve a linear system
using the $\mathtt{CG}$ algorithm.
More importantly,
it suffices to run $\mathtt{CG}$ once for computing \eqref{eqn:linear}, while
the na\"ive greedy implementation in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp}
has to run $\mathtt{CG}$ $|\mathcal Y\setminus X|$ times.
As we mentioned earlier, after obtaining the single column of $\overline{L}_{X}^{-1}$ using $\mathtt{CG}$,
one has to perform $|\mathcal Y\setminus X|$ vector inner products in \eqref{eqn:linear},
but it is much cheaper than $|\mathcal Y\setminus X|$ $\mathtt{CG}$ runs requiring matrix-vector multiplications.
\noindent {\bf Partitioning.}
In order to further improve the quality of first-order approximation \eqref{eqn:linear},
we partition $ \mathcal{Y} \setminus X$ into $p$ distinct subsets
so that
\begin{align*}
\| L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \overline{L}_{X} \|_F ~~\gg~~
\| L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} \|_F,
\end{align*}
where an element $i$ is in the partition $j \in \left[p\right]$,
$\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}$
is the average of $L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$ for $i$ in the partition $j$,
and $\norm{\cdot}_F$ is the Frobenius norm.
Since $L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$ becomes closer to the average $\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}$,
one can expect that the first-order approximation quality in \eqref{eqn:linear} is improved.
But, we now need a more expensive procedure to approximate the marginal gain:
\begin{align*}
&\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \log \det {L}_{X} \\
&= \left(\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} \right)
+\left(\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} - \log \det {L}_{X}\right)\\
&
\approx
\underbrace{\left\langle {\left(\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}\right)^{-1}}, L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}} \right\rangle}_{(a)}
+ \underbrace{\left(\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} - \log \det {L}_{X}\right)}_{(b)}.
\end{align*}
The first term (a) can be computed efficiently as we explained earlier,
but we have to run
$\mathtt{CG}$ $p$ times for computing single columns of
$\overline{L}_{X}^{(1)},\dots,\overline{L}_{X}^{(p)}$.
The second term (b) can be also computed using $\mathtt{CG}$
similarly {to} \eqref{eqn:cggain} under the Schur complement.
Hence, one has to run $\mathtt{CG}$ $2p$ times in total.
If $p$ is large, the overall complexity becomes larger,
but the approximation quality {improves as well}.
We also note that one can try various clustering algorithms, e.g.,
$k$-means or Gaussian mixture.
Instead, we use a simple random partitioning scheme
because {it is not only} the fastest {method but it} also works well in our experiments.
\iffalse
the above approximation becomes more tighter.
However, one has to run CG $p$ times for computing single columns of
$\overline{L}_{X}^{(1)},\dots,\overline{L}_{X}^{(p)}$, which increases
the time-complexity.
Since the goal is to compare and find the maximal gains,
we need to compensate the marginal gains of $\overline{L}_X^{(j)}$ for all $j$.
To end this, we compute approximate marginal gains as
In the second part of \eqref{eqn:approxgain},
log-determinant difference can be computed using CG as same as \eqref{eqn:cggain}.
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{../figure/fig_logprob_clusters}
\caption{
Plot of accuracy when the number of partitions changed.
Accuracy is achieved with $0.5\%$ error rate when $p=35$.
Details about relative accuracy are explained in Section \ref{sec:exp}.
} \label{fig:clusters}
\label{fig:syn}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\fi
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{
{\bf Ranking (or Lazy update(?)).}
Beyond the improved approximation quality,
the algorithm still choose a wrong item during greedy selection.
For more careful decision,
we use following ranking strategy:
select the top $t>1$ elements with the largest approximation gain
and compute the exact gain as \eqref{eqn:cggain}.
Finally, we add an element with the largest gain unless it is non-negative.
This procedure can be implemented via $t$ times of $\mathtt{CG}$
which does not hurt the algorithm complexity
when we choose $t=O(1)$.
This idea comes from
the accelerated greedy algorithm of \cite{minoux1978accelerated}
where they recompute exact marginal gain only a single element.
Ranking heuristic makes our algorithm much tighter
with a small loss of running time but not considerable.
}
\fi
\subsection{Algorithm Description and Guarantee}\label{sec:algdec1}
The formal description of the proposed algorithm is described in { Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}.
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Faster Greedy DPP Inference} \label{alg:glin}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bf Input:} kernel matrix $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ and number of partitions $p$
\STATE {\bf Initialize:} $X \leftarrow \emptyset$
\WHILE {$\mathcal{Y} \setminus X\neq \emptyset$}
\STATE Partition $\mathcal{Y} \setminus X$ randomly into $p$ subsets.
\FOR {$j = 1$ { \bfseries to } $p$}
\STATE $\overline{L}_X^{(j)} \leftarrow \text{average of } L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$ for $i$ in the partition $j$
\STATE $\mathbf{z}^{(j)} \leftarrow$
$\left( |X|+1\right)$-th column of $\left(\overline{L}_X^{(j)}\right)^{-1}$
\STATE ${\Gamma}_j \leftarrow \log \det \overline{L}_X^{(j)} - \log \det L_X$
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X$}
\STATE ${\Delta}_i \leftarrow \left\langle L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}}, \mathtt{Mat} \left(\mathbf{z}^{(j)}\right) \right\rangle \footnotemark + \Gamma_j$\\
where element $i$ is included in partition $j$.
\ENDFOR
\STATE $i_{\max} \leftarrow \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i \in \mathcal{Y}\setminus X} {\Delta}_i $
\IF{$\log\det L_{X\cup\{i_{\max}\}} - \log\det L_{X} < 0$}
\STATE {\bf return $X$}
\ENDIF
\STATE $X \leftarrow X \cup \{ i_{\max} \}$
\ENDWHILE
}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\footnotetext{For $Z\in \mathbb{R}^{d \times k}$,
$\mathtt{Mat}(Z) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is defined
whose the last $k$ columns and rows are equal to $Z$ and $Z^\top$, respectively,
and other entries set to $0$.}
As we explained in Section \ref{sec:idea1},
the lines 7, 8 require to run $\mathtt{CG}$.
Hence,
the overall complexity becomes
$\Theta(T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{3}\cdot T_{\mathtt{CG}} \cdot p + d \cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{2} )
=\Theta(T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{3}+ d \cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{2} )$,
where we choose
$p,T_{\mathtt{CG}} = O(1)$.
Since $T_{\mathtt{GR}}=O(d)$,
it is simply $O(d^{3})$ and
better than the complexity $O(d^4)$
of the na\"ive implementations described in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp}.
{In particular, if kernel matrix $L$ is sparse, i.e., number of non-zeros of each column/row is $O(1)$,
ours has the complexity $\Theta(T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{2}+ d \cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}} )$
while the na\"ive approaches are still worse having the complexity $\Theta(d\cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{2})$.}
We also provide the following approximation guarantee of { Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
for the monotone case, where its proof is given in Section \ref{sec:pf:thm:alg1}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:alg1}
Suppose the smallest eigenvalue of $L$ is greater than 1.
Then, it holds that
\begin{align*}
&\log \det L_X \geq \left( 1 - 1/e \right) \max_{Z \subseteq \mathcal{Y}, |Z|=|X|} \log \det L_Z - 2|X| \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
where
$$\varepsilon = \max_{X \subseteq \mathcal{Y}, i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X \atop j \in \left[p\right]}
\abs{
\log \frac{\det L_{X \cup \{ i \}}}{\det \overline{L}_X^{(j)}} - \left\langle \left(\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}\right)^{-1}, L_{X \cup \{ i \}} - \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} \right\rangle
}$$
and $X$ is the output of {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}.
\end{theorem}
The above theorem captures the relation between
the first-order approximation error $\varepsilon > 0$ in \eqref{eqn:linear}
and the worst-case approximation ratio of the algorithm.
\section{Faster Batch-Greedy DPP Inference} \label{sec:batch}
In this section, we present an even faster greedy algorithm for the MAP inference task of DPP, in particular
for large-scale tasks.
On top of ideas described in Section \ref{sec:idea1},
we use a batch strategy, i.e., add $k$ elements instead of a single element to the current set,
where $\mathtt{LDAS}$ in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp} is now used as a key component.
The batch strategy accelerates our algorithm.
We first provide the formal description of the batch greedy algorithm in Section \ref{sec:algdec2}.
In Section \ref{sec:sharerandom},
we describe additional ideas on applying $\mathtt{LDAS}$ as a subroutine
of the proposed batch algorithm.
\subsection{Algorithm Description} \label{sec:algdec2}
\setcounter{footnote}{1}
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Faster Batch-Greedy DPP Inference} \label{alg:batch}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bf Input:} kernel matrix $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, number of partitions $p$,
batch size $k$ and the number of batch samples $s$
\STATE {\bf Initialize:} $X \leftarrow \emptyset$
\WHILE {$\mathcal{Y} \setminus X$ is not empty}
\STATE $I_i \leftarrow $ Randomly draw a batch of size $k$
for $i \in \left[s\right]$.
\STATE Partition $\left[s\right]$ randomly into $p$ subsets.
\FOR {$j = 1$ { \bfseries to } $p$}
\STATE $\overline{L}_X^{(j)} \leftarrow \text{average of } L_{X \cup I_i}$ for $i$ in the partition $j$
\STATE $Z^{(j)} \leftarrow (|X|+1)$ to $(|X|+k)$-th columns of
$\left( \overline{L}_X^{(j)}\right)^{-1}$
\STATE ${\Gamma}_j \leftarrow \log \det \overline{L}_X^{(j)}$ using $\mathtt{LDAS}$.
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$i = 1$ {\bfseries to } $s$}
\STATE ${\Delta}^{\text{Batch}}_i \leftarrow \left\langle L_{X \cup I_i} - {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}}, \mathtt{Mat}\left(Z^{(j)}\right) \right\rangle \footnotemark + \Gamma_j$
\vspace{0.05in}\\
where a batch index $i$ is included in $j$-th partition.
\ENDFOR
\STATE $i_{\max} \leftarrow \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i \in [s]} \Delta^{\text{Batch}}_i$
\iffalse
\STATE \textcolor{red}{Select the top $t$ of a batch with the largest $\Delta^{\text{Batch}}_b$ and
compute $\Delta^{\text{Batch}}_b \leftarrow \log \det L_{X \cup J_b} - \log \det L_X$.}
\STATE $b_{\max} \leftarrow \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{b \in \left[s\right]} \Delta^{\text{Batch}}_b
\STATE $i_{\max} \leftarrow \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X} \Delta_{i}
\fi
\IF{$\log\det L_{X\cup I_{i_{\max}}} - \log\det L_{X} <0$}
\STATE {\bf return $X$}
\ENDIF
\STATE $X \leftarrow X \cup I_{i_{\max}}$
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The formal description of the proposed algorithm is described in {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}.
Similar to the line 7 in {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}},
the line 8 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}
can be solved by the $\mathtt{CG}$ algorithms.
However, the line 9 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}
uses the $\mathtt{LDAS}$
and we remind that it runs in $\Theta(d^{2})$ time.
In addition, the line 12 requires the vector inner products $k s$ times.
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{
Computation in the line 15
requires $t\cdot k$ times of $\mathtt{CG}$ runs
and $t$ times of determinant computations for $k$-dimensional matrix.
}
\fi
Thus,
the total complexity becomes
{
$\Theta \left(T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{3}\cdot
\left( T_{\mathtt{CG}} + \frac{mn}{k} \right) \cdot p
+ s\cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{2} + s \cdot T_{\mathtt{CG}}
\right)
= \Theta(T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{3})$
where
$T_{\mathtt{GR}}$ is the number of greedy updates on the current set $X$
and we choose all parameters $p,T_{\mathtt{CG}},k,s,m,n=O(1)$.
}
\iffalse
Even though {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}} is used as a subroutine,
\fi
We note that
{Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}} is expected to perform faster than
{Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
when both $T_{\mathtt{GR}}$ and $d$ are large.
This is primarily because
the size of the current set $X$ increases by $k>1$ for each greedy iteration.
A larger choice of $k$ speeds up the algorithm up to $k$ times,
but it might hurt its output quality.
We explain more details of key components of the batch algorithm below.
\noindent {\bf Batch selection.}
The essence of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}}
is adding
$k>1$ elements, called batch, simultaneously to the current set with an improved marginal gain.
Formally, it
starts from the empty set and recursively updates $X \leftarrow X \cup I_{\max}$ for
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:batchupdate}
I_{\max} = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{I \subseteq \mathcal{Y} \setminus X, |I|=k} \log \det L_{X \cup I }.
\end{equation}
until no gain is attained. The non-batch greedy procedure \eqref{eq:maxmarginalgain} corresponds to $k=1$.
Such batch greedy algorithms have been also studied for submodular maximization \cite{nemhauser1978analysis,hausmann1980worst}
and recently, \cite{liu2016performance} studied their theoretical guarantees showing
that they can be better than their non-batch counterparts under some conditions.
The main drawback of the standard batch greedy algorithms
is that
finding the optimal batch of size $k$ requires {computing} too many marginal gains of $\binom{|\mathcal{Y} \setminus X|}{k}$ subsets.
To address the issue,
we sample $s \ll \binom{|\mathcal{Y} \setminus X|}{k}$ bunches of batch subsets randomly
and compute approximate batch marginal gains using them.
\iffalse
Such a random sampling strategy is also applicable to the standard non-batch greedy
algorithm as first proposed in \cite{mirzasoleiman2015lazier}.
\fi
\cite{mirzasoleiman2015lazier} first propose
an uniformly random sampling
to the standard non-batch greedy {algorithm}.
The authors show that it guarantees $(1-1/e-O(e^{-s}))$ approximation ratio in expectation
and report {that} it performs well in many applications.
\iffalse
\textcolor{red}{
Taking a further step,
we choose each item in batch with probability proportional to
approximated marginal gain in {\bf Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}
which works better than uniform batch sampling.
Furthermore,
we compare simultaneously both single item and batch
whether they improve the object value or not.
This controls the output subset sensitively
without hurt of the (asymptotic) complexity.
}
\fi
In our experiments, we choose $s=50$ batch samples.
\noindent {\bf High-order approximation of log-determinant.}
Recall that for {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}},
we suggest {using the} $\mathtt{CG}$ algorithm under the Schur complement
for computing
\begin{equation}\label{eq:avgdiff}
\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} - \log \det {L}_{X}.
\end{equation}
One can apply the same strategy for {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}},
which requires running the $\mathtt{CG}$ algorithm $k$ times
for \eqref{eq:avgdiff}.
Instead, we suggest {running} $\mathtt{LDAS}$ (using polynomial/high-order approximations
of the scalar log function) only once, i.e., the line 9,
which is much faster if $k$ is large.
We remind that the asymptotic complexities
of $\mathtt{CG}$ and $\mathtt{LDAS}$ are comparable.
\iffalse
we us
To improve performance,
we adapt random sampled $k$-batch strategy
with first-order approximation and partitioning schemes as explained in Section \ref{sec:idea1}.
As a result, $k$-batch update \eqref{eqn:batchupdate} can be approximated as
\begin{align}
&\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{I \in \{I_1, \dots, I_s\}} \log \det L_{X \cup I} - \log \det {L}_{X} \nonumber \\
&\approx
\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{I \in \{I_1, \dots, I_s\}}
\left\langle {\left(\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}\right)^{-1}}, L_{X \cup I} - {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}} \right\rangle \nonumber \\
&\qquad\quad\qquad + \left(\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} - \log \det {L}_{X}\right). \label{eqn:cgbatch} \\
&\approx
\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{I \in \{I_1, \dots, I_s\}} \left\langle {\left(\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}\right)^{-1}}, L_{X \cup I} - {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}} \right\rangle \nonumber \\
&\qquad\quad\qquad + {\bf Algorithm \ref{alg:logdet}} \text{ \ for \ } \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}. \label{eqn:chebybatch}
\end{align}
where $I_1, \dots, I_s$ are random sampled $k$-batches
and partitioning is performed on $\{1,\dots, s\}$.
As similar in $1$-batch situation,
the first and second term of \eqref{eqn:cgbatch}
can be computed using CG $pk$ times, respectively.
Twice of running CG $pk$ times takes some time for large $k$ and $p$.
\fi
\subsection{Sharing Randomness in Trace Estimators}\label{sec:sharerandom}
\iffalse
We overcome this issue
by the
log-determinant approximation in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp}.
The second term of \eqref{eqn:cgbatch} can be approximated with {\bf Algorithm \ref{alg:logdet}}.
The estimation \eqref{eqn:chebybatch}
requires CG $pk$ times and $\mathtt{LDAS}$ $p$ times.
Although both have the same complexity,
practical results show that the latter one performs $60\%$ faster than the former one without loss of accuracy.
\fi
To improve the approximation quality of {Algorithm \ref{alg:batch}},
we further suggest {running} $\mathtt{LDAS}$
using the same random vectors
$\mathbf{v}^{(1)}, \dots, \mathbf{v}^{(m)}$
across $j \in \left[p\right]$.
This is because we are interested in relative values $\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}$ for $j \in \left[p\right]$
instead of their absolute ones.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig_sharing}
\caption{Log-determinant estimation qualities of $\mathtt{LDAS}$ for sharing and independent random vectors.} \label{fig:sharing}
\end{figure}
Our intuition is that
different random vectors have different bias, which hurt the comparison task.
Figure \ref{fig:sharing} demonstrates an experiment on the estimation of
$\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}$ when random vectors are
shared and independent, respectively.
This implies that
sharing random vectors
might be worse for estimating the absolute values of log-determinants,
but better for comparing them.
We also formally justify the idea of sharing random vectors as stated in the follows theorem whose
proof is given in Section \ref{sec:pf:thm:sharing}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sharing}
Suppose
$A,B$ are positive definite matrices
whose eigenvalues are in $\left[\delta,1-\delta\right]$ for $\delta>0$.
Let $\Gamma_A, \Gamma_B$ be the estimations of $\log \det A$, $\log \det B$ by $\mathtt{LDAS}$
using {the} same random vectors $\mathbf{v}^{(1)}, \dots, \mathbf{v}^{(m)}$ for both.
Then, it holds that
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{Var}\left[\Gamma_A - \Gamma_B\right] \leq \frac{32M^2 \rho^2 \left(\rho+1\right)^2}{m\left(\rho-1\right)^6 \left( 1-2\delta\right)^2} \| A-B \|_{F}^2
\end{align*}
where $M = 5\log\left(2/\delta\right)$ and $\rho=1 + \frac{2}{\sqrt{2/\delta - 1}-1}$.
\end{theorem}
Without sharing random vectors,
the variance
should grow linearly with respect to $\norm{A}_F^2+\norm{B}_F^2$.
In our case, matrices $A$ and $B$ correspond to some of $\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}$,
and $\| A-B \|_{F}^2$ {is} significantly smaller than $\norm{A}_F^2+\norm{B}_F^2$.
We believe that our idea of sharing randomness might be of broader interest
in many applications of $\mathtt{LDAS}$ or its variants, requiring
multiple log-determinant computations.
\iffalse
This means the approximation becomes worse when dimension increases which is not desirable for large-scale.
Hence, theorem implies that sharing randomness is critical for comparing $\log\det A$ and $\log \det B$.
Moreover, if $A$ is similar to $B$, the variance becomes very small which means the estimation is identical.
\fi
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
We start by defining a necessary notation.
Our algorithms for determinantal point processes (DPPs)
select elements from the ground set of $d$ items $\mathcal{Y} = [d] := \{1,2,\dots,d\}$
and denote the set of all subsets of $\mathcal{Y}$ by $2^\mathcal{Y}$.
For any positive semidefinite matrix $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$,
we denote $\lambda_{\min}$ and $\lambda_{\max}$ to be the smallest and the largest eigenvalues
of $L$.
Given subset $X,Y \subseteq \mathcal{Y}$, we use $L_{X,Y}$ to denote
the submatrix of $L$ obtained by entries in rows and
columns indexed by $X$ and $Y$, respectively.
For notational simplicity, we let $L_{X,X} = L_X$ and $L_{X,\{i\}} = L_{X,i}$ for $i \in \mathcal{Y}$.
In addition, $\overline{L}_{X}$ is defined as the average of $L_{X \cup \{ i \}}$ for $ i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X$.
\iffalse
The computational complexity/cost
of matrix-vector multiplication $L \mathbf{v}$ for $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$
and $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is denoted by
$O(d^\omega)$ for some $\omega>0$.
In the worst case, $\omega = 2$. However, it can be $\omega< 2$, e.g., if $L$ is
sparse, low-rank,
or Fourier (or Hadamard, Walsh, Toeplitz)
using data structure, matrix factorization,
the fast Fourier transform, respectively.
\fi
Finally, $\left\langle \cdot, \cdot \right\rangle$ means the matrix/vector inner product or element-wise product sum.
In Section \ref{sec:dpp}, we introduce the {\it maximum a posteriori} (MAP) inference
of DPP, then
the standard greedy optimization scheme and its na\"ive implementations
are described in Section \ref{sec:greedypre}
and Section \ref{sec:naiveimp}, respectively.
\subsection{Determinantal Point Processes}\label{sec:dpp}
DPPs are probabilistic models for subset selection
of a finite ground set $\mathcal{Y} = [d]$ that captures both quality and diversity.
Formally, it defines the following distribution on $2^{\mathcal Y}$:
for random variable $\mathbf{X} \subseteq \mathcal{Y}$ drawn from given DPP,
we have
$$
\Pr \left[ \mathbf{X} = X \right] \propto \det \left( L_X \right),
$$
where $L \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is a positive definite matrix called an {\it $L$-ensemble} kernel.
Under the distribution,
several probabilistic inference tasks are required for real-world applications,
including MAP \cite{gong2014diverse,gillenwater2012near,yao2016tweet}, sampling \cite{kathuria2016sampling,kang2013fast,li2016efficient}, marginalization and conditioning \cite{gong2014diverse}.
In particular, {we are interested in} the MAP inference, i.e., finding the most diverse subset $Y$ of $\mathcal{Y}$ {that}
achieves the highest probability, i.e., $ \arg\max_{Y\subseteq \mathcal{Y}} \det(L_Y)$,
possibly under some constraints on $Y$.
Unlike other inference tasks on DPP, it is known that MAP is a NP-hard problem \cite{kulesza2012determinantal}.
\iffalse
and several approaches have been proposed
to compute an approximate solution, e.g.,
greedy \cite{kulesza2012determinantal} and continuous relaxation \cite{gillenwater2012near}.
\fi
\subsection{Greedy Submodular Maximization}\label{sec:greedypre}
A set function $f : 2^\mathcal{Y} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is submodular
if its marginal gains are decreasing, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
f( X\cup \{ i \}) - f(X) \geq f(Y \cup \{ i \}) - f(Y),
\end{equation*}
for every $X \subseteq Y \subset \mathcal{Y}$ and every $i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus Y$.
We say $f$ is monotone if $f(X) \leq f(Y)$ for every $X \subseteq Y$.
It is well known that
DPP has the submodular structure, i.e.,
$f = \log \det$ is submodular.
The submodular maximization task
is to find a subset maximizing a submodular function $f$, which
corresponds to the MAP inference task in the DPP case.
Hence, it is NP-hard and a popular approximate scheme
is the following greedy procedure \cite{nemhauser1978analysis}:
initially, $X \leftarrow \emptyset$ and iteratively update
$X \leftarrow X \cup \{ i_{\max} \}$ for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maxmarginalgain}
i_{\max} = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X} f ( {X\cup\{i\}} ) - f(X),
\end{equation}
as long as $f({X\cup\{i_{\max}\}}) > f({X})$.
For the monotone case,
it guarantees $(1-1/e)$-approximation \cite{nemhauser1978analysis}.
Under
some modifications of the standard greedy procedure,
$2/5$-approximation can be guaranteed even for non-monotone functions \cite{feige2011maximizing}.
Irrespectively of such theoretical guarantees,
it has been empirically observed that greedy selection \eqref{eq:maxmarginalgain} provides near
optimal solutions in practice \cite{krause2008near, sharma2015greedy, yao2016tweet,zhang2016block}.
\iffalse
This problem are solved by greedy selection recursively ({\bf Algorithm \ref{alg:greedy}})
and it guarantees that the greedy solution will be at least $(1-1/e)$ times than the optimal solution.
Fortunately, log-determinant is also submodular function and
this makes DPP inference solving by the greedy algorithm.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Greedy Submodular Maximization} \label{alg:greedy}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bf Initialize: } $X \leftarrow \emptyset
\REPEAT
\STATE $i_{\max} = \arg \max_{i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X} f ( {X\cup\{i\}} ) - f(X)$
\STATE $X \leftarrow X \cup \{ i_{\max} \}$
\UNTIL $f({X\cup\{i\}}) - f({X}) < 0$
\STATE {\bf return } $X$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\subsection{Na\"ive Implementations of Greedy Algorithm}\label{sec:naiveimp}
Log-determinant or related computations, which are at the heart of greedy
algorithms for MAP inference of DPPs,
are critical to compute the marginal gain
$\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i\}} - \log \det L_X$.
{Since the exact computations of log-determinants} might be slow, i.e., requires $O(d^3)$ time for $d$-dimensional matrices, we introduce recent efficient log-determinant approximation schemes ($\mathtt{LDAS}$).
The log-determinant of a symmetric positive definite matrix $A$
can be approximated by combining
(a) Chebyshev polynomial expansion of scalar $\log$ function and
(b) matrix trace estimators via Monte Carlo methods:
\begin{align*}
\log \det A = {\tt tr}\left(\log A\right)
\stackrel{(a)}{\approx} {\tt tr}\left( p_n(A)\right)
\stackrel{(b)}{\approx} \frac1m \sum_{t=1}^m \mathbf{v}^{(t)\top} p_n (A) \mathbf{v}^{(t)}. \end{align*}
Here, $p_n(x)$ is a polynomial expansion of degree $n$ approximating $\log x$
and $\mathbf{v}^{(1)}, \dots, \mathbf{v}^{(m)}$ are random vectors used for estimating the trace of $p_n(A)$.
Several polynomial expansions, including
Taylor~\cite{boutsidis2015randomized}, Chebyshev~\cite{han2015large} and
Legendre~\cite{peng2015large}
have been studied.
For trace estimation, several random vectors have been also studied
\cite{avron2011randomized}, e.g.,
the Hutchinson method~\cite{hutchinson1990stochastic} chooses elements of
$\mathbf{v}$ as i.i.d. random numbers in $\{ -1,+1\}$ so that
$\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{v}^\top A \mathbf{v} \right] = {\tt tr}\left( A \right)$.
In this paper,
we use
$\mathtt{LDAS}$ using the Chebyshev polynomial and
Hutchinson method \cite{han2015large}, but
one can use other alternatives as well.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption*{Log-determinant Approximation Scheme ($\mathtt{LDAS}$) \cite{han2015large}} \label{alg:logdet}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} symmetric matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ with eigenvalues in $[\delta,1-\delta]$, sampling number $m$ and polynomial degree $n$
\STATE {\bfseries Initialize:} $\Gamma \leftarrow 0$
\STATE $c_j \leftarrow$ $j$-th coefficient of Chebyshev expansion of $\log x$ on $[\delta,1-\delta]$ for $0 \leq j \leq n$.
\FOR {$i = 1$ { \bfseries to } $m$}
\STATE Draw a random vector $\mathbf{v}^{(i)} \in \{ -1,+1\}^d$ whose entries are uniformly distributed.
\STATE $\mathbf{w}_0^{(i)} \leftarrow \mathbf{v}^{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{w}_1^{(i)} \leftarrow \frac{2}{1-2\delta}A\mathbf{v}^{(i)}-\frac{1}{1-2\delta} \mathbf{v}^{(i)}$
\STATE $\mathbf{u} \leftarrow c_0 \mathbf{w}_0^{(i)} + c_1 \mathbf{w}_1^{(i)}$
\FOR {$j = 2$ { \bfseries to } $n$}
\STATE $\mathbf{w}_2^{(i)} \leftarrow \frac{4}{1-2\delta} A \mathbf{w}_1^{(i)} - \frac{2}{1-2\delta} \mathbf{w}_1^{(i)} - \mathbf{w}_0^{(i)}$
\STATE $\mathbf{u} \leftarrow \mathbf{u} + c_j \ \mathbf{w}_2^{(i)}$
\STATE $\mathbf{w}_0^{(i)} \leftarrow \mathbf{w}_1^{(i)}$ and $\mathbf{w}_1^{(i)} \leftarrow \mathbf{w}_2^{(i)}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE $\Gamma \leftarrow \Gamma + \mathbf{v}^{(i)\top} \mathbf{u}/ m $
\ENDFOR
\STATE {\bfseries Output:} $\Gamma$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Observe that $\mathtt{LDAS}$ only requires matrix-vector multiplications
and its running time is $\Theta\left( d^{2}\right)$ for constants $m,n=O(1)$.
One can directly use $\mathtt{LDAS}$ for computing \eqref{eq:maxmarginalgain}
and the resulting greedy algorithm runs in {$\Theta(d \cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^3)$} time
where the number of greedy updates on the current set $X$ is $ T_{\mathtt{GR}}$.
Since $T_{\mathtt{GR}}=O(d)$, the complexity is simply {$O(d^{4})$}.
An alternative way to achieve the same complexity is to use
the Schur complement \cite{ouellette1981schur}:
\begin{align} \label{eqn:cggain}
\log \det L_{X \cup \{ i\}} - \log \det L_X = \log \left( L_{i,i} - L_{i,X} L_{X}^{-1} L_{X,i}\right).
\end{align}
This requires a linear solver to compute $L_{X}^{-1} L_{X,i}$;
conjugate gradient descent ($\mathtt{CG}$) \cite{greenbaum1997iterative} is
a popular choice in practice.
Hence, if one applies $\mathtt{CG}$
to compute the max-marginal gain \eqref{eq:maxmarginalgain},
the resulting greedy algorithm runs in
{
$\Theta(d \cdot T_{\mathtt{GR}}^{3}\cdot T_{\mathtt{CG}})$ time,
}
where $T_{\mathtt{CG}}$ denotes the number of iterations of each $\mathtt{CG}$ run.
In the worst case, $\mathtt{CG}$ converges to the exact solution
when $T_{\mathtt{CG}}$ grows with the matrix dimension, but
for practical purposes,
it typically provides a very accurate solution in few iterations, i.e.,
$T_{\mathtt{CG}} = O(1)$.
Recently, Gauss quadrature via Lanczos iteration is used for
efficient computing of $L_{i,X} L_{X}^{-1} L_{X,i}$ \cite{li2016gaussian}.
Although it guarantees rigorous upper/lower bounds,
$\mathtt{CG}$ is faster and accurate enough for most practical purposes.
In summary, the greedy MAP inference of DPP can be implemented efficiently
via $\mathtt{LDAS}$ or $\mathtt{CG}$.
The faster implementations proposed in this paper smartly {employ both of them} as key components utilizing
their {complementary} benefits.
\section{Proof of Theorems}\label{sec:proof}
In this section,
we provide the proof of our main theorems.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:alg1}}\label{sec:pf:thm:alg1}
For given $X \subseteq \mathcal{Y}$,
we denote that
the true marginal gain $\Lambda_i$
and the approximated gain $\Delta_i$ (used in {Algorithm \ref{alg:glin}}) as
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_i &:= \log \det L_{X \cup \{ i\}} - \log \det L_X,\\
\Delta_i &:=
\left\langle {\left(\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}\right)^{-1}}, L_{X \cup \{ i \}}
- {\overline{L}_{X}^{(j)}} \right\rangle
+ \left(\log \det \overline{L}_{X}^{(j)} - \log \det {L}_{X}\right)
\end{align*}
where an item $i\in \mathcal{Y}\setminus X$ is in the partition $j$.
We also use $i_{\mathtt{OPT}} = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_i \Lambda_i$ and
$i_{\max} = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_i \Delta_i$.
Then, we have
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_{i_{\max}}
{\geq} \ \Delta_{i_{\max}} - \varepsilon \
{\geq} \ \Delta_{i_{\mathtt{OPT}}} - \varepsilon \
{\geq} \ \Lambda_{i_{\mathtt{OPT}}} - 2 \varepsilon \
\end{align*}
where the first and third inequalities are
from the definition of $\varepsilon$, i.e., $\abs{\Lambda_i - \Delta_i } \leq \varepsilon$,
and the second inequality holds by the optimality of $i_{\max}$.
In addition,
when the smallest eigenvalue of $L$ is greater than 1,
$\log \det L_X$ is monotone and non-negative \cite{sharma2015greedy}.
To complete the proof,
we introduce
following approximation guarantee
of the greedy algorithm with a `noise' during the selection \cite{streeter2009online}.
\begin{theorem}{\bf (Noisy greedy algorithm)}\label{thm:egreedy}
Suppose a submodular function $f$ defined on ground set $\mathcal{Y}$
is monotone and non-negative.
Let $X_0 = \emptyset$ and
$X_k = X_{k-1} \cup \{ i_{\max} \}$
such that
\begin{align*}
&f(X_{k-1} \cup \{ i_{\max}\}) - f(X_{k-1})
\geq \max_{i \in \mathcal{Y} \setminus X_{k-1}} \left( f(X_{k-1} \cup \{ i\}) - f(X_{k-1})\right) - \varepsilon_k
\end{align*}
for some $\varepsilon_k \geq 0$.
Then,
$$
f(X_k) \geq \left(1- 1/e \right) \max_{X \subseteq \mathcal{Y}, |X|\leq k} f(X)
- \sum_{i=1}^k \varepsilon_i
$$
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:alg1} is straightforward by
substituting $2 \varepsilon$ into $\varepsilon_k$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:alg1}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sharing}}\label{sec:pf:thm:sharing}
As we explained in Section \ref{sec:naiveimp},
Chebyshev expansion of $\log x$ in $[\delta, 1-\delta]$ with degree $n$
is defined as $\pn{x}$. This can be written as
\begin{align}
\pn{x} = \sum_{k=0}^n c_k T_k\left(\frac{2}{1-2\delta}x - \frac1{1-2\delta}\right) \label{eqn:pn}
\end{align}
where the coefficient $c_k$ and the $k$-th Chebyshev polynomial $T_k(x)$ are defined as
\begin{align}
&c_k
= \begin{dcases}
\frac{1}{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^n f\left(\frac{1-2\delta}{2}x_j+\frac12\right) \ T_0(x_j) & \text{if $\ k=0$} \\
\frac{2}{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^n f\left(\frac{1-2\delta}{2}x_j+\frac12\right) \ T_k(x_j) & \text{otherwise}
\end{dcases} \label{eqn:ck} \\
&T_{k+1}(x) = 2 x T_k (x) - T_{k-1} (x) \label{eqn:recur} \qquad \text{for $\ k \ge 1$}
\end{align}
where $x_j = \cos \left( \frac{ \pi (j + 1/2 )}{ n+1} \right)$ for $j = 0,1,\dots,n$ and $T_0(x) = 1$, $T_1(x) = x$ \cite{mason2002chebyshev}.
For simplicity, we now use $H := \pn{A} - \pn{B}$
and denote $\widetilde A = \frac{2}{1-2\delta}A - \frac1{1-2\delta} \mathbf{I}$
where $\mathbf{I}$ is identity matrix with same dimension of $A$ and
same for $\widetilde B$.
We estimate the log-determinant difference while random vectors are shared, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\log \det A - \log \det B
\approx
\frac1m \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbf{v}^{(i)\top} H\mathbf{v}^{(i)}.
\end{align*}
To show that the variance of $\mathbf{v}^{(i)\top} H \mathbf{v}^{(i)}$ is small as $\norm{A - B}_F$,
we provide that
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{Var}\left[\frac1m \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbf{v}^{(i)\top} H\mathbf{v}^{(i)}\right]
&= \frac1m \mathbf{Var}\left[\mathbf{v}^\top H \mathbf{v}\right] \\
&\leq \frac2m \norm{H}_F^2 = \frac2m \norm{\pn{A}-\pn{B}}_F^2 \\
&\leq \frac2m \left( \sum_{k=0}^n \abs{c_k} \norm{T_{k} \left(\widetilde A\right) - T_{k} \left(\widetilde B\right)}_F\right)^2
\end{align*}
where the first inequality holds from \cite{avron2011randomized}
and the second is from combining \eqref{eqn:pn} with the triangle inequality.
To complete the proof, we use the following two lemmas.
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:chebpolbound}
Let $T_k \left( \cdot \right)$ be Chebyshev polynomial with $k$-degree
and symmetric matrices $B, E$
satisfied with $\norm{B}_2 \leq 1$, $\norm{B + E}_2 \leq 1$.
Then, for $k \geq 0$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{T_k\left( B + E\right) - T_k\left( B\right)}_F \leq k^2 \norm{E}_F.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lmm:coeffbound}
Let $c_k$ be the $k$-th coefficient of Chebyshev expansion for $f\left(x\right)$.
Suppose $f$ is analytic with $\abs{f\left(z\right)}\leq M$ in the region bounded by the ellipse with foci $\pm 1$
and the length of major and minor semiaxis summing to $\rho>1$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^n k^2 \abs{c_k} \leq \frac{2M \rho\left(\rho+1\right)}{\left(\rho-1\right)^3}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
In order to apply Lemma \ref{lmm:coeffbound},
we should consider $f(x) = \log \left( \frac{1-2\delta}{2} x +\frac12 \right)$.
Then it can be easily obtained $M = 5 \log\left(2/\delta\right)$ and $\rho =1 + \frac{2}{\sqrt{2/\delta - 1}-1}$ as provided in \cite{han2015large}.
Using Lemma \ref{lmm:chebpolbound} and \ref{lmm:coeffbound},
we can write
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{Var}\left[\frac1m \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbf{v}^{(i)\top} H\mathbf{v}^{(i)}\right]
&\leq \frac2m \left( \sum_{k=0}^n \abs{c_k} \norm{T_{k} \left(\widetilde A\right) - T_{k} \left(\widetilde B\right)}_F\right)^2 \\
&\leq \frac2m \left( \sum_{k=0}^n \abs{c_k} k^2 \norm{\widetilde A - \widetilde B}_F\right)^2 \\
&\leq \frac2m \left( \frac{2M \rho \left(\rho+1 \right)}{\left(\rho -1\right)^3}\right)^2 \left( \frac{2}{1-2\delta}\norm{A-B}_F\right)^2 \\
&= \frac{32M^2\rho^2\left( \rho+1\right)^2}{m\left(\rho-1\right)^6\left(1-2\delta\right)^2} \norm{A- B}_F^2
\end{align*}
where the second inequality holds from Lemma \ref{lmm:chebpolbound}
and the thrid is from Lemma \ref{lmm:coeffbound}.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sharing}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lmm:chebpolbound}}
Denote $R_k := T_{k} \left(B + E\right) - T_{k} \left( B\right)$.
From the recurrence of Chebyshev polynomial \eqref{eqn:recur},
$R_k$ has following
\begin{align}
&R_{k+1}
= 2\left( B + E\right) R_k - R_{k-1} + 2 E \ T_k\left( B\right) \label{eqn:recurR}
\end{align}
for $k\geq 1$ where $R_1 = E$, $R_0 = \mathbf{0}$
where $\mathbf{0}$ is defined as zero matrix with the same dimension of $B$.
Solving this, we obtain that
\begin{align}
R_{k+1} = g_{k+1}\left( B + E\right) E
+ \sum_{i=0}^{k} h_i \left(B + E\right) E \ T_{k+1-i} \left(B\right) \label{eq:closedR}
\end{align}
for $k\geq 1$ where both $g_k\left(\cdot\right)$ and $h_k\left(\cdot\right)$ are polynomials
with degree $k$
and they have following recurrences
\begin{align*}
g_{k+1}\left(x\right) &= 2 x g_{k}\left(x\right) - g_{k-1}\left(x\right), g_1\left(x\right) = 1, g_0\left( x\right) = 0, \\
h_{k+1}\left(x\right) &= 2 x h_{k}\left(x\right) - h_{k-1}\left(x\right), h_1\left(x\right) = 2, h_0\left( x\right) = 0.
\end{align*}
In addition, we can easily verify that
$$2 \max_{x \in \left[-1,1\right]} \abs{g_k \left(x\right)} = \max_{x \in \left[-1,1\right]} \abs{h_k \left(x\right)} = 2k.$$
Putting all together, we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\norm{R_{k+1}}_F
&\leq \norm{g_{k+1}\left( B + E\right) E }_F
+ \norm{\sum_{i=0}^{k} h_i \left(B + E\right) E \ T_{k+1-i} \left(B\right)}_F \\
&\leq \norm{g_{k+1}\left( B + E\right)}_2 \norm{E }_F
+ \sum_{i=0}^{k} \norm{h_i \left(B + E\right)}_2 \norm{E}_F \norm{\ T_{k+1-i} \left(B\right)}_2\\
&\leq \left( \norm{g_{k+1}\left( B + E\right)}_2 + \sum_{i=0}^{k} \norm{h_i \left(B + E\right)}_2\right) \norm{E}_F \\
&\leq \left( k+1 + \sum_{i=0}^k 2 i\right) \norm{E}_F \\
&= \left(k+1\right)^2 \norm{E}_F
\end{align*}
where the second inequality holds from $\norm{YX}_F = \norm{XY}_F \leq \norm{X}_2 \norm{Y}_F$
for matrix $X,Y$
and the third inequality uses that $\abs{T_k\left(x\right)} \leq 1$ for all $k\geq 0$.
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lmm:chebpolbound}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lmm:coeffbound}}
For general analytic function $f$,
Chebyshev series of $f$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
f\left(x\right) = \frac{a_0}2 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k T_k\left(x\right), \quad a_k = \frac2\pi \int_{-1}^1 \frac{f\left(x\right) T_k\left(x\right)}{\sqrt{1-x^2}} dx.
\end{align*}
and from \cite{mason2002chebyshev} it is known that
\begin{align*}
c_k - a_k = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \left(-1\right)^j \left(a_{2j(n+1)-k} + a_{2j(n+1)+k}\right)
\end{align*}
and
$
\abs{a_k} \leq \frac{2M}{\rho^k}
$
for $0 \leq k \leq n$. We remind that $c_k$ is defined in \eqref{eqn:ck}.
Using this facts, we get
\begin{align*}
k^2 \abs{c_k}
&\leq k^2 \left( \abs{a_k} + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \abs{a_{2j(n+1)-k}} + \abs{a_{2j(n+1)+k}}\right) \\
&\leq k^2 \abs{a_k} + \sum_{j=1}^\infty k^2 \abs{a_{2j(n+1)-k}} + k^2 \abs{a_{2j(n+1)+k}}\\
&\leq k^2 \abs{a_k} + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \left(2j(n+1)-k\right)^2 \abs{a_{2j(n+1)-k}}
+ \left(2j(n+1)+k\right)^2 \abs{a_{2j(n+1)+k}}
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^n k^2 \abs{c_k}
\leq \sum_{k=0}^n k^2 \abs{a_k
\leq \sum_{k=0}^\infty k^2 \abs{a_k} \leq \sum_{k=0}^\infty k^2 \frac{2M}{\rho^k} = \frac{2M \rho\left(\rho+1\right)}{\left(\rho-1\right)^3}
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lmm:coeffbound}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
We understand the neutrinos obey purely Fermi-Dirac statistics on the analogy of the electrons\cite{Bartalucci2006PLB}; however, they may possess mixed statistics \cite{Dolgov2005PLB,Barabash2007PLB,Choubey2006PLB,Ignatiev2006PLA,Tornow2010NPA,Vergados2012RPP,NEMO2014NPA}. Dolgov, et.al. studied the effects of continuous transition from Fermi-Dirac to Bose-Einstein statistics of neutrinos and discussed the possible modification of the big bang nucleosynthesis \cite{Dolgov2005JCAP}. J.I and T.K estimated the relativistic degrees of freedom with non-pure fermionic neutrinos in the early universe by numerical calculations \cite{Iizuka2015MPLA,Iizuka2016PDU}.
In this letter, to complement our previous numerical studies \cite{Iizuka2015MPLA,Iizuka2016PDU}, we show analytical expressions of the relativistic effective degrees of freedom in the early universe with non-pure fermionic neutrinos, and perform a semi-analytical study by using these analytical expressions.
\section{Analytical expressions}
{\bf Net number density and net energy density: }
The distribution function is given by \cite{Dolgov2005JCAP}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i=\frac{g_i}{e^{(E-\mu_i)/T}+\kappa_i},
\label{Eq:f_i}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_i$, $E$, $\mu_i$ and $T$ denote the number of internal degrees of freedom, energy, chemical potential and temperature, respectively. The Fermi-Bose parameter $\kappa_i$ describes the continuous transition from Fermi-Dirac $\kappa_i=1$ distribution to Bose-Einstein $\kappa_i=-1$ distribution via Maxwell-Boltzmann $\kappa_i=0$ distribution.
The net number density of particle species $i$ is obtained as \cite{Kolb1980NPB,Kolb1990}
\begin{eqnarray}
n_{i- \bar{i}}&=&n_i - n_{\bar{i}} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{g_i}{2\pi^2}\int^\infty_{m_i}E(E^2-m^2_i)^{1/2} [f_i(E)-f_{\bar i}(E)]dE \nonumber \\
&\simeq& \frac{2g_i T^3 \xi_i}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_i )
\label{Eq:n_i_ibar}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_i=\frac{\mu_i}{T}, \quad F_s(x) \equiv \frac{{\rm Li}_s(-x)}{-x},
\end{eqnarray}
and ${\rm Li}_s (x)$ denotes the polylogarithm function. We note that $F_2(1)=\pi^2/12$, $F_4(1)=7\pi^4/720$ are obtained for pure fermions and $F_2(-1)=\pi^2/6$, $F_4(-1)=\pi^4/90$ are obtained for pure bosons.
Similarly, the net energy density is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{i + \bar{i}} = \rho_i + \rho_{\bar{i}} \simeq \frac{3g_i T^4}{\pi^2}\left(2F_4(\kappa_i)+\xi_i^2F_2(\kappa_i)\right).
\label{Eq:rho_i_bar_i}
\end{eqnarray}
{\bf Chemical potentials: }
The beta-decay of down quark via weak interactions $d \rightarrow u + \ell + \bar{\nu}_\ell$ provides
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_u+\mu_\ell&=&\mu_d+\mu_{\nu_\ell}, \quad (\ell=e,\mu,\tau),
\label{Eq:beta_decay}
\end{eqnarray}
and the relation of $\mu_i =\mu_{\bar i}$ and $\mu_\gamma=\mu_W=\mu_Z=\mu_g=\mu_H=0$ are appropriate. With the following assumptions \cite{Stuke2012JCAP}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_u =\mu_c =\mu_t, \quad
\mu_d =\mu_s=\mu_b,
\end{eqnarray}
there are only five independent chemical potentials and we take these as $\mu_u, \mu_d,\mu_{\nu_e}, \mu_{\nu_\mu}, \mu_{\nu_\tau}$. These five independent chemical potentials are uniquely determined by the following five conservation laws \cite{Stuke2012JCAP}
\begin{eqnarray}
sQ&=&-\sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau}n_{i-\bar{i}} + \frac{2}{3}\sum_{i=u,c,t}n_{i-\bar{i}}-\frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=d,s,b}n_{i-\bar{i}}, \label{Eq:sq} \\
sB&=&\frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=quarks}n_{i-\bar{i}}, \label{Eq:sb} \\
sL_\ell &=& n_{\ell-{\bar{\ell}}} +n_{\nu_\ell-{\nu}_{\bar{\ell}}}, \label{Eq:sell}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q$, $B$ and $L_\ell$ denote electric charge, baryon number and lepton flavor number of the universe, respectively.
For electrically neutral universe, $Q=0$, from Eqs. (\ref{Eq:n_i_ibar}), (\ref{Eq:sq}), (\ref{Eq:sb}) and (\ref{Eq:sell}), the following coupled equations for chemical potentials up to $\mathcal{O}(\xi_i^2)$ are obtained
\begin{eqnarray}
&&0 = -(\xi_e+\xi_{\mu}+\xi_{\tau}) +4\xi_{u}-3\xi_{d}, \nonumber \\
&&\frac{3sB}{T^3} = 2\xi_{u}+3\xi_{d},\nonumber \\
&&\frac{3sL_\ell}{T^3} = \xi_\ell+\frac{6}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)\xi_{\nu_\ell},
\label{Eq:from_Q_0}
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume $m_W < T < m_t$, $\kappa_\nu=\kappa_{\nu_e}=\kappa_{\nu_\mu}=\kappa_{\nu_\tau}$ and take $\kappa_i=1$ for the fermions in the standard model except neutrinos. From Eqs.(\ref{Eq:beta_decay}) and (\ref{Eq:from_Q_0}), the five independent $\xi_i$ ($i=u, d,\nu_e,\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau$) as well as $\xi_\ell$ are analytically determined
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:xi_u_d_nu_ell}
\xi_u&=&\frac{s}{2T^3}\frac{1}{1+\frac{11}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)}\left\{L+\left[1+\frac{12}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)\right]B\right\}, \\
\xi_d&=&\frac{s}{3T^3}\frac{1}{1+\frac{11}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)}\left\{-L+\left[2+\frac{21}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)\right]B\right\},\nonumber \\
\xi_{\nu_\ell}&=&\frac{s}{T^3}\frac{1}{1+\frac{6}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)}\left\{3L_\ell+\frac{1}{6(1+\frac{11}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu))}\left[5L-\left(1+\frac{6}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)\right)B\right]\right\},
\nonumber \\
\xi_{\ell}&=&\frac{s}{T^3}\frac{1}{1+\frac{6}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)}\left\{3L_\ell-\frac{F_2(\kappa_\nu)}{\pi^2(1+\frac{11}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu))}\left[5L-\left(1+\frac{6}{\pi^2}F_2(\kappa_\nu)\right)B\right]\right\},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $L=\sum_{\ell=e,\mu,\tau} L_\ell$.
{\bf Relativistic effective degrees of freedom:}
The relativistic effective degrees of freedom for energy density, $g_*$, is defined by \cite{Kolb1990,Stuke2012JCAP}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho=\sum_i \rho_i =\frac{\pi^2T^4}{30} g_\ast.
\label{Eq:rho_gast}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, for entropy density, $g_{\ast s}$ is defined by $s=\sum_i s_i =\frac{2\pi^2T^3}{45} g_{\ast s}$. From Eqs.(\ref{Eq:rho_gast}), (\ref{Eq:rho_i_bar_i}) and (\ref{Eq:xi_u_d_nu_ell}), the relativistic effective degrees of freedom for energy density is obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
g_*(\xi,\kappa_\nu)= g_*(\xi_i=0,\kappa_\nu=1) +\Delta g_*,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
g_*(\xi_i=0,\kappa_\nu=1) = \sum_{b=bosons}g_b + \frac{7}{8} \sum_{f=fermions} g_f,
\end{eqnarray}
denotes the well-known relativistic effective degrees of freedom for vanishing chemical potentials ($\xi_i=0$) and for pure fermionic neutrinos ($\kappa_\nu=1$) \cite{Kolb1990}. The effects on $g_\ast$ from the non-vanishing chemical potentials and non-pure fermionic neutrinos are estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta g_*&=& \frac{15}{4\pi^2} \sum_{i=fermions\neq \nu} g_i \xi_i^2(\kappa_\nu)+ \sum_{i=\nu}\frac{45}{\pi^4}F_2(\kappa_\nu)g_\nu \xi_i^2 (\kappa_\nu)\nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{i=\nu}g_i\left( \frac{90}{\pi^4} F_4(\kappa_\nu) - \frac{7}{8} \right).
\label{Eq:Delta_g}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the relativistic effective degrees of freedom for entropy density is expressed as $g_{*s}(\xi,\kappa_\nu)= g_{*s}(\xi_i=0,\kappa_\nu=1) +\Delta g_{*s}$. For $T \sim 100$GeV, we obtain $g_{*s}(\xi_i=0,\kappa_\nu=1)=g_{*}(\xi_i=0,\kappa_\nu=1)$ and $\Delta g_{*s}=\Delta g_{*}$.
\section{Discussions and summary}
With the vanishing chemical potential, the equilibrium energy density of pure bosonic particle is larger than it of pure fermionic particle \cite{Kolb1990}. One may expect that the relation $g_*^{\rm FD}<g_*^{\rm BE}$ is guaranteed where $g_\ast^{\rm FD}$ denotes $g_\ast$ with pure fermionic neutrinos and $g_\ast^{\rm BE}$ denotes $g_\ast$ with pure bosonic neutrinos. However, in our previous numerical studies\cite{Iizuka2015MPLA,Iizuka2016PDU}, we have shown that this relation is not always satisfied with non-vanishing lepton flavor asymmetries in the early universe \cite{Steigman1977PLB,Dolgov2002NPB,Abazajian2002PRD,Wong2002PRD,Mangano2005NPB,Schwarz2009JCAP,Mangano2012PLB,Ichimasa2014PRD}.
We complement our previous numerical studies \cite{Iizuka2015MPLA,Iizuka2016PDU} by semi-analytical calculations. From Eqs. (\ref{Eq:xi_u_d_nu_ell}) and (\ref{Eq:Delta_g}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=1)=\frac{50}{529\pi^2}\left( \frac{s}{T^3}\right)^2 \left(873B^2 -162BL+362L^2+1587 \sum_\ell L_\ell^2 \right),
\end{eqnarray}
for pure fermionic neutrinos, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=-1)=\frac{45}{289\pi^2}\left( \frac{s}{T^3}\right)^2 \left(529B^2 -78BL+140L^2+867 \sum_\ell L_\ell^2 \right)
+\frac{3}{4},
\end{eqnarray}
for pure bosonic neutrinos. For the sake of simplicity, we assume $L_\ell=L/3$ and $L \gg B \sim 0$, and use very rough estimation of $s/T^3 = 2\pi^2 g_{*s}/45=2\pi^2 g_{*}/45 \sim 44$ with $T=100$ GeV. In this case, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=1) \simeq 1.65 \times 10^{4} L^2, \quad
\Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=-1) \simeq 1.31 \times 10^{4} L^2+\frac{3}{4}.
\end{eqnarray}
and $\Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=1) \gtrsim \Delta g_*(\kappa_\nu=-1)$ as well as $g_*^{\rm FD} \gtrsim g_*^{\rm BE}$ for $L \gtrsim 0.015$.
We comment on possible application of our results in a cosmological context. In the leptogenesis scenario \cite{Davidson2008PREP}, the baryon-photon ratio in the universe $\eta_B$ is related to the lepton asymmetry $Y_L$ via $\eta_B \propto Y_L \propto g_\ast^{-1}$. Thus, the lepton number in the early universe yields change of the baryon-photon ratio. More detailed analysis will be found in our future study.
In summary, analytical expressions of the relativistic effective degrees of freedom with non-pure fermionic neutrinos are presented. A semi-analytical study has been performed to complement our previous numerical studies which show that the relation of $g_*^{\rm FD} \gtrsim g_*^{\rm BE}$ may be allowed with non-vanishing lepton flavor asymmetries.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec_intro}
\subsection{Backgrounds} \label{subsec_backgrounds}
We consider the following initial value problem:
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\dis{i\pa_t u+\frac{1}{2}\pa_x^2 u=\lambda |u|^{p-1}u}, & t>0, \ x\in \R,\\
u(0,x)=\eps \varphi(x), &x\in \R,
\end{array}\right.
\label{nls}
\end{align}
where $i=\sqrt{-1}$, $\lambda\in \C$ and $p>1$.
$\varphi$ is a prescribed $\C$-valued function which belongs to
a suitable weighted Sobolev space, and $\eps>0$ is a small parameter
which is responsible for the size of the initial data.
We are interested in the lifespan $T_{\eps}$ for the solution $u=u(t,x)$
to \eqref{nls} in the case of $p<3$ and $\imagpart \lambda>0$.
Before going into details, let us summarize the backgrounds briefly.
First we consider the simpler case $p>3$. In this case, small data
global existence for \eqref{nls} is well-known. Moreover, the solution behaves
like the free solution in the large time. On the other hand, when $p\le 3$,
non-existence of asymptotically free solution has been shown in
\cite{Str}, \cite{Ba}.
Roughly speaking, the critical exponent $p=3$ comes from the condition for
convergence of the integral
\[
\int_1^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t^{(p-1)/2}}.
\]
Note that this threshold becomes $p=1+2/d$ in the $d$-dimensional settings.
Next let us turn our attention to the case $p\le 3$.
In \cite{HN}, it has been shown that the solution to \eqref{nls} with
$p=3$ and $\lambda\in \R$ behaves like
\[
u(t,x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{it}} \alpha(x/t)
e^{i\{x^2/(2t) - \lambda |\alpha(x/t)|^2 \log t \}}
+o(t^{-1/2})
\quad \mbox{in}\ L^{\infty}(\R_x)
\]
as $t\to \infty$ with a suitable $\C$-valued function $\alpha$ satisfying
$\|\alpha\|_{L^{\infty}} \le C\eps$.
An important consequence of this asymptotic expression
is that the solution decays like $O(t^{-1/2})$ in $L^{\infty}(\R_x)$,
while it does not behave like the free solution unless $\lambda = 0$.
In other words, the additional logarithmic factor in the phase reflects the
long-range character of the cubic nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations in one
space dimension.
This result has been extended in \cite{HKN} to the case where
$p$ is less than and sufficiently close to $3$.
When $\lambda\in \C$, the situation changes slightly.
Indeed, it has been verified in \cite{Shim} that the
small data solution to \eqref{nls} decays like $O(t^{-1/2}(\log t)^{-1/2})$
in $L^{\infty}(\R_x)$ as $t \to \infty$ if $p=3$ and $\imagpart \lambda <0$.
This gain of additional logarithmic time decay should be interpreted as
another kind of long-range effect (see also \cite{Su2} for a closely related
result for the Klein-Gordon equation). The above-mentioned result has been
extended in \cite{KitaShim1}, \cite{KitaShim2}, \cite{HLN}, \cite{JJL}, etc.,
to the case $p<3$ and $\imagpart \lambda <0$.
However, it should be noted that these results essentially rely on
the a priori $L^2$-bound for the solution $u$ coming from the conservation
law
\[
\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}^2
- 2\imagpart \lambda \int_0^t\|u(\tau,\cdot)\|_{L^{p+1}}^{p+1}d\tau
=
\|u(0,\cdot)\|_{L^2}^2,
\]
which is valid only when $\imagpart \lambda \le 0$.
In what follows, we focus on the remaining case $p\le 3$ and
$\imagpart \lambda>0$. This is the worst situation for global existence
because the nonlinearity must be considered as a long-range perturbation and
the a priori $L^2$-bound for $u$ is violated.
To the authors' best knowledge, there is no positive result in that case.
As for the lifespan $T_{\eps}$, the standard perturbative argument
yields a lower estimate in the form
\[
T_{\eps} \geq
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
e^{C/\eps^{2}} & (\mbox{when}\ p=3) \\
C\eps^{-2(p-1)/(3-p)} & (\mbox{when}\ 1<p<3)
\end{array}\right.
\]
with some $C>0$, provided that $\eps$ is suitably small
(see Section~\ref{sec_rough} below for more detail).
In other words, we have
\[
\liminf_{\eps \to +0}
\int_1^{T_{\eps}}\left(\frac{\eps}{t^{1/2}}\right)^{p-1} dt
>0.
\]
However, this estimate does not tell us the dependence of $T_{\eps}$
on $\imagpart \lambda$. So we are led to the question:
{\em how does $T_{\eps}$ depend on $\imagpart \lambda$?}
In the cubic case, two of the authors have derived
the following more precise estimate for $T_{\eps}$ in
the previous papers \cite{Su}, \cite{SaSu}:
\[
\liminf_{\eps \to +0} (\eps^2 \log T_{\eps})
\ge
\frac{1}{\dis{2\imagpart \lambda \sup_{\xi \in \R} |\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|^2}},
\]
where
\[
\hat{\varphi}(\xi)
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{\R} e^{-iy\xi} \varphi(y)\, dy,
\quad \xi \in \R.
\]
This gives an answer to the question raised above for the cubic case.
In fact, more general cubic nonlinear terms depending also on $\pa_x u$ have
been treated in \cite{Su}, \cite{SaSu} (see also \cite{MP} for a
related work).
When $p<3$ and $\imagpart \lambda>0$, the situation is the most delicate and
quite little is known so far. To the authors' knowledge,
there is only one result which concerns the dependence of $T_{\eps}$
on $\imagpart \lambda$ in the case of $p<3$:
\begin{prp}[Sasaki~\cite{Sas}] \label{prp_prev}
Assume $2\le p<3$, $\imagpart \lambda >0$ and $(1+x^2)\varphi \in \Sigma$.
Let $T_{\eps}$ be the supremum of $T>0$ such that \eqref{nls} admits a
unique solution $u\in C([0,T); \Sigma)$. Then we have
\[
\liminf_{\eps\to +0} \left( \eps^{2(p-1)/(3-p)} {T_{\eps}}\right)
\ge
\left(\frac{3-p}
{\dis{2(p-1)\imagpart \lambda \sup_{\xi \in \R}
|\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|^{p-1} }}\right)^{2/(3-p)},
\]
where
$\Sigma=\{f\in L^2(\R)\, |\, \|f\|_{\Sigma}<\infty\}$ with
$\|f\|_{\Sigma}=\|f\|_{L^2}+\|\pa_x f\|_{L^2}+\|xf\|_{L^2}$.
\end{prp}
The aim of this paper is to improve Proposition~\ref{prp_prev} regarding
the following three points:
\begin{itemize}
\item
to extend the admissible value of $p$ to the full range $1<p<3$,
\item
to relax the decay assumption on $\varphi(x)$ as $|x|\to \infty$,
\item
to give a higher dimensional generalization.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Main result} \label{sec_main}
In what follows, we consider a $d$-dimensional generalization of
\eqref{nls}. For the notational convenience, we write the power $p$
of the nonlinearity as $p=1+2\theta/d$ so that the condition $1<p<1+2/d$
is interpreted as $0<\theta <1$.
Then we are led to the following initial
value problem:
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\dis{i\pa_t u+\frac{1}{2}\Delta u=\lambda |u|^{2\theta/d}u},
& t>0, \ x\in \R^d,\\
u(0,x)=\eps \varphi(x), &x\in \R^d,
\end{array}\right.
\label{nls_d}
\end{align}
where $\Delta=(\pa/\pa x_1)^2+\cdots+(\pa/\pa x_d)^2$ for
$x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in \R^d$. To state the main result, let us introduce
some notations. For $s$, $\sigma\ge 0$, we denote by $H^{s,\sigma}$
the weighted Sobolev spaces
\[
H^{s,\sigma}:=\bigl\{f\in L^2(\R^d)\, \bigm|\,
(1+|x|^2)^{\sigma/2} (1-\Delta)^{s/2} f \in L^2(\R^d) \bigr\}
\]
equipped with the norm
\[
\|f\|_{H^{s,\sigma}}:=\|(1+|x|^2)^{\sigma/2} (1-\Delta)^{s/2} f\|_{L^2}.
\]
We also define $\Sigma^{s}:=H^{s,0}\cap H^{0,s}$ with the norm
$\|f\|_{\Sigma^{s}}:=\|f\|_{H^{s,0}}+\|f\|_{H^{0,s}}$.
We set $\op{U}(t):=\exp(\frac{it}{2}\Delta)$ so that the solution $v$
to the free Schr\"odinger equation
\[i\pa_t v+\frac{1}{2}\Delta v=0, \quad
v(0,x)=\phi(x)
\]
can be written as $v(t)=\op{U}(t)\phi$.
The main result is as follows.
\begin{thm} \label{thm_main}
Let $1\le d\le 3$,
$0<\theta<1$ and $\lambda\in \C$ with $\imagpart \lambda >0$.
Assume
\begin{align}
d/2<s<\min\{2,1+2\theta/d\}
\label{index}
\end{align}
and $\varphi \in \Sigma^{s}$.
Let $T_{\eps}$ be the supremum of $T>0$ such that \eqref{nls_d} admits a
unique solution $u$ satisfying $\op{U}(\cdot)^{-1}u\in C([0,T); \Sigma^{s})$.
Then we have
\begin{align}
\liminf_{\eps\to +0} \left( \eps^{2\theta/d} {T_{\eps}}^{1-\theta}\right)
\ge
\frac{(1-\theta)d}
{\dis{2\theta \imagpart \lambda \sup_{\xi \in \R^d}
|\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|^{2\theta/d}}},
\label{goal}
\end{align}
where
\[
\hat{\varphi}(\xi)=\op{F}\varphi(\xi)
:=
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}} \int_{\R^d} e^{-iy\cdot \xi} \varphi(y)\, dy,
\quad \xi \in \R^d.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
The assumption \eqref{index} is never satisfied when $d\ge 4$.
That is the reason why Theorem~\ref{thm_main} is available only for $d\le 3$.
When $d=1$ or $2$, \eqref{index} is satisfied for any $0<\theta <1$.
In particular, our result can be viewed as an extension of Proposition
\ref{prp_prev}
because it corresponds to the case of
$d=1$, $1/2\le \theta <1$ and $s=1$ in Theorem~\ref{thm_main}.
On the other hand, when $d=3$, \eqref{index} is satisfied only if
$\theta> 3/4$ (or, equivalently, $3/2<p<5/3$ with $p=1+2\theta/3$).
The authors do not know whether the same assertion holds true or not
when $d\ge 4$ or $d=3$ with $\theta\le 3/4$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
The authors do not know whether \eqref{goal} is optimal or not.
An example of blowing-up solution to \eqref{nls} with arbitrarily small
$\eps>0$ has been given by Kita \cite{Kita} under a particular choice of
$\varphi$ and some additional restrictions on $\lambda$ and $p$. However,
it seems difficult to specify the lifespan for the blowing-up solution
given in \cite{Kita}.
\end{rmk}
Now, let us explain the differences between the approach of \cite{Sas} and
ours. The method of \cite{Sas} consists of two steps: the first is to
construct a suitable approximate solution $u_a$ which blows up at the expected
time, and the second is to get an a priori estimate not for the solution $u$
itself but for their difference $u-u_a$
(see also \cite{Su} for the cubic case).
Drawbacks of this approach come from the first step.
In fact, according to Remark 1.3 in \cite{Sas}, this approach can not be
used in the case $1<p<2$. Remark that this implies the method of
\cite{Sas} is not suitable for $d$-dimensional settings when $d\ge 2$,
because our main interest is the case of $p<1+2/d$. Also, in view of
Proposition~3.1 in \cite{Sas}, the additional decay assumption on $\varphi$
as $|x|\to \infty$ (i.e., higher regularity for $\hat{\varphi}$)
seems essential for the method of \cite{Sas}.
On the other hand, our approach presented below does not rely on
approximate solutions at all. Instead,
we will reduce the original PDE \eqref{nls_d} to a simpler ordinary
differential equation satisfied by
$A(t,\xi)=\op{F}\bigl[\op{U}(t)^{-1} u(t,\cdot)\bigr](\xi)$
up to a harmless remainder term $R$ (see \eqref{reduced_ODE} below). An ODE
lemma prepared in Section~\ref{sec_prelim} below will allow us to get
an a priori bound for $u$ directly. Similar idea has been used in \cite{SaSu}
for one-dimensional cubic derivative nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations,
but we must be more careful because we are considering the situation in which
the degree of the nonlinearity is lower.
We close the introduction with the contents of this paper.
In the next section, we state basic lemmas which will be useful in the
subsequent sections. In Section~\ref{sec_rough}, we will derive a rough
lower estimate for $T_{\eps}$, that is,
$\dis{\liminf_{\eps \to +0} (\eps^{2\theta/d} T_{\eps}^{1-\theta})>0}$.
Section~\ref{sec_prelim} is devoted to an ODE lemma which plays an important
role in getting an a priori bound for the solution.
After that, the main theorem will be proved in Section~\ref{sec_bootstrap}
by means of the so-called bootstrap argument. Finally, in
Section~\ref{sec_critical}, we give a few comments on the critical case
$\theta =1$.
In what follows, we denote several positive constants by the same letter C,
which may vary from one line to another.
\section{Basic lemmas} \label{sec_basic}
In this section, we introduce several lemmas that
will be useful in the subsequent sections.
\begin{lem} \label{lem_wSob}
Let $s>d/2$.
There exists a constant $C$ such that
\[
\| \phi\|_{L^{\infty}}
\le
\frac{C}{(1+t)^{d/2}}
\| \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{\Sigma^s}
\]
for $t\ge 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We start with the standard Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequality:
\[
\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}
\le
C \|\phi\|_{L^2}^{1-d/2s}\|(-\Delta)^{s/2} \phi\|_{L^2}^{d/2s}.
\]
We also introduce
$\op{M}(t)=\exp(\frac{i|x|^2}{2t})$. Then we can check that
\begin{align*}
\op{U}(t)|x|^s\op{U}(t)^{-1} \phi
=
\op{M}(t) (-t^2\Delta)^{s/2}\op{M}(t)^{-1}\phi,
\end{align*}
from which it follows that
\begin{align*}
t^{d/2}\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}
&=
t^{d/2}\|\op{M}(t)^{-1}\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}\\
&\le
C\|\op{M}(t)^{-1}\phi\|_{L^2}^{1-d/2s}
\|(-t^2 \Delta)^{s/2} \op{M}(t)^{-1}\phi\|_{L^2}^{d/2s}\\
&\le
C\|\phi\|_{L^2}^{1-d/2s}
\||x|^s\op{U}(t)^{-1}\phi\|_{L^{2}}^{d/2s}.
\end{align*}
Combining the two inequalities above, we obtain
\begin{align*}
(1+t)^{d/2}\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}
&\le
\frac{C(1+t)^{d/2}}{(1+t^{d/2})} \|\phi\|_{L^2}^{1-d/2s}
\bigl( \|(-\Delta)^{s/2} \phi\|_{L^2}^{d/2s}
+ \bigl\| |x|^s\op{U}(t)^{-1}\phi \bigr\|_{L^2}^{d/2s}
\bigr)\\
&\le
C
\left(
\|\phi \|_{H^{s,0}}+ \| \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{H^{0,s}}
\right)\\
&=
C \| \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{\Sigma^{s}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem_Linfty}
Let $\gamma \in (0,1]$ and $s>d/2+2\gamma$.
There exists a constant $C$ such that
$$
\| \phi\|_{L^{\infty}}
\le
\frac{1}{t^{d/2}} \|\mathcal{F} \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi \|_{L^{\infty}}
+
\frac{C}{t^{d/2+\gamma}} \| \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{H^{0,s}}
$$
for $t\geq 1$.
\end{lem}
See Lemma 2.2 in \cite{HN} for the proof.
Next we define $G_p:\C\to \C$ with $p>1$ by
$G_p(z)=|z|^{p-1} z$ for $z\in \C$.
Note that the nonlinear term in \eqref{nls_d} is
$\lambda G_{1+2\theta/d}(u)$
with $0<\theta<1$, $\imagpart \lambda>0$.
The following lemmas are concerned with estimates for $G_p$:
\begin{lem} \label{lem_elementary}
For $z, w\in \C$, we have
\[
\bigl| G_p(z) -G_p(w) \bigr|
\le
p (|z|+|w|)^{p-1} |z-w|.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Without loss of generality, we may assume $|z|>|w|$.
For $\nu >0$, we observe the relations
\[
|z|^\nu -|w|^\nu
=
(|z|-|w|)
\int_{0}^{1} \nu \bigl(t |z|+(1-t)|w| \bigr)^{\nu-1}\, dt
\]
and
\[
\sup_{t\in [0,1]}\bigl(t |z|+(1-t)|w| \bigr)^{\nu-1}|w|
\le
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
(|z|+|w|)^{\nu -1}|w| & \mbox{ (if $\nu \ge 1$)}\\[3mm]
|w|^{\nu} & \mbox{ (if $\nu < 1$)}
\end{array}\right\}
\le
(|z|+|w|)^{\nu}.
\]
Then we have
\[
\bigl| (|z|^{\nu} -|w|^{\nu} )w \bigr|
\le
\bigl| |z|-|w|\bigr|\cdot \nu \bigl(|z|+|w| \bigr)^{\nu}
\le
\nu \bigl(|z|+|w| \bigr)^{\nu} |z-w|.
\]
We apply the above inequality with $\nu=p-1$ to obtain
\[
\bigl|G_p(z) -G_p(w) \bigr|
\le \bigl|(|z|^{p-1} - |w|^{p-1})w \bigr| + |z|^{p-1} |z-w|
\le
p\bigl(|z|+|w| \bigr)^{p-1} |z-w|.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem_composition}
Let $0\le s < \min\{2,p\}$. There exists a constant $C$ such that
$$
\|G_p(\phi)\|_{H^{s,0}}
\le
C\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-1} \|\phi\|_{H^{s,0}}
$$
and
$$
\|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} G_p(\phi)\|_{H^{0,s}}
\le
C\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-1} \|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{H^{0,s}}
$$
for $t\ge 0$.
\end{lem}
For the proof, see Lemma 3.4 in \cite{GOV}, Lemma 2.3 in \cite{HN}, etc.
\begin{cor} \label{cor_composition}
Let $d/2 < s < \min\{2,p\}$. There exists a constant $C$ such that
\[
\|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} G_p(\phi)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
\le
\frac{C}{(1+t)^{d(p-1)/2}} \|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{\Sigma^{s}}^{p}
\]
for $t\ge 0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemmas~\ref{lem_composition} and \ref{lem_wSob}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} G_p(\phi)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
&=
\|G_p(\phi)\|_{H^{s,0}}
+ \bigl\| \op{U}(t)^{-1}G_p(\phi) \bigr\|_{H^{0,s}}\\
&\le
C\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-1} \bigl(\|\phi\|_{H^{s,0}}
+\|\op{U}(t)^{-1}\phi\|_{H^{0,s}}\bigr)\\
&\le
\frac{C}{(1+t)^{d(p-1)/2}} \|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi\|_{\Sigma^{s}}^{p}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem_remainder}
Let $\gamma\in (0,1/2]$ and $d/2+2\gamma<s<\min\{2,p\}$.
Then there exists a constant $C$ such that
\[
\left\|
\mathcal{F} \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} G_p(\phi)
-
\frac{1}{t^{d(p-1)/2}} G_p\bigl(\mathcal{F} \mathcal{U}(t)^{-1}\phi\bigr)
\right\|_{L^{\infty}}
\le
\frac{C}{t^{d(p-1)/2+\gamma}} \|\mathcal{U}(t)^{-1} \phi \|_{H^{0,s}}^p
\]
for $t\geq 1$.
\end{lem}
This lemma can be shown in almost the same way as the derivation of (3.16) and
(3.17) in \cite{HN} (see also Lemma 2.2 in \cite{KitaShim1}), so we skip the
proof.
\section{A rough lower estimate for the lifespan} \label{sec_rough}
In what follows, we write
$N(u)=\lambda |u|^{2\theta/d}u=\lambda G_{1+2\theta/d}(u)$
and
$\Phi=\|\varphi\|_{\Sigma^s}$, where $s$ satisfies \eqref{index}.
The goal of this section is to derive a rough lower estimate for $T_{\eps}$.
The argument of this section is quite standard and any
new idea is not needed, so we shall be brief.
\begin{prp} \label{prp_rough}
Let $T_{\eps}$ be the lifespan defined in the statement of
Theorem~\ref{thm_main}. There exists $D_0>0$ such
that $T_{\eps}\ge D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/(1-\theta)d}$.
Moreover the solution $u$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\|\op{U}(t)^{-1} u(t)\|_{\Sigma^{s}} \le 2\Phi \eps
\label{est_rough}
\end{align}
for $t\le D_0\eps^{-2\theta/(1-\theta)d}$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Since the local existence in $\Sigma^s$
is well-known (see e.g., \cite{Ca} and the references cited
therein),
what we have to do is to see the solution $u(t)$ stays bounded as long as
$t$ is less than the expected value.
Let $T>0$ and let $u(t)$ be the solution to \eqref{nls_d} in the time
interval $[0,T)$. We set
\[
E(T)=\sup_{t\in[0,T)} \|\op{U}(t)^{-1} u(t)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}.
\]
Then, it follows form Corollary \ref{cor_composition} that
\[
\bigl\| \op{U}(t)^{-1}N(u) \bigr\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
\le
\frac{CE(T)^{2\theta/d+1}}{(1+t)^{\theta}}
\]
for $t<T$. Therefore the standard energy integral method leads to
\begin{align*}
E(T)
&\le
\|u(0)\|_{\Sigma^s}
+ C\int_0^T \bigl\| \op{U}(t)^{-1}N(u) \bigr\|_{\Sigma^{s}}dt\\
&\le
\eps \|\varphi\|_{\Sigma^s}
+ CE(T)^{2\theta/d+1}\int_0^T \frac{dt}{(1+t)^{\theta}}\\
&\le
\Phi \eps +C_*E(T)^{2\theta/d +1} T^{1-\theta},
\end{align*}
where the constant $C_*$ is independent of $\eps$ and $T$.
With this $C_*$, we choose $D_0>0$ so that
\[
C_* 3^{1+2\theta/d} \Phi^{2\theta/d} {D_0}^{1-\theta}\le 1.
\]
Now we assume $E(T)\le 3\Phi\eps$. Then the above estimate yields
\begin{align*}
E(T)
\le
\Phi\eps +
C_*(3\Phi\eps)^{2\theta/d +1} (D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)})^{1-\theta}
\le
2\Phi \eps
\end{align*}
if $T\le D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}$. This shows that the solution $u(t)$
can exist as long as $t\le D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}$.
In other words, we have $T_\eps\ge D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}$.
We also have the desired estimate \eqref{est_rough}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
In the proof of Proposition \ref{prp_rough}, we do not use any information on
the sign of $\imagpart \lambda$.
We need something more to clarify the dependence of $T_\eps$ on
$\imagpart \lambda$, that is our main purpose of the present work.
\end{rmk}
\section{An ODE Lemma} \label{sec_prelim}
In this section, we introduce an ODE lemma which will be used
effectively in the next section.
The argument in this section is a modification of that of \S 2 in
\cite{SaSu} to fit for the present purpose.
Throughout this section, we always suppose $0<a<1$, $b>0$ and
$\lambda\in \C$ with $\imagpart \lambda>0$. Let $\psi_0:\R^d\to \C$
be a continuous function satisfying
\[
\Psi_0 :=\sup_{\xi \in \R^d} |\psi_0(\xi)|<\infty.
\]
We set $q=\frac{b}{2(1-a)}$ and define $\tau_1 >0$ by
\[
\frac{1}{\tau_1}:=
\bigl(2q \imagpart \lambda {\Psi_0}^{b} \bigr)^{1/(1-a)}.
\]
For fixed $t_*>0$, let $\eta_0(t,\xi)$ be the solution to
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\dis{i\pa_t \eta_0=\frac{\lambda}{t^{a}} |\eta_0|^{b}\eta_0},
& t>t_*,\, \xi \in \R^d, \\
\eta_0(t_*,\xi)=\eps \psi_0(\xi), & \xi \in \R^d,
\end{array}\right.
\label{ode_unperturbed}
\end{align}
where $\eps>0$ is a parameter. It is immediate to check that
\[
|\eta_0(t,\xi)|^{b}
=
\frac{(\eps |\psi_0(\xi)|)^{b}}
{1+2q \imagpart \lambda |\psi_0(\xi)|^{b} \eps^b t_*^{1-a}
- 2q \imagpart \lambda |\psi_0(\xi)|^{b} \eps^{b} t^{1-a}}
\]
as long as the denominator is strictly positive.
In view of this expression, we see that
\begin{align}
\sup_{(t,\xi)\in [t_*, \sigma \eps^{-2q}]\times \R^d}
|\eta_0(t,\xi)| \le C_0 \eps
\label{est_eta_0}
\end{align}
for $\sigma \in (0, \tau_1)$, where
\[C_0=\frac{\Psi_0}{\bigl(1-(\sigma/\tau_1)^{1-a} \bigr)^{1/b}}.
\]
Next we consider a perturbation of \eqref{ode_unperturbed}.
Let $\uT>t_*$ and
let $\psi_1:\R^d\to \C$, $\rho:[t_*, \uT)\times \R^d \to \C$
be continuous functions satisfying
\[
|\psi_1(\xi)|\le C_1 \eps^{1+\delta}
\]
and
\[
|\rho(t,\xi)| \le \frac{C_2 \eps^{1+b+\delta}}{t^{a}}
\]
with some positive constants $C_1$, $C_2$ and $\delta>0$.
Let $\eta(t,\xi)$ be the solution to
\begin{align*}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\dis{i\pa_t \eta=\frac{\lambda}{t^{a}} |\eta|^{b}\eta+\rho },
& t\in (t_*, \uT),\ \xi \in \R^d, \\
\eta(t_*,\xi)=\eps \psi_0(\xi)+\psi_1(\xi), & \xi \in \R^d.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
The following lemma asserts that an estimate similar to
\eqref{est_eta_0} remains valid if \eqref{ode_unperturbed}
is perturbed by $\rho$ and $\psi_1$:
\begin{lem} \label{lem_ODE}
Let $\sigma \in (0,\tau_1)$ and let $\eta(t,\xi)$ be as above.
We set $T_*=\min\{\uT,\sigma \eps^{-2q}\}$ for
$0<\eps \le \min\{1, \sigma^{-1/q}, M^{-1/\delta} \}$.
We have
\[
|\eta(t,\xi)| \le C_0\eps + M \eps^{1+\delta}
\le (C_0+1)\eps
\]
for $(t,\xi) \in [t_*,T_*)\times \R^d$, where
\[
M=2\left(C_1^2 +\frac{C_2^2}{2C_3}\right)^{1/2}
\exp\left( \frac{C_3\sigma^{1-a}}{2(1-a)} \right)
\]
with
\[
C_3=
2|\lambda|(b+1) (2C_0 +1)^{b} +\frac{1}{2}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We set $w=\eta-\eta_0$ and
\[
T_{**}=\sup\Bigl\{ \tilde{T} \in [t_*, T_*)\,
\Bigm|\,
\sup_{(t,\xi) \in [t_*, \tilde{T})\times \R^d}
|w(t,\xi)| \le M\eps^{1+\delta}
\Bigr\}.
\]
We observe that
\[
i\pa_t w=\frac{\lambda}{t^a}
\Bigl(|\eta_0+w|^{b}(\eta_0+w) - |\eta_0|^{b}\eta_0\Bigr)
+ \rho,
\quad w(t_*,\xi)=\psi_1(\xi).
\]
We also note that $T_{**}>t_{*}$, because of the estimate
\[
|w(t_*,\xi)|=|\psi_1(\xi)| \le C_1\eps^{1+\delta}
\le \frac{M}{2} \eps^{1+\delta}
\]
and the continuity of $w$.
Now we set
\[
f(t,\xi)= |w(t,\xi)|^2+\frac{C_2^2}{2C_3} \eps^{2+2\delta}.
\]
Then it follows from Lemma \ref{lem_elementary} that
\begin{align*}
\pa_t f(t,\xi)
=&
2 \imagpart\Bigl(i\pa_t w \cdot \overline{w}\Bigr)\\
\le&
\frac{2|\lambda|}{t^a} (b+1) \Bigl(2|\eta_0| + |w| \Bigr)^{b} |w|^2
+|\rho||w| \\
\le&
\frac{2|\lambda|(b+1)}{t^a} \Bigl(2C_0 \eps + M\eps^{1+\delta} \Bigr)^{b}
|w|^2
+ |w|\cdot \frac{C_2\eps^{1+b+\delta}}{t^a}\\
\le&
\frac{\eps^{b}}{t^a} \biggl\{\Bigl(C_3-\frac{1}{2}\Bigr) |w|^2
+ |w|\cdot C_2\eps^{1+\delta} \biggr\}\\
\le&
\frac{\eps^{b}}{t^a} \biggl(C_3 |w|^2
+\frac{C_2^2}{2} \eps^{2+2\delta} \biggr)\\
=&
\frac{C_3 \eps^{b}}{t^a} f(t,\xi)
\end{align*}
for $t\in (t_*, T_{**})$, as well as
\[
f(t_*,\xi)
\le
(C_1 \eps^{1+\delta})^2+ \frac{C_2^2}{2C_3} \eps^{2+2\delta}
\le
\left(C_1^2+\frac{C_2^2}{2C_3}\right)\eps^{2+2\delta}.
\]
These lead to
\begin{align*}
f(t,\xi)
&\le
f(t_*,\xi)
\exp
\left(
\int_{t_*}^{\sigma \eps^{-2q}} \frac{C_3 \eps^{b}}{\tau^a}\, d\tau
\right)\\
&\le
\left(C_1^2+\frac{C_2^2}{2C_3}\right)\eps^{2+2\delta}
\exp
\left(
\frac{C_3 \sigma^{1-a}}{1-a} \eps^{b-2q(1-a)}
\right)\\
&\le
\left(\frac{M}{2}\eps^{1+\delta}\right)^2,
\end{align*}
whence
\[
|w(t,\xi)| \le \sqrt{f(t,\xi)}
\le
\frac{M}{2}\eps^{1+\delta}
\]
for $(t,\xi) \in [t_*, T_{**})\times \R^d$.
This contradicts the definition of $T_{**}$ if $T_{**}$ is strictly less than
$T_*$. Therefore we conclude that $T_{**}=T_*$. In other words, we have
\[
\sup_{(t,\xi) \in [t_*, T_{*})\times \R^d}|w(t,\xi)| \le \sqrt{f(t,\xi)}
\le
M\eps^{1+\delta}.
\]
Going back to the definition of $w$, we have
\[
|\eta(t,\xi)|
\le
|\eta_0(t,\xi)| +|w(t,\xi)|
\le
C_0\eps + M\eps^{1+\delta}
\]
for $(t,\xi) \in [t_*, T_{*})\times \R^d$,
as desired.
\end{proof}
\section{Bootstrap argument in the large time}
\label{sec_bootstrap}
Now we are ready to pursue the behavior of the solution
$u(t)$ of \eqref{nls_d} for $t\gtrsim o(\eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)})$.
For this purpose, we set $t_*=\eps^{-\theta/(1-\theta)d}$, and
let $\eps$ be small enough to satisfy $\eps^{\theta/(1-\theta)d}< D_0$.
Then, since $t_*\le D_0 \eps^{-2\theta/(1-\theta)d}$,
Proposition \ref{prp_rough} gives us
$E(t_*)\le 2\Phi \eps$.
Next we set
\[
\tau_0:=
\left(\frac{(1-\theta)d}
{\dis{2\theta \imagpart \lambda \sup_{\xi \in \R^d}
|\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|^{2\theta/d}}}\right)^{1/(1-\theta)}
\]
and fix $\sigma \in (0,\tau_0)$,
$T \in (t_*, \sigma \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}]$.
Note that the right-hand side in \eqref{goal} is equal to $\tau_0^{1-\theta}$.
For the solution $u(t)$ in the interval $t \in [0,T)$, we put
\[
E(T)=\sup_{t\in [0,T)} \|\op{U}(t)^{-1}u(t)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
\]
as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prp_rough}.
The following lemma is the main step toward Theorem~\ref{thm_main}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem_apriori}
Let $\sigma$ and $T$ be as above.
Then there exist constants $\eps_0>0$ and $K>4\Phi$,
which are independent of $T$, such that
the estimate $E(T)\le K\eps$
implies the better estimate
$E(T)\le K\eps/2$ if $\eps \in (0,\eps_0].$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to consider $t\in [t_*,T)$, because we already know that
$E(t_*)\le 2\Phi \eps$. For $t\in [t_*,T)$, we set
$A(t,\xi)=\op{F} \bigl[\op{U}(t)^{-1} u(t,\cdot)\bigr](\xi)$
and
\[
R(t,\xi)=\op{F} \bigl[\op{U}(t)^{-1} N(u(t,\cdot))\bigr](\xi)
- t^{-\theta} N(A(t,\xi))
\]
so that
\begin{align}
i\pa_t A
=
\op{F} \op{U}(t)^{-1} \op{L}u
=
\op{F} \op{U}(t)^{-1} N(u)
=
\frac{\lambda}{t^{\theta}}|A|^{2\theta/d} A +R.
\label{reduced_ODE}
\end{align}
Next we take $\gamma=(2s-d)/8 \in (0,1/2]$.
Note that $s-d/2=4\gamma >2\gamma$.
Since $R$ can be written as
\[
R(t,\xi)=\lambda\Bigl(
\op{F} \op{U}(t)^{-1} G_{1+2\theta/d}(u)
- t^{-\theta} G_{1+2\theta/d}(\op{F} \op{U}(t)^{-1}u)
\Bigr),
\]
Lemma \ref{lem_remainder} yields
\[
|R(t,\xi)|
\le
\frac{C}{t^{\theta+\gamma}}E(T)^{2\theta/d+1}
\le
\frac{C \eps^{1+2\theta/d}}{t^{\theta}} K^{1+2\theta/d} t_*^{-\gamma}
\le
\frac{C \eps^{1+2\theta/d+\gamma \theta/2d(1-\theta)}}{t^{\theta}}
\]
if $E(T)\le K\eps$ and
$K^{1+2\theta/d} \eps^{\gamma\theta/2d(1-\theta)}\le 1$.
Moreover, when we put
$\psi(\xi)=A(t_*,\xi) -\eps \hat{\varphi}(\xi)$, we have
\begin{align*}
|\psi(\xi)|
&\le
C\|\op{U}(t_*)^{-1}u(t_*,\cdot) - \eps \varphi\|_{H^{0,s}}
\\
&\le
C \int_0^{t_*} \|\op{U}(t)^{-1} N(u(t))\|_{H^{0,s}}\, dt\\
&\le
C\int_0^{\eps^{-\theta/(1-\theta)d}}
\frac{(2\Phi \eps)^{1+2\theta/d}}{(1+t)^{\theta}}\, dt\\
&\le
C\eps^{1+2\theta/d}
\int_0^{\eps^{-\theta/(1-\theta)d}} \frac{dt}{(1+t)^{\theta}}\\
&\le
C\eps^{1+\theta/d},
\end{align*}
where we have used Lemma \ref{lem_composition}, Lemma \ref{lem_wSob}
and Proposition \ref{prp_rough}.
Therefore we can apply Lemma \ref{lem_ODE}
with $\eta=A$, $a=\theta$, $b=2\theta/d$,
$\delta=\min\{\theta/d, \gamma \theta/2d(1-\theta)\}$,
$\psi_0=\hat{\varphi}$ and $\rho=R$
to obtain
\[
|A(t,\xi)|\le (C_{0}+1)\eps
\]
for $(t,\xi) \in [t_*,T)\times \R^d$, where
\[
C_0 =
\frac{\sup_{\xi \in \R^d} |\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|}
{(1-(\sigma/\tau_0)^{1-\theta})^{d/2\theta}}.
\]
Note that $C_0$ is independent of $\eps$, $K$ and $T$.
By this estimate and Lemma \ref{lem_Linfty}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}
&\le
t^{-d/2}\|A(t,\cdot)\|_{L^{\infty}}
+Ct^{-d/2-\gamma} \|\op{U}(t)^{-1}u(t)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}\\
&\le
t^{-d/2} \Bigl( (C_0+1)\eps
+CK\eps t_*^{-\gamma}\Bigr)\\
&\le
t^{-d/2} \Bigl(C\eps + CK\eps^{1+\gamma\theta/d(1-\theta)}\Bigr)\\
&\le
C\eps t^{-d/2},
\end{align*}
if $K\eps^{\gamma\theta/d(1-\theta)}\le 1$.
By the standard energy inequality combined with Lemma \ref{lem_composition},
we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t_*\le t< T} \|\op{U}(t)^{-1}u(t)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
&\le
\|\op{U}(t_*)^{-1}u(t_*)\|_{\Sigma^{s}}
\exp\left(\int_{t_*}^{T}C\|u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}^{2\theta/d}dt \right)\\
&\le
2\Phi \eps
\exp\left(C\eps^{2\theta/d}
\int_{0}^{\sigma \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}}\frac{dt}{t^\theta}
\right)\\
&\le
\bigl(2\Phi e^{C_{\star}} \bigr) \eps
\end{align*}
for $t\in [t_*,T)$, where the constant $C_{\star}$ is independent of $\eps$,
$K$ and $T$.
Now we set $K=4\Phi e^{C_{\star}}$. Then we arrive at the desired estimate
$E(T) \le K\eps /2$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{thm_main}.}\
Let $T_{\eps}$ be the lifespan defined in the statement of
Theorem \ref{thm_main}.
We fix $\sigma \in (0, \tau_0)$ and set
\[
T^*=\sup\bigl\{ t \in [0,T_{\eps})\, \bigm|\, E(t)\le K\eps \bigr\},
\]
where $K$ is given in Lemma \ref{lem_apriori}.
Now we assume
$T^* \le \sigma \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}$.
Then, Lemma \ref{lem_apriori}
with $T=T^*$ implies $E(T^*)\le K\eps/2$ if $\eps\le \eps_0$.
By the continuity of $[0,T_{\eps})\ni T\mapsto E(T)$, we can
choose $\tilde{\delta}>0$ such that $E(T^*+\tilde{\delta})\le K\eps$,
which contradicts the definition of $T^*$. Therefore we must have
$T^* \ge \sigma \eps^{-2\theta/d(1-\theta)}$ if $\eps\le \eps_0$.
As a consequence, we obtain
\[
\liminf_{\eps \to +0} \eps^{2\theta/d} {T_{\eps}}^{1-\theta}
\ge
\sigma^{1-\theta}.
\]
Since $\sigma \in (0, \tau_0)$ is arbitrary, we arrive at the
desired estimate \eqref{goal}.
\qed
\section{The critical case} \label{sec_critical}
We conclude this paper with a few comments on the critical case $\theta=1$,
that is,
\begin{align}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\dis{i\pa_t u+\frac{1}{2}\Delta u=\lambda |u|^{2/d}u}, & t>0, \ x\in \R^d,\\
u(0,x)=\eps \varphi(x), &x\in \R^d,
\end{array}\right.
\label{nls_c}
\end{align}
with $\imagpart \lambda>0$.
As mentioned in the introduction,
one dimensional case ($d=1$) has been covered in the previous works
\cite{Su}, \cite{SaSu}.
Minor modifications of the method in the previous sections
allow us to treat the case of $d=2$, $3$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm_critical}
Let $1\le d\le 3$ and $\lambda\in \C$ with $\imagpart \lambda >0$.
Assume $\varphi \in \Sigma^{s}$ with $s$ satisfying \eqref{index}.
Let $T_{\eps}$ be the supremum of $T>0$ such that \eqref{nls_c} admits a
unique solution $u$ satisfying $\op{U}(\cdot)^{-1}u\in C([0,T); \Sigma^{s})$.
Then we have
\[
\liminf_{\eps\to +0} \left( \eps^{2/d} \log T_{\eps} \right)
\ge
\frac{d}
{\dis{2 \imagpart \lambda \sup_{\xi \in \R^d}|\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|^{2/d} }}.
\]
\end{thm}
Since the proof is almost the same as that for Theorem \ref{thm_main},
we only point out where this lower bound comes from.
As in Section \ref{sec_bootstrap}, we can see that
$A(t,\xi)=\op{F} \bigl[\op{U}(t)^{-1} u(t,\cdot)\bigr](\xi)$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
i\pa_t A
=
\frac{\lambda}{t}|A|^{2/d} A +R
\end{align*}
with $A(1,\xi)=\eps \hat{\varphi}(\xi)+\psi(\xi)$,
where $R$ and $\psi$ are regarded as remainder terms.
If $R$ and $\psi$ could be neglected, then we would have
\[
|A(t,\xi)|^{2/d}
=
\frac{(\eps |\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|)^{2/d}}
{1 - (2/d) \imagpart \lambda (\eps|\hat{\varphi}(\xi)|)^{2/d} \log t}.
\]
The desired lower bound is characterized by the time
when this denominator vanishes.
\medskip
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to Professors
Naoyasu Kita and Hironobu Sasaki for their useful conversations
on this subject.
The work of the second author (H.~S.) is supported by
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.~25400161), JSPS.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we focus on the development of a multigrid algorithm for the fast finite element solution of a class of quasilinear variational inequalities of the second kind. The main idea is the application of an efficient multigrid approach to this kind of problems which, typically, leads us to the solution of large systems.
Let $\Omega$ be an open and bounded set in $\Real^n$ with Lipschitz boundary $\partial \Omega$. We are concerned with the numerical solution of the following class of quasilinear variational inequalities of the second kind: find $u \in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Omega} | \nabla u|^{p-2} ( \nabla u,\nabla (v-u) )\,dx +g \int_{\Omega} | \nabla v |\,dx-g \int_{\Omega} | \nabla u |\,dx\geq \int_\Omega f (v-u)\,dx, \, \forall v \in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega),
\end{equation*}
where $1 < p < \infty$, $g > 0$ and $f \in L^q(\Omega).$ Here, $q=\frac{p}{p-1}$ stands for the conjugate exponent of $p$. It is known that these variational inequalities correspond to a first order necessary optimality condition for the following class of nonsmooth optimization problems.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob}
\underset{u\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)}{\min} J(u):= \frac{1}{p}\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^p\,dx + g\int_\Omega |\nabla u|\, dx - \int_\Omega f u\,dx.
\end{equation}
Consequently, we focus on the fast solution of this optimization problem. The existence and uniqueness of solutions for this problem has been analyzed and verified in previous contributions, such as \cite{Gonzalez1}.
The variational inequalities under study provide a versatile tool in the study of a class of free boundary problems which arise in the modelling of complex fluids and materials. In fact, diverse problems including the flow of viscoplastic materials, the flow of electro- and magneto-rheological fluids and phenomena in glaciology have been successfully simulated by this kind of models (\cite{Gonzalez1,Ruzicka,Georg1}).
Several approaches have been proposed for the numerical solution of problems like \eqref{eq:prob}. In \cite{Huilgol} an Augmented Lagrangian method is implemented for the numerical simulation of the flow of viscoplastic materials. In \cite{Gonzalez1}, a preconditioned descent algorithm is proposed and analyzed both in finite and infinite dimension settings. Regarding the use of multigrid algorithms, in \cite{korn1,korn2} the author proposes algorithms for variational inequalities of the first and the second kind, based on extended relaxation methods. In \cite{korn3}, the author proposes a multigrid algorithm for variational inequalities of the second kind using a combination of convex minimization with constrained Newton linearization. However, these contributions focus on variational inequalities involving linear elliptic operators such as the Laplacian.
The multigrid approach is a very appealing way to develop fast solution algorithms for the numerical approximation of \eqref{eq:prob}. In fact, the numerical solution of this kind of problems usually involves the resolution of large linear and nonlinear systems. Since these systems are computationally expensive to solve, the multigrid algorithms provide an efficient way to handle the large systems generated when discretizing the problem. Furthermore, it is natural to look for an algorithm which, in the context of the multigrid approximation, focus on the direct optimization of the energy functional.
The multigrid optimization method (MG/OPT) corresponds to a nonlinear programming adaptation of the \textit{full approximation storage} (FAS) scheme. This approach is proposed, for instance in \cite{Lewis_Nash,Nash,BorziVallejo}, as an effective tool for large scale optimization problems. This algorithm works with different discretization levels of the optimization problem and takes advantage of the coarse problems to generate search directions for the finer problems. Similar approaches have been used for problems involving quasilinear operators, such as the $p$-Laplace operator (see \cite{Bermejo} and the references therein), but to the best of our knowledge, there are no contributions proposing a MG/OPT algorithm for variational inequalities of the second kind involving this kind of operators.
In this paper, we propose and analyze an MG/OPT algorithm to compute the finite element solution of a Huber regularized version of \eqref{eq:prob}. Considering the structure of the optimization problem, specifically the low regularity of the functional, we use a class of preconditioned descent algorithms proposed in \cite{Gonzalez1} as underlying optimization methods or smoothers. Further, the low regularity of the functional prevents us from doing a classical analysis of convergence. Therefore, we perform the convergence analysis of the MG/OPT algorithm by using a mean value theorem for \textit{Bouligand} differentiable functions, which is also applicable for semismooth functions. Finally, we present a comprehensive numerical experimentation focused on the numerical simulation of viscoplastic materials. Specifically, we focus on the flow of these materials through the cross-section of a pipe.
Let us mention that, although the method developed in this article is concerned with variational inequalities of the second kind involving the nonsmooth term $\int_\Omega|\nabla u|\,dx$, the results can be extended to other variational inequalities of the second kind.
The paper is organized as follows: In section \ref{sec:prelim}, we present several results on generalized differentiability, which will be used to analyze the convergence of the multigrid method. Since the problem is nonsmooth, in section \ref{sec:reganddisc} we propose a local regularization for the objective functional. Further, we present the finite element discretization of the problem. The MG/OPT method is presented in section \ref{sec:MGOPT}, whereas the convergence of the algorithm is discussed in section \ref{sec:convergence}. In section \ref{sec:impl}, a brief explanation of the underlying optimization and line search algorithms is presented. In section \ref{sec:flow}, we analyze the behaviour of the proposed methodology when applied to the numerical simulation of viscoplastic flow. We perform several experiments in order to show the main features of the algorithm. Finally, in section \ref{sec:conclusions}, we outline conclusions on this work and discuss future contributions.
\section{Preliminaries on Generalized Differentiability}\label{sec:prelim}
This section is devoted to the discussion of several concepts on generalized differentiability. We introduce the \textit{Bouligand} and the slant derivative of a nonsmooth function, and we discuss the relationship between these two concepts. Further, we present a mean value theorem for \textit{Bouligand} differentiable functions which also holds for semismooth functions.
\begin{defi}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two normed spaces, $D$ be a nonempty open set in $X$ and $J: D \subset X \rightarrow Y$ be a given mapping. For $x \in D$ and $h \in X$, if the limit
\begin{equation*}
J'(x)(h):=\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^{+}} \frac{J(x+th)-J(x)}{t}
\end{equation*}
exists, the function is said to be directionally differentiable. Further, $J'(x)(h)$ is the directional derivative of $J$ at $x$ in the direction $h$.
\end{defi}
\begin{remark}
From here on, by making a small notation abuse, we denote by $F '(u)$ the Fr\'echet derivative of $F$ at $u$, and by $F'(u)(v)$ the directional derivative of $F$ at $u$ in the direction $v$.
\end{remark}
Next, we define the concept of \textit{Bouligand} differentiability and its relation to the semismoothnes concept. For further details, we refer the reader to \cite[Ch. 2, Sec. 2.1]{Ulbrich}.
\begin{defi}
Let $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be open and $J:D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be Lipschitz continuos near $x \in D$, i.e., locally Lipschitz continuous. The set
\[
\partial_{B} J(x)=\left\lbrace M \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}: \exists (x_k) \subset D_J : x_k \rightarrow x, J'(x_k) \rightarrow M \right\rbrace
\]
is called Bouligand-subdifferential (or B-subdifferential) of $J$ at $x$. Here, $D_J \subset D$ is the set of all $x \in D$ at which $J$ admits a Fr\'echet derivative $J'(x) \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$.
The convex hull of the Bouligand-subdifferential $\partial J(x)= co (\partial_{B} J(x))$ is the Clarke's generalized Jacobian of $J$ at $x$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
Let $J:D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be defined on the open set $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$.
$J$ is called B-differentiable at $x \in D$ if $J$ is directionally differentiable at $x$ and
\[
\|J(x+h)-J(x)-J'(x)(h)\|= o(\|h\|) \hspace{5mm } \text{as} \hspace{5mm} h \rightarrow 0.
\]
\end{defi}
\begin{prop}\label{def_bou_llc}
Let $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be open and $J:D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be a locally Lipschitz continuous function which is directionally differentiable at $x_0 \in D$. Then, the function $J$ is B-differentiable at $x_0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Th.3.1.2 ]{Scholtes}
\end{proof}
Let us notice that the B-derivative of a locally Lipschitz continuous function is its directional derivative.
\begin{prop}\label{b-prop}
Let $J: D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be defined on the open set $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and let $J$ be B-differentiable at x. Then, $J'(x)(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous, and, for every $h \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, there exists $M \in \partial J(x)$ such that
\[
J'(x)(h)=M h.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Sec. 8.2.1]{Kunisch-ito}
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{ssm_prop}
Let $J: D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be defined on the open set $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$. Then, for $x \in D$ the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $J$ is semismooth at $x$.
\item $J$ is Lipschitz continuous near $x$, $J'(x)( \cdot )$ exists, and
\[
\displaystyle \sup_{M \in \partial J(x+h)} \|M h - J'(x)(h)\| = o(\|h\|) \hspace{5mm} \text{as} \hspace{5mm} h\rightarrow 0.
\]
\item $J$ is Lipschitz continuous near $x$, $J'(x)(\cdot)$ exists, and
\[
\displaystyle \sup_{M \in \partial J(x+h)} \|J(x+h) - J(x) - M h\| = o(\|h\|) \hspace{5mm} \text{as} \hspace{5mm} h\rightarrow 0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Prop.2.7]{Ulbrich}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{ssm_is_boul}
Let us notice that, from Proposition \ref{def_bou_llc} we have that $J$ is B-differentiable if it is Lipschitz continuous near $x$ (locally Lispchitz continuous at $x$) and directionally differentiable at $x$. Then, from Proposition \ref{ssm_prop}, we have that if $J$ is semismooth, $J$ is B-differentiable.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}\label{b-prop2}
Let $J: D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be defined on the open set $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and let $J$ be semismooth in $x$. Then
\[
\| J'(x+h)(h) - J'(x)(h) \|= o(\|h\|) \hspace{5mm}\text{ as } \hspace{5mm} h \rightarrow 0.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Th. 8.2]{Kunisch-ito}
\end{proof}
Next, we introduce the notion of slant differentiability \cite[Sec.1]{Hintermuller} that will be used in this work.
\begin{defi}\label{slanting-diff}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces, and $D$ be an open subset of $X$. A function $J: D \subset X \rightarrow Y$ is said to be slantly differentiable in $ D$, if there exists a family of mappings $J^{\circ}: D \rightarrow \mathcal{L}(X,Y)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{ \|J(x+h) - J(x) - J^{\circ}(x+h)h \|}{\|h\|}=0.
\end{equation*}
for every $x \in D$. The function $J^{\circ}$ is called a slanting function for $J$ in $D$.
\end{defi}
The previous definition was introduced in \cite{Hintermuller} as an adaptation of the definition of slant differentiability in Banch spaces stated in \cite{Chen-etal}, where the family of linear operators $\{J^{\circ}(x+h)\}$ is required to be uniformly bounded in the operator norm. Also, in \cite[pp. 868]{Hintermuller} the authors state that the notion of slant differentiability is a more general concept than the definition of semismoothness. In fact, the slanting functions are not required to be elements of the Clarke's generalized Jacobian $\partial J(x+h)$. However, a single-valued selection $M(x+h) \in \partial J(x+h)$, with $x \in D$, is a slanting function $J^{\circ}$- in the sense of Definition \ref{slanting-diff} - if Proposition \ref{ssm_prop} (item 3) holds for $x \in D$ (see \cite[Sec.1]{Hintermuller} for further details).
\begin{prop}\label{remark1}
If $J$ is continuously differentiable in a neighbourhood of $x$, then
\[
\partial J(x)=\partial_{B} J(x)= \{J'(x)\}
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Prop.2.2]{Ulbrich}
\end{proof}
We now present an important example of a semismooth function that will be useful in the subsequent sections.
\begin{example}\label{ex:max} Let $g>0$ be a constant. The mapping
\begin{equation*}
\vec{z} \rightarrow \max(g,\gamma |\vec{z}|)
\end{equation*}
from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}$ is semismooth on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Further, the slant derivative of this function is the characteristic function $\chi_{A_\gamma}(\vec{z})$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\chi_{A_{\gamma}}(\vec{z}) = \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll}
1, & \text{ if } \vec{z} \in A_{\gamma},\\
0, & \text{ if } \vec{z} \in X \setminus A_\gamma,
\end{array}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $A_{\gamma}:=\left\lbrace \vec{z} : \gamma |\vec{z}| \geq g \right\rbrace $
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
\cite[Sec.3, Lemma 3.1]{Hintermuller}
\end{proof}
Finally, we introduce the mean value theorem for B-differentiable functions.
\begin{thm}{(Mean value theorem for B-differentiable funcions.)}\label{thm:mvt} Let $D \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be an open convex set, $J: D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ be a B-differentiable function, and $x_0,x_1 \in D$. The function $\varphi:[0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ defined by $\varphi(t)=J'(x_0 +t(x_1 - x_0))(x_1-x_0)$ is Lebesgue integrable and
\[
J(x_1)=J(x_0)+ \displaystyle \int_0^1 J'(x_0 + t(x_1 - x_0))(x_1 - x_0) dt
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Prop. 3.1.1]{Scholtes}.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularization and Discretization}\label{sec:reganddisc}
The minimization problem \eqref{eq:prob} involves a convex non-smooth functional. In fact, the norm $|\nabla y|$ in the second term implies that the functional in \eqref{eq:prob} is not differentiable. In this context, we propose a regularization approach, based on a local Huber regularization procedure. Huber regularization has been used in previous contributions to approximate numerically several free boundary and nonsmooth problems with similar structure (see \cite{Gonzalez1} and the references therein).
Let $\gamma > 0$. We introduce the function $\psi_{\gamma}: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\psi_{\gamma}: z \rightarrow \psi_{\gamma}(z)=
\begin{cases}
g |z | - \frac{g^2}{2 \gamma} & if |z| > \frac{g}{\gamma} \\
\frac{\gamma}{2} |z |^2 & if |z| \leq \frac{g}{\gamma}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The function $\psi_{\gamma}$ corresponds to a local regularization of the Euclidean norm. Thanks to this procedure we obtain the following regularized optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:probreg}
\underset{u\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)} {\min} J_{\gamma}(u):=\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u|^{p}\,dx + \int_{\Omega}\psi_{\gamma}(\nabla u)\,dx - \int_{\Omega} f u\,dx.
\end{equation}
\begin{thm}
Let $1<p< \infty$ and $\gamma > 0$. Then, problem \eqref{eq:probreg} has a unique solution $u_\gamma \in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$. Also, the sequence $\{u_\gamma\} \subset W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$ converges strongly in $ W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$ to the solution of problem \eqref{eq:prob}, as $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Sec. 2]{Gonzalez1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Finite element approximation}\label{sec:FEM}
Let us introduce the finite element approximation of problem \eqref{eq:probreg}. Let $\Omega_h$ be a given triangulation of the domain $\Omega$ , $n_e \in \mathbb{N}$ be the number of triangles $T_i$ such that $\bar{\Omega}_h=\displaystyle \cup_{i=1}^{n_e} T_i$ and $N$ be the number of nodes of the triangulation $\Omega_h$. For any two triangles, their closures are either disjoint or have a common vertex or a common edge. Finally, let $\{P_j\}_{j=1,\cdots, N}$ be the vertices (nodes) associated with $\Omega_h$. Taking this into account, we define
\begin{equation*}
V_h:= \{v_h \in C(\bar{\Omega}_h): v_h|_{T_i} \in \mathbb{P}_1, \hspace{0.2cm} \forall T_i \in \Omega_h \},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbb{P}_1$ is the space of continuous piecewise linear functions defined on $\Omega_h$. Then the following space
\begin{equation}
V^0_h=W_0^{1,p}(\Omega) \cap V_h
\end{equation}
is the finite-dimensional space associated with the triangulation $\Omega_h$.
Considering the previous analysis, the finite element approximation of \eqref{eq:probreg} is formulated as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:probdis}
\underset{u_h\in V^0_h} {\min} J_{\gamma,h}(u_h):=\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{p}\,dx + \int_{\Omega_h}\psi_\gamma(\nabla u_h)\,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f u_h\,dx.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
The finite element approximation of problems like \eqref{eq:probreg} is restricted by the limited higher order regularity for the solution of the $p$-Laplacian (see \cite{Huang}). Due to this fact, this kind of problems are usually approximated by continuous piecewise linear elements, which we also implement in this paper. In \cite{BarretLiu,Bermejo,LiuBarret} the authors discuss optimal error estimates for sufficiently regular solutions, which can be obtained for specific data $f$ and $\Omega$. These results, however, are only valid for the $p$-Laplacian problem, i.e., when $g=0$. Since the solutions for variational inequalities of the second kind usually exhibit low global regularity, a deeper analysis is needed in order to obtain optimal error estimates for VIs. This, we consider, is beyond the scope of this paper.
\end{remark}
The convergence analysis of the multigrid algorithm is based on the differentiability properties of the functional $J_{\gamma,h}(u)$. In order to analyze the regularity of this discrete functional, we decompose it as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jdiscrete_decompose}
J_{\gamma,h}(u_h):= \mathcal{F}_h(u_h) + \mathcal{G}_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}_h(u_h):= \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{p}\,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f u_h\,dx\,
\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\, \mathcal{G}_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h):= \int_{\Omega_h}\psi_{\gamma}(\nabla u_h)\,dx.
\end{equation*}
$\mathcal{F}_h(u)$ is a functional associated with the discretized homogeneous Dirichlet problem for the $p$-Laplace operator, and it is known to be a twice Fr\'echet-differentiable and strictly convex functional with Fr\'echet derivative $\mathcal{F}'_h(u_h)$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F_prima}
\mathcal{F}'_h(u_h)v_h= \int_{\Omega_h} |\nabla u_h |^{p-2} \nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h \,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f v_h\,dx,\,\, \forall v_h \in V^0_h
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F_prima2}
\begin{array}{rll}
\mathcal{F}''_{h}(u_h)(v_h, w_h)=& \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-2} \nabla v_h \cdot\nabla w_h \,dx\vspace{0.2cm}\\
& +(p-2) \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_2|^{p-4} (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot\nabla w_h) , \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
See (\cite{BarretLiu,Bermejo,Glowinski,Gonzalez1}) for further details.
\begin{prop}\label{prop}
Let $1<p< \infty$. The functional $J_{\gamma,h}(u_h)$ is
differentiable with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:slant-derivative_0}
J'_{\gamma,h}(u_h)v_h:=\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{p-2}\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h\,dx + g \int_{\Omega_h} \frac{\gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)}{\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)}\,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f v_h\,dx,\,\, \forall v_h \in V^0_h.
\end{equation}
Furthermore $J'_{\gamma,h}(u_h)$ is semismooth and its slant derivative is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:slant-derivative_1}
\begin{array}{lll}
(J'_{\gamma, h})^{\circ}(u_h)(v_h, w_h) := \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-2} \nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h \,dx \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{2cm}
+(p-2) \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-4} (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot\nabla w_h) \,dx\vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{3cm}
+ \displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma}} g \frac{(\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|} \,dx - \displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma}} g \frac{ (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)(\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|^3} \,dx \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{5.5cm}
+ \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{k-1} \setminus A_{\gamma}} \gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h) \,dx, \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us start by analyzing the functional $\mathcal{G}_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)$. It is known that $\mathcal{G}_{\gamma,h}$ is differentiable (see \cite[Sec. 2.2]{Gonzalez1}), and moreover, we know that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)v_h= g \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h}{|\nabla u_h|}\,dx + g \int_{\Omega_h \setminus A_{\gamma,h}} \gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)\,dx, \,\,\, \forall v_h \in V^0_h,
\end{equation*}
where
\[
A_{\gamma,h} =\{x \in \Omega_h \, : \, \gamma|\nabla u_h(x)| \geq g\}.
\]
By using the $\max$ function, we can rewrite $ \mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)(v_h)$ in the following way.
\begin{equation}\label{Ghderiv}
\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)v_h:= g \int_{\Omega_h} \frac{\gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)}{\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)}\,dx, \,\,\, \forall v_h \in V^0_h.
\end{equation}
Next, from \eqref{eq:Jdiscrete_decompose}, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Jdiscrete_decompose_grad}
J'_{\gamma,h}(u_h)v_h= \mathcal{F}'_h(u_h)v_h + \mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)v_h,
\end{equation}
which, thanks to \eqref{eq:F_prima} and \eqref{Ghderiv}, implies that
\begin{equation*}
J'_{\gamma,h}(u_h)v_h:=\int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{p-2}\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h\,dx + g \int_{\Omega_h} \frac{\gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)}{\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)}\,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f v_h\,dx \,\,\, \forall v_h \in V^0_h.
\end{equation*}
The second derivative of $J_{\gamma,h}(u_h)$ does not exist. In fact, the functional $ \mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)$ is not differentiable since this functional involves the $\max$ function. Fortunately, the $\max$ function is slantly differentiable when defined in finite dimensional spaces (see Example \ref{ex:max}). Thus, we can calculate the slant derivative of $\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)$, denoted by $(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(\nabla u_h)$, as follows.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent $|\nabla u| \geq \frac{g}{\gamma}$: Here, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{array}{rll}
(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(\nabla u_h)(v_h, w_h) &=& \displaystyle g \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)}\,dx - g \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\chi_{A_{\gamma,h}} (x) \cdot \gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{(\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|))^2 |\nabla u_h|} \gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)\,dx \vspace{0.3cm}\\
&=&\displaystyle g \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{\gamma |\nabla u_h|}\,dx - g\int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{ \gamma ^2 (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)}{(\gamma |\nabla u_h|))^2 |\nabla u_h|} \,dx \vspace{0.3cm}\\
&=&\displaystyle g\int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{(\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{ | \nabla u_h|}\,dx - g \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{ (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)}{ |\nabla u_h|^3 } \,dx,
\end{array}
\normalsize
\end{equation*}
where $\chi_{A_{\gamma,h}}$ is the slant derivative of the function $\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)$.\\\\
\noindent $|\nabla u| < \frac{g}{\gamma}$: Here, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\small
\begin{array}{lll}
(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(\nabla u_h)(v_h, w_h)
= \displaystyle g\int_{I_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|)}\,dx \vspace{0.3cm} \\\hspace{4cm} -g \displaystyle \int_{I_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\chi_{A_{\gamma,h}} (x) \cdot \gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{(\max(g,\gamma |\nabla u_h|))^2 |\nabla u_h|} \gamma (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)\,dx\vspace{0.3cm} \\\hspace{5cm}
= \displaystyle g\int_{I_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{g}\,dx =\displaystyle \int_{I_{\gamma,h}} \gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)\,dx,
\end{array}
\normalsize
\end{equation*}
where $I_{\gamma,h}:=\Omega_h \setminus A_{\gamma,h}$.
Then, the slant derivative of $\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h}(\nabla u_h)$ reads as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G_prima_circ}
\begin{array}{rll}
(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_h)(v_h, w_h) = \displaystyle g\int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{(\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|} - g\int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{(\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h)(\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|^3}\vspace{0.3cm}\\+ \displaystyle \int_{I_{\gamma,h}} \gamma (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h), \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, from \eqref{eq:F_prima2} we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F_prima_prima}
\begin{array}{rll}
\mathcal{F}''_{h}(u_h)(v_h, w_h)=& \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-2} \nabla v_h \cdot\nabla w_h \,dx\vspace{0.2cm}\\
& +(p-2) \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_2|^{p-4} (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot\nabla w_h) , \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Hence, from \eqref{eq:Jdiscrete_decompose_grad} and Proposition \ref{remark1}, we can state that
\begin{equation}\label{sec_derivative_decompose}
(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_h)(v_h, w_h)= \mathcal{F}''_{h}(u_h)(v_h , w_h) + (\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(\nabla u_h)(v_h , w_h) \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h,
\end{equation}
which, thanks to \eqref{eq:G_prima_circ}, \eqref{eq:F_prima_prima} and \eqref{sec_derivative_decompose}, yields that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_h)(v_h, w_h)=\displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-2} \nabla v_h \nabla w_h \,dx \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{1.5cm}+(p-2) \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{h}} |\nabla u_h|^{p-4} (\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h) (\nabla u_h \cdot\nabla w_h) \,dx\vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{2cm}
+g\displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{(\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|} \,dx - g\int_{A_{\gamma,h}} \frac{\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla v_h(\nabla u_h \cdot \nabla w_h)}{|\nabla u_h|^3} \,dx \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{3cm}
+ \gamma\displaystyle \int_{I_{\gamma,h}} (\nabla v_h \cdot \nabla w_h) \,dx, \,\,\, \forall v_h, w_h \in V^0_h.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop2.0}
The slanting function $(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_h)$ is positive definite.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Following the decompostition presented in \eqref{sec_derivative_decompose}, we know that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:N-derivative}
(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_h)(w_{h}, w_{h})= \mathcal{F}''_{h}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h})+ (\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h}),
\end{equation}
It is well known that $\mathcal{F}$ is a strictly convex functional, which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:derivative_p_lapla}
\mathcal{F}''_{h}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h}) > 0, \hspace{0.3cm} \forall w_{h} \in V^0_{h} \setminus{\{0\}}.
\end{equation}
Next, let us recall the expression $(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h})$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:derivative_gamma}
\begin{array}{rll}
(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h}) &=& \displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{(\nabla w_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h})}{|\nabla u_{h}|} - \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{(\nabla u_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h})^2}{|\nabla u_{h}|^3}\vspace{0.2cm}\\
&&+ \displaystyle \int_{\Omega_{k} \setminus A_{\gamma,h}} \gamma (\nabla w_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h}), \,\, \forall w_{h} \in V^0_{h}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Applying Cauchy-Schwarz to the right hand side in \eqref{eq:derivative_gamma}, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{rll}
\displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{(\nabla u_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h})^2}{|\nabla u_{h}|^3} & \leq& \displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{|\nabla u_{h}|^2 |\nabla w_{h}| ^2}{|\nabla u_{h}|^3}\vspace{0.2cm}\\
&=&\displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{|\nabla w_{h}|^2}{|\nabla u_{h}|}\vspace{0.2cm}\\
&=&\displaystyle \int_{A_{\gamma,h}} g \frac{(\nabla w_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h})}{|\nabla u_{h}|},
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:derivative_gamma_positive}
(\mathcal{G}'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h}) \geq \int_{\Omega_{h} \setminus A_{\gamma,h}} \gamma (\nabla w_{h} \cdot \nabla w_{h}) > 0, \text{ since } w_{h} \neq 0.
\end{equation}
Then, $(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}(u_{h})(w_{h}, w_{h}) > 0$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Multigrid for Optimization (MG/OPT) Method}\label{sec:MGOPT}
In this section, we present the multigrid for optimization (MG/OPT) algorithm for solving the regularized and discretized optimization problem \eqref{eq:probdis}. The MG/OPT method was introduced as an efficient tool for large scale optimization problems (see \cite{Nash,Lewis_Nash}). The idea of the algorithm is to take advantage of the solutions of problems discretized in coarse meshes to optimize problems in finer meshes. The efficient resolution of coarse problems provides a way to calculate search directions for problems discretized in finer levels.
In order to present the algorithm, we shall introduce the following preliminaries. Let $\Omega$ be a given bounded domain. A standard procedure to generate a sequence of triangulations on $\Omega$ is to define a coarse mesh and then refine it several times until getting the sequence $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=0,\ldots,m}$, i.e., each $\Omega_k$ is obtained from $\Omega_{k-1}$ by regular subdivision. This procedure joins the edge midpoints of any triangle in mesh $\Omega_{k-1}$ by edges, and forms the new triangles of $\Omega_k$ (see Figure \ref{fig_mallas}). Each node in $\Omega_{k-1}$ is also a node in $\Omega_k$, and every node belonging to $\Omega_{k}$ but not to $\Omega_{k-1}$ is the midpoint of an edge in $\Omega_{k-1}$. Let us denote by $N^{(k)}$ the number of nodes associated to each $\Omega_k$. Thus, the nodes of $\Omega_{k-1}$ are the first $N^{(k-1)}$ nodes of $\Omega_k$ (see Figure \ref{fig_interp}).
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[htb]{.3\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ex1_malla1}
\label{fig-ex1}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[htb]{.3\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ex1_malla2}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[htb]{.3\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ex1_malla3}
\centering
\label{fig-ex3}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\centering
\caption{Regular subdivision. From left to right: $\Omega_1, \Omega_2$ and $\Omega_3$}\label{fig_mallas}
\end{figure}
When working with domains with curved boundaries, the refinement procedure described above is slightly different in the boundary edges. This is the case, for instance, of the domain depicted in Figure \ref{fig_interp}. During the refinement, instead of generating a new midpoint in the nearest triangulation edges to the boundary, each edge is replaced by two edges that intersect at the midpoint of the curved-segment of the boundary, i.e., the boundary is bisected by the two new edges added. Consequently, the resulting triangulation only covers the domain $\Omega$ approximately, introducing a source of error \cite[Ch. 4, pp. 93]{Gockenbach}. Since a non polygonal domain can not be triangulated exactly, approximating a domain with a curved boundary is a matter under research. One interesting technique to analyze this problem is the isoparametric method which uses finite elements with curved edges \cite[Ch.4, Sec. 4.7]{Gockenbach}. This approach seems to be the most appropriate for problems of fluid mechanics, which is why it will be considered in future contributions.
The multigrid approach involves two transfer operators. As we are working with a set of meshes and the algorithm runs at each level of discretization, we need to transfer information among the different grids. Then, we intoduce the \textit{fine-to-coarse grid transfer operator}, $I_k^{k-1}$, and the \textit{coarse-to-fine grid transfer operator}, $I_{k-1}^k$.
The latter operator transfers information from a coarse mesh $\Omega_{k-1}$ to a finer mesh $\Omega_{k}$. It is also called the prolongation operator. On the other hand, $I_k^{k-1}$ or restriction operator, transfers information from a fine grid to a coarse one.
In this paper we use the mesh data structure and the operators implemented by M. S. Gockenbach in order to obtain $I_k^{k-1}$ and $I_{k-1}^{k}$ (see \cite[Ch. 6, Ch. 13]{Gockenbach}). In what follows, the ideas stated in the previous reference are outlined for the prolongation and restriction procedures in a coarse grid $\Omega_{k-1}$ and a finer grid $\Omega_{k}$. For instance, in Figure \ref{fig_interp} we have the first stage of refinement in a disk domain with grids $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_1$ .
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[l]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 130mm 7mm 40mm 2mm, clip, scale=0.4]{ex1_malla0}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[r]{0.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 130mm 5mm 40mm 5mm, clip, scale=0.4]{ex1_malla1_nod}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\centering
\caption{ $\Omega_0$ (left), $\Omega_1$ (right).}\label{fig_interp}
\end{figure}
In order to transfer information from the nodes in a coarse mesh $\Omega_{k-1}$ (e.g. $\Omega_0$ in Figure \ref{fig_interp}) to a refined mesh $\Omega_k$ (e.g. $\Omega_1$), we first copy the nodal values of the nodes in $\Omega_{k-1}$ to the corresponding nodes in $\Omega_{k}$ (in our example they correspond to the nodes with indexes $1,2,3,4$ and $5$). By construction, we know that these are the first $N^{(k-1)}$ ($N^{(0)}=5$) nodes of $\Omega_k$, and,the midpoints complete the $N^{(k)}$ ($N^{(1)}=13$) nodes of the mesh $\Omega_k$ (in $\Omega_1$ they correspond to the nodes with indexes $6, 7, \cdots, 13$). Then, since the values for nodes with index $j=1, \cdots N^{(k-1)}$ are already given, we need to compute the nodal values for the midpoints, i.e., for nodes with index $j= N^{(k-1)}+1, \cdots, N^{(k)}$.
Let $V(\textbf{P})_k=\{V(P_j)\}_{j=1,\cdots, N^{(k)}}$ be the vector containing the nodal values associated to $\Omega_k$
The prolongation operator computes the values to the midpoints as follows:
\[
V(P_j)=\frac{1}{2}\left(V(P_{end(j,1)})+V(P_{end(j,2)})\right), \hspace{2mm} j>N^{(k-1)},
\]
where the nodes $P_{end(j,1)}$ and $P_{end(j,2)}$ are the endpoints of the edge in $\Omega_{k-1}$ for which $P_j$ is the midpoint. These endpoints are called node parents and, by construction, are unique for each node.
Now, to transfer information from the nodes in $\Omega_k$ to $\Omega_{k-1}$ (e.g. $\Omega_1$ to $\Omega_{0}$ in Figure \ref{fig_interp}) the restriction operator first copy the values of the nodes in $\Omega_k$ to the corresponding nodes that are also in $\Omega_{k-1}$. Then, for $j>N^{k-1}$, the operator perform the following computation
\[
V(P_{end(j,1)})=V(P_{end(j,1)})+\frac{1}{2}V(P_j) \hspace{3mm} \text{and} \hspace{3mm} V(P_{end(j,2)})=V(P_{end(j,2)})+\frac{1}{2} V(P_j).
\]
The mesh data structure implemented allows us to copy and extract nodes from any specific discretization. We refer the reader to see \cite[Ch. 13, sec. 13.2.1]{Gockenbach} for a detailed explanation of the transfer operators.
In multigrid schemes is standard to assume that
\begin{equation*}
I_k^{k-1} = c \left( I_{k-1}^k \right)^{T},
\end{equation*}
where $c$ is a constant. In our case, if we compute the products $I_{k-1}^k V(\textbf{P})_{k-1}=V(\textbf{P})_{k}$ and $I_{k}^{k-1} V(\textbf{P})_{k}=V(\textbf{P})_{k-1}$, the restriction and prolongation operators satisfy the condition (see \cite[Sec. 13.2.1, p. 294]{Gockenbach})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition}
I_k^{k-1} = \left( I_{k-1}^k \right)^{T}.
\end{equation}
Now that we have introduced the interpolation operators, we are ready to discuss the MG/OPT algorithm for problem \eqref{eq:probdis}. The MG/OPT method corresponds to a nonlinear programming adaptation of the \textit{full approximation storage} (FAS) scheme (see \cite{Brandt,Trottenberg}). The multigrid subproblems arising from the different discretization levels are nonlinear optimization problems \cite{Lewis_Nash}. Then, MG/OPT is related to different optimization techniques ranging from the gradient method to quasi Newton methods to solve the problems at each level. The multigrid for optimization approach requires mild conditions regarding the underlying optimization algorithm. Mainly, this algorithm needs to be globally convergent. However, it is important to highlight that at each level of discretization we need to find a sufficiently accurate solution for the minimization subproblem. Then, the selection of the underlying optimization algorithm is not trivial and depends on the inner characteristics of the optimization problem.
In the present problem, since the $p$-Laplacian is involved in the objective functional $J_{\gamma}$, we have to consider that its finite element approximation \eqref{eq:probdis} results in a nonlinear and possibly degenerate finite dimensional problem (this may be the case when $p<2$, see \cite{Huang} and the references therein). Also, the functional $J_{\gamma,h}$ involves a semismooth function. These facts need to be taken into account when proposing the underlying optimization algorithms. In our case, we propose a class of preconditioned descent algorithms, designed specifically for $p$-Laplacian type problems. For the convenience of the reader, in the next section we describe briefly this algorithm as is implemented in our computational results.
As we mentioned before, the main idea of the MG/OPT algorithm is to use coarse problems to generate, recursively, search directions for finer problems. Then, a line search procedure, along with the underlying optimization algorithm is used to improve the solution at each level of discretization.
In what follows we present the MG/OPT algorithm. The underlying optimization algorithm will be denoted by $S_{opt}$ inside the multigrid approach. The initial discretized problem is given on the finest grid. To facilitate the implementation of the algorithm, the MG/OPT scheme is presented in a recursive formulation. Hence, we introduce the following slightly different notation for the optimization problem
\begin{equation*}
\underset{u_k} {\min} \left( \hat{J}_{\gamma,k}(u_k) - \hat{f}_k^{\top}u_k\right).
\end{equation*}
We set $\hat{f}_k=0$ at the finest level $k=m$. Then, $\hat{J}_{\gamma,k}$ corresponds to the functional $J_{\gamma,h}$ introduced in problem \eqref{eq:probdis}, discretized at each level $k=0,\ldots,m$. Therefore, we replace the subscript $h$ by $k$. Hereafter, the same treatment is given to $u_k$, which stands for $u_{h}$, discretized at each level $k$.
\begin{remark}\label{notation}
Since $J_{\gamma,k}$ is Fr\'echet differentiable and defined in finite dimensional spaces, we can associate the derivative $J'_{\gamma,k}(u_k)$ with the gradient $\nabla J_{\gamma,k}(u_h)$ as follows (see \cite[Sec.1.1, p. 8]{Giaquinta})
\[
J'_{\gamma,k}(u_k)v_k=\nabla J_{\gamma,k}(u_k)^{\top}v_k,\,\, \forall v_k \in V_k^0.
\]
In what follows, we will use this representation.
\end{remark}
Summarizing and taking into account Remark \ref{notation}, the algorithm reads as follows.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{MG/OPT recursive$(\nu_1,\nu_2)$.}\label{alg:MGOPT_alg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\If {$k=0$}, solve $\min_{u_k} \left( \hat{J}_{\gamma,k}(u_k) - \hat{f}_k^{\top}u_k\right)$ and {return}.
\EndIf
\State Otherwise, $k > 0$. \\
Pre-optimization: Apply $\nu_1$ iterations of the optimization algorithm to the problem at level $k$.
\[u_k^{\ell}=S_{opt}(u_k^{\ell-1}),\,\,\,\ell=1,\ldots,\nu_1.\]
\State Coarse-grid correction.\\
\begin{itemize}
\item Restrict: $u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}= I_k^{k-1} u_k^{\nu_1}$.
\item Compute the fine-to-coarse gradient correction:
\[
\tau_{k-1}:= \nabla \hat{J}_{\gamma,k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) - I_k^{k-1} \nabla \hat{J}_{\gamma,k}(u_k^{\nu_1}).
\]
\item Define $\hat{f}_{k-1}:=I_k^{k-1} \hat{f}_k + \tau_{k-1}$
and apply one cycle of MGOPT$(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ to
\[
\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( \hat{J}_{\gamma,k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \hat{f}_{k-1}^{\top}u_{k-1} \right)
\]
to obtain $\widetilde{u}_{k-1}$.
\end{itemize}
\State Coarse-to-fine minimization.
\begin{itemize}
\item Prolongate error: $e:= I_{k-1}^k (\widetilde{u}_{k-1} - u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})$.
\item Line search in $e$ direction to obtain a step size $\alpha_k$.
\item Calculate the coarse-to-fine minimization step: $u_k^{\nu_1 +1}= u_k^{\nu_1} + \alpha_k e$.
\end{itemize}
\item Post-optimization: Apply $\nu_2$ iterations of the optimization algorithm to the problem at level $k$.
\[u_k^{\ell}=S_{opt}(u_k^{\ell-1}),\,\,\,\ell=\nu_1+2,\ldots,\nu_1+\nu_2 +1.\]
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The algorithm presented above contemplates one iteration of a V-cycle initialized with a rough estimate of the solution on the finest grid.
\section{Convergence Analysis}\label{sec:convergence}
In this section, we discuss the convergence properties of Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg}. Following \cite{Lewis_Nash,Nash}, we can state that the global convergence of the underlying optimization algorithm ensures global convergence of the MG/OPT method. This comes from the fact that if we have an approximate solution (given by the underlying optimization algorithm) at each discretization level, the algorithm generates search directions for problems discretized on finer meshes. Once we have the descent direction, a line search procedure is used to improve the solution at each finer problem.
In the classical convergence analysis of the MG/OPT methods, the three following conditions are critical (see \cite{Lewis_Nash,Nash,BorziVallejo}).
\begin{enumerate}
\item The discretized objective functional is convex at each level of discretization.
\item The subproblems
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subproblems}
\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( J_{\gamma,k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \tau_{k-1} ^{\top }u_{k-1} \right)
\end{equation}
are solved accurately enough.
\item The transfer operators satisfy the standard condition $I_k^{k-1} = c \left( I_{k-1}^k \right)^{T}$.
\end{enumerate}
These conditions are helpful to prove that the search direction provided by the MG/OPT algorithm is indeed a descent direction. For instance, the convexity condition is key to prove that the Hessian is positive definite. However, in our case, the classical Hessian does not exist. Thus, we use the slant differentiability of the functional $J_{\gamma,h}$ to obtain positive definiteness, see Proposition \ref{prop2.0}.
Next, we comment on the assumptions on our problem. We are considering the subproblems \eqref{eq:subproblems} instead of the subproblems $\displaystyle\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( \hat{J}_{\gamma,k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \hat{f}^{\top}u_{k-1} \right)$ presented in Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg}. The artificial term $I_k^{k-1} \hat{f}_k$ is simply introduced in order to facilitate the recursive implementation of the method. In fact, at the very beginning of the algorithm, on the finest mesh, this term is set to zero. In the succeeding iterations, $I_k^{k-1} \hat{f}_k$ corresponds to the recursive sum of the previous restricted $\tau_{k-1}$. Thus, in order to make the subsequent analysis easier, we analyze the subproblems \eqref{eq:subproblems}. Also, since problem \eqref{eq:probdis} is strictly convex in $V_h^0$, without loss of generality, subproblems \eqref{eq:subproblems} are strictly convex in $V_{k}^0$, for $k=0,\ldots,m$.
Since we perform a few iterations of a suitable globally convergent optimization algorithm ($S_{opt}$), we ensure that the subproblems $\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( J_{\gamma,k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \tau _{k-1}^{\top}u_{k-1} \right)$ are solved accurately enough. Finally, \eqref{eq:condition} yields that $I_k^{k-1} = \left( I_{k-1}^k \right)^{T}$.
Let us recall that the search direction for the MG/OPT algorithm is denoted by $e$ and search directions of the underlying optimization algorithm, (inside the MG/OPT loop) are denoted by $w_k$.
\begin{prop}\label{e_desc_dir}
The search direction $e= I_{k-1}^k (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})$ is a descent direction for all $k=1, \ldots, m.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We have to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:descent}
\nabla J_{\gamma,k} (u_k^{\nu_1})^{\top} e < 0 , \hspace{0.3cm} \forall\, k=1,\ldots, m.
\end{equation}
From this point, for the readability of the proof, we drop the subscript $\gamma$. First note that, if we solve
\[
\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( J_{k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \tau_{k-1}^{\top}u_{k-1} \right)
\]
exactly, then
\begin{equation*}
\nabla J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) - \tau_{k-1}=0.
\end{equation*}
Since we are solving the problem inexactly (but accurately enough), we then have that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a}
\nabla J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) - \tau_{k-1}=z,
\end{equation}
for some $z$ as small as the algorithm accuracy allows for. From Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg} we have that
\[
\tau_{k-1}:= \nabla J_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) - I_k^{k-1} \nabla J_k(u_k^{\nu_1}).
\]
Hence, we can rewrite \eqref{eq:a} as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tau}
\nabla J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1})= \nabla J_{k-1}(u^{\nu_1}_{k-1}) - I_{k}^{k-1} \nabla J_{k}(u_{k}^{\nu_1}) +z.
\end{equation}
This expression implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:descent2}
\begin{array}{rll}
\nabla J_{k}(u_k^{\nu_1})^{\top} e&=& \nabla J_{k}(u_k^{\nu_1})^{\top} I_{k-1}^k (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) \vspace{0.2cm} \\
&=& \nabla J_{k} (u_k^{\nu_1})^{\top} (I_{k}^{k-1})^{\top}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) \vspace{0.2cm} \\
&=&(I_k^{k-1} \nabla J_{k}(u_k^{\nu_1}))^{\top}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) \vspace{0.2cm} \\
&=& (\nabla J_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- \nabla J_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) + z)^{\top}(w_{k-1}) \vspace{0.2cm} \\
&=& (\nabla J_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- \nabla J_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}))^{\top}(w_{k-1}) +z^{\top}w_{k-1},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where
\[w_{k-1}=\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}.\]
Next, let us focus on the first term in the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:descent2}. Hereafter, we use the notation $\nabla J_{k-1}=H_{k-1}$. Then, we have that
\begin{equation}
( \nabla J_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- \nabla J_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}))^{\top}w_{k-1} = H_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})^{\top}w_{k-1} - H_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})^{\top} w_{k-1}.
\end{equation}
We know, from Proposition \ref{prop}, that $ H_{k-1}$ is a semismooth function, which, thanks to Remark \ref{ssm_is_boul}, implies that $ H_{k-1}$ is B-differentiable. Thus, Theorem \ref{thm:mvt} yields that
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:left-hand_side}
\begin{array}{cl}
-(H_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- H_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}))^\top w_{k-1}=(H_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})- H_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}))^\top w_{k-1} \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{2.cm}
= \left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1}) dt \right)^{\top} w_{k-1}
=H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1},w_{k-1} )\vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{4.cm}
+\left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) dt \right)^{\top} w_{k-1},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
where $H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})$ stands for the directional derivative of the operator $H_{k-1}$ at $(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))$ in the direction $w_{k-1}$. Furthermore, $H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1},w_{k-1} )$ is given by \eqref{eq:slant-derivative_1}. Following \eqref{sec_derivative_decompose} and Proposition \ref{prop2.0}, we know that $H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})$ is definite positive. Consequently, there exists a constant $c$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{H_pd}
H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1},w_{k-1}) \geq c \|w_{k-1}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Next, let us focus on the last term on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:left-hand_side}. By using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})$ is Lebesgue integrable, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int}
\begin{array}{lll}
\left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) dt \right)^{\top} w_{k-1} \geq \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{1cm}
- \displaystyle \Big| \left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) dt \right)^{\top} w_{k-1} \Big| \geq \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{1.5cm}
- \displaystyle \Big\| \left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) dt \right) \Big\| \Big\|w_{k-1} \Big\| \geq \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{2.5cm}
- \displaystyle \left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 \Big\| H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) \Big\| dt \right) \Big\|w_{k-1} \Big\|.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Moreover, since $ H_{k-1}$ is semismooth, from Propositions \ref{ssm_prop} and \ref{b-prop2} we have that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\Big\|H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) \Big\|\vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{2.cm}
\leq \Big\| H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})(w_{k-1}) \Big\| \vspace{0.2cm}\\\hspace{3.5cm}
+ \Big\| H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})(w_{k-1}) - H_{k-1}^{\circ} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) \Big\|
=o(\| w_{k-1}\|).
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
Hence, for an arbitrary $\epsilon> 0$, it holds that
\begin{equation*}
-\Big\|H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) \Big\| \geq -\epsilon \|w_{k-1}\|.
\end{equation*}
Thus, from \eqref{eq:int} we have that
\begin{equation}\label{ssm_cond}
\left( \displaystyle \int_0^1 H_{k-1}'(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1} + t (w_{k-1}))(w_{k-1})- H_{k-1}^{\circ}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1})(w_{k-1}) dt \right)^{\top} w_{k-1} \geq -\epsilon \|w_{k-1}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Finally, by taking $\epsilon < \frac{c}{2}$ and considering \eqref{eq:left-hand_side}, \eqref{H_pd} and \eqref{ssm_cond}, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{cond_fin}
\begin{array}{cl}
-(H_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- H_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}))^\top w_{k-1} &\geq c\|w_{k-1}\|^2 - \epsilon \|w_{k-1}\|^2\\
&=(c - \epsilon)\|w_{k-1}\|^2\\
& > \displaystyle \frac{c}{2} \|w_{k-1}\|^2\\
& >0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Note that $w_{k-1}=\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u^{\nu_1}_{k-1} \neq 0$. Consequently, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sdp}
(H_{k-1}(u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})- H_{k-1}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}))^{\top}w_{k-1} < 0.
\end{equation}
In order to prove that $e$ is a descent direction, we still need to prove that the third term of the right hand side in \eqref{eq:descent2} satifies that
\begin{equation*}
z ^{\top}w_{k-1}= z^{\top}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) < 0.
\end{equation*}
Note that $\widetilde{u}_{k-1}$ is the solution of the problem
\begin{equation*}
\min_{u_{k-1}} \left( \hat{J}_{k-1} (u_{k-1}) - \tau^{\top}u_{k-1}\right).
\end{equation*}
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) - \tau_{k-1}^{\top}\widetilde{u}_{k-1} < J_{k-1} (u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) - \tau_{k-1}^{\top}u_{k-1}^{\nu_1},
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zw_prima}
J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) - J_{k-1} (u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) < \tau_{k-1}^{\top}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1} -u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}),
\end{equation}
since the optimization algorithm was initialized with $u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}$. Now, using the mean value theorem for differentiable functionals we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zw}
(J_{k-1} (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}) - J_{k-1} (u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}))= \nabla J_{k-1} (\xi)^{\top}(w_{k-1}),
\end{equation}
for some $\xi$ between $\widetilde{u}_{k-1}$ and $u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}$. Hence, from the inequality \eqref{eq:zw_prima} and equation \eqref{eq:zw} we have that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{cl}
\nabla J_{k-1}(\xi)^{\top}(w_{k-1}) &< \tau_{k-1}^{\top}(\widetilde{u}_{k-1} - u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})\vspace{0.2cm}\\
&=\tau_{k-1}^{\top}w_{k-1}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:last}
\nabla J_{k-1} (\xi)^{\top}w_{k-1} -\tau_{k-1}^{\top}w_{k-1} < 0.
\end{equation}
Next, by approximating $\xi \approx \widetilde{u}_{k-1} $, from \eqref{eq:a} and \eqref{eq:last}, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:last_last}
z^{\top}w_{k-1} \lesssim 0.
\end{equation}
Summarizing, \eqref{eq:descent2}, \eqref{eq:sdp} and \eqref{eq:last_last} imply that
\begin{equation*}
\nabla J_{k}(u_k^{\nu_1})^{\top} e <0, \forall k=0, \cdots, m.
\end{equation*}
and we can conclude that $e$ is a descent direction.
\end{proof}
Finally, thanks to the previous results, we can state and prove the following theorem of convergence for the MG/OPT Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg}.
\begin{thm}
Suppose that the following hypotheses are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item The optimization algorithm, $S_{opt}$, applied to an optimization problem of any resolution, is globally convergent, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{global_convergence}
\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \| \nabla J_{\gamma,h}(u_{h_r}) \| = 0.
\end{equation}
\item At least one of the parameters $\nu_1$ or $\nu_2$ is positive.
\item The search direction $e= I_{k-1}^k (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1})$ is a descent direction.
\end{itemize}
Then the MG/OPT algorithm is globally convergent in the sense of \eqref{global_convergence}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let us start by noticing that if $\nu_1$ or $\nu_2$ are positive, at least one iteration of the optimization algorithm is performed at every cycle of MG/OPT. Thus, an approximate solution at each level of discretization $k$ is obtained. Since the search direction $e=I_{k-1}^k (\widetilde{u}_{k-1}-u_{k-1}^{\nu_1}) $ is a descent direction, the approximate solution given at each level improves at every cycle of MG/OPT, i.e., the functional value $\hat{J}_{\gamma,k}(u_k)$ decreases at each cycle after the solution update $u_k^{\nu_1 +1}= u_k^{\nu_1} + \alpha_k e$. Consequently, as the underlying optimization algorithm is globally convergent, the multigrid optimization algorithm is globally convergent.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The convergence of MG/OPT methods depends on the behavior of the underlying algorithms. In fact, usually the performance of the selected optimization method is the same that is verified for the MG/OPT algorithm (see \cite{Borzi,Lewis_Nash,Nash, BorziVallejo}). Moreover, it is common that for optimization methods designed for nonsmooth problems, only global convergence results can be established. In our particular selection for the underlying algorithm, the global convergence of the preconditioned descent method is guaranteed \cite{Gonzalez1}. However, the rates of this convergence are not investigated. To the best of our knowledge, the use of semismooth derivatives, in the context of multigrid methods, is a novel perspective. In the present case, we need to analyse the behavior of the ``slant Hessian'' $(J'_{\gamma,h})^{\circ}$ in the context of the underlying algorithms. This idea is currently under study and it will be developed in future contributions.
\end{remark}
\section{Implementation}\label{sec:impl}
\subsection{Optimization algorithm }
In this section, we briefly discuss the preconditioned descent algorithm proposed in \cite{Gonzalez1}, which is proposed for the underlying optimization algorithm within the MG/OPT algorithm.
Generally speaking, a descent method starts with an initial point $u_0$ and, with information of first order, the algorithm finds directions that lead us to the minimum of the objective functional. Also, the method must find the length of the step, $\alpha_r $, along the chosen direction, $w_r $. The basic idea consists in finding $\alpha_r$ and $w_r$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
J(u_r+\alpha_r w_r)< J(u_r), \text{ for } \alpha_r>0
\end{equation*}
in every iteration of the method.
In the gradient method, for instance, the search direction $w_r$ is determined by
\[
w_r=- \nabla J(u_r).
\]
On the other hand, for the preconditioned descent algorithm proposed in \cite{Gonzalez1}, the search direction $w_r$ is determined by solving the following variational equation
\[
P_r(w_r,v)=- \nabla J(u_r)^{\top} v_r, \,\, \forall v_r \in V_h^0,
\]
where the form $P_r:V_h^0 \times V_h^0 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is chosen as a variational approximation of the $p$-Laplacian.
The algorithm reads as follows
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{General Preconditioned descent algorithm}\label{alg:PCDA}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Initialize $u_0 \in V_h^0 $ and set $r=0$.
If {$\nabla J(u_r)=0$}, STOP. Otherwise:
\State Find a descent direction $w_r $ by solving the following equation
\begin{equation*}
P_r(w_r,v_r)=- \nabla J(u_r)^{\top}v_r, \,\,\, \forall v_r \in V_h^0,
\end{equation*}
\hbox{ } if {$1<p<2$},
\[
P_r(w_r,v_r)=\int_{\Omega_h} (\epsilon + |\nabla u_r|)^{p-2} \nabla w_r \nabla v_r \,\,dx, \,\, \forall v_r \in V_h^0,
\]
\hbox{ } else if {$p\geq 2$},
\[
P_r(w_r,v_r)=\int_{\Omega_h} \nabla w_r\nabla v_r \,\, dx, \,\, \forall v_r \in V_h^0,
\]
\hbox{ } end.
\State Perform a line search algorithm to obtain $\alpha_r$.
\State Update $u_{r+1}:=u_r + \alpha_r w_r$ and set $r=r+1$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The global convergence and the stability of this Algorithm is guaranteed both in finite and infinite dimension settings. For a deeper analysis of this algorithm, we refer the reader to \cite{Gonzalez1}.
\subsection{Line search technique} \label{sec:line_search}
In this section, we describe the line search algorithm which will be used in the implementation of Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg}. This algorithm uses polynomial models of the objective functional for backtracking, and it was originally proposed in \cite[Sec. 6.3.2]{Dennis}.
The algorithm reads as follows
\begin{algorithm}[H]\label{algo:armijo}
\caption{Line search algorithm by polynomial models}
Let $\sigma_1\in (0,\frac{1}{2})$ and set $\alpha_0=1$.
\begin{algorithmic} [1]
\item Decide wheter $J(u_r + \alpha_r)> J (u_r) + \sigma_1 \alpha_r \nabla J(u_r)^\top w_r$ holds. If so, STOP and set $\alpha_r=\alpha_0$. If not:
\item Decide whether the step length is too small. If so, STOP and terminate algorithm: routine failed to locate satisfactory $x_{r+1}$ sufficiently distinct from $x_r$. If not:
\item Decrease $\alpha$ by a factor between 0.1 and 0.5 as follows:
\item On the first backtrack: set $\alpha_r:=\tilde{\alpha}_2= \textrm{argmin} \,m_2(\alpha)$, but constrain the new $\alpha_r$ to be $\geq 0.1$.
\item On all the subsequent backtracks: set $\alpha_r:= \tilde{\alpha}_3 =\textrm{argmin}\, m_3(\alpha)$, but constrain the new $\alpha_r$ to be in $[0.1\alpha_p\,,\, 0.5 \alpha_p]$.
\item Return to step 1.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
If we set
\[
\varphi_r(\alpha):=J(u_r+\alpha w_r),
\]
then the quadratic model $m_2$ is given by
\[
m_2(\alpha):= (\varphi_r(1)-\varphi_r(0)-\varphi_r'(0))\alpha^2 + \varphi_r'(0) \alpha + \varphi_r(0),
\]
while the cubic model $m_3$ is given by
\[
m_3(\alpha):= c \alpha^3 + d\alpha^2+\varphi_r'(0) \alpha + \varphi_r(0),
\]
where
\begin{equation*}
\binom{c}{d}=\frac{1}{\alpha_p - \alpha_{2p}} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{ \alpha_{p}^2} & \frac{-1}{ \alpha_{2p}^2} \\
\frac{- \alpha_{2p}}{\alpha_p^2} & \frac{\alpha_p}{\alpha_{2p}^2} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi_r(\alpha_p)-\alpha_r(0)-\alpha_r'(0) \alpha_p\\
\alpha_r(\alpha_{2p}) - \alpha_r(0)- \alpha_r'(0) \alpha_{2p}. \end{array} \right)
\end{equation*}
and $\alpha_p$ and $\alpha_{2p}$ are the last two previous values of $\alpha_k$. For further details and examples see \cite[pp. 126-129]{Dennis} and the references therein.
\section{Applications to the Numerical Simulation of Viscoplastic Flow}\label{sec:flow}
In this section, we discuss the application of the MG/OPT algorithm to the numerical simulation of the steady flow of viscoplastic fluids. These materials are characterized by the existence of a yield stress \cite{Chhabra,Duvant-lions,Huilgol,Huilgol1}. This implies that the viscoplastic material exhibits no deformation if the shear stress imposed does not exceed the yield stress, i.e., it behaves like an ideal rigid solid. If the shear stress overpasses the yield stress, the material will deform like a nonlinear viscous fluid in most of the cases. In fact, Herschel - Bulkley and Casson fluids present a nonlinear stress-shear rate, while Bingham fluids behave like a viscous fluid with linear stress-shear rate (see Figure \ref{fig:vp_models}). Summarizing, the existence of the yield stress causes rigid zones and yielded zones in the flow.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sketch_modelos3}
\centering
\caption{Viscoplastic models}\label{fig:vp_models}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In this work we focus on the stationary and laminar flow of a viscoplastic fluid in a cylindrical pipe under the effect of a drop in pressure. We consider three classic models for these fluids: Herschel-Bulkley, Bingham and Casson. This kind of flow is a simplified problem in which we can assume that all velocity fields only have a non-zero component in the axial direction. Therefore, by assuming that the velocity fields vanish on the boundary of the pipe (the so called adhesion condition) and that $f$ represents the constant pressure drop, it is well known that the velocity field across the cross-section of the pipe solves the following optimization problem.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final}
\underset{u_h\in V_h^0} {\min} J_h(u_h):= \phi(\nabla u_h) + \int_{\Omega_h}\psi_\gamma(\nabla u_h)\,dx - \int_{\Omega_h} f u_h\,dx,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\phi(\nabla u_h) = \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{p} \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{p}\,dx, & \text{for Herschel-Bulkley model} \\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\displaystyle \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{2}\,dx, & \text{for Bingham model} \\
\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\displaystyle \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{2}\,dx + \frac{4}{3} \sqrt{g} \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{\frac{3}{2}}\,dx, & \text{for Casson model.} \\
\end{array}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
This variational formulation is motivated by the necessity of representing the free surface that separates the regions in which the material has yielded from those in which it behaves like a rigid solid. Regarding more general problems, like the flow in 2D and 3D geometries, the variational formulation also leads to optimization problems formulated in divergence-free spaces. This fact suggests that the present methodology can be generalized to these more challenging problems. We refer the reader to \cite{Duvant-lions,Gonzalez1,Huilgol} for a more detailed explanation of the variational approach to the flow problems.
In order to validate our results, we introduce the theoretical velocity distribution, in cylindrical coordinates, for a circular pipe flow. Here $r=r_0=2g$ (See \cite{Huilgol}).
\begin{itemize}
\item Herschel-Bulkley
\end{itemize}
\begin{equation}\label{analityc_sol_HB}
u(r) = \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{(1-r_0)^{1+\beta}}{2^{\beta}(1-\beta)} & 0\leq r \leq r_0 \\\\
\displaystyle\frac{\left( (1-r_0)^{1+\beta}-(r-r_0)^{1+\beta}\right)}{2^{\beta}(1+\beta)}, & r_0\leq r \leq 1\\
\end{array}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with $\beta=\frac{1}{p-1}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Bingham
\end{itemize}
\begin{equation}\label{analityc_sol_BH}
u(r) = \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}(1-r_0)^{2} & 0\leq r \leq r_0 \\\\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\left( (1-r_0)^{2}-(r-r_0)^{2}\right), & r_0\leq r \leq 1\\
\end{array}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{itemize}
\item Casson
\end{itemize}
\begin{equation}\label{analityc_sol_CSS}
u(r) = \begin{cases} \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{12}(3-8r_0^{1/2}+6r_0-r_0^{2}) & 0\leq r \leq r_0 \\
\\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}(1-r^2)-\frac{2}{3}r_0^{1/2}(1-r^{3/2})+\frac{1}{2}r_0(1-r), & r_0\leq r \leq 1\\
\end{array}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Hereafter, we discuss the performance of the MG/OPT algorithm when applied to the numerical solution of \eqref{eq:final}. All the numerical experiments in this paper are implemented in MATLAB (R2015a) and run on an Intel Core i5 processor with 2.5 GHz. The MG/OPT algorithm was implemented in a V-cycle scheme with $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ as the pre and post optimization iterations. In all experiments the right hand side was set $f=1$. We initialize the algorithms with the solution of the Poisson problem $-\Delta u_h=f$. We performed the numerical experiments in the unit circle domain. Also, we compare the performance of the MG/OPT algorithm with the performance of the preconditioned descent algorithm when solving the same problem in the finest grid.
Regarding the stopping criteria, we stop the algorithms \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg} and \ref{alg:PCDA} as soon as the expression $\|\nabla J_{k}(u_k)\|$ is reduced by a factor of $10^{-7}$.
\subsection{Herschel-Bulkley}
The Herschel-Bulkley model can be seen as a power-law model with plasticity \cite{Gonzalez1, Huilgol}. The introduction of the parameter $p$, known as the flow index, allows the model to represent the behaviour of several viscoplastic fluids. In fact, if $1<p<2$, the material exhibits a pseudoplastic or shear-thinning behaviour. On the other hand, if $ p>2$ the fluid behaves as a shear-thickening material (see Figure \ref{fig:vp_models}). This versatility makes the Herschel-Bulkley model to be widely used to simulate several materials including liquid foams, whipped cream, fluid foods, silly putty and some polymers \cite{Chhabra}.
\subsubsection*{Experiment 1 (case $1 < p < 2$)}
In this experiment we compute the solution for problem \eqref{eq:final} with $p=1.75$ and different values of $g$, ranging from $g=0$ to $g=0.4$. We fix the preconditioned descent algorithm (see \cite{Gonzalez1}) as the underlying optimization algorithm $S_{opt}$, with set $\epsilon=10^{-6}$. MG/OPT V-cycles are carried out in 5 grids, with $8321$ nodes in the finest grid and $41$ nodes in the coarsest one.
In Table \ref{table:exp1_hb}, we compare the MG/OPT algorithm and the preconditioned descent algorithm. Following \cite{Nash}, we stop the MG/OPT Algorithm \ref{alg:MGOPT_alg} at a given number of iterations and compare the numerical performance with the preconditioned descent algorithm. In particular, we compare the error $Err_s$, which is defined as the difference between the current solution and a highly accurate solution, measured in the discrete $L_2$-norm. The accurate solution is obtained by running the globally convergent preconditioned descent algorithm on the finest mesh. We report $Err_s$ in the third and seventh columns for MG/OPT and the preconditioned algorithm, respectively.
Also, since we know the analytical solution for the velocity distribution along the radio in the circular pipe \eqref{analityc_sol_HB}, in the fifth and eight columns of Table \ref{table:exp1_hb} we present the error for the constant plug flow velocity , i.e., $ Err_{pf}=|u_{\text{a}} - u_{\text{num}}|$, where $u_{\text{a}}$ is the analytical plug flow velocity calculated with \eqref{analityc_sol_HB} and $u_{\text{num}}$ stands for the plug flow velocity calculated numerically with both algorithms. With $g=0$, MG/OPT performs less iterations than the preconditioned descent algorithm. However, since at each iteration or V-cycle of MG/OPT the algorithm performs $\nu_1+\nu_2=4$ optimization steps at the finest grid, the total number of optimization steps in the finest grid is not reduced substancially in comparison with the preconditioned descent algorithm. In the subsequent cases with a larger $g$, MG/OPT iterations are about one seventh of the preconditioned descent algorithm iterations. Also, in comparison with the underlying optimization algorithm, MG/OPT reduces by almost half the number of optimization steps in the finest grid at every stage of the computation, with $g=0.2$. This behaviour is replicated in the advanced stages of MG/OPT with $g=0.4$.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c l l l l |l l l l l}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{MG/OPT ( $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$)}
& \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Preconditioned descent algorithm} \\ \hline
g& It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel.& $Err_{pf}$ & It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel. & $Err_{pf}$ \\ \hline
&1 &9.69e-09&0.169& 1.42e-04 &5&3.36e-09& 0.1700&2.61e-05\\
0 & 2&2.44e-14& 0.1700& 3.57e-05&9&4.97e-14& 0.1700&3.57e-05\\
& 3&1.08e-18& 0.1700& 3.59e-05&12&1.0e-18& 0.1700&3.59e-05\\ \hline
&1&4.29e-05& 5.91e-02& 7.5e-03&6&3.09e-05& 5.94e-02&7.7e-03\\
& 3& 3.94e-06& 5.36e-02& 1.9e-03&31&3.99e-06& 5.35e-02&1.9e-03\\
0.2 & 5&2.82e-06& 5.33e-02& 1.7e-03&40&2.78e-06& 5.33e-02&1.6e-03\\
& 7&1.72e-06& 5.30e-02& 1.3e-03&51&1.78e-06& 5.29e-02&1.3e-03\\
& 9& 1.00e-06& 5.27e-02& 1.1e-03&61&1.06e-06& 5.27e-02&1.0e-03\\ \hline
&1& 1.6e-04& 1.76e-02& 1.3e-02&5&1.13e-04& 1.5e-02&1.1e-02\\
& 3& 1.08e-05& 6.8e-03& 2.0e-03&16&1.02e-05& 6.7e-03&2.7e-03\\
0.4 & 5&3.80e-06& 5.7e-03& 1.7e-03&35&3.73e-06& 5.7e-03&1.7e-03\\
& 7&1.86e-06& 5.3e-03& 1.3e-03&49&1.81e-06& 5.0e-03&1.2e-03\\
& 9& 1.00e-06& 5.0e-03& 1.0e-03&58&1.09e-06& 5.0e-03&1.0e-03\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of the resolution of problem \eqref{eq:final} with $p=1.75$, $g=0.2$ ,$ \gamma=10^3 $ and $f=1$.} \label{table:exp1_hb}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The resulting velocity fields $u_h$ are displayed in Figure \ref{fig-ex1_vel}. The regions with constant velocities in the center of the pipe corresponds to the plug flow velocity, where the material behaves like a rigid body. These regions, of course, do not appear with $g=0$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[htb]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sol_hb_175_0}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[htb]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sol_hb_175_2}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[htb]{\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sol_hb_175_4}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Calculated velocity $u_h$ for the Herschel-Bulkley model with $p=1.75$. Parameters: $g=0$ (top left), $g=0.2$ (top right) and $g=0.4$ (bottom), $\gamma=10^3$.}\label{fig-ex1_vel}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bingham}
Bingham fluids are viscoplastic materials that can be seen as a particular case of the Herschel-Bulkley model when $p=2$. The main characteristic of Bingham fluids is that when the shear stress exceeds the yield stress, the material exhibits a close to linear stress-strain relation (see Figure \ref{fig:vp_models}).
\subsubsection*{Experiment 2}
The following experiment was carried out in a disk domain with the same characteristics as the previous experiments. We consider the following parameters: $g=0.4$ and $ \gamma=10^3$. In this experiment, we execute a comparison in the same terms as in the previous experiment. In Table \ref{table:bingham_ex11}, MG/OPT with $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$ does not reduce the optimization steps in the finest grid (each iteration of MG/OPT performs $4$ optimization steps in the finest grid) and $Err_{s}$ hardly decreases. Due to this unexpected behaviour, the number of optimization steps in the post-optimization procedure was increased and decreased in the pre-optimization procedure by setting $\nu_1=1$ and $\nu_2=3$. This new computation is tabulated In Table \ref{table:bingham_ex12}. In this case, the optimization steps in the finest grid are reduced substantially. The numerical experience in this experiment tells us that the restriction procedure introduce errors to the solution at each level. Then, these errors are reduced more efficiently by increasing the number of optimization steps in the post optimization phase.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c l l l l |l l l l l}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{MG/OPT ( $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$)}
& \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Preconditioned descent algorithm} \\ \hline
g& It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel.&$Err_{pf}$ & It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel. &$Err_{pf}$ \\ \hline
&1& 1.0e-03& 4.6e-02& 3.63e-02&4&1.1e-03& 5.36e-02&4.36e-02\\
& 3& 7.38e-05& 1.92e-02& 9.2e-03&12&6.74e-05& 2.01e-02&1.01e-02\\
0.4 & 5& 4.47e-05& 1.70e-02& 7.0e-03&15&4.08e-05& 1.74e-02&7.4e-03\\
& 7& 2.96e-05& 1.61e-02& 6.1e-03&25&2.93e-05& 1.62e-02&6.2e-03\\
& 9& 2.59e-05& 1.58e-02& 5.8e-03&33&2.51e-05& 1.57e-02&5.7e-03\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of the resolution of problem \eqref{eq:final} with $p=2$, $ \gamma=10^3 $ and $f=1$.}\label{table:bingham_ex11}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l l l l |l l l l l}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{MG/OPT ( $\nu_1=1,\nu_2=3$)}
& \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Preconditioned descent algorithm} \\ \hline
g& It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel.& $Err_{pf}$ & It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel. &$Err_{pf}$ \\ \hline
&1& 4.95e-05& 2.3e-02& 1.30e-02&13& 4.80e-05& 1.81e-02& 8.1e-03\\
& 3& 2.31e-06& 1.32e-02& 3.2e-03&215&2.32e-06& 1.30e-02&3.0e-03\\
0.4 & 5& 1.29e-06& 1.27e-02& 2.7e-03&244&1.28e-06& 1.27e-02&2.7e-03\\
& 7& 8.51e-07& 1.26e-02& 2.6e-03&260&8.59e-07& 1.25e-02&2.5e-03\\
& 9& 5.75e-07& 1.24e-02& 2.4e-03&273&5.83e-07& 1.24e-02&2.4e-03\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\caption{Results of the solution of problem \eqref{eq:final} with $p=2$, $ \gamma=10^3 $ and $f=1$.} \label{table:bingham_ex12}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The resulting velocity field is displayed in Figure \ref{fig-ex2_bg_vel}. Since the yield stress $g=0.4$ is high, the plug flow covers a large part of the cross section of the pipe.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[htb]{\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{sol_bingham_04}
\caption{\footnotesize{Calculated velocity $u_h$ for Bingham model. Parameters: $ g=0.4$ and $\gamma= 10^3$}}
\label{fig-ex2_bg_vel}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Herschel-Bulkley: case $ p > 2$}
We now analyze the behaviour of the MG/OPT algorithm in the case $p > 2$, which usually gives rise to instabilities in the performance of the numerical algorithms (see \cite{BarretLiu,Bermejo,Glowinski,Huang}).
\subsubsection*{Experiment 3}
In the following experiment we present the performance of the MG/OPT algorithm for Herschel-Bulkley with $p=5$ and $g=0.1$. When $p$ increases, the optimization problem \eqref{eq:final} is difficult to solve \cite{Huang}. Additionally, since we restrict the approximate solution to coarser grids, at the coarsest mesh the restriction procedure fails in approximating efficiently the plug flow. Hence, in this case we only consider MG/OPT in a V-cycle with 3 grids instead of 5 grids (in order to avoid several restriction procedures). Therefore, we work with $2113$ nodes in the finest grid and $145$ nodes in the coarsest one. The preconditioned descent algorithm \cite{Gonzalez1} is fixed as the underlying optimization algorithm $S_{opt}$. With the previous setting, in Table \ref{table:exp_hb_2} the MG/OPT algorithm (with $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$) does not reduce the optimization steps in the finest grid in the first two cycles. However, in the third cycle MG/OPT performs one quarter of the optimization steps of the preconditioned descent algorithm in the finest grid.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c l l l l |l l l l l}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c|}{MG/OPT ( $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$)}
& \multicolumn{4}{|c}{Preconditioned descent algorithm} \\ \hline
g& It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel.& $Err_{pf}$ & It. & $Err_{s}$ & Plug Flow vel. &$Err_{pf}$ \\ \hline
&1& 6.67e-05& 4.92e-01& 1.63e-02&4& 6.91e-05& 4.91e-01& 1.69e-02\\
0.1 & 2& 6.38e-07& 5.03e-01& 5.6e-03& 9&2.78e-07& 5.01e-01&7.1e-03\\
& 3& 9.31e-09& 5.02e-01& 6.7e-03&51&8.98e-09& 5.01e-01&7.6e-03\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of the resolution of problem \eqref{eq:final} with $p=5$, $ \gamma=10^3 $ and $f=1$.} \label{table:exp_hb_2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The resulting velocity field is displayed in Figure \ref{fig-hb_2}. Now we are in the case of a shear-thickening material. Since the shear stress transmitted by a fluid layer decreases toward the center of the pipe, the velocity takes a conical form.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[htb]{\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{sol_hb_5_01_grid5}
\caption{\footnotesize{Calculated velocity $u_h$ for Herschel-Bulkley model for $p=5$. Parameters: $ g=0.1$ and $\gamma= 10^3$}}
\label{fig-hb_2}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Casson}
The Casson model is a viscoplastic model that was first developed for modeling printing inks. It has also been used to model food flow behaviour such as chocolate and cocoa products \cite{Rao}, and has been applied to biorheology models like hemodynamics and viscometric flows \cite{Walawender}. The Casson model turns out to be special since it involves the sum of the terms $\frac{1}{2}\displaystyle \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{2}\,dx + \frac{4}{3} \sqrt{g} \int_{\Omega_h}|\nabla u_h|^{\frac{3}{2}}\,dx$. The first term corresponds to the Bingham structure and the second one to the Herschel-Bulkley structure with $p=\frac{4}{3}<2$. Thus, we decide to use the preconditioned descent algorithm with $\epsilon=10^{-6}$.
\subsubsection*{Experiment 4}
In the following experiment we present the performance of the MG/OPT algorithm for the Casson problem with parameter $g=0.2$. In this experiment we show the behaviour of MG/OPT with a full multigrid (FMG) scheme \cite{Brandt}. Here, our aim is to show the time reduction when solving the Casson problem with MG/OPT and without it. We compare this scheme with a different number of grids. In Table \ref{table:exp4_casson}, the first row corresponds to the solution computed by the preconditioned descent algorithm in a circle domain in a fine grid with $8321$ nodes. We take as reference the number of iterations and the execution time of this algorithm i.e., the CPU time until the error $Err_{s}$ reaches a tolerance of $1e-07$. The subsequent rows correspond to the solution computed by the MG/OPT $(\nu_1=\nu_2=2)$ algorithm. For each row we present the number of grids used and the number of nodes in the coarsest grid. At each row, a new grid is added to the scheme.
Since we know the analytical solution \eqref{analityc_sol_CSS} in the circular pipe, we present the error $Err_{pf}$ for the plug flow velocity in the fifth column. FMG performs $1$ V-cycle with $\nu_1=\nu_2=2$ optimization steps in the finest grid, totally we have 4 finest grid optimization steps whereas the preconditioned descent algorithm performed 10 iterations in order to achieve the same error. Let us notice that, as more grids are added to the scheme, we achieve higher CPU time savings in all cases. With 5 grids the time reduction achieved was around 40\%.
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c @{\extracolsep{0.3 cm}} c c c }
\hline
No.Grids& No. Nodes& It & Plug flow & $Err_{pf}$ & Rel CPU Time \\ \hline
1& 8321 &10 &1.55e-02& 5.03e-04&1 \\
2& 2113 &2 &1.51e-02 & 4.00e-05 & 0.93 \\
3& 545 &3 &1.51e-02 & 2.95e-05 &0.75\\
4& 145 &4 &1.51e-02 & 4.84e-05 &0.70\\
5& 41 &5&1.50e-02& 5.99e-06 &0.69\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of the resolution of problem \eqref{eq:final} with $ \gamma=10^3 $ and $f=1$.} \label{table:exp4_casson}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}[htb]{\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sol_casson_02}
\caption{\footnotesize{Calculated velocity $u_h$ for Casson model. Parameters: $ g=0.2, \gamma= 10^3$}}
\label{fig-bing}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textrm{\small{The MATLAB codes are available in \tt www.modemat.epn.edu.ec/$\sim$sgonzalez/Publications.html.}}
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}\label{sec:conclusions}
We proposed and analyzed a multigrid for optimization (MG/OPT) algorithm for the numerical solution of a class of quasilinear variational inequalities of the second kind. We analyzed the variational inequality via the minimization of the associated energy functional. First, we regularized the non-differentiable part of the energy by using a Huber regularization approach. Next, we proposed a finite element discretization for the problem, and we analyzed the differentiability of the discretized functional. In particular, we proved that the Jacobian of the discretized functional is slantly differentiable. The MG/OPT algorithm was presented and all of the involved transfer operators analyzed. The convergence of the MG/OPT algorithm was established by using the mean value theorem for slantly differentiable functions and the global convergence of the underlying optimization algorithm. The main issues regarding the implementation of the algorithm were explained, and we described the type of global convergent deepest descent methods used as underlying optimization algorithms. We showed that several classical models for viscoplastic flow correspond to the class of variational inequalities under study. Therefore, we focussed the numerical experiments on this kind of problems. Particularly, we computed the solution for the Herschel-Bulkley, Bingham and Casson models. In all the experiments presented, we observed CPU-time savings, especially when working on the finest meshes. This showed that the MG/OPT algorithm is indeed an efficient tool for dealing with large scale problems.
In order to continue this research, we consider that the study of a more general class of variational inequalities is an interesting perspective. Since the functional $J_{\gamma,h}$ has a second slant derivative, the development of generalized Newton-type methods as smoothers for the FAS scheme looks like a promising field of research. Finally, the analysis of more challenging problems, such as the $p$-Stokes problem, problems coming from glaceology, geophysics and hemodynamics is of great interest.
\section*{Acknowledgements} We thank Prof. Juan Carlos De los Reyes (MODEMAT-EPN) for his keen observations in the theory of semismooth functions. We also thank the anonymous referees for many helpful comments which lead to a significant improvement of the article.
|
\section{Introduction}
The last few decades have witnessed the rapid development and adoption of information technology in a variety of industries. Software, one crucial constitute of information technology, drives the innovation of society and significantly improves our daily life. Methodology of modern software engineering encourages software developers to be social and open-source minded. GitHub, an outstanding open-source and social collaborative coding platform, was launched on April 10th, 2008. It provides abundant social functionalities such as watching and forking for developers to interact with projects efficiently. Watching is a notification mechanism to inform a developer of any new pull requests and issues of a project he/she has watched. Forking makes it possible for developers to copy projects of others as their own and keep working on a new branch. More information about the social functionalities on GitHub can be found from GitHub Help \footnote{https://help.github.com/articles/watching-repositories/}.
From the perspective of networks, the relations established by these social functionalities between developers and projects can be naturally modeled by separate bipartite networks. In fact, many systems have been modeled as bipartite networks, such as the metabolic network \cite{metabolicnetworks}, the human sexual network \cite{humansexual} and the collaboration network \cite{collaborationnetworks} and various measurements have been proposed \cite{bipartiteclusteringcoefficient,collaborativesimilarity}. In addition, great efforts have been made to characterize \cite{PhysRevE.72.046105,bipartite-correlation}, project \cite{PhysRevE.76.046115,Chinese-railway-network,one-mode-projection-multiplex-bipartite} and model \cite{PhysRevE.70.036106,Zhang20136100,PhysRevE.72.036120} bipartite networks. From a systematic view, different relations with projects reflect different aspects of developers' behaviors and treat them as a whole may provide us a panorama. In this situation, multilayer network, also addressed as multiplex network, is a suitable tool, which has recently attracted increasing attentions \cite{weighted-multiplex-networks,triadic-relations-multiplex-networks,multiplex-pageRank,modeling-correlations-multiplex-networks,k-core-multiplex-networks,information-transport-multiplex-networks}.
In this paper, we model the watching and forking relations between developers and projects on GitHub as a multilayer bipartite network and apply the collaborative similarity to investigate the diversity of interests. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we describe the dataset preparation and the basic statistical characteristics. Then we report the empirical analysis results, including the degree distributions, the nearest neighbors' degree distributions and the collaborative similarity distributions in Section 3. We summarize our work in Section 4 and give out a brief discussion.
\section{Datasets preprocessing and description}
The dataset used in this article is provided by GHTorrent Project \cite{Gousi13}, which is, as described on GHTorrent Project website \footnote{\href{http://ghtorrent.org/}{http://ghtorrent.org/}}, a scalable, queriable and offline mirror of data offered through the GitHub REST API. It monitors the GitHub public event time line, collects the contents and dependencies of each event and store the raw data in MongoDB database. The datasets provided by GHTorrent Project come in both MySQL dump format and MongoDB dump format. Meanwhile it also provides services for accessing the dataset programmatically or through a web interface \footnote{\href{http://ghtorrent.org/services.html}{http://ghtorrent.org/services.html}}. We download the dataset in MySQL dump format dated by January 4th, 2015 \footnote{\href{https://ghtstorage.blob.core.windows.net/downloads/mysql-2015-01-04.sql.gz}{https://ghtstorage.blob.core.windows.net/downloads/mysql-2015-01-04.sql.gz}} and restore it to our MySQL database. The detailed information about the dataset in MySQL dump format is described online \footnote{\href{http://ghtorrent.org/relational.html}{http://ghtorrent.org/relational.html}} and in Ref \cite{Gousi13}.
We select the watching and forking data and extract the records that related to PHP projects. Figure \ref{fig:network-sample} is a sample illustration of the multilayer bipartite network discussed in this paper. Table \ref{tbl:dataset-statistics} summarizes the basic statistical properties of the datasets.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{network-sample}
\caption{Sample illustration of the multilayer bipartite network discussed in this paper. The blue circles and orange rectangles represent developers and projects, respectively. There are two layers: watching layer (the light blue layer) and forking layer (light red layer). Either layer is a bipartite network representing one relation between developers and projects. For example, developer $i$ watches (forks) project $\alpha$, then there is a link (the gray line) between them in the watching (forking) layer. The dashed line is not a real link and just connects the same node in different layers.}
\label{fig:network-sample}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The statistics of the datasets. $N_{d}$ and $N_{p}$ represent the number of developers and projects, respectively. $E$ denotes the number of edges. $\langle k_{d} \rangle$ and $\langle k_{p} \rangle$ denote the average degree of developers and projects, respectively.}
\label{tbl:dataset-statistics}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline\hline
\textbf{Layer} & \textbf{$N_{d}$} & \textbf{$N_{p}$} & \textbf{$E$} & \textbf{$\langle k_{d} \rangle$} & \textbf{$\langle k_{p} \rangle$} \\
\hline
\textbf{watching} & 356619 & 180581 & 1094645 & 3.07 & 6.06 \\
\textbf{forking} & 356619 & 180581 & 461124 & 1.29 & 2.55 \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Empirical results}
\subsection{Degree distributions}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{bipartite-degree-distribution}
\caption{The degree distributions of developers and projects in bipartite networks from watching layer and forking layer. The horizontal coordinate $k$ denotes the degree, and the longitudinal coordinate $p(k)$ denotes the probability density function of degree. Part of each distribution is fitted to power-law using powerlaw Python package from Ref. \cite{alstott2014powerlaw}. The data is treated as discrete. On log-log axes, using logarithmically spaced bins is necessary to accurately represent data (red line). Linearly spaced bins (black circle) obscure the tail of the distribution. We fix both values of $k_{min}$ and $k_{max}$. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances between the fitted portions of data and the fits are all less than 0.05.}
\label{fig:bipartite-degree-distribution}
\end{figure}
For the multilayer bipartite network, the degree of developer $i$ in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $k_{i}^{m}$, is defined as the number of projects developer $i$ connects to in layer $m$. Similarly, the degree of project $\alpha$ in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $k_{\alpha}^{m}$, is defined as the number of developers which have links to project $\alpha$. For example, as shown in the sample illustration of the multilayer bipartite network in Figure \ref{fig:network-sample}, $k_{i}^{watching}=3$ and $k_{\alpha}^{forking}=3$.
The degree distributions of developers and projects from watching layer and forking layer are reported in Figure \ref{fig:bipartite-degree-distribution} and each distribution has a heavy tail which fits the power-law form $p(k) \sim k^{-\phi}$ well. Especially, the degree distribution of projects in $watching$ layer follows a double power law.
\subsection{Nearest neighbors' degree distributions}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{nearest-neighbors-degree-distribution}
\caption{The nearest neighbors' degree distributions. The horizontal and longitudinal coordinates $k$ and $nnd(k)$ represent degree and nearest neighbors' degree, respectively. The blue dots represent degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree distributions. The degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree fluctuates in the high-degree range due to the sparsity of data. In order to make the overall trends more clear, we apply log-binning method on the degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree distributions. Degrees are log-binned into 40 groups and the average degree and nearest neighbors' degree of all blue dots falling in the same bin are calculated and marked as red triangles in the figures.}
\label{fig:nearest-neighbors-degree-distribution}
\end{figure}
The nearest neighbors' degree of developer $i$ in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $k_{nn,i}^{m}$ is defined as the average degree over all projects developer $i$ connects to. The nearest neighbors' degree of project $\alpha$ in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $k_{nn,\alpha}^{m}$ is defined as the average degree over all developers which have links to project $\alpha$. For example, as shown in the sample illustration of the multilayer bipartite network in Figure \ref{fig:network-sample}, $k_{nn,i}^{watching} = \frac{2+3+3}{3} = \frac{8}{3}$ and $k_{nn,\alpha}^{forking} = \frac{2+1+1}{3} = \frac{4}{3}$. The degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree of developers in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $nnd_{d}^{m}(k)$, is defined as the average nearest neighbors' degree of all developers of degree $k$ in layer $m$. The degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree of projects in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$), denoted by $nnd_{p}^{m}(k)$, is defined as the average nearest neighbors' degree of all projects of degree $k$ in layer $m$. For example, as shown in the sample illustration of the multilayer bipartite network in Figure \ref{fig:network-sample}, $nnd_{p}^{watching}(2) = \frac{9}{4}$ and $nnd_{d}^{forking}(1) = \frac{7}{3}$.
As can be seen from Figure \ref{fig:nearest-neighbors-degree-distribution}, the degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree is negatively correlated with the degree, exhibiting a disassortative mixing pattern. This indicates that fresh developers tend to watch or fork popular projects and unpopular projects are often watched or forked by active developers, which agrees with the case of $Audioscrobbler$ and $Del.icio.us$ discussed by Shang $et al.$ \cite{collaborativesimilarity}. We improve the visualizing methods $et al.$ \cite{collaborativesimilarity} by log-binning the degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree distributions and see more clear overall trends ranging from small-degree to high-degree than that used in \cite{collaborativesimilarity}. The degree-dependent nearest neighbors' degree distributions of projects in both layers fluctuates heavily than those of developers, indicating that the correlations of developers are stronger than those of projects, which may be explained by the difference of selection mechanisms between developers and projects\cite{collaborativesimilarity}.
\subsection{Collaborative similarity distributions}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{collaborative-similarity-distribution}
\caption{The collaborative similarity distributions. The horizontal and longitudinal coordinates $k$ and $cs(k)$ represent degree and collaborative similarity, respectively. The blue dots represent degree-dependent collaborative similarity distributions. The degree-dependent collaborative similarity fluctuates in the high-degree range due to the sparsity of data. In order to make the overall trends more clear, we apply log-binning method on the degree-dependent collaborative similarity distributions. Degrees are log-binned into 40 groups and the average degree and collaborative similarity of all blue dots falling in the same bin are calculated and marked as red triangles in the figures. The dashed black lines in each figure show the overall average collaborative similarity.}
\label{fig:collaborative-similarity-distribution}
\end{figure}
Shang $et al.$ \cite{collaborativesimilarity} proposed a index called collaborative similarity to characterize the clustering selections from the perspective of collaborative interests instead of traditional clustering coefficient for general bipartite networks which measures the quotient between the number of squares observed and the total number of possible squares \cite{bipartiteclusteringcoefficient}. The collaborative similarity of developer $i$ in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$) is defined as the average $Jaccard similarity$ between the projects which developer $i$ has selected in layer $m$ ($m \in \{watching, forking\}$) \cite{collaborativesimilarity}. The degree-dependent collaborative similarity of developers is defined as the average collaborative similarity over all developers of the same degree. Corresponding definitions for projects are similar and thus omitted here.
The collaborative similarity distributions are shown in Figure \ref{fig:collaborative-similarity-distribution}. We improve the visualizing methods used in Ref.$et al.$ \cite{collaborativesimilarity} by log-binning the degree-dependent collaborative similarity distributions to see more clear overall trends ranging from small-degree to high-degree. The collaborative similarity of developers in watching layer is negatively correlated with degree while, in contrast, a positive correlation is observed in the forking layer. This result agrees with the different usage of watching and forking. When a developer watches a project, he intends to just keep informed of some new trends and watching is used to broaden his interests. But when a developer forks a project, he intends to keep working on it and forking is used to keep more focused on a certain field. Thus, the collaborative similarity decreases while developers watch more projects and increases when developers forks more projects. The collaborative similarity of projects in watching layer is negatively correlated with degree while in forking layer no obvious correlations can be observed and the collaborative similarity fluctuates near the overall average collaborative similarity. The result can also be explained by the different usage of watching and forking functionalities. When a project becomes popular, it begins to attract developers from various fields to watch while developers who fork it always intend to keep working on it and are often from the same field.
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
We have empirically analyzed the multiple relations between developers and project on GitHub from the perspective of multilayer bipartite network. The degree distributions, the nearest neighbors' degree distributions and the collaborative similarity distributions are reported. Our results show that all degree distributions have a power-law form, especially, the degree distribution of projects in watching layer has double power-law form. We find a disassortative mixing pattern of developers and projects, that is, the nearest neighbors' degree and degree are negatively correlated. To study the diversity of interests, we apply the collaborative similarity index \cite{collaborativesimilarity} on our empirical analysis. The result shows that the collaborative similarity of both developers and projects negatively correlates with degree in watching layer, while a positive correlations is observed for developers in forking layer and no obvious correlation is observed for projects in forking layer. The reason behind this result is the different usage of these social functionalities provided by GitHub.
Although a large number of researches have contributed to the understanding of bipartite networks and an increasing amount of researches are going to multiplex networks, combining multiple relations in bipartite networks from a systematic view and modeling them as multilayer bipartite networks seldom show up. Our study opens up a new perspective to study the multiple relations in bipartite networks.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11275186, 91024026, and FOM2014OF001). We thank Ming Li for useful suggestions on the analysis methods.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recommender System is a well-recognized and efficient way to provide end users with personalized services and products, overcome information overload and boost sales. Although various recommendation techniques such as collaborative filtering, content-based filtering and context-aware recommendation system, have achieved tremendous success in real-world applications in the past decades, most existing approaches still remain insufficient for the following situations: (1) CF-based recommender systems work on historical data to learn user preferences, they are unable to deliver a satisfying recommendations while user preferences change over time or only can grab partial information to make inaccurate inference. (2) hybrid models such as integrating content-based features can deal with cold-start and sparse user-item data to some extent, but they still have limitations in handling the situation wherein user's desires don't match inferred preferences.
\begin{comment}
However, there is not much work paying attention on user's intention. CF-based recommender systems works on historical data to learn users' preferences, which makes insufficient to handle some situ
Traditional recommendation system aims to provide users with the most relevant products, rather than products what users need most.
Therefore, it is sensible to identify users intentions before giving recommendations.
\end{comment}
In this paper, we introduce a novel concept to tackle aforementioned challenges, and denote it \textit{dynamic intention-aware recommendation system}. To the best of our knowledge, such type of recommender system has not been explored much in literature. For example, in the book recommendation case, the system will produce a list of books for users according to their purchasing history or browsing activity. But, in reality, the user may be looking for some new released books in the field that she will major in. Without understanding the user needs correctly, the recommendation system is not capable of recommending properly.
To recognize user intention, we may need information from other fields/domains. In the aforementioned scenario, we may find that the user will major in computer science in a university from her social media posts. Thus, it is beneficial to leverage these available social network data to assist in recognising user intentions. In addition, we may predict that the user will possibly intend to watch the movie \textit{Doctor Strange} after observing that the user gave a high rating for the comic book \textit{Doctor Strange}, or shared relevant online information etc. In such case, the proposed intention-aware recommender system is able to leverage the multi-domain information and relationship to proactively recommend her the movie \textit{Doctor Strange} while her GPS records show that she is hanging around a cinema.
\begin{comment}
Therefore, the proposed intention-aware recommendation system will over cross-domain
\end{comment}
Although existing recommender systems have considered user ratings, user comments on items, social influence, user cross-domain preference and personality \cite{li2009transfer, ekstrand2016behaviorism, loni2014cross, elkahky2015multi}, they either needs user participation, e.g., initiating a request, or is incapable of recommending in a timely fashion. This reactive fashion sometime causes frustration or interruptions~\cite{sabic2016proactive} and is unable to capture user real needs. By anticipating user intentions and demands beforehand, we can reduce user involvements appropriately and minimize the user efforts. Our proposed framework enables the recommender system to proactively direct users to the products and services she desired. For instance, recommendation system is supposed to push a notification actively about nearby restaurants user may like at mealtimes, rather than wait for user to send an explicit or implicit request, e.g, browsing certain products. It is noted that the proposed intention-aware recommender system will not bug user as it only make proactive move by telling user true desires.
Unlike content-aware recommendation, which incorporates the contextual information to provide items to users under certain circumstances~\cite{adomavicius2015context}. Our proposed dynamic intention-aware recommendation system can be considered as a step further, it takes the contextual information into account, furthermore, it will unearth user intentions from historical interactions and footprints from social media and physical world (e.g., Internet of Things) before producing recommendations. It
aims to provide recommendations in a comprehensive manner by fully utilizing abundant auxiliary information from multiple domains.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The research questions are given in Section 2. A brief review of related work is shown in Section 3. Then, the proposed methodology and system structure of the dynamic intention-aware recommendation system are presented in Section 4. Section 5 illustrates the proposed experiments. Conclusion is provided in Section 6.
\section{research questions}
The general research question to be addressed in our proposed work is \textit{How to design and develop a dynamic intention-aware recommendation model across multiple domains}. To solve this question, we decompose it into several sub-questions. Details are as follows:
\subsubsection{How to identify user intentions.} Intention prediction plays a role in enhancing recommendation performance. However, it is nontrivial task to accurately understand user intentions. One of the main challenges would be that user's real intention usually is tangled with a set of complex user behaviors and interactions in reality. Multi-dimensional and multi-scale online and offline data would be greatly helpful to understand the complexity to discern the underlying intention. Recommender systems equipped with intention prediction could be able to satisfy users needs more considerately and accurately.
\begin{comment}
User intentions help to capture what users intend to perform. For instance, it could indicate whether a user wants to read a book or enjoy a movie, and anticipate what users want to buy before she performs the searching task. The identified intentions enable
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{How to implement the cross-domain recommendation system with user intentions integrated.} To the best of our knowledge, very few works aim to solve this problem. Additionally, in the intention-aware recommendation system, recommending task is processed among multiple domains. Even though the cross-domain recommendation system has been actively studied, it is still an underexplored topic and remains a challenge ~\cite{Ricci:2010:RSH:1941884}. Thus, we need to devise a comprehensive approach to effectively leverage user intentions with cross-domain recommendations.
\subsubsection{How to embed the heterogeneous source information.} Abundant auxiliary information is usually available in cross-domain recommendation system. These rich information can be leveraged to boost the performance. The heterogeneous information, such as, structural content, textual content and visual content, cannot be dealt with uniformly. Different methods should be applied to embed these diverse information into the recommender model.
\subsubsection{How to deal with dynamic influence.} Dynamic influence includes sequential influence and temporal influence. Generally, user intentions exhibit sequential patterns and variations from time to time. For instance, the check-in information tends to have a sequential property along with periodical pattern, we can anticipate a user's next destination from her historical traces. The temporal dynamics, which have been explored frequently~\cite{koren2010collaborative,lathia2010temporal}, also pose great influence on user intentions. User intentions and preference may be drifting with weekly changes, monthly changes, and seasonal changes. Modeling such changes along temporal dimension also is a challenging task due to the complexity in capturing temporal patterns. In our work, we propose a dynamic framework to enable an intention-aware recommender system over time.
\section{Related Work}
In this section, we describe several research fields that are similar with or related to our researches.
\begin{figure*}
\label{comptraintime}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{intention_rs}
\caption{System Architecture of Dynamic Intention-aware Recommendation System}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Intention Mining}
Intention mining~\cite{khodabandelou2013supervised,khodabandelou2013process} is a technique aimed to uncover user intentions from their historical interactions or behaviours. It has been widely studied in many research fields, such as, web search, social media, multimedia and robotics.
There are different approaches for mining user intentions. Mei et al.~\cite{mei2007modeling} presented a method for classifying the \textit{capture intention} of home videos into seven psychological categories. Sun et al.~\cite{sun2015mining} presented a method for anticipating user location intention from their mobile search queries. Ding et al.~\cite{ding2015mining} proposed a domain adaptive convolutional neural network to identify user implicit consumption intention from social media. Castellanos
et al.~\cite{castellanos2012intention} devised an intention analysis tool named \textit{intention insider} to extract user intentions in the online forums. \cite{khodabandelou2013supervised,aarno2008motion} utilized the hidden markov model (HMM) for recognizing the intentions underlying user activities. He et al.~\cite{he2016intention} proposed an Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) based methods to capture user queries intention for video browsing task. Yao et al.\cite{yao2015attention} use RNN to model the dynamics of intention process in conversation machines.
\subsection{Cross-Domain Recommendation System}
Most of the existed recommendation systems focus on single domain. However, large e-commerce companies often receive feedback from multiple domains. Meanwhile, it has triggered an increasing interest in cross-domain recommendation system. Li et al.~\cite{li2011cross} categorized the domain into three types: system domain, which refers to type of items (e.g. books, movies, tweets); Data domain, which is split by the types of feedback (e.g. implicit or explicit); Temporal domain, which is divided according to the rating timestamps. Here, we mainly explore the system domain, and consider the data domain and temporal domain as side information.
Techniques to solve the cross-domain recommendation system are quite different from which deal with the single-domain. In~\cite{li2009transfer}, the authors proposed a rating-matrix generative model for cross-domain collaborative filtering by clustering the related rating matrices. However, this method is computational expensive and is hard to learn a good cluster-level rating model. In~\cite{elkahky2015multi}, the authors proposed a multi-view deep learning model to generate recommendation from multiple domains with high scalability. Zhang et al.~\cite{zhang2016multi} applied active learning to cross-domain recommendation system introducing both domain-specific and domain-independent knowledge.
\subsection{Dynamics in Recommendation System}
Dynamics in recommendation system mainly consist of temporal status and spatial information. In the intention-aware recommendation system, we will mainly concentrate on these two facets of dynamics. Dynamics both existed in users and items. For example, user preferences change over time; and the popularity and click-through rates of new articles tend to decay with time.
Several works have been done to model the dynamics in recommendation system. Koren et al.~\cite{koren2010collaborative} presented a method to capture the time drifting of user preferences and applied it to both factorization model and neighborhood model. Chu et al.~\cite{chu2009personalized} proposed a feature-based bi-linear regression model, which can efficiently utilize the dynamic features to provided personalized recommendation and solve the cold-start problem. Yuan et al.~\cite{yuan2013time} developed collaborative recommendation model by incorporating temporal and geographical information. In~\cite{yao2016poi}, the authors leveraged the temporal matching between point-of-interest (POI) popularity and user regularity to improve the POI recommendation.
\section{methodology}
In this section, we present the details of how we overcome the problems mentioned in Section 2. Figure 1 illustrate the system architecture of the dynamic intention-aware recommendation system.
\subsection{Intention Prediction}
User intentions are determined by many factors. It is associated with user-item interactions, spatio-temporal dynamics, and user's social influence etc. We intend to develop a model that enables the recommendation system to capture user intentions from these multi-dimensional and heterogeneous raw data. We list several applicable techniques as follows.
\subsubsection{Intention Classification.} As mentioned before, most works treat the intention mining process as a classification problem. Before classifying intentions, they defined the types of intentions according to expertise knowledge. We can adopt the same method to identify intentions in the recommender system. To achieve the goal, several classifying methods, such as, regression tree, naive bayes classifier, etc. could be employed.
However, these approaches have two main shortcomings: firstly, they need prior knowledge such as intention types; secondly, they do not model the sequential property of intention. Therefore, methods that can capture the sequence features are more suitable. We have been investigating leverage non-parametric model with neural conditional random fields~\cite{do2010neural} to tackle the issues.
\subsubsection{Intention Inference from Real World}
Internet of Things (IoT) involves not only the connection and integration of devices that monitor the physical world parameters, which may be temperature, pressure, altitude, motion, proximity, biometrics, sound, images, etc.; But also it implies the aggregation, relationship, and analysis of the information those devices create in order to take action on the situation. The rising popularity of smart phones, built on advances of IoT, opens a new world of broader possibility and innovations with building more effective recommender system, for better understanding user's real desires and behavioral patterns.
Information scattered in various physical sources (ambient sensors, mobile phones etc.) in fact describes the inherent characteristics of the same user in various aspects, and hence their predicted results should be identical. The motivation behind this task lies in that different patterns may be unveiled in different domains, and these patterns may be complementary or mutually enhanced. Different source of data may show discrete partial views of a person's behaviors, in the meantime, like solving a puzzle, putting all data sources together will divulge the one. In particular, the person's behavior should show source disparity, as well as consistency. We propose to unite sparse dictionary learning and shared structure learning together for quantifying the shared and specific features in the subspaces to handle intra-class and inter-class behavior variability.
\subsubsection{Intention Inference from Social Data Analytics} Social networks data has been proved to be useful in improving the recommendation accuracy ~\cite{bao2012location}. In our work, we intent to leverage the tremendous amounts of content and linkage data as side information to anticipate user intentions. Typically, intentions on social media are classified into explicit and implicit intentions, while most intentions are implicitly expressed and user may not be entirely aware of~\cite{ding2015mining}. We will make use of both kinds of intentions, and focus on implicit intention mining in social network data.
\subsubsection{Dynamic Intention.} To model the dynamic intentions, we mainly investigate two techniques: HMM and RNN. HMM is an efficient dynamic tool for modelling sequential data. To apply HMM to Intention Mining, we consider the hidden states as the intentions behind the sequences of activities~\cite{khodabandelou2013supervised}, and then, discover the most likely intention given the observable traces of user activities. After having built the model, we can adopt a supervised or an unsupervised approach to estimate the parameters. Another deep learning model RNN can also deal with sequential data, the advantages of RNN over HMM is that RNN take into account the long-term dependencies~\cite{he2016intention}.
\subsection{Feature Extraction and Embedding}
To leverage the abundant multi-source content information, such as, attributes, text and photos, etc., from the user profiles as well as the item contents. Similar to \cite{zhang2016collaborative}, we divided all the content information into three types: textual information, structural information, and visual information.
\subsubsection{Textual Information} Textual information, such as, plot of a movie, abstract of a article and summary of a book, are very useful descriptive features in recommender systems\cite{wang2011collaborative,zhang2016collaborative}. We propose to apply word embeddings atop auto-encoders, or its variants like denoising auto-encoders and marginalized auto-encoders, to learn useful feature representations from text. Auto-encoders is an unsupervised deep learning model that can learn high level representations and significantly reduce the feature dimensionality. For large collection of documents, topic modeling algorithms such as Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) can be used to discover the "topics" from the text corpus. LDA will generate an interpretable low-dimensional representations from documents, compare with auto-encoders, it enables to retain more semantic properties in the representations.
\subsubsection{Structural Information} Structural information includes the attributes of items, and the relationships among items and users. In general, this information can be represented as graphs. Zhang et al. \cite{zhang2016collaborative} introduced a Bayesian form of TransR, a heterogeneous network embedding method, for interpreting structural informations. In \cite{yao2016things}, Yao et al. proposed a hyper-graph framework to model spatiotemporal correlations among users and things in Internet of Things (IoT) recommendation.
\subsubsection{Visual Information} Visual information affects user's decision to some degree. For example, an attractive book cover or movie poster will draw more customer's attentions. To capture the visual features, such as, color, shape, size and texture, from images, the following two proposed methods can be adopted. Stacked convolution auto-encoders~\cite{zhang2016collaborative}, which combines stacked auto-encoders with convolution techniques, can be used to extract semantic representations from images; Two complementary techniques: LBP (local binary pattern) and HOG (histogram of oriented gradients), can also be jointly applied to capture the texture and shape information.
After feature representations, we will fuse them to our recommendation system. For some tasks, simply concatenation of heterogeneous features may achieve acceptable results. While other tasks may require more effective combinatorial features, which can be archived by making use of a deep learning based model to automatically and optimally combine features.
\subsection{Recommendation}
\subsubsection{Shared Representations}In cross-domain recommender system, multiple domains are usually related with each other~\cite{li2009transfer}. Thus, the rich information from multiple domains could be pulled together to form shared representations~\cite{li2009transfer}, so as to alleviate the sparsity problem in cross-domain recommendation system. To learn the shared representations, we mainly investigated two techniques: Multi-Task Learning and Multimodal Deep Learning. Multi-Task learning is an approach that learns multiple tasks simultaneously by generating shared representations. It allows one task to make use of features from related task to improve accuracy and yield better generalization. The combination of Multi-Task learning with neural networks will further enhance performance~\cite{caruana1998multitask}. Multimodal deep learning is another shared representation learning approach. It is built over restricted boltzmann machine or auto-encoders, and enables to capture the correlations across different modalities.
\subsubsection{Knowledge Base} Knowledge base stores the domain expert knowledge. It can be utilized as a complementarity when item or user content information is too sparse. Various works~\cite{middleton2009ontology,trewin2000knowledge} have been done to leverage the expertise and inference capability to enhance recommendation system performance. In our work, we intend to employ some open-source knowledge base, such as, YAGO, DBpedia, and domain ontology for reasoning and further improving the multi-domain recommendation result.
Finally, the proposed recommendation system will provide users with an individual or a group of recommendations containing items from different domains to users proactively.
\section{Proposed Experiments}
\subsection{Dataset}
Another important consideration is the requirement of an appropriate dataset. Most existing datasets used for recommendation lie in a certain topics, such as MovieLens, LibraryThing etc. Some of them may integrate auxiliary information from other domains, e.g., MovieTweeting. We are planning to augment an existing large scale dataset by crawling from a broad range of sources, e.g., social medias, location based social networks and sensory data from city-scale ambient sensors. The dataset would be qualified for evaluating our approach by providing necessary micro and macro information fitting in our dynamic intention-aware recommender system. The dataset will be publicly available to contribute to the community.
\subsection{Evaluation}
Traditional recommendation systems mainly concentrate on improving accuracy. However, McNee et al.~\cite{mcnee2006being} argued that we shall recommend from the user-centric perspective to not only deliver recommendations accurately but also satisfactorily.
In this work, the proposed recommender system consists of two stages: intention mining and recommending. Thus, we need to evaluate systematically both the accuracy of the inferred intentions and the results of recommendation. To measure the intention mining results, same as~\cite{khodabandelou2013supervised}, we can choose \textit{recall} and \textit{precision} metrics, or the combination of them: \textit{F-factor}. For recommendation evaluation, we could adopt the commonly metrics (e.g.,RMSE, MAE, AUC, precision/recall) for different categories (e.g., prediction, ranking, classification) of recommendation tasks. In addition, we also consider a well-designed A/B test to evaluate the performance. A qualitative evaluation will also be conducted. We will take a questionnaires survey to gather the feedback from a wide range of end users for further analyzing and evaluating our approach.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present our proposal on a dynamic intention-aware recommendation system. We discussed the motivations and necessities of it. In order to build a dynamic intention-aware recommmder system, we divide this task into several subgoals and conduct extensive literature reviews on each part. With the increasing amounts of online and offline data available, it will be more achievable to discover user intentions accurately. The inferred intentions will also facilitate the recommendation system to provide better services as well as to improve user experiences.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Student Statement}
Firstly, I would like to thank SIGIR 2017 for the efforts in organizing the Doctoral Consortium Track. As a new PhD student, I think it is a great platform for me to share my research ideas and discuss them with the experienced and peer researches.
Being able to attend SIGIR 2017 Doctoral Consortium will be extremely helpful for me to gather advices, feedback and
inspirations from leading researchers and peers. It offers
a valuable opportunity to communicate and learn
from leading experts not only in technical knowledge but
also in research experience, self-improvement and career development.
It will be of great benefits for my PhD research and dissertation to get some suggestions and guidance on my research area from those well-established researchers.
Besides, I would like to take this opportunity to get involved in the community that share similar research interests, and make contact with senior and fellow researchers outside my institution, to get some fresh perspectives from them.
In summary, I believe that attending SIGIR 2017 Doctoral
Consortium will be very valuable opportunity for me. It will
play an important role in shaping my research topic, as well
as my future career in research.
\subsection{Supervisor Statement}
As the supervisor of Mr. Shuai Zhang, I first express
my sincere appreciation for SIGIR 2017 to organize
this Doctoral Consortium. This Consortium offers a fantastic
opportunity for young researchers, particularly those
fresh PhD students like Mr. Zhang, to present their research
work and receive valuable and constructive feedback from
established researchers and their peers. SIGIR is a prestigious
conference on information retrieval and fits very well to
Mr. Shuai Zhang's research topic and interests, which is about filtering and recommending.
Mr. Zhang has an outstanding track records in his undergraduate studies in computer science at prestigious top national University in China, Nanjing University, which successfully guaranteed a competitive international scholarship for his PhD study at University of New South Wales, Australia. He commenced his PhD study in Sept 2016. Mr Zhang's research interest focuses on building the effective recommender system that better prompts users to action by leveraging multi-scale and complex online/offline user data from heterogeneous data sources. It is essential and urgent topic and has been attracting lots of attention recently.
Mr. Zhang has done some solid literature review in this particular topic and has begun to actively propose ideas and solutions, as documented in this Doctoral Consortium paper. Given that only half a year after the commencement of his PhD study, I am quite impressed with his progress and performance. Mr Zhang's research topic involves a number of expertise. One such area, information retrieval in general, is not readily available in my research group. It is critical for his work on retrieving and representing heterogeneous data. In particularly, he will directly benefit from student presentations with plenary discussions, individual meetings with experienced researchers, and highly interactive networking sessions.
Mr. Zhang started his PhD in Sept 2016. He and is close to
completing his thesis proposal. He is working hard and
very active and highly motivated in his PhD research. I believe he should be able to defend his PhD dissertation before Dec
2019.
\end{comment}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction and Preliminaries}
\citet{domeyri12} derive an algorithm to sample from the regular conditional distribution of a max-stable random field $\bm{\eta}$, say, given the marginal observations $\eta_{s_1}=z_1,\dots,\eta_{s_k}=z_k$ for some $z_1,\dots,z_d$ from the state space and $k$ locations $s_1,\dots,s_d$. This, clearly, concerns the \emph{distribution} of $\bm{\eta}$ and derived distributional parameters.
Different to that, we try to \emph{reconstruct} $\bm{\eta}$ from the observations $\eta_{s_1},\dots,\eta_{s_k}$. This is done by a \emph{generalized max-linear model} in such a way, that the interpolating process $\hat\bm{\eta}$ is again a (standard) max-stable random field.
As our approach is deterministic, once the observations $\eta_{s_1}=z_1,\dots,\eta_{s_k}=z_k$ are given, a proper way to measure the performance of our approach is the \emph{mean squared error} (MSE). Convergence of the pointwise MSE as well as of the integrated MSE (IMSE) is established if the set of grid points $s_1,\dots,s_d$ gets dense in the index space.
A \emph{max-stable random process} with index set $T$ is a family of random variables $\bm\xi=(\xi_t)_{t\in T}$ with the property that there are functions $a_n:T\to\mathbb{R}^+_0$ and $b_n:T\to\mathbb{R}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that
\[
\left(\max_{i=1,\dotsc,n}\left(\frac{\xi^{(i)}_t-b_n(t)}{a_n(t)}\right)\right)_{t\in T}=_d\bm\xi,
\]
where $\bm\xi^{(i)}=(\xi^{(i)}_t)_{t\in T}$, $i=1,\dotsc,n$, are independent copies of $\bm\xi$ and '$=_d$' denotes equality in distribution. We get a max-stable random vector (rv) on $\mathbb{R}^d$ by putting $T=\{1,\dotsc,d\}$. Different to that, we obtain a max-stable process with continuous sample paths on some compact metric space $S$, if we set $T=S$ and require that the sample paths $\bm\xi(\omega):S\to\mathbb{R}$ realize in $C(S)=\{g\in\mathbb{R}^S:~g\text{ continuous}\}$, and that the norming functions $a_n,b_n$ are continuous as well. Max-stable random vectors, and processes, respectively, have been investigated intensely over the last decades. For detailed reviews of max-stable rv and processes, see for instance the monographies of \citet{beirgotese04}, \citet{dehaf06}, \citet{resn08}, \citet{fahure10} and \citet{davpari12} among others. Max-stable rv and processes are of enormous interest in extreme value theory since they are the only possible limit of linearly standardized maxima of independent and identically distributed rv or processes.
Clearly, the univariate margins of a max-stable random process are max-stable distributions on the real line. A max-stable random object $\bm\xi=(\xi_t)_{t\in T}$ is commonly called \emph{simple max-stable} in the literature if each univariate margin is unit Fr\'{e}chet distributed, i.\,e. $P(\xi_t\leq x)=\exp\left(-x^{-1}\right)$, $x>0$, $t\in T$. Different to that, we call a random process $\bm\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in T}$ \emph{standard max-stable} if all univariate marginal distributions are standard negative exponential, i.\,e. $P(\eta_t\leq x)=\exp\left(x\right)$, $x\leq0$, $t\in T$. The transformation to simple/standard margins does not cause any problems, neither in the case of rv (see e.\,g. \citet{dehar77} or \citet{resn08}), nor in the case of rf with continuous sample paths (see e.\,g. \citet{ginhv90}).
It is well known (e.g. \citet{dehar77}, \citet{pick81}, \citet{fahure10}) that a rv $(\eta_1,\dotsc,\eta_d)$ is a \emph{standard max-stable rv} iff there exists a rv $(Z_1,\dotsc,Z_d)$ and some number $c\geq1$ with $Z_i\in[0,c]$ almost surely (a.\,s.) and $E(Z_i)=1$, $i=1,\dotsc,d$, such that for all $\bm x=(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)\leq\bm 0\in\mathbb{R}^d$
\[
P(\eta_1\leq x_1,\dotsc,\eta_d\leq x_d)=\exp\left(-\norm{\bm x}_D\right):=\exp\left(-E\left(\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\left(\abs{x_i}Z_i\right)\right)\right).
\]
The condition $Z_i\in[0,c]$ a.\,s. can be weakened to $P(Z_i\geq0)=1$. Note that $\norm\cdot_D$ defines a norm on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, called \emph{$D$-norm}, with \emph{generator} $\bm Z$. The $D$ means dependence: We have independence of the margins of $\bm X$ iff $\norm\cdot_{D}$ equals the norm $\norm{\bm x}_1=\sum_{i=1}^d\abs{x_i}$, which is generated by $(Z_1,\dotsc,Z_d)$ being a random permutation of the vector $(d,0\dotsc,0)$. We have complete dependence of the margins of $\bm X$ iff $\norm\cdot_{D}$ is the maximum-norm $\norm{\bm x}_\infty=\max_{1\le i\le d}\abs{x_i}$, which is generated by the constant vector $(Z_1,\dotsc,Z_d)=(1,\dotsc,1)$. We refer to \citet[Section 4.4] {fahure10} for further details of $D$-norms.
Let $S$ be a compact metric space. A standard max-stable process $\bm\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in S}$ with sample paths in $\bar C^-(S):=\{g\in C(S):~g\leq 0\}$ is, in what follows, shortly called a \emph{standard max-stable process} (SMSP). Denote further by $E(S)$ the set of those bounded functions $f\in\mathbb{R}^S$ that have only a finite number of discontinuities and define $\bar E^-(S):=\{f\in E(S):~f\leq 0\}$. We know from \citet{ginhv90} that a process $\bm\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in S}$ with sample paths in $C(S)$ is an SMSP iff there exists a stochastic process $\bm Z=(Z_t)_{t\in S}$ realizing in $\bar C^+(S):=\{g\in C(S):~g\geq 0\}$ and some $c\geq1$, such that $Z_t\leq c$ a.\,s., $E(Z_t)=1$, $t\in S$, and
\[
P(\bm\eta\leq f)=\exp\left(-\norm f_D\right):=\exp\left(-E\left(\sup_{t\in S}\left(\abs{f(t)}Z_t\right)\right)\right),\qquad f\in\bar E^-(S).
\]
Note that $\norm\cdot_D$ defines a norm on the function space $E(S)$, again called \emph{$D$-norm} with \emph{generator process} $\bm Z$. The functional $D$-norm is topologically equivalent to the sup-norm $\norm f_{\infty}=\sup_{t\in S}\abs{f(t)}$, which is itself a $D$-norm by putting $Z_t=1$, $t\in S$, see \citet{aulfaho11} for details.
At first it might seem unusual to consider the function space $E(S)$. The reason for that is that a suitable choice of the function $f\in\bar E^-(S)$ allows the incorporation of the finite dimensional marginal distributions by the relation $P(\bm\eta\leq f)=P(\eta_{t_i}\leq x_i,1\leq i\leq d)$.
The condition $P\left(\sup_{t\in S}Z_t\leq c\right)=1$ can be weakened to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition_generator}
E\left(\sup_{t\in S}Z_t\right)<\infty,
\end{equation}
see \citet[Corollary 9.4.5]{dehaf06}.
\section{Generalized max-linear models}\label{sec:model}
\subsection*{The model and some examples}
In this section we will approximate a given SMSP with sample paths in $\bar C^-\left([0,1]^k\right)$, where $k$ is some integer, by using a generalized max-linear model for the interpolation of a finite dimensional marginal distribution. The parameter space $[0,1]^k$ is chosen for convenience and could be replaced by any compact metric space $S$.
Let in what follows $\bm\eta=(\eta_{t})_{t\in [0,1]^k}$ be an SMSP with generator $\bm Z=(Z_{ t})_{ t\in [0,1]^k}$ and $D$-norm $\norm\cdot_{D}$. Choose pairwise different points $ s_1,\dotsc, s_d\in [0,1]^k$ and obtain a standard max-stable rv $(\eta_{ s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d})$ with generator $(Z_{ s_1},\dotsc,Z_{ s_d})$ and $D$-norm $\norm\cdot_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}$, i.\,e.,
\[
P(\eta_{ s_1}\leq x_1,\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d}\leq x_d)=\exp\left(-E\left(\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\left(\abs{x_i}Z_{ s_i}\right)\right)\right)=:\exp\left(-\norm{\bm x}_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}\right),
\]
$\bm x=(x_1,\dotsc,x_d)\leq\bm 0$. Our aim is to find another SMSP that interpolates the above rv.
Take functions $g_i\in\bar C^+\left([0,1]^k\right)$, $i=1,\dotsc,d$, with the property
\begin{equation}\label{eq:norming_functions_standardization}
\norm{(g_1( t),\dotsc,g_d( t))}_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}=1\text{ for all } t\in[0,1]^k.
\end{equation}
Then the stochastic process $\hat{\bm\eta}=(\hat\eta_{ t})_{ t\in[0,1]^k}$ that is generated by the \emph{generalized max-linear model}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generalized_max_linear_model}
\hat\eta_{ t}:=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\frac{\eta_{ s_i}}{g_i( t)},\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\end{equation}
defines an SMSP with generator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generalized_max_linear_model_generator}
\hat Z_{ t}=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\left(g_i( t)Z_{ s_i}\right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\end{equation}
due to property \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization}, see \citet{falhz13} for details. The case $\norm\cdot_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}=\norm\cdot_1$ leads to the regular \emph{max-linear model}, cf. \citet{wansto11}.
If we want $\hat{\bm\eta}$ to interpolate $(\eta_{ s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d})$, then we only have to demand
\begin{equation}\label{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}
g_i( s_j)=\delta_{ij}:=\begin{cases}1,&\qquad i=j,\\0,&\qquad i\neq j,\end{cases}\quad 1\leq i,j\leq d.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\eta_{ s_i}$ is negative with probability one. We call $\hat{\bm\eta}$ the \emph{discretized version} of $\bm\eta$ with grid $\{ s_1,\dotsc, s_d\}$ and weight functions $g_1,\dotsc,g_d$, when the weight functions satisfy both \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization} and \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}.
\begin{exam}\label{exam:onedimensional_model}
\upshape
In the one-dimensional case $k=1$ the weight functions $g_i$ can be chosen as follows. Take a grid $0:=s_1<s_2<\cdots<s_{d-1}<s_d=:1$ of the interval $[0,1]$ and denote by $\norm\cdot_{D_{i-1,i}}$ the $D$-norm pertaining to $(\eta_{s_{i-1}},\eta_{s_i})$, $i=2,\dotsc,d$. Put
\begin{align*}
g_1(t)&:=\begin{cases}\dfrac{s_{2}-t}{\norm{(s_{2}-t,t)}_{D_{1,2}}},\quad &t\in[0,s_2], \\ 0,\quad &\text{else},\end{cases}\\
g_i(t)&:=\begin{cases}\dfrac{t-s_{i-1}}{\norm{(s_i-t,t-s_{i-1})}_{D_{i-1,i}}},\quad &t\in[s_{i-1},s_i], \\ \dfrac{s_{i+1}-t}{\norm{(s_{i+1}-t,t-s_{i})}_{D_{i,i+1}}},\quad &t\in[s_i,s_{i+1}], \\ 0,\quad &\text{else},\end{cases}\quad i=2,\dotsc,d-1,\\
g_d(t)&:=\begin{cases}\dfrac{t-s_{d-1}}{\norm{(s_d-t,t-s_{d-1})}_{D_{d-1,d}}},\quad &t\in[s_{d-1},1], \\ 0,\quad &\text{else}.\end{cases}
\end{align*}
This model has been studied intensely in \citet{falhz13}. The functions $g_1,\dotsc,g_d$ are continuous and satisfy conditions \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization} and \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}, so they provide an interpolating generalized max-linear model on $C[0,1]$.
\end{exam}
\begin{exam}\label{exam:multidimensional_model}
\upshape
Choose pairwise different points $s_1,\dotsc,s_d\in [0,1]^k$ and an arbitrary norm $\norm\cdot$ on $\mathbb{R}^k$. Define
\[
\tilde g_i(t):=\min_{j\neq i}\left(\norm{t-s_j}\right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,\; i=1,\dotsc,d.
\]
In order to normalize, put
\[
g_i(t):=\frac{\tilde g_i(t)}{\norm{(\tilde g_1(t),\dotsc,\tilde g_d(t))}_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}},\quad t\in[0,1]^k,\quad i=1,\dotsc,d.
\]
These functions $g_i$ are well-defined since the denominator never vanishes: Suppose there is $ t\in[0,1]^k$ with $\tilde g_1( t)=\cdots=\tilde g_d( t)=0$. Then $\min_{j\neq i}\left(\norm{ t- s_j}\right)=0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,d$. Now fix $i\in\{1,\dotsc,d\}$. There is $j\neq i$ with $ t= s_j$. But on the other hand, we have also $\min_{k\neq j}\left(\norm{ t- s_k}\right)=0$ which implies that there is $k\neq j$ with $ t= s_k= s_j$ which is a contradiction.
The functions $g_i$, $i=1,\dotsc,d$, are clearly functions in $\bar C^+\left([0,1]^k\right)$ that also satisfy condition \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization} and \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation} as can be seen as follows. We have for $t\in[0,1]^k$
\begin{align*}
&\norm{\big(g_1(t),\dots,g_d(t)\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}\\
&=\norm{\left(\frac{\tilde g_1(t)}{\norm{(\tilde g_1(t),\dots,\tilde g_d(t))}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}},\dots, \frac{\tilde g_d(t)}{\norm{(\tilde g_1(t),\dots,\tilde g_d(t))}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}} \right)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}\\
&= \frac{\norm{\big(\tilde g_1(t),\dots,\tilde g_d(t)\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}}{\norm{\big(\tilde g_1(t),\dots,\tilde g_d(t)\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}}\\
&=1,
\end{align*}
which is condition \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization}. Note, moreover, that $\tilde g_i(s_j)=0$ if $i\not=j$. But this implies condition \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}:
\begin{align*}
g_i(s_j)&= \frac{\tilde g_i(s_j)}{\norm{\big(\tilde g_1(s_j),\dots,\tilde g_d(s_j)\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}}\\
&=\frac{\tilde g_i(s_j)}{\norm{\big(0,\dots,0,\tilde g_j(s_j),0,\dots,0\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}}\\
&=\frac{\tilde g_i(s_j)}{\tilde g_j(s_j) \norm{\big(0,\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0\big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}}\\
&= \frac{\tilde g_i(s_j)}{\tilde g_j(s_j)}=\delta_{ij}
\end{align*}
by the fact that a $D$-norm of each unit vector in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is one.
Thus, we have found an interpolating generalized max-linear model on $C\left([0,1]^k\right)$.
\end{exam}
\subsection*{The mean squared error of the discretized version}
We start this section with a result that applies to bivariate standard max-stable rv in general.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:properties_bivariate_smsrv}
Let $(X_1,X_2)$ be standard max-stable with generator $(Z_1,Z_2)$ and $D$-norm $\norm\cdot_D$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \[E(X_1X_2)=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}^2_{D}}~du.\]
\item \[E(|Z_1-Z_2|)=2\left(\norm{(1,1)}_{D}-1\right).\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item See \citet[Lemma 3.6]{falhz13}.
\item The assertion follows from the general identity $\max(a,b)=\frac12(a+b+\abs{a-b})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Let $\hat{\bm\eta}=(\hat\eta_{ t})_{ t\in [0,1]^k}$ be the discretized version of $\bm\eta=(\eta_{ t})_{ t\in[0,1]^k}$ with grid $\{ s_1,\dotsc, s_d\}$ and weight functions $g_1,\dotsc,g_d$. In order to calculate the mean squared error of $\hat\eta_t$, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:eta_hateta_sms}
Let $\hat{\bm Z}=(\hat Z_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ be the generator of $\hat{\bm\eta}$ that is defined in \eqref{eq:generalized_max_linear_model_generator}. For each $t\in[0,1]^k$, the rv $(\eta_{ t},\hat\eta_{ t})$ is standard max-stable with generator $(Z_t,\hat Z_t)$ and $D$-norm
\[
\norm{(x,y)}_{D_{ t}}=E\left(\max\left(\abs x Z_t,\abs y\hat Z_t\right)\right)=\norm{\left(x,g_1( t)y,\dotsc,g_d( t)y\right)}_{D_{ t, s_1,\dotsc, s_d}},
\]
where $\norm{\cdot}_{D_{ t, s_1,\dotsc, s_d}}$ is the $D$-norm pertaining to $(\eta_{ t},\eta_{ s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $\bm Z=(Z_{ t})_{ t\in[0,1]^k}$ is a generator of $\bm\eta$, we have for $x,y\leq 0$
\begin{align*}
P(\eta_{ t}\leq x,\hat\eta_{ t}\leq y)&=P(\eta_{ t}\leq x,\eta_{ s_1}\leq g_1( t)y,\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d}\leq g_d( t)y)\\
&=\exp\left(-E\left(\max\left(\abs xZ_{ t},\abs y\max\left(g_1( t)Z_{ s_1},\dotsc,g_d( t)Z_{ s_d}\right)\right)\right)\right)\\
&=\exp\left(-E\left(\max\left(\abs xZ_{ t},\abs y\hat Z_t\right)\right)\right).
\end{align*}
Then the assertion follows from the fact that $\hat Z_t\geq 0$ and $E(\hat Z_t)=1$.
\end{proof}
We can now use the preceding Lemmas to compute the mean squared error.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:mean squared error}
The mean squared error of $\hat{\eta_{ t}}$ is given by
\[
\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{t}\right):=E\left(\left(\eta_{ t}-\hat{\eta}_{ t}\right)^2\right)=2\left(2-\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}^2_{D_{ t}}}~du\right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Due to Lemma \ref{lem:eta_hateta_sms}, $(\eta_t,\hat\eta_t)$ is standard max-stable. Therefore, Lemma \ref{lem:properties_bivariate_smsrv} (i) and the fact that $E(\eta_t)=E(\hat\eta_t)=-1$ and $\Var(\eta_t)=\Var(\hat\eta_t)=1$ yield
\[
\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{ t}\right)=E\left(\eta_t^2\right)-2E\left(\eta_t\hat\eta_t\right)+E\left(\hat \eta_t^2\right)=4-2\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}^2_{D_{ t}}}~du.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mse_inequality}
The mean squared error of $\hat\eta_t$ satisfies
\[
\MSE\left(\hat\eta_t\right)\leq6 E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_t}\right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
&2-\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}^2}~du\\
&=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}_{\infty}^2}~du-\int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}^2}~du\\
&=\int_0^{\infty}\left(\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}-\norm{(1,u)}_{\infty}\right)\frac{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}+\norm{(1,u)}_{\infty}}{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}^2\norm{(1,u)}_{\infty}^2}~du\\
&=\int_0^{1}\left(\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}-1\right)\frac{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}+1}{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}^2}~du+\int_1^{\infty}\left(\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}-u\right)\frac{\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}+u}{u^2\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}^2}~du\\
&\leq 3\int_0^{1}\left(\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}-1\right)~du+2\int_1^{\infty}\frac{\norm{(1/u,1)}_{D_t}-1}{u^2}~du\\
&=:3I_1+2I_2.
\end{align*}
Since every $D$-norm is monotone, we have
\[
\norm{(1,u)}_{D_t}\leq \norm{(1,1)}_{D_t},~ u\in[0,1],\text{ and } \norm{(1/u,1)}_{D_t}\leq \norm{(1,1)}_{D_t},~ u>1,
\]
and, thus, by Lemma \ref{lem:properties_bivariate_smsrv} (ii)
\begin{equation*}
I_1+I_2\leq \norm{(1,1)}_{D_t}-1+\left(\norm{(1,1)}_{D_t}-1\right)\int_1^{\infty}u^{-2}~du=E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_t}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\upshape
The upper bound $E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_t}\right)$ in Lemma \ref{lem:mse_inequality} gets small if the distance between $t$ and its nearest neighbor $s_j$, say, in the grid $\set{s_1,\dots,s_d}$ gets small, which can be seen as follows. The triangle inequality implies
\[
\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_t} \le \abs{Z_t- Z_{s_j}} + \abs{Z_{s_j}-\max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(g_i(t)Z_{s_i}\right)}.
\]
From the condition $g_i(s_j)=\delta_{ij}$ we obtain the representation
\[
Z_{s_j}= \max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(g_i(s_j)Z_{s_i}\right)
\]
and, thus,
\begin{align*}
\abs{Z_{s_j}-\max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(g_i(t)Z_{s_i}\right)}
&=\abs{ \max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(g_i(s_j)Z_{s_i}\right) - \max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(g_i(t)Z_{s_i}\right) }\\
&\le \max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(\abs{g_i(t)-g_i(s_j)}Z_{s_i}\right)
\end{align*}
by elementary arguments. As a consequence we obtain
\begin{align*}
&E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_t}\right)\\
&\le E\left(\abs{Z_t-Z_{s_j}} \right) + E\left(\max_{i=1,\dots,d}\left(\abs{g_i(t)-g_i(s_j)}Z_{s_i}\right) \right)\\
&= E\left(\abs{Z_t-Z_{s_j}} \right) + \norm{\big(\abs{g_1(t)-g_1(s_j)},\dots, \abs{g_d(t)-g_d(s_j)} \big)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}\\
&\le E\left(\abs{Z_t-Z_{s_j}} \right) + \max_{i=1,\dots,d} \abs{g_i(t)-g_i(s_j)} \; \norm{(1,\dots,1)}_{D_{1,\dots,d}}\\
&\to_{\abs{t-s_j}\to 0}0
\end{align*}
by the fact that each $D$-norm $\norm\cdot_D$ is monotone, i.e., $\norm{\bm{x}}_D\le\norm{\bm{y}}_D$ if $\bm{0}\le\bm{x}\le\bm{y}\in\mathbb{R}^d$, and by the continuity of the functions $g_1,\dots,g_d$ and $\bm{Z}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{exam}
\upshape
Choose as a generator process $\bm{Z}=(Z_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ of a $D$-norm
\[
Z_{t}:=\exp\left(X_{t}-\frac{\sigma^2(t)}2 \right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\]
where $\left(X_{t}\right)_{t\in \mathbb{R}^k}$ is a continuous zero mean Gaussian process with stationary increments, $\sigma^2(t):= E\left(X_{t}^2\right)$ and $X_0=0$. This model was originally created by \citet{brore77}, and developed by \citet{kaschdeh09} for max-stable random fields $\bm{\vartheta}=(\vartheta_{t})_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ with Gumbel margins, i.e., $P(\vartheta_t\le x)=\exp(-e^{-x})$, $x\in\mathbb{R}$. The transformation to a SMSP $(\eta_{t})_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ is straightforward by putting $\eta_{t}:=-\exp(-\vartheta_{t})$, $t\in[0,1]^k$.
Explicit formulae for the corresponding $D$-norm
\[
\norm{f}_D = E\left(\sup_{t\in[0,1]^k} (\abs{f(t)}Z_{t})\right),\qquad f\in E([0,1]^k),
\]
are only available for bivariate $\norm\cdot_{D_{t_1,t_2}}$ and trivariate $\norm\cdot_{D_{t_1,t_2,t_3}}$ $D$-norms pertaining to the random vectors $(\eta_{t_1},\eta_{t_2})$ and $(\eta_{t_1},\eta_{t_2},\eta_{t_3})$, respectively, see \citet{huserdav13}. In the bivariate case we have for $(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb{R}^2$
\begin{align*}
\norm{(x_1,x_2)}_{D_{t_1,t_2}}
&= \abs{x_1} \Phi\left(\frac{\sigma(\abs{t_1-t_2})}2 + \frac1{\sigma(\abs{t_1-t_2})}
\log\left(\frac{\abs{x_1}}{\abs{x_2}}\right)\right)\\
&\hspace*{1cm}+ \abs{x_2} \Phi\left(\frac{\sigma(\abs{t_1-t_2})}2 + \frac1{\sigma(\abs{t_1-t_2})}
\log\left(\frac{\abs{x_2}}{\abs{x_1}}\right)\right),
\end{align*}
where $\Phi$ denotes the standard normal distribution function and the absolute value $\abs{t_1-t_2}$ is meant component wise, see \citet[Remark 24]{kabl09}.
This Brown-Resnick model could in particular be used for the generalized max-linear model in dimension $k=1$ as in Example \ref{exam:onedimensional_model}, since in this case the approximation $\hat\bm{\eta}$ of $\bm{\eta}$ only uses bivariate $D$-norms $\norm\cdot_{t_1,t_2}$.
\end{exam}
\section{A generalized max-linear model based on kernels}
\subsection*{The model}
There is the need for the definition of $d$ functions $g_1,\dots,g_d$ satisfying certain constraints in the \emph{ordinary} generalized max-linear model with $d=d(n)$ tending to infinity as the grid $s_1,\dots,s_d$ gets dense in the index set.
For the kernel approach introduced in this section, this is reduced to the choice of just one kernel and a bandwidth. And in this case we can establish convergence to zero of MSE and IMSE as the grid gets dance, essentially without further conditions.
This approach was briefly mentioned in \citet{falhz13} and is evaluated here.
The disadvantages are: The interpolation is not an exact one at the grid points, i.e., $\hat\eta_{s_j}\not=\eta_{s_j}$. This is due to the fact that the generated functions do not satisfy the condition $g_i(s_j)=\delta_{ij}$ exactly, but only in the limit as $h$ tends to zero, see Lemma \ref{lem:convergence_to_kronecker}. The choice of an optimal bandwidth, which is statistical folklore in kernel density estimation, is still an open problem here.
Again, throughout the whole section, let $\bm\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ be an SMSP with generator $\bm Z=(Z_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ and denote by $\norm\cdot_{s_1,\dotsc,s_d}$ the $D$-norm pertaining to $(\eta_{s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{s_d})$.
Let $K:[0,\infty)\to[0,1]$ be a continuous and strictly monotonically decreasing function (kernel) with the two properties
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition_on_kernel}
K(0)=1,\qquad \lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{K(ax)}{K(bx)}=0,\quad 0\le b< a.
\end{equation}
The exponential kernel $K_e(x)=\exp(-x)$, $x\ge 0$, is a typical example. Choose an arbitrary norm $\norm\cdot$ on $\mathbb{R}^k$ and a grid of pairwise different points $\{ s_1,\dotsc, s_d\}$ in $[0,1]^k$. Put for $i=1,\dotsc,d$ and the bandwidth $h>0$
\[
g_{i,h}( t):=\frac{K(\norm{t-s_i}/h)}{\norm{(K(\norm{t-s_1}/h),\dots,K(\norm{t-s_d}/h))}_{D_{s_1,\dotsc,s_d}}},\quad t\in[0,1]^k.
\]
Define for $i=1,\dots,d$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:set_closest_points}
N(s_i):=\set{t\in[0,1]^k:\,\norm{t-s_i}\le \norm{t-s_j},\,j\not=i},
\end{equation}
which is the set of those points $t\in[0,1]^k$ that are closest to the grid point $s_i$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:convergence_to_kronecker}
We have for arbitrary $t\in[0,1]^k$ and $1\le i\le d$
\[
g_{i,h}(t)\to_{h\downarrow 0}\begin{cases}
1&,\mbox{ if }t=s_i\\
0&,\mbox{ if }t\not\in N(s_i)
\end{cases}
\]
as well as $g_{i,h}(t)\le 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The convergence $g_{i,h}( s_i)\to_{h\downarrow0}1$ follows from the fact that $K(0)=1$ and that the $D$-norm of a unit vector is 1.
The fact that an arbitrary $D$-norm is bounded below by the sup-norm together with the monotonicity of $K$ implies for $t\in[0,1]^k$
\begin{equation*}
g_{i,h}(t)\le \frac{K\left(\norm{t-s_i}/h\right)}{\max_{1\le j\le d}K\left(\norm{t-s_j}/h\right)}
=\frac{K\left(\frac{\norm{t-s_i}}h\right)}{K\left(\frac{\min_{1\le j\le d}\norm{t-s_j}}h\right)}\le 1.
\end{equation*}
Note that $K\left(\norm{t-s_i}/h\right)/K\left(\min_{1\le j\le d}\norm{t-s_j}/h\right) \to_{h\downarrow 0}0$
if $t\not\in N(s_i)$ by the required growth condition on the kernel $K$ in \eqref{eq:condition_on_kernel}.
\end{proof}
The above Lemma shows in particular $g_{i,h}( s_j)\to_{h\downarrow0}\delta_{ij}$ which is close to condition \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}. Obviously, the functions $g_{i,h}$ are constructed in such a way that condition \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization} holds exactly. Therefore, we obtain the generalized max-linear model
\begin{equation*}
\hat\eta_{ t,h}=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\frac{\eta_{ s_i}}{g_{i,h}( t)},\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\end{equation*}
which does not interpolate $(\eta_{ s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{ s_d})$ exactly, but $\hat\eta_{s_i,h}$ converges to $\eta_{s_i}$ as $h\downarrow0$. Note that the limit functions $\lim_{h\downarrow0}g_{i,h}$ are not necessarily continuous: For instance, there may be $t_0\in[0,1]^k$ with $\norm{t_0-s_1}=\cdots=\norm{t_0-s_d}$. Then $ t_0\in\partial N( s_1)$ and $\lim_{h\downarrow0}g_{1,h}( t_0)=1/\norm{(1,\dotsc,1)}_{D_{1,\dotsc,d}}$, but $\lim_{h\downarrow0}g_{1,h}( t)=0$ for all $ t\notin N( s_1)$ due to Lemma \ref{lem:convergence_to_kronecker}.
\subsection*{Convergence of the mean squared error}
In this section we investigate a sequence of kernel-based generalized max-linear models, where the diameter of the grids decreases. We analyze under which conditions the integrated mean squared error of $(\hat\eta_{t,h})_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ converges to zero. We start with a general result on generator processes.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:generator_uniformly_continuous}
Let $(Z_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ be a generator of an SMSP and $\varepsilon_n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, be a null sequence. Then
\begin{equation*}
E\left(\sup_{\norm{t-s}\leq \varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_t-Z_s}\right)\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\end{equation*}
where $\norm\cdot$ is an arbitrary norm on $\mathbb{R}^k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The paths of $(Z_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ are continuous, so they are also uniformly continuous. Therefore, $\sup_{\norm{t-s}\leq \varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_t-Z_s}\to_{n\to\infty}0$. Furthermore,
\[
\sup_{\norm{t-s}\leq \varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_t-Z_s}\leq 2\sup_{t\in[0,1]^k}Z_t
\]
with $E\left(\sup_{t\in[0,1]^k}Z_t\right)<\infty$ due to property \eqref{eq:condition_generator} of a generator. The assertion now follows from the dominated convergence theorem.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathcal G_n:=\set{s_{1,n},\dotsc,s_{d(n),n}}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, be a set of distinct points in $[0,1]^k$ with the property
\[
\forall n\in\mathbb{N}~\forall t\in[0,1]^k~ \exists s_{i,n}\in\mathcal G_n:~\norm{t-s_{i,n}}\leq\varepsilon_n,
\]
where $\varepsilon_n\to_{n\to\infty}0$. Define, for instance, $\mathcal G_n$ in such a way that
\[
\varepsilon_n:=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\sup_{s,t\in N(s_{i,n})}\norm{s-t}\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\]
with $N(s_{i,n})$ as defined in \eqref{eq:set_closest_points}. Clearly, $d:=d(n)\to_{n\to\infty}\infty$. Denote by $\norm\cdot_{D^{(n)}_{s_1,\dotsc,s_d}}$ the $D$-norm pertaining to $\eta_{s_{1,n}},\dotsc,\eta_{s_{d,n}}$. Let further $\hat{\bm\eta}_n=(\hat \eta_{t,n})_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ be the kernel-based discretized version of $\bm\eta$ with grid $\mathcal G_n$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\hat\eta_{t,n}=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\frac{\eta_{s_{i,n}}}{g_{i,n}(t)},\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\end{equation*}
where for $i=1,\dotsc,d$
\[
g_{i,n}(t)=\frac{K(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n)}{\norm{(K(\norm{t-s_{1,n}}/h_n),\dots,K(\norm{t-s_{d,n}}/h_n))}_{D^{(n)}_{s_1,\dotsc,s_d}}},\quad t\in[0,1]^k,
\]
$K:[0,\infty)\to[0,1]$ is the continuous and strictly decreasing kernel function satisfying condition \eqref{eq:condition_on_kernel} and $h_n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, is some positive sequence. We have already seen in Lemma \ref{lem:convergence_to_kronecker} that $g_{i,n}(t)\in[0,1]$, $t\in[0,1]^k$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Furthermore we have the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:weight_functions_converge_to_one}
Choose $t\in[0,1]^k$. There is a sequence $i(n)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $t\in\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}}N(s_{i(n),n})$. Define $g_{i(n),n}$ and $\varepsilon_n$ as above, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}g_{i(n),n}(t)=1,
\]
if $\varepsilon_n\to_{n\to\infty}0$, $h_n\to_{n\to\infty}0$, $\varepsilon_n/h_n\to_{n\to\infty}\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\in[0,1]^k$ and choose a sequence $i(n)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, as above. Put for simplicity $s_{i(n),n}=:s_{i,n}$ and $g_{i(n),n}=:g_{i,n}$. We have
\begin{align*}
1\geq g_{i,n}(t)&=\frac{K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right)}{E\left(\max_{j=1,\dotsc,d}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)Z_{s_{j,n}}\right)}\\
&\geq \Bigg(\frac{E\left(\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}\geq2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)Z_{s_{j,n}}\right)}{K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right)}\\
&\qquad+\frac{E\left(\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)Z_{s_{j,n}}\right)}{K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right)}\Bigg)^{-1}\\
&=:(A_{i,n}(t)+B_{i,n}(t))^{-1}.
\end{align*}
From $t\in N(s_{i,n})$ we conclude $\norm{t-s_{i,n}}\leq\varepsilon_n$. Hence, we have due to \eqref{eq:condition_generator} and the properties of the kernel function $K$
\[
0\leq A_{i,n}(t)\leq\frac{K(2\varepsilon_n/h_n)}{K(\varepsilon_n/h_n)}E\left(\sup_{t\in[0,1]^k}Z_t\right)\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\]
since $\varepsilon_n/h_n\to_{n\to\infty}\infty$ by assumption. Furthermore, $t\in N(s_{i,n})$ and the fact that $K$ is decreasing implies
\[
\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)=K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right).
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
1\leq B_{i,n}(t)&=\frac{1}{K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right)}\bigg(E\bigg(\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)Z_{s_{j,n}}\\
&\hspace*{3cm}-\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)Z_{s_{i,n}}\bigg)\bigg)+1\\
&\leq\frac{E\left(\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}K\left(\norm{t-s_{j,n}}/h_n\right)\abs{Z_{s_{j,n}}-Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)}{K\left(\norm{t-s_{i,n}}/h_n\right)}+1\\
&\leq E\left(\max_{j:\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_{s_{j,n}}-Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)+1\\
&\leq E\left(\sup_{\norm{r-s}<3\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_{r}-Z_{s}}\right)+1\\
&\to_{n\to\infty}1,
\end{align*}
because of Lemma \ref{lem:generator_uniformly_continuous}. Note that $\norm{s_{j,n}-t}<2\varepsilon_n$ and $t\in N(s_{i,n})$ imply \linebreak $\norm{s_{j,n}-s_{i,n}}<3\varepsilon_n$.
\end{proof}
We have now gathered the tools to prove convergence of the mean squared error to zero.
\begin{theorem}\label{the:mse_kernel_model}
Define $\hat{\bm\eta}_n$ and $\varepsilon_n$ as above, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then for every $t\in[0,1]^k$
\[
\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right)\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\]
and
\[
\IMSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right):=\int_{[0,1]^k}\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right)~dt\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\]
if $\varepsilon_n\to_{n\to\infty}0$, $h_n\to_{n\to\infty}0$, $\varepsilon_n/h_n\to_{n\to\infty}\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Denote by
\[
\hat Z_{t,n}=\max_{j=1,\dotsc,d}\left(g_{j,n}( t)Z_{ s_{j,n}}\right),\qquad t\in[0,1]^k,
\]
the generator of $\hat{\bm \eta}_n$. Choose $t\in[0,1]^k$ and a sequence $i:=i(n)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $t\in\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N}}N\left(s_{i,n}\right)$. We have by Lemma \ref{lem:mse_inequality}, Lemma \ref{lem:weight_functions_converge_to_one} and the continuity of $\bm{Z}$
\begin{align*}
\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right)&\leq 6E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_{t,n}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq 6E\left(\abs{Z_{t}-Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)+6E\left(\abs{Z_{s_{i,n}}-g_{i,n}(t)Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad+6E\left(\abs{g_{i,n}(t)Z_{s_{i,n}}-\hat Z_{t,n}}\right)\nonumber\\
&= 6E\left(\abs{Z_{t}-Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)+12\left(1-g_{i,n}(t)\right)\nonumber\\
&\to_{n\to\infty}0\label{eqn:bound_for_mse};
\end{align*}
recall that $g_{i,n}(t)Z_{s_{i,n}}\le \hat Z_{t,n}$.
Next we establish convergence of the integrated mean squared error. The sets $N(s_{i,n})$, as defined in \eqref{eq:set_closest_points}, are typically not disjoint, but the intersections $N(s_{i,n})\cap N(s_{j,n})$, $i\neq j$, have Lebesgue measure zero on $[0,1]^k$. Clearly, $\bigcup_{i=1}^dN(s_{i,n})=[0,1]^k$. Therefore, applying Lemma \ref{lem:mse_inequality} yields
\begin{align*}
\IMSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right)&=\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}\MSE\left(\hat\eta_{t,n}\right)~dt\\
&\leq6 \sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\abs{Z_t-\hat Z_{t,n}}\right)~dt\\
&\leq6\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\abs{Z_t-Z_{s_i,n}}\right)~dt\\
&\qquad\qquad+\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}\abs{1-g_{i,n}(t)}E\left(Z_{s_i,n}\right)~dt\\
&\qquad\qquad+\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\abs{g_{i,n}(t)Z_{s_i,n}-\hat Z_{t,n}}\right)~dt\bigg)\\
&=:6\left(S_{1,n}+S_{2,n}+S_{3,n}\right)
\end{align*}
due to Lemma \ref{lem:mse_inequality}. From Lemma \ref{lem:generator_uniformly_continuous} we conclude
\begin{align*}
S_{1,n}&=\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\abs{Z_t-Z_{s_{i,n}}}\right)~dt\\
&\leq\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\sup_{\norm{r-s}\leq\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_r-Z_s}\right)~dt\\
&=\int_{[0,1]^k}E\left(\sup_{\norm{r-s}\leq\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_r-Z_s}\right)~dt\\
&=E\left(\sup_{\norm{r-s}\leq\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_r-Z_s}\right)\\
&\to_{n\to\infty}0.
\end{align*}
Define
\[
A_n:=\frac{K(2\varepsilon_n/h_n)}{K(\varepsilon_n/h_n)}E\left(\sup_{t\in[0,1]^k}Z_t\right),\quad B_n:=E\left(\sup_{\norm{r-s}<3\varepsilon_n}\abs{Z_{r}-Z_{s}}\right)+1.
\]
As we have seen in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:weight_functions_converge_to_one}, we have for $t\in N(s_{i,n})$
\[
1\geq g_{i,n}(t)\geq (A_n+B_n)^{-1}\to1,
\]
and therefore
\begin{align*}
S_{2,n}&=\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}(1-g_{i,n}(t))~dt\\
&\leq\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}1-(A_n+B_n)^{-1}~dt\\
&=\int_{[0,1]^k}1-(A_n+B_n)^{-1}~dt\\
&=1-(A_n+B_n)^{-1}\\
&\to_{n\to\infty}0.
\end{align*}
Lastly, we have by the same argument as above
\begin{equation*}
S_{3,n}=\sum_{i=1}^d\int_{N(s_{i,n})}E\left(\hat Z_{t,n}-g_{i,n}(t)Z_{s_i,n}\right)~dt=S_{2,n}\to_{n\to\infty}0,
\end{equation*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\upshape Given a grid $s_1,\dots,s_{d(n)}$ with pertaining $\varepsilon_n$, the bandwidth $h_n:=\varepsilon_n^2$ would, for example, satisfy the required growth conditions entailing convergence of MSE and IMSE to zero. But, it would clearly be desirable to provide some details on how to choose the bandwidth in an optimal way, which is, for example, statistical folklore in kernel density estimation. In our setup, however, this is an open problem, which requires future work.
\end{rem}
\section{Discretized versions of copula processes}
Next we transfer the model we have established in Section \ref{sec:model} to copula processes that are in a sense close to max-stable processes. A \emph{copula process} $\bm U=(U_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ is a stochastic process with continuous sample paths, such that each rv $U_t$ is uniformly distributed on the interval $[0,1]$. We say that $\bm U$ is in the \emph{functional domain of attraction} of an SMSP $\bm\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$, if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fdoa}
\lim_{n\to\infty}P\left(n\left(\bm U-1\right)\leq f\right)^n=P\left(\bm\eta\leq f\right)=\exp\left(-\norm f_D\right),\qquad f\in\bar E^-\left([0,1]^k\right).
\end{equation}
Define for any $t\in[0,1]^k$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$
\[
Y_t^{(n)}:=n\left(\max_{i=1,\dotsc,n}U_t^{(i)}-1\right),
\]
with $\bm U^{(1)},\bm U^{(2)},\dotsc$ being independent copies of $\bm U$. Now choose again pairwise different points $s_1,\dotsc,s_d\in[0,1]^k$ and functions $g_1,\dotsc,g_d\in\bar C^+\left([0,1]^k\right)$ with the properties \eqref{eq:norming_functions_standardization} and \eqref{eq:norming_functions_interpolation}. Condition \eqref{eq:fdoa} implies weak convergence of the finitedimensional distributions of $\bm Y^{(n)}=(Y_t^{(n)})_{t\in[0,1]^k}$, i.\,e.
\[
\left(Y_{s_1}^{(n)},\dotsc,Y_{s_d}^{(n)}\right)\to_{\mathcal D}\left(\eta_{s_1},\dotsc,\eta_{s_d}\right),
\]
where '$\to_{\mathcal D}$' denotes convergence in distribution. Just like before, we can define the \emph{discretized version} $\hat{\bm Y}^{(n)}=(\hat Y^{(n)}_t)_{t\in[0,1]^k}$ of $\bm Y^{(n)}$ with grid $\{s_1,\dotsc,s_d\}$ and weight functions $g_1,\dotsc,g_d$ to be
\[
\hat Y^{(n)}_t:=\max_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\frac{Y_{s_i}^{(n)}}{g_i(t)},\qquad t\in[0,1]^k.
\]
Elementary calculations show that \eqref{eq:fdoa} implies
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty}P\left(\hat{\bm Y}^{(n)}\leq f\right)=P\left(\hat{\bm\eta}\leq f\right),\qquad f\in \bar E^-\left([0,1]^k\right),
\]
where $\hat{\bm\eta}$ is the discretized version of $\bm\eta$ as defined in \eqref{eq:generalized_max_linear_model}. Also, it is not difficult to see that for each $t\in[0,1]^k$,
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:doa_bivariate_smsrv}
\left(Y_t^{(n)},\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)\to_{\mathcal D}(\eta_t,\hat\eta_t)
\end{equation*}
where $(\eta_t,\hat\eta_t)$ is the standard max-stable rv from Lemma \ref{lem:eta_hateta_sms}. Now applying the continuous mapping theorem, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\left(Y_t^{(n)}-\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)^2\to_{\mathcal D}(\eta_t-\hat\eta_t)^2.
\end{equation*}
It remains to prove uniform integrability of the sequence on the left hand side in order to obtain the next result.
\begin{prop}
Let $t\in[0,1]^k$. Then
\[
\MSE\left(\hat Y_{t}^{(n)}\right)=E\left(\left(Y_t^{(n)}-\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)^2\right)\to_{n\to\infty}\MSE\left(\hat\eta_t\right).
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $t\in[0,1]^k$. It remains to show that the sequence $X_t^{(n)}:=\left(Y_t^{(n)}-\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)^2$ is uniformly integrable. A sufficient condition for uniform integrability is
\[
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}E\left(\left(X_t^{(n)}\right)^2\right)<\infty,
\]
see \citet[Section 3]{billi99}. Clearly, for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$,
\[
E\left(\left(X_t^{(n)}\right)^2\right)\leq E\left(\left(Y_t^{(n)}\right)^4\right)+E\left(\left(\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)^4\right).
\]
It is easy to verify that the rv $Y_t^{(n)}$ has the density $(1+x/n)^{n-1}$ on $[-n,0]$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
E\left(\left(Y_t^{(n)}\right)^4\right)=\int_{-n}^0x^4\left(1+\frac xn\right)^{n-1}~dx=\frac{24n^5(n-1)!}{(n+4)!}\leq 24.
\end{align*}
Moreover, putting $c:=\min_{i=1,\dotsc,d}g_i(t)>0$,
\[
\abs{\hat Y_t^{(n)}}=\min_{i=1,\dotsc,d}\frac{\abs{Y_{s_i}^{(n)}}}{g_i(t)}\leq\frac{\abs{Y_{s_1}^{(n)}}}{c},
\]
and hence
\[
E\left(\left(\hat Y_t^{(n)}\right)^4\right)\leq\frac{24}{c^4},
\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript. The paper has benefitted a lot from their critical remarks.
|
\section{Introduction}
Employing multiple antennas at transmitters and/or receivers has been
shown to increase spatial diversity and spectral
efficiency~\cite{telatar,foschini98}. To achieve higher potential of
multiple antennas, some channel state information (CSI) at both the
transmitter and receiver is required. At a receiver, CSI can be
estimated from pilot signals. However, estimating the channel at a
transmitter is not possible for frequency-division duplex (FDD) where
forward and backward channels are in different frequency bands.
Consequently, a transmitter in FDD must obtain CSI from a receiver via
a low-rate feedback channel. Many researchers have proposed schemes
to quantize and feed back CSI and analyze the associated performance
(see \cite{love08} and references therein). With finite feedback
rate, the beamforming vector is selected from a quantization set or a
codebook, which is known {\em a priori} at the transmitter and the
receiver. The codebook index of the selected vector is then fed back
to the transmitter, which subsequently adjusts its beamforming
coefficients accordingly. Different codebooks have been proposed and
analyzed in~\cite{love03,mimo,wcom11,ryan09}. The optimal
Grassmannian codebook that maximizes the minimum chordal distance
between any two codebook entries was proposed
in~\cite{love03}. In~\cite{mimo}, a random vector quantization (RVQ)
codebook whose entries are independent isotropically distributed, is
analyzed. RVQ codebook is simpler to construct than Grassmannian
codebook and performs close to the optimum. To reduce search
complexity of RVQ, the codebook entries are organized in a tree
structure in~\cite{wcom11}. In~\cite{ryan09}, PSK and QAM codebooks
were proposed with low-complexity search based on noncoherent
detection algorithm. If CSI at the receiver is also not perfect due
to limited channel training, the rate performance will degrade
further. Imperfect CSI at the receiver in conjunction with limited
feedback has been considered in our previous work~\cite{train10}.
Feeding back quantized beamforming coefficients may not be useful in a
fast fading channel since they are quickly outdated~\cite{ma09}. If
the channel fades slowly, the beamforming coefficients may not need to
be updated frequently. Thus, the feedback scheme should be adapted to
temporal correlation of the channel~\cite{mondal06, huang09, kim11,
osmane13, zhang12, kim11dif, medra15}. Switched codebook
quantization was proposed in~\cite{mondal06} where the codebook
selection was based on channel spatial and temporal correlations.
In~\cite{huang09}, quantized CSI was modeled as a first-order
finite-state Markov chain and beamforming feedback is based on the
channel dynamics. An adaptive feedback period (AFP) scheme in which
the receiver feeds back to the transmitter periodically was considered
in~\cite{kim11}. However, the authors were only concerned with MISO
channels in which the number of receive antennas is fixed to 1. The
optimal feedback period for coordinated multi-point (COMP) systems was
considered in~\cite{osmane13} where channels are also modeled as a
first-order Gauss-Markov process. In~\cite{zhang12}, the minimum
feedback rate of a differential feedback scheme was analyzed. The
authors in~\cite{kim11dif} have proposed a differential codebook,
which is rotated according to channel correlation, feedback rate, and
the previous transmit beamforming. In~\cite{chen17,medra15}, a
differential precoder, which depends on temporal correlation of the
channel, adjusts the quantized transmit precoder to be closer to the
optimal precoder.
Another line of work~\cite{xu14, mehanna14, noh16} applied Kalman
filter (KF) to predict the current transmission channel based on
previous estimates and channel correlation.
References~\cite{xu14,mehanna14} proposed quantizing and feeding back
an innovation term, which is the difference between the received
signal and its estimate, to the transmitter. The current channel
estimate then can be computed by the transmitter using KF with a
sequence of the previous quantized innovations. In~\cite{mehanna14},
only 2 bits per update were required to send back innovations and were
used to compute the beamforming vector by the transmitter. CSI at the
receiver was obtained via a pilot signal and was not perfect.
Reference~\cite{noh16} improved the training phase of KF beamforming
in massive MIMO systems by reducing the amount of pilot.
For this work, we consider block Rayleigh-fading MIMO channels with
time evolution modeled by a first-order Gauss-Markov process. (An
uncorrelated block-fading model was considered in our previous
work~\cite{mimo, train10}). Antennas are assumed to be sufficiently
far apart that they are independent. We analyze the performance of
quantized beamforming (rank-one precoding) in the AFP scheme first
proposed by~\cite{kim11}, which considered only MISO channels. In our
previous work~\cite{tc15}, we also considered quantizing transmit
beamforming in MISO channels, but in conjunction with orthogonal
frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), and optimize the size of
subcarrier cluster. To quantize transmit beamforming, we apply random
vector quantization (RVQ) codebook, which has been shown to perform
close to the optimum codebook~\cite{mimo,commag04}. Furthermore, RVQ
can be analyzed to obtain some insights into the limited feedback
performance. Although transmission with beamforming or rank-one
precoding does not achieve full spatial multiplexing gain in MIMO
channels, the amount of CSI feedback required for beamforming is
substantially smaller than that with full-rank precoding~\cite{mimo}.
As subsequent results will show, the AFP scheme with our proposed
feedback interval outperforms other schemes in low-feedback regimes.
Also, when feedback rate is low, the optimal rank of the precoding
matrix that maximizes achievable rate is also low and thus, transmit
beamforming can be optimal or close to optimal~\cite{mimo}. Hence, our
contribution, which is stemmed from quantizing transmit beamforming,
will be most beneficial for systems with very limited feedback.
In this study, we can summarize our contribution as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item We derive a closed-form expression of the averaged received
power for channels with two transmit antennas and arbitrary number
of receive antennas, which is based on the eigenvalue distribution
of the channel matrix~\cite{veeravalli13}. For channels with
arbitrary number of transmit and two receive antennas, the
expression for the averaged received power is also derived, but
needs to be evaluated numerically. We formulate the problems that
find the optimal feedback interval and compare the rate performance
of AFP scheme and the minimum feedback-period (MFP) scheme, which
updates feedback for every fading block. Similar study has been
performed in~\cite{kim11} for MISO channels and in~\cite{osmane13}
for COMP system with a single-antenna receiver. However, our
results, which apply to MIMO models as well, are different and not
simple extension of~\cite{kim11} or~\cite{osmane13}. We find that
the maximum feedback interval where the AFP scheme outperforms the
MFP one, depends more on the number of receive antennas especially
when feedback rate is low.
\item For channels with an arbitrary number of transmit and receive
antennas, we derive the averaged rate difference in a large system limit
in which the numbers of transmit and receive antennas and the number
of feedback bits tends to infinity with fixed ratios. Numerical
examples show that the large system results can be used to
approximate the optimal feedback interval of finite-size systems.
Some of the large system results were presented in part
in~\cite{gc2011}.
\item Our numerical results show that the AFP scheme with the optimal
feedback interval outperforms KF beamforming with quantized
innovation in all feedback-rate regimes and the performance gain can
be significant in MIMO channels. We also find that with very low
feedback rate, the AFP scheme achieves larger averaged received
power than the differential codebook proposed by~\cite{kim11dif},
which is adapted with the channel. Although the optimal feedback
interval is analyzed for RVQ codebook, the numerical results show
that the optimal feedback interval for RVQ is close to that for
Grassmannian codebook, which achieves optimal rate for channels with
finite number of antennas.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sys_mod} introduces
the channel model and feedback schemes. In Section~\ref{afp}, we
analyze the optimal feedback interval for systems with two transmit
and/or two receive antennas. Large system analysis is shown in
Section~\ref{large_sys}. The numerical results and conclusions are in
Sections~\ref{num_re} and~\ref{conclude}, respectively.
\section{System Model}
\label{sys_mod}
We consider a point-to-point discrete-time multiple-antenna channel with
$N_t$ transmit and $N_r$ receive antennas. We assume block fading in
which the channel gains remain static for $L$ symbols and change in the
next block of symbols. To allow meaningful feedback of CSI from a
receiver, the block length $L$, which is also a coherence period, is
assumed to be sufficiently long. During the $k$th fading block, an
$N_r \times 1$ receive vector during symbol index $kL + l$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{r}}[kL + l] = \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}(k) x_s[kL + l] + \ensuremath{\bm{n}}[kL + l], \quad 1 \le l
\le L
\label{eq_kL}
\end{equation}
where we use square brackets and parentheses to indicate symbol index
and block index, respectively. In~\eqref{eq_kL}, $x_s[i]$ is the
$i$th transmitted symbol with zero mean and unit variance, $\ensuremath{\bm{n}}[i]$ is
an $N_r \times 1$ additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) vector during
symbol index $i$ with zero mean and covariance $\ensuremath{\sigma_{n}^{2}} \ensuremath{\bm{I}}$ where $\ensuremath{\bm{I}}$
is an identity matrix, $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}(k)$ is an $N_t \times 1$ unit-norm
beamforming vector for the $k$th fading block, and $\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k) =
[h_{ij}(k)]$ is an $N_r \times N_t$ channel matrix whose element
$h_{ij}(k)$ is the channel gain between the $i$th receive and the
$j$th transmit antennas during the $k$th fading block. Here, we
consider rank-one transmit precoding or beamforming. Arbitrary-rank
transmit precoding with multiple independent data streams in
temporally uncorrelated MIMO channels was considered in~\cite{mimo}.
Assuming an ideal scattering environment, $h_{ij}(k)$ is modeled as a
complex Gaussian random variable with zero mean and unit variance.
Also, we assume that adjacent antennas in antenna arrays at both the
transmitter and receiver are placed sufficiently far apart that
elements of $\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)$ are independent.
To model a time evolution of the channel considered, we adopt the
first-order Gauss-Markov process, which has been widely used for its
tractability~\cite{zhao_pimrc05,mondal06,peel07,kim11}. Thus, the
channel matrix of the $k$th fading block relates to that of the
previous block as follows
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k) = \alpha \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k-1) + \sqrt{1 - \alpha^2} \ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k)
\label{eq_1od}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k)$ is an $N_r \times N_t$ innovation matrix with
independent zero-mean unit-variance complex Gaussian entries, and
$\alpha \in [0,1)$ denotes a temporal correlation coefficient between
adjacent blocks. Note that $\alpha \rightarrow 1$ produces a
time-invariant channel. On the other hand, $\alpha = 0$ indicates a
channel with no temporal correlation and thus, the channel fades
independently from one coherence block to the next. For the
Jakes/Clarke fading model~\cite{jake93}, $\alpha = \mathbb{J}_0(2
\pi D_s T_s)$ where $\mathbb{J}_0(\cdot)$ is the zeroth-order Bessel
function, $D_s$ is the Doppler spread, and $T_s$ is the time
duration of a block. For example, for a channel with 900-MHz
carrier frequency and 5-ms average fading block, $\alpha$ ranges
from 0.5 to 0.9999 as mobile's velocity varies from 60 km/h to 1
km/h.
The associated ergodic achievable rate of this channel is given by
\begin{equation}
R = E \left[ \log \left(1 + \rho \ensuremath{\bm{v}}(k)^\dag \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^\dag \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}
(k) \right) \right]
\label{eq_Ell}
\end{equation}
where $\rho = E[|x_s|^2]/\ensuremath{\sigma_{n}^{2}} = 1/\ensuremath{\sigma_{n}^{2}}$ denotes the background
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), $[\cdot]^{\dag}$ denotes the Hermitian
transpose, and $E[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation operator. We note
that the expectation in~\eqref{eq_Ell} is over channel matrix. To
achieve the desired rate, the transmitter encodes the transmitted
symbols across many different fading blocks with equal power per
symbol. In addition to SNR, the achievable rate also depends on the
beamforming vector $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}(k)$. If the transmitter can track the channel
perfectly (perfect CSI), the optimal $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}(k)$ is the eigenvector of
$\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)$ corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue. In
other words, the optimal beamforming vector is in the direction of the
strongest channel mode.
With FDD, the transmitter is not able to estimate the channel directly
and has to rely on CSI fed back from the receiver via a rate-limited
channel. The receiver can estimate the channel from pilot signals,
which is known {\em a priori} at the transmitter and receiver.
Assuming perfect CSI, the receiver selects the optimal beamforming
vector and sends it back via a feedback channel to the transmitter.
Since the feedback channel is rate-limited, the selected beamforming
vector needs to be quantized. Here, we quantize the transmit
beamforming vector with an RVQ codebook
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}} = \{ \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_1, \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_2, \cdots, \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_n\}
\end{equation}
where entries $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j$ are independent isotropically distributed and
$n$ denotes the number of entries in the RVQ codebook. For given
$\log_2 n$ quantization bits, RVQ performs close to the optimal
codebook~\cite{commag04,mimo} for channels with finite number of
transmit and receive antennas. In a large system limit to be defined,
RVQ is optimal (i.e., maximizes achievable rate)~\cite{mimo,dai09}.
Given $\log_2 n$ bits and channel matrix $\ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k)$, the receiver selects
from the RVQ codebook
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(k) &= \arg \max_{\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}} \ \log \left(1 + \rho
\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag}_j \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j \right)\\ &= \arg
\max_{\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}} \ \ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag}_j \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j .
\end{align}
The index of the selected beamforming vector is then fed back to the
transmitter, which adjusts its beamforming vector accordingly. We
assume that the time duration to feed back the selected index is
negligible when compared to one fading block and that the
feedback channel is error-free. The associated achievable rate with
a quantized transmit beamformer is given by
\begin{equation}
R = E \left[ \log \left(1 + \rho \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}
(k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (k) \right) \right] .
\label{c_rvq}
\end{equation}
Since the channel is time-varying, the transmit beamforming needs to
be quantized and fed back for every fading block. This may not be
practical due to the limited feedback rate. However, the system can
take advantage of temporal correlation of the channel in order to
reduce the number of bits needed. In this paper, we consider feedback
schemes that reduce the number of feedback bits while maintaining
performance.
\section{On Optimizing Feedback Interval}
\label{afp}
Suppose that there are $B$ feedback bits available per fading block.
Since the overhead must be kept small, $B$ bits per fading block may
not be sufficient to meaningfully quantize a beamforming vector $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}$.
In the AFP scheme proposed by~\cite{kim11}, $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}$ is quantized and fed
back at the beginning of every interval of $K$ fading blocks with $BK$
bits instead of every block with $B$ bits. However, the transmit
beamforming vector quantized to the first fading block with more
feedback bits will gradually be outdated as time passes. Thus, the
feedback interval $K$ should be adjusted to the temporal correlation
of the channel. In this section, we analyze the optimal feedback
interval for MIMO channels in the AFP scheme. Note that the feedback
interval was analyzed for MISO channels by~\cite{kim11}. Here we
analyze the achievable rate for MIMO channels with either two transmit
or two receive antennas. The analysis involves the eigenvalue
distribution of the channel matrix and the distribution of the
received power with RVQ codebook conditioned on the
channel~\cite{veeravalli13}, which becomes more complex as the system
size increases. Thus, our results are not simple extension of those
in~\cite{kim11}.
First, we determine an average achievable rate over $K$ fading blocks
given by
\begin{align}
\bar{R} &= \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}E\left[ \log \left(1 + \rho
\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)
\right)\right] \label{c_interval}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} \log \left(1 + \rho
E\left[\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)\right]
\right) \label{c_jensen}\\
&\le \log \left(1 + \rho
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} E \left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}
(k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1) \right] \right) \label{cbnd}
\end{align}
where $\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)$ is the quantized transmit beamformer for the channel
$\ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)$ in the first fading block and we apply Jensen's inequality
to obtain the upper bound~\eqref{cbnd}. From~\eqref{c_interval}, we
see that for the AFP scheme, the quantized beamformer of the first
block is used for all $K$ consecutive blocks. Since the expression of
the average rate in~\eqref{c_interval} is not tractable, we choose to
instead maximize the rate upper bound in~\eqref{cbnd} and obtain the
feedback interval as follows
\begin{equation}
K^* = \arg \max_{K \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}E
\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)\right],
\label{optK1}
\end{equation}
which is an integer optimization problem. The problem
in~\eqref{optK1} is to maximize the average received power over $K$
blocks. If $K$ is not too large, an exhaustive search can be
performed to find the optimal feedback interval $K^*$. We expect
$K^*$ to be a good estimate of the feedback interval that maximizes
the average rate~\eqref{c_interval} in a low-SNR regime since in that
regime, logarithm increases approximately linearly with the received
power.
\subsection{$2 \times N_r$ Channels}
\label{sub:2r}
For a point-to-point channel with 2 transmit antennas and $N_r > 1$
receive antennas, the following lemma gives the expected received
power during the $k$th fading block when the quantized transmit
beamforming for the first block is used.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma_Nr}
The received power for the $k$th block of a $2 \times N_r$ channel
with $BK$ bits to quantize $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}(1)$, is given by
\begin{multline}
E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right] \\
= \alpha^{2k-2} \left( \gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK) - N_r \right) +
N_r \label{GkNr}
\end{multline}
where
\begin{align}
\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK) &\triangleq E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right]\\
&= \frac{1}{(N_r-1)!(N_r-2)!} \Big[ \phi(N_r+2,N_r-1) \nonumber \\
&\quad -2\phi(N_r+1,N_r) + \phi(N_r,N_r+1)\nonumber \\
&\quad - \frac{1}{2^{BK}+1} \big(\phi(N_r+2,N_r-1) \nonumber \\
&\quad - 3 \phi(N_r+1,N_r) + 3\phi(N_r,N_r+1) \nonumber \\
&\quad -\phi(N_r-1,N_r+2) \big) \Big] \label{GNr}
\end{align}
and $\phi(m,n)$ is a recursive function given by
\begin{multline}
\phi(m,n) = mn\phi (m-1, n-1) - \frac{(m-n)(m+n-1)!}{2^{m+n+1}},\\
\forall m, n \ge 1 \label{Rec1}
\end{multline}
with the following initial conditions: $\phi(4,1) = \frac{45}{8}$,
$\phi(3,2) = \frac{11}{8}$, $\phi(2,3) = \frac{5}{8}$, and $\phi(1,4)
= \frac{3}{8}$.
\end{lemma}
The proof is in Appendix~\ref{a1}.
From~\eqref{GkNr}, we see that as $k$ increases, the received power
decreases since the channel becomes less matched to the transmit
beamformer $\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)$. However, if the channel is highly correlated
($\alpha$ close to 1), the received power will gradually decrease with
time. Averaged over the whole feedback interval, the received power
for a $2 \times N_r$ channel is given by
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}^{\dag}(1)
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}^{\dag}(k)\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right]\\
= N_r + \frac{1}{K} \left(
\frac{1-\alpha^{2K}}{1-\alpha^2} \right)(\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK)
- N_r) .\label{Ave2xNr}
\end{multline}
We note that the average received power increases with $B$. To
determine $K^*$ that maximizes the average received power, we
substitute~\eqref{Ave2xNr} into~\eqref{optK1} and solve the problem.
To obtain some insight on $K^*$, we can consider the two extreme
regimes. When channels are less correlated ($\alpha \to 0$) and $B$
is large, $K^*$ will be close to 1. This is due to the diminishing
return of $\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(x)$. $K^* \approx 1$ implies that
feedback must occur as frequently as possible when the channel is fast
changing and feedback rate is high. When channels are highly
correlated ($\alpha \to 1$), we can show with L'H\^{o}pital's rule
that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\alpha \to 1} \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right] = \gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK) .
\label{AveNrx2lim}
\end{equation}
Thus, the optimal interval $K^* \to \infty$ since $\gamma_{2 \times
N_r}(x)$ is increasing with $K$. In other words, if the channel is
relatively static, the feedback interval should be large. For other
values of $\alpha$ (e.g., $\alpha = 0.8$), our numerical results in
Fig.~\ref{OptNtNr} show that $K^*$ does not depend much on $N_r$ since
increasing the number of receive antennas seems to increase the
received signal power uniformly for all $K$.
In~\cite{kim11}, the performance of the AFP scheme is compared with
that of the minimum feedback period (MFP) scheme in which transmit
beamforming is quantized and fed back to the transmitter for every
fading block ($K = 1$). However, \cite{kim11} only considers MISO
channels. In MIMO channels with a given feedback rate of $B$ bits per
fading block, we find that the AFP scheme (with $K > 1$) outperforms
the MFP scheme (with $K = 1$) if
\begin{equation}
N_r + \frac{1}{K} \left( \frac{1-\alpha^{2K}}{1-\alpha^2} \right)
(\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK) - N_r) > \gamma_{2 \times N_r}(B)
\label{33b}
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side of~\eqref{33b} is the average received power
in \eqref{Ave2xNr} with $K = 1$. With some algebraic manipulation, we obtain
\begin{align}
K &< \left(\frac{1 - \alpha^{2K}}{1 - \alpha^2}\right) \left(
\frac{\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(BK) - N_r}{\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(B) -
N_r} \right) \\
&< \frac{1}{1 - \alpha^2} \left( \frac{\gamma_{2
\times N_r}(BK) - N_r}{\gamma_{2 \times N_r}(B) - N_r} \right) .
\label{Klf}
\end{align}
Thus, \eqref{Klf} gives the range of $K$ in which the performance of
AFP exceeds that of MFP and the maximum $K$ with that property. If we
consider a large $B$ regime or $B \to \infty$, the
inequality~\eqref{Klf} becomes
\begin{equation}
K < \frac{1}{1 - \alpha^2} .
\end{equation}
Thus, we can conclude that when the feedback rate is large, the
maximum feedback interval of the AFP scheme that outperforms the MFP
scheme depends largely on the temporal correlation $\alpha$. Thus,
the feedback interval for the AFP scheme can be set larger when
channels are highly correlated and should be shortened when channels
are less correlated.
\subsection{$N_t \times 2$ Channels}
Next, we consider channels with $N_t > 2$ transmit antennas and two
receive antennas. We can follow the derivation of the averaged
received power for $2\times N_r$ channels in Section~\ref{sub:2r} to
obtain the averaged received power for $N_t \times 2$ channels,
\begin{multline}
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}^{\dag}(1)
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}^{\dag}(k)\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right]\\ = 2 + \frac{1}{K} \left(
\frac{1-\alpha^{2K}}{1-\alpha^2} \right)(\gamma_{N_t \times 2}(BK)
- 2)
\label{1a2}
\end{multline}
where the above expression follows~\eqref{Ave2xNr} with $N_r = 2$, and
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{N_t \times 2}(BK) = E \left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)\right]
\end{equation}
is the received power of the first block. Recall that
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) = \max_{1 \le j \le
2^{BK}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j .
\label{maxv}
\end{equation}
Since the RVQ codebook is employed, the probability density function
(pdf) of $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j$ is identical for
all $j$ and is equal to $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j$~\cite{veeravalli13}
where $\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}$ is an $N_t \times N_t$ diagonal matrix whose main diagonal
entries are the ordered eigenvalues of $\ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1)$. For
this channel, there are only two nonzero eigenvalues, which are
denoted by $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 >
0$. We derive the distribution of $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}}_j$ and obtain
the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma_Nt}
Let $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}$ be an $N_t \times 1$ isotropically distributed vector with
$N_t > 2$ and $\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}= \text{diag} ([\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \underbrace{0,
0,..., 0}_{N_t-2}])$ with $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 > 0$. The
cumulative distribution function (cdf) of $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}}$
conditioned on $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ is given by
\begin{multline}
F_{\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}} |\lambda_1, \lambda_2}(x)\\ = \left\{%
\begin{array}{ll}
1-\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_1 - \lambda_2} \left( 1-\frac{x}{\lambda_1}
\right)^{N_t-1} & \\
\quad + \frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1 - \lambda_2} \left(
1-\frac{x}{\lambda_2} \right)^{N_t-1} & :\, 0\leq x \leq \lambda_2 \\
1 - \frac{(\lambda_1-x)^{N_t-1}}{(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\lambda_1^{N_t-2}} & :\,
\lambda_2 \leq x \leq \lambda_1.
\end{array}%
\right.
\label{cdfNt}
\end{multline}
\end{lemma}
We remark that the expression of the cdf for $\lambda_2 \leq x \leq
\lambda_1$ is obtained from~\cite{veeravalli13} and is shown in
Lemma~\ref{lemma_Nt} for completeness. However, the expression of the
cdf for $0\leq x \leq \lambda_2$ is not derived in~\cite{veeravalli13}
and is not a simple extension of the earlier case. The proof of
Lemma~\ref{lemma_Nt} is shown in Appendix~\ref{a2}.
With~\eqref{maxv} and \eqref{cdfNt}, it is straightforward to show
that
\begin{multline}
E\left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag}\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) |\lambda_1,
\lambda_2 \right]\\
= \lambda_1 - \int_0^{\lambda_1} \left(
F_{\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}} \ensuremath{\bm{v}}}(x) \right)^{2^{BK}} \, \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x .
\label{bvh}
\end{multline}
Thus,
\begin{multline}
E \left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) \right]\\ =
\int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{\lambda_1} E \left[ \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) |\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \right]\\
\times f_{\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) \, \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \lambda_1 \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \lambda_2
\label{ld2}
\end{multline}
where $f_{\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ is the joint pdf of the two
ordered eigenvalues of $\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)$ and is stated
in~\eqref{pdln} where $N_t$ replaces $N_r$. Substitute~\eqref{bvh}
into~\eqref{ld2} and evaluate the first integral to obtain
\begin{multline}
\gamma_{N_t \times 2}(BK) = \frac{\phi(N_t+2,
N_t-1)}{(N_t-1)!(N_t-2)!}\\ - \int_{0}^{\infty}
\int_{0}^{\lambda_1} \int_0^{\lambda_1} \left( F_{\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}
\ensuremath{\bm{v}}}(x) \right)^{2^{BK}} f_{\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) \, \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} x
\, \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \lambda_1 \ensuremath{\mathrm{d}} \lambda_2 .
\label{gtb}
\end{multline}
The recursive function $\phi$ is defined in~\eqref{Rec1}. The
integral in~\eqref{gtb} can be evaluated by any numerical method. We
remark that the expression for the average received power
in~\eqref{gtb} does not apply for $N_t = 2$ since the cdf derived in
Lemma~\ref{lemma_Nt} only applies when $N_t > 2$. We find the optimal
feedback interval $K^*$ by maximizing the average received power
in~\eqref{1a2}, which is determined by \eqref{gtb}. The same
conclusion made for the previous channel model on the maximum feedback
interval of the AFP scheme still applies for this channel model.
However, \cite{mimo} has shown that in order to maintain $\gamma_{N_t
\times 2}$, $B$ needs to scale with $N_t$ as $N_t$ becomes large.
Otherwise, if $B/N_t \to 0$, then the quantization error of transmit
beamforming vector will be large and, hence the received power
$\gamma_{N_t \times 2}$ will be close to that with no CSI. Thus, for
a fixed feedback rate, the maximum feedback interval of the AFP scheme
must increase as $N_t$ increases.
From the analysis, we see that optimizing the feedback interval
requires the temporal correlation coefficient $\alpha$, which in
practice, has to be estimated. For instance, a least-square
estimator~\cite{zheng99} can be applied to determine $\alpha$. Since
channel statistics does not change as often as channel realization
does, $\alpha$ may not need to be estimated frequently.
In this section, our analytical results only apply to channels with
either two transmit or two receiver antennas. For channels with
arbitrary $N_t$ and $N_r$, the expression for the received power is
not tractable due to the pdf of $\ensuremath{\bm{v}}^{\dag}\ensuremath{\bm{\Lambda}}\ensuremath{\bm{v}}$ and the joint pdf
of the ordered eigenvalues of $\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^\dag \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)$. However, the
performance of the system with an arbitrary number of antennas can be
well approximated by its performance in a large system regime to be
defined in the next section.
\section{Large System Analysis}
\label{large_sys}
The large system limit refers to one of which $N_t, N_r, B$ tend to
infinity with fixed $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \triangleq N_r/N_t$ and $\ensuremath{\bar{B}} \triangleq
B/N_t$. In a large system limit, the pdf of the ordered eigenvalues
converges to a deterministic function~\cite{tulino04} and hence,
performance analysis of systems with arbitrary size becomes
accessible. It is shown by~\cite{mimo} that with some feedback ($\ensuremath{\bar{B}} >
0$) and fixed $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$, the achievable rate defined in~\eqref{c_rvq}
increases with $\log(\rho N_t)$. Thus, we define an achievable rate
difference as follows
\begin{align}
R_{\triangle} & \triangleq R - \log(\rho N_t) \\ & = E \left[ \log
\left(\frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(k)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (k) \right) \right] .
\end{align}
Therefore, $R_{\triangle}$ is a rate difference between an actual rate
and $\log(\rho N_t)$ and the difference increases with
$\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$~\cite{mimo}. With feedback rate $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$ per fading block, we apply
the AFP scheme described in Section~\ref{afp} and compute the average
rate difference over an interval of $K$ fading blocks given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{R}_{\triangle} = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}E\left[ \log
\left(\frac{1}{\rho N_t} + \frac{1}{N_t}\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1) \right)\right]
\label{c_interval_large}
\end{equation}
where the quantized beamforming of the first block is used for the
whole interval of $K$ blocks. We note that in the previous section,
we chose to evaluate the upper bound on the rate via the average
received power due to the intractability of the rate analysis.
However, in this section, we evaluate the rate difference.
\subsection{Large System With $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} > 0$}
First we consider the large system with $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} > 0$. In other words,
the numbers of transmit and receive antennas are increasing at the same
rate. Similar to the analysis of the system with a finite number of
antennas, we determine the received power per transmit antenna
$\frac{1}{N_t}\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}^{\dag}(1) \ensuremath{\bm{H}}^{\dag}(k) \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)$ by
applying the Gauss-Markov equation in~\eqref{eq_1od} and evaluate each
term after substitution. The first of the two nonzero terms is shown
by~\cite{mimo,dai09} to converge in a large system limit
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}
(1) \longrightarrow \ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}\left(\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K\right)
\label{f1N}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K$ is the normalized feedback bits used for quantizing
$\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)$ and the expression for the function $\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} (x)$ is as
follows~\cite{mimo}. Suppose
\begin{equation}
\beta = \frac{1}{\log(2)} \left( \ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \log
\left(\frac{\sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}}}{1+\sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}}} \right) + \sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}} \right).
\label{bst}
\end{equation}
For $0 \le x \le \beta$, $\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\left( \ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} \right)^{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}} \ensuremath{\mathrm{e}}^{-\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}} = 2^{-x} \left(
\frac{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{e}}} \right)^{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}}
\label{lsr}
\end{equation}
and for $x \ge \beta$,
\begin{multline}
\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}(x) = (1 + \sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}})^2 - \exp \Big\{ \frac{1}{2} \ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \log(\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}) \\
\quad - (\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}-1) \log (1 + \sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}}) + \sqrt{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}} - x \log(2) \Big\} .
\label{lsr2}
\end{multline}
The second nonzero term can be shown to converge to
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k-i)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k-i) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)
\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} .
\label{1Nv}
\end{equation}
Applying~\eqref{f1N} and~\eqref{1Nv}, we obtain
\begin{multline}
\lim_{(N_t,N_r,B)\to \infty} \frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag}
\ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)\\ = \ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} + \alpha^{2k-2} \left(
\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}\left(\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K \right) -\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \right). \label{1ap}
\end{multline}
Consequently, the expression for the asymptotic rate difference is given by
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} &= \lim_{(N_t,N_r,B)\to \infty} \ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}} \\
&= \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \log(\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} + \alpha^{2k-2} \left(
\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} \left( \ensuremath{\bar{B}} K \right)-\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \right)) .
\label{acap}
\end{align}
We would like to maximize the asymptotic achievable rate difference
averaged over the feedback interval $K$. For a given feedback rate of
$\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$ and $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} > 0$, the optimal feedback interval that maximizes the
asymptotic achievable rate difference is therefore given by
\begin{equation}
K^* = \arg \max_{K \in \mathbb{Z}^+} \left[ \prod_{k=1}^K \ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} +
\alpha^{2(k-1)} \left( \ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} \left( \ensuremath{\bar{B}} K \right)-\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}
\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{K}} .
\label{Ksa}
\end{equation}
Similar to a finite-size system, exhaustive search over some range of
$K$ can be used to obtain a suboptimal feedback interval. We note
that the optimal feedback interval in \eqref{Ksa} will depend on the
temporal correlation coefficient, feedback rate, and the number of
transmit and receiver antennas. Next we consider two extreme regimes
for which $\alpha \to 0$ and $\alpha \to 1$. When the channel does
not change ($\alpha \to 1$), the optimal feedback interval $K^*$ can
be shown to be infinite from~\eqref{Ksa}. This implies that only one
feedback update at the start with all available feedback bits giving
the maximum rate difference.
When the channel fades independently from a current block to the next
block ($\alpha \to 0$), the rate difference in~\eqref{acap} becomes
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} = \frac{1}{K} \log(\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} \left( \ensuremath{\bar{B}}
K \right)) +\frac{K-1}{K} \log(\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}) . \label{acap1}
\end{equation}
Maximizing the rate-difference expression in~\eqref{acap1}, the
optimal feedback interval is given by
\begin{equation}
K^* = \arg \max_{K\in \mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{1}{K} \log
\left(\frac{\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}} (\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K )}{\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}} \right) ,
\label{lm2}
\end{equation}
which depends on $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$ and $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$. We remark that for moderate to large
$\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$, $K^* = 1$. Hence, if the channel is temporally uncorrelated,
the feedback update must occur as frequent as possible. In other
words, the MFP scheme will outperform the AFP scheme.
For general $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$ and $\alpha$, to find the range of $K$ in which the
AFP scheme performs better than the MFP scheme, we solve for $K$
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} > \left. \ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} \right\rvert_{K = 1} =
\ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}(\ensuremath{\bar{B}})
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty}$ is stated in~\eqref{acap}.
\subsection{Large System With $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \to 0$}
Next we examine the system in which $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} \to 0$ in a large system
limit. The results will apply to the system in which the receiver is
equipped with only single antenna (MISO channel) or a fixed number of
antennas while the transmitter is equipped with much larger number of
antennas. First we evaluate the large system limit of
$\frac{1}{N_t}\ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(k)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (k) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)$. For
$\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} = 0$, \cite{mimo} shows that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}}(1)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{H}} (1) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}} (1)
&\longrightarrow \ensuremath{\gamma_{\infty}}\left(\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K\right)\\
&= 1 - 2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K}
\end{align}
while
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N_t} \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1) ^{\dag}\ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k-i)^{\dag} \ensuremath{\bm{W}}(k-i) \ensuremath{\hat{\bm{v}}}(1)
\longrightarrow 0 .
\end{equation}
Thus, the asymptotic achievable rate difference is given by
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} &= \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \log\left( \alpha^{2k-2}
(1 - 2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K}) \right) \\ &= (K-1) \log (\alpha) + \log \left(1 -
2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K}\right)
\label{cbn0}
\end{align}
for $0 < \alpha \le 1$.
Maximizing the asymptotic achievable rate difference in~\eqref{cbn0}
gives the optimal feedback interval as follows
\begin{equation}
K^* = \arg \max_{K \in \mathbb{Z}^+}
\ \alpha^{K-1} (1 - 2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K}) .
\label{th2}
\end{equation}
If the integer constraint is removed, we can find $K^*$ from the first
derivative of $\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty}$ in~\eqref{cbn0} and obtain the following
approximation
\begin{equation}
K^* \approx \frac{1}{\ensuremath{\bar{B}}} \log_2 \left(1 + \frac{\ensuremath{\bar{B}} \log 2}{ \log
\frac{1}{\alpha}} \right)
\label{ksa}
\end{equation}
where $0 < \alpha < 1$. The asymptotic $K^*$ obtained
from~\eqref{ksa} is close to that for a finite-size system. We note
that for large feedback $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$, $K^*$ is small. The solution implies
that the feedback update should occur often when a large number of
feedback bits is available. For a small-feedback regime ($\ensuremath{\bar{B}} \to 0$),
$K^*$ is approximated as follows
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\ensuremath{\bar{B}} \to 0} K^* \approx \frac{\log 2}{\log \frac{1}{\alpha}} .
\end{equation}
We note that $K^*$ is increasing with $\alpha$. Thus, we can conclude
that with a low feedback rate and a highly correlated channel, the
feedback interval should be large or the feedback update should occur
less frequently.
Comparing the rates obtained from the AFP and MFP schemes, we find
that the feedback interval $K$ for the AFP scheme must be larger than
\begin{equation}
K > 1 + \frac{1}{\log \alpha}\log\left( \frac{1 - 2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}}}}{1 -
2^{-\ensuremath{\bar{B}} K}}\right).
\end{equation}
Hence, as channels become less correlated (small $\alpha$), $K$ can be
large. This bound is obtained by solving
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} > \left. \ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty} \right\rvert_{K = 1} =
\log(1 - 2^{-B})
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bar{R}_{\triangle}}^{\infty}(K)$ is stated in~\eqref{cbn0}.
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{num_re}
To illustrate the performance of the considered schemes, Monte Carlo
simulation is performed with 3,000 channel realizations. First, we
compare the analytical results derived in Section~\ref{afp} with the
simulation results. Fig.~\ref{OptNtNr} shows the average received
power normalized by the average received power with perfect feedback,
over the feedback interval of the AFP scheme with the feedback
interval $K$. The feedback rate $B = 1$ bit per block and correlation
coefficient $\alpha = 0.8$. We have two sets of system sizes. For
the first set, $N_t$ is fixed at 2 with various $N_r$ ($2 \times 2$,
$2 \times 3$, and $2 \times 4$). We see that the analytical result
in~\eqref{Ave2xNr}, which is shown with a solid line, perfectly
matches with the simulation result, which is shown with circles. For
all $N_r$, the optimal feedback interval $K^*$ is 3. Adding more
receive antennas will increase the received power since the receiver
can capture more transmitted signal. With 4 receive antennas, the
system with $K^*$ achieves closer to 85\% of the performance with
infinite feedback. The AFP scheme with the optimal $K$ ($K = 3$) can
outperform the MFP scheme ($K = 1$) by close to 11\%.
For the second set of system sizes in which $N_r = 2$ and $N_t$
varies ($2 \times 2$, $3 \times 2$, $4 \times 2$, and $5 \times 2$),
the analytical result comes from~\eqref{1a2}, and \eqref{gtb}. We see
that the optimal interval $K^*$ increases with $N_t$ since the number
of bits ($BK$) required to quantize the beamforming vector increases
with $N_t$. For a larger system ($5 \times 2$), the AFP with $K^* =5$
can outperform the MFP by as much as 27\%.
For $2 \times 2$ channels, we see that the AFP scheme with $2 \le K
\le 7$ gives larger averaged received power than the MFP scheme. The
range of $K$ is accurately predicted by~\eqref{Klf}. For the $2
\times 4$ channel, the range of $K$ for which the AFP performs better
is $2 \le K \le 8$, which can also be obtained by~\eqref{Klf}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.7in]{OptNtNr}
\caption{The received power averaged over the feedback interval and
normalized by the received power with infinite feedback, is plotted
with the length of the feedback interval for various channels where
$\alpha = 0.8$ and $B = 1$. Both simulation and analytical results
are shown.}
\label{OptNtNr}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{OptNtNrGrass}, we compare the performance of RVQ codebook
with that of the Grassmannian codebook~\cite{love03}, which maximizes
the minimum chordal distance between any two codebook entries. The
Grassmannian codebook is optimal for channels with finite number of
antennas and hence, is shown in the figure to outperform RVQ codebook.
However, the Grassmannian codebook is more complex to construct than
RVQ codebook especially when the number of entries is large. Thus, in
the figure, we do not have results of the Grassmannian codebook beyond
$K = 8$. We note that the performance shown in
Fig.~\ref{OptNtNrGrass} is the averaged received power normalized by
the received power with infinite feedback. We see a larger
performance gap between the two codebooks when $BK$ is small or when
the number of quantization bits is small. For all 3 cases shown,
$K^*$ for RVQ codebook and the optimal $K$ that maximizes the received
power for Grassmannian codebook only differs by 1. This implies that
the optimal feedback interval derived for RVQ codebook in this study
can be applied to the Grassmannian codebook with some small
degradation. For the $3 \times 2$ channel, we see that the gain of
AFP with the optimal $K$ over MFP ($K = 1$) increases when the channel
becomes more correlated ($\alpha$ closer to 1). For the 3 x 2 channel
with $\alpha = 0.95$, the Grassmannian codebook with $K^* = 7$ ($K^*$
is derived with RVQ codebook) achieves approximately 82\% of the rate
with perfect feedback while the Grassmannian codebook with $K = 1$ or
the MFP scheme achieves only 57\% of the rate with perfect
feedback. Thus, the performance gain of the AFP scheme over the MFP
scheme in this instance is about 44\%.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{OptNtNrGrass}
\caption{Averaged received power normalized by the received power with
the perfect feedback is shown for both RVQ and Grassmannian
codebooks with varying $K$.}
\label{OptNtNrGrass}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{OptLargeFinite} shows the optimal feedback interval $K^*$
for a $2 \times 2$ channel with different values of correlation
coefficient $\alpha$ and the number of feedback bits per fading block
per transmit antenna $B/N_t$. We consider a mobile system operating
at 900 MHz with 5-ms average fading block for which $\alpha$ varies
from 0.5 to 0.9999 as the speed of mobile decreases from 60 km/h to 1
km/h~\cite{jake93}. We see that for a slow fading channel $(\alpha
\rightarrow 1)$, feedback update can be less frequent and thus, the
feedback interval is large. On the other hand, fast fading channels
(smaller $\alpha$) require frequent feedback updates. If the feedback
rate per transmit antenna ($B/N_t$) is increased from 0.5 to 1, we see
that $K^*$ decreases.
In Fig.~\ref{OptLargeFinite}, we also show the optimal interval $K^*$
of a large system with $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} = 1$ obtained by solving~\eqref{Ksa}. We
remark that $K^*$ for a large system is obtained by maximizing the
rate difference while $K^*$ for a $2 \times 2$ channel is obtained by
maximizing the averaged received power. However, we see that the
large system results can give a good approximation of those of a very
small system.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{OptLargeFinite}
\caption{Optimal feedback intervals for a large system with $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} = 1$
obtained by~\eqref{Ksa} and for a $2\times 2$ channel obtained by
maximizing \eqref{Ave2xNr} are shown with varying channel correlation
$\alpha$ and feedback rate.}
\label{OptLargeFinite}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{LargSysBit}, we compare the achievable rate difference of
a large system derived in~\eqref{acap} with that of a finite-size
system for various feedback rates per transmit antenna $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$. The
feedback interval $K$ is fixed at 8 blocks and SNR $\rho$ is at 10 dB.
The averaged rate gain of finite-size and large systems is obtained
from~\eqref{c_interval_large} and~\eqref{acap}, respectively. We see
that as the system size increases from $N_t = 4$ to 8, 16, and 24, the
simulation results approach the large system results. However, we
note that the convergence to the asymptotic results is slow. Thus,
unless the system size is very large, the gap between the actual and
the asymptotic rate difference might be significant. We also note
that the rate difference increases with $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$ as expected, but rate of
increase is different for different values of $\alpha$. When the channel is
less correlated ($\alpha = 0.5$), the quantized beamforming vector of
the first block is not a good substitute for that of the next blocks.
Consequently, we do not see much increase in that case although the
feedback rate is increased. On the contrary, we see a large increase
when the channel is more correlated ($\alpha = 0.9$) since the
quantized beamforming vector of the first block performs well for all
subsequent blocks in the same interval. Since we quantize beamforming
vectors with the RVQ codebook, which requires an exhaustive search to
find the quantized vector, the search complexity can be too large for
large $B$. Thus, some of the plots in Fig.~\ref{LargSysBit} do not
extend to a larger feedback rate.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{LargSysBit}
\caption{Averaged rate difference for a large system is compared with
that for a finite-size system with $K=8$ and $\rho = 10$ dB.}
\label{LargSysBit}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{mimo_max}, we set $\ensuremath{\bar{B}} = 0.25$ and vary $K$ for channels
with different temporal correlation. We compare the rate difference
of $4 \times 4$ channels and that of a large system with $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} = 1$.
For a $4 \times 4$ channel with $\alpha = 0.9$, the AFP scheme with $K
= 5$ performs almost twice as much as the MFP scheme does (the green
line with pluses). For time-invariant channels ($\alpha = 1$), the
optimal $K$ is large. Although the difference between the results of
small-size and large systems can be large as shown in
Fig.~\ref{LargSysBit}, the optimal feedback interval $K^*$ obtained
from the two results is close (either off by 1 or identical). We also
compare the optimal $K$ from the simulation and analytical results
with different system sizes, feedback rates, and channel correlation
coefficients in Fig.~\ref{mimo_max2}. The results reinforce that the
optimal feedback interval that maximizes the rate difference of a
finite-size system, can be predicted quite accurately by the
large-system analysis.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{KStrLarge}
\caption{Averaged rate difference for a large system with $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r} = 1$ is
compared with that for a $4 \times 4$ channel with $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}=0.25$ and
$\rho = 10$ dB.}
\label{mimo_max}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{KStrLarge2}
\caption{Averaged rate difference for a large system is compared with
systems with different sizes, feedback rates, and $\alpha$.}
\label{mimo_max2}
\end{figure}
We plot the optimal feedback interval $K^*$ with the temporal
correlation $\alpha$ for large-system channels with different $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$
and $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$ in Fig.~\ref{mimo_nr}. The same trend as shown in
Fig.~\ref{OptLargeFinite} is also observed in this figure. $K^*$
increases with $\alpha$. However, we note that $K^*$ is mostly
unchanged across different values of $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$, except when $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$ is
extremely low. Similar observation regarding to different number of
receive antennas was also noted for a finite-size system.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{KvsNrBar}
\caption{The optimal feedback interval is shown with $\alpha$ and $\ensuremath{\bar{B}}$
for large-system channels with different $\ensuremath{\bar{N}_r}$.}
\label{mimo_nr}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{OptVsNt} shows how the optimal feedback interval $K^*$
increases with the number of transmit antennas $N_t$, but decreases
with the number of feedback bits per fading block $B$. We note that
$K^*$ is obtained by first substituting~\eqref{1a2} into~\eqref{optK1}
and then solving~\eqref{optK1} numerically. We set $N_r = 2$ and
$\alpha = 0.8$. For larger $N_t$, the number of bits to quantize the
beamforming vector needs to increase to maintain the rate performance
and hence, the feedback interval has to increase as well. Similar to
the results in Fig.~\ref{OptLargeFinite}, as $B$ increases, the
feedback interval can be reduced.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{OptVsNt}
\caption{Optimal feedback intervals $K^*$ for various channel
sizes (with fixed $N_r = 2$) are plotted with the number of transmit
antennas $N_t$ and the number of feedback bits per fading block
$B$.}
\label{OptVsNt}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{CompareAllFinal}, we compare the AFP and MFP schemes with
existing Kalman-filter scheme and differential-feedback scheme in the
literature for $3 \times 1$ and $3 \times 3$ channels.
In~\cite{mehanna14}, KF scheme is applied to construct the channel
vector (or channel matrix) at the transmitter, which then can compute
the optimal transmit beamforming. For a fair comparison, we assume
that the channel estimation at the receiver is perfect. The receiver
quantizes an innovation term, which is the difference between the
received signal and its estimate based on channel estimates from the
previous blocks. The innovation can be straightforwardly shown to be
zero-mean Gaussian with some finite variance. Thus, for
quantization, we apply a generalized Lloyd algorithm~\cite{lloyd82},
which minimizes the mean square error. The quantized innovation is
fed back to the transmitter for every fading block. To construct the
channel vector, we follow the steps in~\cite{mehanna14,xu14}. The
performance of KF scheme is shown in Fig.~\ref{CompareAllFinal}.
For the performance of differential feedback, we apply method 1
in~\cite{kim11dif}. The codebook that quantizes transmit beamforming
vector is not fixed, but is gradually updated by the rotation matrix
selected from a rotation codebook and the normalized radius, which is
a function of $N_t$, $B$, $\alpha$, and block index $k$. The rotation
codebook consists of unitary matrices. For the optimal rotation
codebook, the minimum distance defined by~\cite{kim11dif} between two
entries is maximized. For the results in this figure, we generate
10000 random codebooks with the desired number of entries and find the
codebook with the largest minimum distance between any two codebook
entries. Thus, our rotation codebook is suboptimal, but should be
close to the optimum due to a larger number of trials.
In Fig.~\ref{CompareAllFinal}, we $\alpha = 0.9$ and SNR = 10 dB. We
note that some feedback schemes may require some initial feedback bits
and thus, their performance does not extend to $B = 0$ or small $B$.
For example, the KF scheme needs at least $2N_r$ bits to quantize an
innovation, which is an $N_r$-dimensional complex vector. From the
figure, we see that, Grassmannian codebook with $K^*$, which is
obtained from our analysis, performs the best for low to moderate
feedback rates and is followed closely by RVQ codebook with $K^*$.
For the $3 \times 1$ channel with $B=2$, the Grassmannian codebook
with $K^*$ outperforms KF scheme by about 10\%. The differential
feedback scheme by~\cite{kim11dif} performs better than other schemes
when feedback rate is larger and performs worse when feedback rate is
small. As mentioned in~\cite{kim11dif}, the scheme requires some
sufficient feedback to compensate for cumulative quantization error.
We see that codebooks with $K^*$ outperform the KF scheme for all
feedback rates for both $3 \times 1$ and $3 \times 3$ channels.
Performance degradation is quite significant for the KF scheme when
applied to MIMO channels. If feedback is not sufficient, the KF scheme
does not track channel matrix well and hence, produces transmit
beamforming, which is not aligned with the strongest channel mode.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.65in]{CompareAllFinal}
\caption{Average rate of various feedback schemes for $3 \times 1$ and
$3 \times 3$ channels are shown with the number of feedback bits per
fading block. $\alpha=0.9$ and SNR = 10 dB.}
\label{CompareAllFinal}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclude}
We have analyzed the feedback interval that maximizes either the average
received power or the rate difference for MIMO channels. For the channel model
with either two transmit or two receive antennas, the optimal interval
depends more on the channel correlation, the number of transmit
antennas, and the feedback rate, and less on the number of receive
antennas. For that model, we formulated the received-power maximizing
problem in which the exact feedback interval can be found. For
systems with arbitrary number of transmit and receive antennas, large
system analysis can be used to predict the optimal interval accurately
as shown by the numerical examples. The optimal feedback interval is
a function of the channel correlation, the number of feedback bits per
antenna, and the ratio between the number of transmit and receive
antennas. However, the optimal feedback interval also is less
sensitive to the change in the number of receive antennas.
When the feedback rate is low, the AFP scheme with the optimal
feedback interval outperforms the other schemes including the KF
scheme and differential feedback scheme. The performance gain of the
AFP scheme over the other schemes can be as much as 10\%. Thus, the
feedback interval should be adapted according to channel condition.
However, when the feedback rate is high, the performance difference
among the different schemes may not be significant. We also note that
the optimal feedback interval derived for RVQ codebook and be applied
with Grassmannian codebook, which is optimal for finite-size channels,
with small degradation.
In this work, we assume that training of the channel is sufficient and
thus, CSI at the receiver is perfect. For a system with limited
training, the actual performance of the AFP scheme will be lower than
that obtained in the paper and the KF scheme may perform better.
Since we only consider a point-to-point channel in the present work,
broadcast or multiple-access channels are also of interest and can be
considered in future work.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
The interest in Riemannian metrics on infinite-dimensional manifolds is fueled by their connections to mathematical physics and in particular fluid dynamics. It was Arnold who discovered in 1966 that the incompressible Euler equation, which describes the motion of an ideal fluid, has an interpretation as the geodesic equation on an infinite-dimensional manifold; the manifold in question is the group of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms equipped with the $L^{2}$-metric. Since then many other PDEs in mathematical physics have been reinterpreted as geodesic equations. Examples include Burgers' equation, which is the geodesic equation of the $L^{2}$-metric on the group of all diffeomorphisms of the circle, $\Diff(\Circle)$, and the Camassa--Holm equation \cite{CH1993}, the geodesic equation of the $H^1$-metric \cite{Kou1999} on the same group. Interestingly, geodesic equations corresponding to fractional orders in the Sobolev scale have also found applications in physics: Wunsch showed that the geodesic equation of the homogenous $\dot{H}^{1/2}$-metric on $\Diff(\Circle)$ is connected to the Constantin--Lax--Majda equation \cite{CLM1985,Wun2010,EKW2012}, which itself is a simplified model of the vorticity equation.
The geometric interpretation of a PDE as the geodesic equation enables one to show local well-posedness of the PDE. This was done first by Ebin and Marsden~\cite{EM1970} for the Euler equation. Using a similar method Constantin and Kolev showed in~\cite{CK2003} that the geodesic equation of Sobolev $H^n$-metrics on $\Diff(\Circle)$ with integer $n\geq 1$ is locally well-posed. In~\cite{EK2014} this was extend by Escher and Kolev to the Sobolev $H^r$-metrics of fractional order $r \geq \tfrac 12$. Similar results were shown for the diffeomorphism group of compact manifolds by Shkoller in \cite{Shk1998,Shk2000} and by Preston and Misiolek in~\cite{MP2010}. Fractional metrics on $\Diff(\RR^d)$ have been studied in \cite{BEK2015} by Bauer, Escher and Kolev. The local well-posedness of the geodesic equation for fractional order metrics on the diffeomorphism group of a general manifold $M$ remains an open problem.
In this paper we study the local well-posedness of a family of PDEs that arise as geodesic equations on the space $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$ of immersed curves. To be precise $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$ consists of smooth, closed curves with nowhere vanishing derivatives. We can regard the diffeomorphism group
\begin{equation*}
\Diff(\Circle) \subseteq \Imm(\Circle,\Circle)
\end{equation*}
as an open subset of the space of immersions. If we replace $\Circle$ on the right hand side by $\RR^d$ we obtain the space of curves. The PDE
\begin{equation*}
c_{tt} = -\langle D_{s} c_{t}, D_{s} c \rangle c_{t} - \langle c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle D_{s} c - \frac 12 \abs{c_{t}}^{2} D_{s}^{2} c\,,
\end{equation*}
where $D_{s} = \frac 1{\abs{c'}} \partial_\theta$ and $c=c(t,\theta)$ is a time-dependent curve, is the geodesic equation for the $L^{2}$-metric
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \langle h, k \rangle \abs{c'} \,\mathrm{d} \theta\,.
\end{equation*}
This is a (weak) Riemannian metric on $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$. The weight $\abs{c'}$ in the integral makes the metric invariant under the natural $\Diff(\Circle)$-action and leads to the appearance of arc length derivatives $D_{s}$ in the geodesic equation. This PDE can be seen as a generalization of the geodesic equation on $\Diff(\Circle)$,
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{tt} = -2 \frac{\varphi_{t} \varphi_{tx}}{\varphi_x}\,,
\end{equation*}
which becomes, when written in terms of the Eulerian velocity $u = \varphi_{t} \circ \varphi^{-1}$, Burgers' equation,
\begin{equation*}
u_{t} = -2u_x u\,.
\end{equation*}
While the behaviour of Burgers' equation is well-known, to our knowledge, nothing is known about the local well-posedness of the $L^{2}$-geodesic equation on the space of curves.
The situation improves when we add higher derivatives to the Riemannian metric. By doing so, we get the $H^n$-metric
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} h, k \rangle \abs{c'}\,\mathrm{d} \theta\, , \qquad A_{c} = \sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} D_{s}^{2j}\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha_{j} \geq 0$ are constants. The corresponding geodesic equation is
\begin{align*}
(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} & = -\langle D_{s} c_{t}, D_{s} c \rangle A_{c} c_{t} - \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle D_{s} c - W(c,c_{t}) D_{s}^{2} c\,,
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
W(c,c_{t}) & = \frac 12 \abs{c_{t}}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^{2j-1} (-1)^{k+1} \langle D_{s}^{2j-k}c_{t}, D_{s}^{k}c_{t} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Interestingly, the behaviour of the geodesic equation is better understood in the seemingly more complicated case where $n \geq 1$. For $n=1$ the PDE is locally but generally not globally well-posed \cite{MM2007}, while for $n \geq 2$ the PDE has solutions that are global in time~\cite{BMM2014}.
Inspired by related work \cite{BEK2015, EK2014} on geodesic equations on the diffeomorphism group we consider $H^r$-metrics of non-integer order $r$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} h, k \rangle \abs{c'} \,\mathrm{d} \theta\,,
\end{equation*}
with $A_{c}$ being, for each fixed curve $c$, a Fourier multiplier of order $2r$; the precise assumptions made on $A_{c}$ are described in Section~\ref{sec:metrics}. The geodesic equation takes the form
\begin{equation*}
(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} = -\langle D_{s} c_{t}, D_{s} c \rangle A_{c} c_{t} - \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle D_{s} c -
(w(c,c_{t}) + w_0(c,c_{t}) D_{s}^{2} c\,,
\end{equation*}
where $w(c,c_{t})$ and $w_0(c,c_{t})$ are expressions that are defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:geodesic-equations}. It is a nonlinear evolution equation of second order in $t$ and of order $2s$ in $\theta$; the right hand side is quadratic in $c_{t}$ and highly nonlinear in $c$. For non-integer $s$, both $A_{c} c_{t}$ and $w(c,c_{t})$ are nonlocal functions of both $c$ and $c_{t}$. While not immediately obvious, we show in Example~\ref{ex:metrics-constant-coeff} that it contains the geodesic equations for the $L^{2}$-metric and the $H^n$-metrics as special cases.
Our contribution is to show in Corollary~\ref{cor:Hq-local-well-posedness} that the geodesic equation for the $H^r$-metric is locally well-posed in the Sobolev space $H^q$ for $q \geq 2r$ and $r \geq 1$.
\subsection*{Connections to shape analysis}
Throughout the article we will assume that the operator $A_{c}$ defining the metric is equivariant with respect to the action of the diffeomorphism group $\Diff(\Circle)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
A_{c\circ\varphi}(h \circ\varphi)=\left(A_{c}h\right)\circ\varphi\,, \quad \forall \varphi\in\Diff(\Circle)\,.
\end{equation*}
This is equivalent to requiring that the Riemannian metric $G$ is invariant under the action of $\Diff(\Circle)$, meaning
\begin{equation*}
G_{c \circ \varphi}(h \circ \varphi, k \circ \varphi) = G_{c}(h,k)\,, \quad \forall \varphi\in\Diff(\Circle)\,.
\end{equation*}
This assumption is necessary in order to apply the class of Sobolev metrics in shape analysis.
The mathematical analysis of shapes has been the focus of intense research in recent years
\cite{kendall_shape:84,le-kendall:93,dryden-mardia_book:98,You2010,srivastava-klassen-book:2016} and has found applications in fields such as image analysis, computer vision, biomedical imaging and functional data analysis. An important class of shapes are outlines of planar objects. Mathematically, these shapes can be represented by equivalence classes of parametrized curves modulo the reparametrization group $\Diff(\Circle)$. This yields the following geometric picture,
\begin{align*}
\pi : \operatorname{Imm}(\Circle,\RR^d) \to \Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})/\Diff(\Circle)\,.
\end{align*}
A key step in shape analysis is to define an efficiently computable distance function between shapes in order to measure similarity between shapes. This distance function can be the geodesic distance induced by a Riemannian metric. Since it is difficult to work with the quotient $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})/\Diff(\Circle)$ directly, the standard approach is instead to define a Riemannian metric on $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$, that is $\Diff(\Circle)$-invariant.
Such a metric can then induce a Riemannian metric on the quotient space, making $\pi$ a Riemannian submersion; this metric would be given by the formula
\[
G_{\pi(c)}(u, u) = \inf_{T_c \pi.h = u} G_c(h,h)\,.
\]
Hence we will only look at $\Diff(\Circle)$-invariant metrics on $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$ in this paper.
The arguably simplest invariant metric is the $L^{2}$-metric, corresponding to the operator $A_{c}=\operatorname{Id}$. However, its induced geodesic distance function is identically zero, both, on the space of parametrized curves as well as the quotient space of unparametrized curves; this was shown by Michor and Mumford \cite{MM2005,MM2006}, see also \cite{BBHM2012}. This means that between any two curves there exists a path of arbitrary short length. This property makes the metric ill-suited for most applications in shape analysis, because a notion of distance between shapes is one of the basic tools there. As a consequence higher order metrics, mostly of integer order, were studied and used successfully in applications; see \cite{MM2007,Klassen2004,Jermyn2011,You1998,Sundaramoorthi2008,Sundaramoorthi2011}.
For an overview on various metrics on the shape space of parametrized and unparametrized curves see
\cite{MM2007,BBM2014a,BBM2016}.
As an example we have included an optimal deformation between two unparametrized curves with respect to a second order Sobolev metric in Figure~\ref{fig:geodesic}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{geodesic_forward}
\caption{Example of a geodesic between two shapes with respect to an $H^{2}$-metric \cite{BBHM2016}.}
\label{fig:geodesic}
\end{figure}
Fractional order metrics have been briefly mentioned \cite[Section 3]{MYS2008}. However, so far, an analysis of the well-posedness of the corresponding geodesic equation was missing. This is the question we will focus on in this paper.
\section{Parametrized and unparametrized curves}
\label{sec:curves}
In this article we consider the space of smooth regular curves with values in $\RR^d$
\begin{align*}
\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d}) := \set{c\in C^{\infty}(\Circle,\RR^{d}): \abs{c^{\prime}}\neq 0}\;.
\end{align*}
As an open subset of the Fr\'{e}chet space $C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)$, it is a Fr\'{e}chet manifold. Its tangent space at any curve $c$ is the vector space of smooth functions:
\begin{align*}
T_{c}\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)=C^{\infty}(\Circle,\RR^d)\;.
\end{align*}
The group of smooth diffeomorphisms of the circle
\begin{align*}
\Diff(\Circle) := \set{\varphi\in C^{\infty}(\Circle,\Circle): \abs{\varphi'} > 0}
\end{align*}
acts on the space of regular curves via composition from the right:
\begin{align*}
\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)\times \Diff(\Circle)\rightarrow \Imm(\Circle,\RR^d),\qquad (c,\varphi)\mapsto c\circ\varphi\;.
\end{align*}
Taking the quotient with respect to this group action, we obtain the \emph{shape space}
of un-parameterized curves
\begin{align*}
B_i(\Circle,\RR^d) := \Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)/\Diff(\Circle)\;.
\end{align*}
Note that the action of $\Diff(\Circle)$ on $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$ is \emph{not free}, and thus that the quotient space
$B_i(\Circle,\RR^d)$ is not a manifold, but only an orbifold with finite isotropy groups.
A way to overcome this difficulty is to consider the slightly smaller space of \emph{free immersions} $\Imm_{\operatorname{f}}(\Circle,\RR^d)$, i.e., those immersions upon which $\Diff(\Circle)$ acts freely. This space is an
open and dense subset of $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$ and the corresponding quotient space
\begin{align*}
B_{i,\operatorname{f}}(\Circle,\RR^d) := \Imm_{\operatorname{f}}(\Circle,\RR^d)/\Diff(\Circle)\;
\end{align*}
is again a Fr\'{e}chet manifold, see \cite{CMM1991}.
\section{Riemannian metrics on immersions}
\label{sec:metrics}
Let $G$ be a Riemannian metric on $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$. Motivated by applications in the field of shape analysis we require $G$ to be invariant with respect to the diffeomorphism group $\Diff(\Circle)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:invariance}
G_{c}(h,k) = G_{c\circ\varphi}(h\circ\varphi,k\circ\varphi),\qquad \forall \varphi \in \Diff(\Circle)\,.
\end{equation}
This invariance is a necessary assumption for $G$ to induce a Riemannian metric on the shape space $B_{i,f}(\Circle,\RR^d)$, such that the projection map is a Riemannian submersion.
We assume that the metric is given in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metric}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle}\sprod{A_{c} h}{k}\,\mathrm{d} s ,
\end{equation}
where $A_{c}:C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d) \to C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)$ is a continuous linear operator that depends on the foot point $c$. Associated to the metric is a map
\begin{equation*}
\check G: T\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d}) \to T^{*}\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d}).
\end{equation*}
In terms of $A_{c}$ we have $\check G_{c} = A_{c} \otimes \,\mathrm{d} s$. If $G$ is $\Diff(\Circle)$-invariant, then the family of operators $A_{c}$ has to be $\Diff(\Circle)$-equivariant,
\begin{equation*}
A_{c\circ\varphi}(h\circ\varphi)=A_{c}(h)\circ\varphi,\qquad \forall \varphi \in \Diff(\Circle)\,.
\end{equation*}
\begin{expl}[Integer order Sobolev metrics]
Motivated by their applicability in shape analysis \cite{YMSM2008,SYM2007,MYS2008,MM2007} important examples are Sobolev metrics with \emph{constant coefficients},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integer-order-metric}
G^{n}_{c}(h,k) = \sum_{j=0}^{n} \alpha_{j} \int_{\Circle} \sprod{D_{s}^{j} h}{D_{s}^{j}k} \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{equation}
and \emph{scale-invariant} Sobolev metrics,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scale-integer-metric}
\widetilde G^{n}_{c}(h,k) = \sum_{j=0}^{n} \alpha_{j} \int_{\Circle} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} \sprod{D_{s}^{j} h}{D_{s}^{j}k} \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{equation}
with constants $\alpha_{j} \ge 0$, for $j = 0, \dotsc, n$; one requires $\alpha_{0}, \alpha_n > 0$ and calls $n$ the \emph{order} of the metric. Here, $D_{s}=\frac{\partial_\theta}{\abs{c^{\prime}}}$ denotes \emph{differentiation with respect to arc length}, $\,\mathrm{d} s=\abs{c'}\,\mathrm{d} \theta$ \emph{integration with respect to arc length} and $\ell_{c}= \int_{\Circle}\,\mathrm{d} s$ the corresponding \emph{curve length}.
Using integration by parts we obtain a formula for the operator $A_{c}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integer-order-operator}
A^{n}_{c} = \sum_{j=0}^{n}(-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \, D_{s}^{2j}
\end{equation}
for metrics with constant coefficients and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scale-integer-order-operator}
\widetilde A^{n}_{c} = \sum_{j=0}^{n}(-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \, \ell_{c}^{2j-3} \, D_{s}^{2j}\,.
\end{equation}
for scale-invariant metrics.
Because it will be important later, we note that if $c$ is a constant speed curve, then the operator for a metric with constant coefficients is
\begin{equation*}
A^{n}_{c} = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left(\frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}}\right)^{2j} \partial_{\theta}^{2j}\,;
\end{equation*}
it is a differential operator with constant coefficients and the coefficients depend only on the length of the curve.
\end{expl}
Until now local and global well-posedness results have been established only for the Sobolev metrics of integer order \cite{MM2007,Bru2015,BMM2014,BHM2011}. The main goal of this article is to extend these results to \emph{metrics of fractional order}; in particular to metrics, for which the operator $A_{c}$ is defined using Fourier multipliers of a certain class.
Given a curve $c \in \Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)$, let $\psi_{c} \in \Diff(\Circle)$ be a diffeomorphism such that $c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}$ has constant speed. Reparametrization invariance of the metric implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:invariant-metric}
G_{c}(h,k) = G_{c\circ\psi_{c}^{-1}} (h\circ\psi_{c}^{-1},k\circ\psi_{c}^{-1})\,;
\end{equation}
in other words, $G$ is determined by its behaviour on constant speed curves.
\begin{rem}
The situation is similar to that of right-invariant metrics on diffeomorphism groups, which are determined by their behaviour at the identity diffeomorphism. For curves, the invariance property is weaker and the space of constant speed curves is still quite large.
\end{rem}
Let us write the invariance property~\eqref{eq:invariant-metric} in terms of $A_{c}$: by a straight-forward calculation we obtain
\begin{align*}
G_{c}(h,k) & = G_{c\circ\psi_{c}^{-1}} (h\circ\psi_{c}^{-1},k\circ\psi_{c}^{-1})
\\
& = \int_{\Circle} \sprod{A_{c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}} (h\circ\psi_{c}^{-1})}{k\circ\psi_{c}^{-1}} \frac{\ell_{c}}{2\pi} \,\mathrm{d} \theta
\\
& = \int_{\Circle} \sprod{ R_{\psi_{c}}\circ A_{c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}} \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}}(h)}{k} \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{align*}
which implies the identity
\begin{equation*}
A_{c} = R_{\psi_{c}}\circ A_{c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}} \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}}\,.
\end{equation*}
The class of metrics on constant speed curves is large. To make it more manageable we will restrict the possible dependance of $A_{c}$ on the curve $c$.
\begin{ass*}
We assume from this point onwards, that the operator $A_{c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}}$ depends on $c$ only through its length $\ell_{c}$; in other words
\begin{equation*}
A_{c \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}} = A(\ell_{c}),
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda \mapsto A(\lambda)$ is a smooth curve with values in the space of linear maps, $L(C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d), C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d))$\footnote{This is equivalent to requiring that the map $\RR_+ \times C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d) \to C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)$ given by $(\lambda, h) \mapsto A(\lambda) h$ is smooth.}.
\end{ass*}
Then, with this assumption,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ac-defines-Al}
A_{c} = R_{\psi_{c}}\circ A(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}}\,.
\end{equation}
Requiring this form for the operator $A_{c}$ imposes a restriction on $A(\ell_{c})$. For $\alpha \in \Circle$ consider $\varphi_\alpha \in \Diff(\Circle)$, defined as $\varphi_\alpha(\theta) = \theta + \alpha \mod 2\pi$. If a curve $c$ has constant speed, then so does $c \circ \varphi_\alpha$ and thus $\ell_{c} = \ell_{c \circ \varphi_\alpha}$. Therefore~\eqref{eq:Ac-defines-Al} implies
\begin{equation*}
A(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\varphi_\alpha} = R_{\varphi_\alpha} \circ A(\ell_{c})\,,
\end{equation*}
or equivalently after differentiating with respect to $\alpha$,
\begin{equation*}
A(\ell_{c}) \circ \partial_\theta = \partial_\theta \circ A(\ell_{c})\,.
\end{equation*}
This means that $A(\ell_{c})$ has to be a \emph{Fourier multiplier}, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
A(\ell_{c}).u(\theta) = \sum_{m \in \ZZ} \mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, m).\hat{u}(m) \exp(i m \theta)\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, \cdot) : \ZZ \to \mathcal{L}(\CC^{d})$ is called the \emph{symbol} of $A(\ell_{c})$. We will write $A(\ell_{c}) = \mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, D)$ or $A(\ell_{c}) = \op{\mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, \cdot)}$. For now we make no assumptions on the symbol apart from requiring that the map $\ell_{c} \mapsto A(\ell_{c})$ is smooth. More control on the symbol will be necessary in order to prove well-posedness of the geodesic equation.
\begin{expl}[Integer order Sobolev metrics]
For Sobolev metrics with constant coefficients the symbol of the operator $A^{n}(\ell_{c})$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{a}^{n}(\ell_{c}, m) = \left(
\sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left(\frac{2\pi m}{\ell_{c}}\right )^{2j} \right)
\mathbf I_d\,,
\end{equation*}
with $\mathbf I_d \in \CC^{d\times d}$ the identity matrix, and for scale-invariant metrics it is
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\widetilde a}^{n}(\ell_{c}, m) = \left(
\ell_{c}^{-3} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left(2\pi m\right )^{2j} \right)
\mathbf I_d\,,
\end{equation*}
\end{expl}
\begin{rem}
Even though all known situations correspond to Fourier multipliers of the form $A(\ell_{c}) = \mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, D)$ with $\mathbf{a}(\ell_{c}, m) = a(\ell_{c}, m) \mathbf I_d$, a multiple of the identity matrix, we will treat in this article general matrix-valued symbols, because doing so introduces no additional difficulties.
\end{rem}
\section{The geodesic equation}
\label{sec:geodesic-equations}
Geodesics between two curves $c_{0}, c_{1} \in \Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})$ are critical points of the \emph{energy functional}
\begin{align*}
E(c) & = \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{1}\int_{\Circle}\langle A_{c}c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t\,,
\end{align*}
where $c=c(t, \theta)$ is a path in $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})$ joining $c_{0}$ and $c_{1}$. The geodesic equation is obtained by computing the derivative of $E$ on paths with fixed endpoints. We will use the following notations
\begin{align*}
c_{t} & := \partial_{t}c &
c^{\prime} & := \partial_{\theta}c &
v & := \frac{c^{\prime}}{\abs{c^{\prime}}} = D_{s} c\,,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
A_{c} & = R_{\psi_{c}} \circ A(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}}^{-1} &
A_{c}^{\prime} &:= R_{\psi_{c}} \circ A^{\prime}(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}}^{-1}\,,
\end{align*}
where $A^{\prime}(\ell_{c})$ is the derivative of $A(\ell_{c})$ with respect to the parameter $\ell_{c}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{c}(\theta) = \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} \int_{0}^\theta \abs{c'} \,\mathrm{d} \sigma\,.
\end{equation*}
We have the following commutation rules for $D_{s}$ and $R_{\psi_{c}}$,
\begin{align*}
D_{s} \circ R_{\psi_{c}} & = \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} R_{\psi_{c}} \circ \partial_\theta &
\partial_\theta \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}} &= \frac{\ell_{c}}{2\pi} R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}} \circ D_{s}\,,
\end{align*}
which imply that because $A(\ell_{c})$ commutes with $\partial_\theta$, that the operator $A_{c}$ commutes with $D_{s}$,
\begin{equation*}
D_{s} \circ A_{c} = A_{c} \circ D_{s}\,.
\end{equation*}
This will be used when computing the geodesic equation.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:geodesic-equations}
Assume that, for each $\lambda \in \RR^+$, the operator
\begin{equation*}
A(\lambda) : C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d) \to C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)
\end{equation*}
is invertible with a continuous inverse. Then the weak Riemannian metric~\eqref{eq:metric} on $\operatorname{Imm}(\Circle,\RR^{d})$ has a geodesic spray which is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spray-imm}
F: (c,h) \mapsto \left(h, S_{c}(h)\right), \qquad T\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d) \to TT\Imm(\Circle,\RR^d)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{multline}\label{eq:geodesic-spray-imm}
S_{c}(h) = -A_{c}^{-1}\left\{ (D_{c,h} A_{c}) h + \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle A_{c} h \right.
\\
+ \left. \langle A_{c} h, D_{s} h \rangle v + (w + w_{0}) D_{s} v \right\}\,.
\end{multline}
with
\begin{equation*}
w(c,h) = \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} h, D_{s} h\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
w_{0}(c,h) = \int_{\Circle} \frac 1{2\pi} \langle A_{c} h, \psi_{c} D_{s} h \rangle + \frac 12 \langle (\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c} + A_{c}') h, h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{equation*}
The geodesic equation is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:geodesic-equations}
(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} = - \langle D_{s} c_{t}, v \rangle A_{c} c_{t}
- \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle v - (w(c,c_{t}) + w_{0}(c,c_{t})) D_{s} v\,.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
To compute these equations, we will first derive a variational formula for the reparametrization function $\psi_{c}$.
\begin{lem}\label{variation:psi}
The derivative of the map $c \mapsto \psi_{c}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
D_{c,h}\psi_{c}(\theta) = \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} \int_{0}^{\theta}
\sprod{D_{s} h}{v} \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s - \frac{1}{\ell_{c}} \left(\int_{\Circle} \sprod{D_{s} h}{v} \,\mathrm{d} s \right) \psi_{c}(\theta) \,.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using the variational formulas for $\abs{c'}$ and $\ell_{c}$,
\begin{align*}
D_{c,h} \abs{c'} & = \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \abs{c'} &
D_{c,h} \ell_{c} &= \int_{\Circle} \sprod{D_{s} h}{v} \,\mathrm{d} s \,,
\end{align*}
the lemma follows directly from
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{c}(\theta) = \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} \int_{0}^{\theta} \abs{c^{\prime}} \,\mathrm{d} \sigma\,.\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:geodesic-equations}]
We can write the energy of a path $c(t,\theta)$ as
\begin{align*}
E(c) & = \frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{1} \frac{\ell_{c}}{2\pi} \int_{\Circle} \sprod{A(\ell_{c})(c_{t}\circ\psi_{c}^{-1})}{c_{t}\circ\psi_{c}^{-1}} \,\mathrm{d} \theta \, \,\mathrm{d} t\,.
\end{align*}
The variation of the energy in direction $h$ is then given by
\begin{align*}
D_{c,h}E & = \int_{0}^1 \frac{\ell_{c}}{2\pi} \int_{\Circle}
\sprod{A(\ell_{c}) (c_{t} \circ \psi_{c}^{-1})}
{h_{t} \circ \psi_{c}^{-1} + \left(c^{\prime}_{t} \circ \psi_{c}^{-1} \right) D_{c,h}\,\psi_{c}^{-1} } \,\mathrm{d} \theta \\
& \qquad{} + \frac 12 \frac {\ell_{c}}{2\pi} D_{c,h}\ell_{c} \int_{\Circle} \sprod{\left( \ell_{c}^{-1}A(\ell_{c}) + A'(\ell_{c})\right)(c_{t} \circ \psi_{c} ^{-1})}{c_{t}\circ\psi_{c}^{-1}} \,\mathrm{d} \theta \,\mathrm{d} t \\
& = \int_{0}^1 \int_{\Circle} \sprod{ A_{c} c_{t}}{h_{t} + c^{\prime}_{t} \left( D_{c,h} \psi_{c}^{-1}\right) \circ \psi_{c}} \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& \qquad{} + \frac 12 D_{c,h} \ell_{c} \int_{\Circle}
\sprod{(\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c} + A_{c}') c_{t}}{c_{t}} \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t \,.
\end{align*}
Let us start with the term involving $h_{t}$. After integrating by parts we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^1 \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, h_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t
& = -\int_{0}^1 \int_{\Circle} \left\langle (A_{c} c_{t})_{t}+(A_{c} c_{t})\frac{\partial_{t} (|c^{\prime}|)}{\abs{c^{\prime}}}, h \right\rangle\! \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t \\
& = -\int_{0}^1 \int_{\Circle} \langle(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} + \langle D_{s} c_{t}, v \rangle A_{c} c_{t}, h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t\,.
\end{align*}
Next we deal with $\psi_{c}^{-1}$. Using the formula
\begin{equation*}
D_{c,h} \,\psi_{c}^{-1} = -\left(\frac{1}{\psi_{c}'} D_{c,h} \,\psi_{c}\right) \circ \psi_{c}^{-1}\,,
\end{equation*}
and Lemma~\ref{variation:psi} we obtain a formula for the variation of $\psi_{c}^{-1}$,
\begin{equation*}
\left(D_{c,h} \,\psi_{c}^{-1} \right) \circ \psi_{c}(\theta)
= -\frac{1}{\abs{c^{\prime}}} \left( \int_{0}^{\theta} \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s
- \frac{1}{2\pi} \left(\int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} h, v\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \right) \psi_{c}(\theta) \right) \,.
\end{equation*}
Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Circle} & \sprod{A_{c} c_{t}}{c^{\prime}_{t} \left( D_{c,h} \psi_{c}^{-1}\right) \circ \psi_{c}} \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& = -\int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s}c_{t} \rangle
\left( \int_{0}^{\theta} \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s
- \frac{1}{2\pi} \left(\int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} h, v\rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s \right) \psi_{c} \right) \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& = - \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t}\rangle
\int_{0}^{\theta} \langle D_{s} h, v\rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& \qquad{} + \frac 1{2\pi} \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
\int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, \psi_{c} D_{s} c_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
\end{align*}
Because $A_{c}$ is symmetric and commutes with $D_{s}$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s = 0\,,
\end{equation*}
and thus the function
\begin{equation*}
w(\theta) = \int_{0}^{\theta} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \,,
\end{equation*}
is periodic with $D_{s} w = \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t}\rangle$. Next we integrate by parts,
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Circle} & \sprod{A_{c} c_{t}}{c^{\prime}_{t} \left( D_{c,h} \psi_{c}^{-1}\right) \circ \psi_{c}} \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& = \int_{\Circle} w \langle D_{s} h, v\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
+ \frac 1{2\pi} \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
\int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, \psi_{c} D_{s} c_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& = -\int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} (wv), h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
- \frac 1{2\pi} \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} v, h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
\int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, \psi_{c} D_{s} c_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{align*}
Finally we consider the term involving $D_{c,h} \ell_{c}$.
Since
\begin{equation*}
D_{c,h}\ell_{c}
= \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
= - \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} v, h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{multline*}
\frac 12 D_{c,h} \ell_{c} \int_{\Circle}
\langle (\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c} + A_{c}') c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s = \\
= - \frac 12 \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s} v, h \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \int_{\Circle} \langle (\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c} + A_{c}') c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{multline*}
Grouping all these expressions together, we can express $D_{c,h}E$ as
\begin{multline}\label{eq:DE-formula}
D_{c,h} E(c) = \\
\int_{0}^1 \int_{\Circle}
\left\langle -(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} - \langle D_{s} c_{t}, v \rangle A_{c} c_{t}
- D_{s}(wv) - w_{0} D_{s} v, h \right\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \,\mathrm{d} t\,,
\end{multline}
where
\begin{equation*}
w_{0} = \int_{\Circle} \left( \frac{1}{2\pi} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, \psi_{c} D_{s} c_{t} \rangle
+ \frac{1}{2} \langle (\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c} + A_{c}') c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \right) \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{equation*}
Thus we obtain the geodesic equation
\begin{equation*}
(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} = - \langle D_{s} c_{t}, v \rangle A_{c} c_{t}
- D_{s}(wv) - w_{0} D_{s} v\,.
\end{equation*}
The existence of the geodesic spray follows from~\eqref{eq:DE-formula}, which can be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
D_{c,h}E(c) = \int_{0}^1 G_{c}(-c_{tt} + S_{c}(c_{t}), h) \,\mathrm{d} t\,.
\end{equation*}
Note that in this last step we used the invertibility of $A_{c}$ on $C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)$.
\end{proof}
Next we will see how the geodesic equation simplifies for Sobolev metrics with constant coefficients and scale-invariant metrics. First note, that using integration by parts we can write
\begin{align*}
\frac 1{2\pi} \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, \psi_{c} D_{s} c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s
& = \frac 1{\ell_{c}} \int_{\Circle} \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle
\int_{0}^\theta \abs{c'} \,\mathrm{d} \sigma \,\mathrm{d} s \\
& = - \frac 1{\ell_{c}} \int_{\Circle} \int_{0}^\theta \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle
\,\mathrm{d} \tilde s \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{align*}
We shall also make use of the following identity, valid for $j \geq 1$ and $h \in C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d$),
\begin{equation*}
\langle D_{s}^{2j}h, D_{s}h\rangle = D_{s} \left(\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{2j-1} (-1)^{k+1} \langle D_{s}^{2j-k}h, D_{s}^{k}h \rangle \right)\,.
\end{equation*}
Setting
\begin{align*}
W_{j} & = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^{2j-1} (-1)^{k+1} \langle D_{s}^{2j-k}c_{t}, D_{s}^{k}c_{t} \rangle \;\;\text{for }j\geq 1\,,
& W_{0}
& = \frac 12 \abs{c_{t}}^{2} \,,
\end{align*}
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^\theta \langle D_{s}^{2j}c_{t}, D_{s}c_{t}\rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s = W_{j}(\theta) - W_{j}(0)\,,
\end{equation*}
as well as
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\Circle} W_{j}(\theta) \,\mathrm{d} s = \frac 12 (1-2j) \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s}^{2j} c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{equation*}
\begin{expl}[Metrics with constant coefficients]
\label{ex:metrics-constant-coeff}
For metrics with constant coefficients we have
\begin{align*}
A^{n}_{c} & = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} D_{s}^{2j},
& A^{n}(\ell_{c})
& = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left( \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} \right)^{2j} \partial_\theta^{2j}\,,
\end{align*}
and thus their $\ell_{c}$-derivatives are
\begin{align*}
(A^{n}_{c})' & = -2\ell_{c}^{-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} j \alpha_{j} D_{s}^{2j},
& A'(\ell_{c})
& = -2 \ell_{c}^{-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} j \alpha_{j} \left( \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}} \right)^{2j} \partial_\theta^{2j}\,.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\ell_{c}^{-1} A_{c}^{n} + (A_{c}^{n})' = \ell_{c}^{-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} (1-2j) \alpha_{j} D_{s}^{2j}\,,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{align*}
w_{0} & = \frac 1{\ell_{c}} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left[- \int_{\Circle} W_{j}(\theta) - W_{j}(0) \,\mathrm{d} s + \frac 1{2}(1-2j) \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s}^{2j} c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s \right] \\
& = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} W_{j}(0)\,.
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{equation*}
w = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \int_{0}^\theta \langle D_{s}^{2j} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} \tilde s
= \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left( W_{j}(\theta) - W_{j}(0) \right)\,,
\end{equation*}
it follows that
\begin{equation*}
w(\theta)+w_{0} = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} W_{j}(\theta)\,.
\end{equation*}
Thus the geodesic equation has the form
\begin{equation*}
(A_{c} c_{t})_{t} = - \langle D_{s} c_{t}, v \rangle A_{c} c_{t}
- \langle A_{c} c_{t}, D_{s} c_{t} \rangle v - \left( \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} W_{j} \right) D_{s} v\,.
\end{equation*}
Thus we have regained the formula from \cite{MM2007}.
\end{expl}
\begin{expl}[Scale-invariant metrics]
For scale-invariant metrics we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde A^{n}_{c} & = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} D_{s}^{2j},
& \tilde A^{n}(\ell_{c})
& = \ell_{c}^{-3} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} (2\pi)^{2j} \partial_\theta^{2j}\,,
\end{align*}
and thus their $\ell_{c}$-derivatives are
\begin{align*}
(A^{n}_{c})' & = -3\ell_{c}^{-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} D_{s}^{2j},
& \tilde A'(\ell_{c})
& = -3 \ell_{c}^{-4} \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \left( 2\pi \right)^{2j} \partial_\theta^{2j}\,.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\ell_{c}^{-1} \tilde A^{n}_{c} + (\tilde A^{n}_{c})' = -2 \ell_{c}^{-1} \tilde A^{n}_{c}\,.
\end{equation*}
A similar calculation as before gives
\begin{align*}
w_{0} & = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} \left(W_{j}(0) + \frac{1}{\ell_{c}}\left(j + \frac 12\right) \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s}^{2j} c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\right) \\
w(\theta) & = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} \left( W_{j}(\theta) - W_{j}(0) \right)\,,
\end{align*}
and therefore
\begin{align*}
w(\theta) + w_{0} = \sum_{j=0}^{n} (-1)^{j} \alpha_{j} \ell_{c}^{2j-3} \left(W_{j}(\theta) + \frac{1}{\ell_{c}}\left(j + \frac 12\right) \int_{\Circle} \langle D_{s}^{2j} c_{t}, c_{t} \rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\right)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{expl}
\section{Smoothness of the metric}
\label{sec:smoothness-metric}
For any $q > \frac32$ we can consider the Sobolev completion $\mathcal{I}^{q} = \mathcal{I}^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d)$, which is an open set of the Hilbert vector space $\HRd{q}$. It is the aim of this section to show that the metric $G_{c}$ extends to a smooth weak metric on $\mathcal{I}^{q}$, for high enough $q$. It turns out that the smoothness of the metric reduces to the smoothness of the mapping
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto A_{c} = R_{\psi_{c}} \circ A(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}} .
\end{equation*}
We will begin our investigations with this question.
It is well-known (see for instance~\cite[Appendix A]{EM1970}) that, given a \emph{differential operator} $A$ of order $r$ with \emph{smooth coefficients} and a diffeomorphism $\psi$, the conjugate operator $A_\psi = R_\psi \circ A \circ R_{\psi^{-1}}$ is again a differential operator of order $r$, whose coefficients are polynomial expressions in $\psi$, its derivatives and $1/\psi'$; in particular, the mapping
\begin{equation*}
\psi \mapsto A_{\psi} = R_{\psi} \circ A \circ R_{\psi^{-1}} , \quad \D{q}(\Circle) \to \mathcal{L}(\HRd{q},\HRd{q-r})
\end{equation*}
is smooth for $q > 3/2$ and $q \ge r \ge 1$, where $\D{q}(\Circle)$ is group of $H^{q}$-diffeomorphisms of $\Circle$. In~\cite{EK2014} Escher and Kolev extended this result to \emph{Fourier multipliers} by showing that the map $\psi \mapsto A_\psi$ remains smooth when $A$ is a Fourier multiplier of class $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ (to be defined below).
The proof that the mapping $c\mapsto A_{c}$ is smooth that we present here is inspired by~\cite{EK2014,BEK2015}, but in the present case we have to deal with Fourier multipliers that depend (in a nice way) on a parameter $\lambda$.
First we introduce the classes $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ and $\mathcal{S}^{r}_\lambda(\ZZ)$ of Fourier multipliers (for further details see~\cite{RT2010} for instance). A Fourier multiplier $\mathbf a(D)$ acts on a function $u$ via
\begin{equation}
\mathbf a(D).u(\theta) = \sum_{m \in \ZZ} \mathbf a(m). \hat u(m) \exp(im\theta)\,,
\end{equation}
and its symbol is a function $\mathbf a : \ZZ \to \mathcal{L}(\CC^{d})$.
\begin{defn}
Given $r \in \RR$, the Fourier multiplier $\mathbf{a}(D)$ belongs to the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$, if $\mathbf{a}(m)$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\Delta^{\alpha} \mathbf{a}(m)} \leq C_{\alpha} \langle m \rangle^{r-\alpha} ,
\end{equation*}
for each $\alpha \in \NN$, where $\langle m \rangle := (1+\abs{m}^{2})^{1/2}$.
\end{defn}
Here we define the difference operator $\Delta^{\alpha}$ via
\begin{equation*}
\Delta \mathbf{a}(m) = \mathbf{a}(m+1) - \mathbf{a}(m),\qquad \Delta^{\alpha} = \Delta \circ \Delta^{\alpha-1}\,.
\end{equation*}
We equip the space $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ with the topology induced by the seminorms
\begin{equation*}
p_{\alpha}(\mathbf{a}(D)) = \sup_{m \in \ZZ} \norm{\Delta^{\alpha} \mathbf{a}(m)} \langle m \rangle^{-(r-\alpha)}\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\|\cdot\|$ is some norm on $\mathcal L(\CC^d)$. With this topology $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ is a Fr\'{e}chet space. The class $\mathcal S^r(\ZZ)$ coincides with the one defined in~\cite{EK2014}; the equivalence is shown in~\cite{RT2010}.
\begin{expl}
Any linear differential operator of order $r$ with constant coefficients belongs to $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$. Furthermore the operator $\Lambda^{2r} = \op{\langle m \rangle^{2r}}$, which defines the $H^{r}$-norm via
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{H^r} = \int_{\Circle} \Lambda^{2r} u \cdot u \,\mathrm{d} \theta,
\end{equation*}
belongs to $\mathcal{S}^{2r}(\ZZ)$.
\end{expl}
\begin{rem}
A Fourier multiplier $\mathbf{a}(D)$ of class $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ extends for any $q \in \RR$ to a \emph{bounded linear operator}
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf a(D): H^{q}(\Circle,\RR^{d}) \to H^{q-r}(\Circle,\RR^{d})\,,
\end{equation*}
and the linear embedding
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ) \to \mathcal{L}(H^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d), H^{q-r}(\Circle,\RR^d))
\end{equation*}
is continuous.
\end{rem}
Now we introduce the class of parameter-dependent symbols.
\begin{defn}
Given $r \in \RR$, the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ) = C^\infty(\RR^+, \mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ))$ consists of smooth curves $\RR^+ \to \mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$, $\lambda \mapsto \mathbf{a}(\lambda, D)$ of Fourier multipliers. We will call such a curve a \emph{$\lambda$-symbol}.
\end{defn}
We will often write $\mathbf a_\lambda(D)$ for $\mathbf a(\lambda, D)$ or, by slight abuse of notation, to denote the whole curve $\lambda \mapsto \mathbf a(\lambda, D)$. Using the material in Appendix~\ref{sec:smooth-curves}, we can give an alternative description of the space $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$ of one-parameter families of symbols.
\begin{lem}
Given $r \in \RR$, a family of smooth curves $\mathbf{a}(\cdot, m) \in C^\infty(\RR^+, \mathcal{L}(\CC^d))$ with $m \in \ZZ$ defines an element $\mathbf{a}_\lambda(D)$ in the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$ if and only if for each $\alpha, \beta \in \NN$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symbol-la-est}
\norm{\partial^\beta_{\lambda} \Delta^{\alpha} \mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)} \leq C_{\alpha, \beta} \langle m\rangle ^{r-\alpha}\,,
\end{equation}
holds locally uniformly in $\lambda\in\RR^+$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D) \in \mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$. Since all derivatives of a smooth curve are locally bounded, it follows that for all $\alpha, \beta \in \NN$, the expression $p_{\alpha}\left(\partial_{\lambda}^\beta \mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)\right)$ is bounded locally uniformly in $\lambda$ and hence $\mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)$ satisfies~\eqref{eq:symbol-la-est} for some constants $C_{\alpha, \beta}$.
Conversely, let a family $\mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)$ of smooth curves satisfying the above estimates be given. Define the curves $\mathbf{a}^\beta(\lambda, m) = \partial_{\lambda}^\beta \mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)$. The estimate~\eqref{eq:symbol-la-est} shows that the curves $\lambda \mapsto a^\beta(\lambda, \cdot)$ are locally bounded in $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ and hence by Lemma~\ref{lem:smooth-curves} the curve $\lambda \mapsto \mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ is an element of $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$.
\end{proof}
The following is the main theorem that will be used to show the smoothness of the metric. Set
\begin{equation*}
A_{c} = R_{\psi_{c}} \circ A(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}}\,,
\end{equation*}
with $\psi_{c}(\theta) = \frac{2\pi}{\ell_{c}}\int_{0}^\theta \abs{c'} \,\mathrm{d} \sigma$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:smoothness-Ac}
Let $r \geq 1$ and $A(\lambda) = \mathbf{a}_\lambda(D)$ belong to the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$.
Then the map
\begin{align*}
c & \mapsto A_{c}\,, & \mathcal{I}^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d) & \to \mathcal{L}(H^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d), H^{q-r}(\Circle,\RR^d))\,,
\end{align*}
is smooth provided $q > \frac 32$ and $q \geq r$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It was established in~\cite[Thm.~3.7]{EK2014} that for $A \in \mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ the mapping
\begin{equation*}
\psi \mapsto A_\psi := R_{\psi} \circ A \circ R_{\psi^{-1}} \,, \quad \D{q} \to \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-r})
\end{equation*}
is smooth. Using the uniform boundedness principle~\cite[5.18]{KM1997} it follows that the map
\begin{equation*}
\psi \mapsto (A \mapsto A_\psi)\,, \quad \D{q} \to \mathcal L(\mathcal S^r(\ZZ), \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-r}))
\end{equation*}
is smooth\footnote{When $E,F$ are Fr\'echet spaces or more generally convenient vector spaces, $\mathcal L(E,F)$ is the space of bounded linear maps equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on bounded sets; see~\cite[5.3]{KM1997} for details.}. Because the inclusion
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal L(\mathcal S^r(\ZZ), \mathcal L(H^q,H^{q-r})) \subset C^\infty(\mathcal S^r(\ZZ), \mathcal L(H^q,H^{q-r})\,,
\end{equation*}
is bounded~\cite[5.3]{KM1997}, the following map is smooth
\begin{equation*}
\psi \mapsto (A \mapsto A_\psi)\,, \quad \D{q} \to C^\infty(\mathcal S^r(\ZZ), \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-r}))\,;
\end{equation*}
via the exponential law~\cite[3.12]{KM1997} this is equivalent to the smoothness of the joint map
\begin{equation*}
(A, \psi) \mapsto A_\psi\,, \quad \mathcal S^r(\ZZ) \times \D{q} \to \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-r}))\,.
\end{equation*}
Next we note that the maps
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto \ell_{c}\,, \quad \mathcal{I}^{q} \to \RR^+ \qquad\text{and}\qquad
c \mapsto \psi_{c}\,, \quad \mathcal{I}^{q} \to \D{q}
\end{equation*}
are smooth -- this can be seen from their definitions -- and since $\mathcal S^r_\lambda(\ZZ) = C^\infty(\RR^+, \mathcal S^r(\ZZ))$ the composition
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto A(\ell_{c})\,, \quad \mathcal I^q \to \mathcal S^r(\ZZ)
\end{equation*}
is smooth as well. To conclude the proof we note that $c \mapsto A_{c}$ can be written as the composition $c \mapsto (A(\ell_{c}), \psi_{c}) \mapsto A(\ell_{c})_{\psi_{c}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:smooth-G-extension}
Let $r \geq \frac 12$ and $A(\lambda) = \mathbf{a}_\lambda(D)$ belong to the class $\mathcal{S}^{2r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$.
Then the bilinear form
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \left\langle A_{c} h, k \right\rangle \!\,\mathrm{d} s
\end{equation*}
extends smoothly to $\mathcal{I}^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d)$ provided $q > \frac 32$ and $q \geq 2r$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto \check{G}_{c} = M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}}\circ A_{c} , \quad \mathcal{I}^{q} \to \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-r}),
\end{equation*}
is smooth, where $M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}}$ denotes pointwise multiplication by $\abs{c^{\prime}}$. Now
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}} , \quad \mathcal{I}^{q} \to \mathcal{L}(H^\rho, H^\rho),
\end{equation*}
is smooth for $0 \leq \rho \leq q-1$ and the conclusion follows by Proposition~\ref{prop:smoothness-Ac} and the fact that composition of continuous linear mappings between Banach spaces is smooth.
\end{proof}
\section{Smoothness of the spray}
\label{sec:smoothness-spray}
In order to prove the existence and smoothness of the spray, we will require moreover an \emph{ellipticity condition} on $\lambda$-symbols. For the purpose of this article, we will adopt the following definition.
\begin{defn}
An element $\mathbf{a}_\lambda(D)$ of the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$ is called \emph{locally uniformly elliptic}, if $\mathbf{a}(\lambda, m) \in GL(\CC^d)$ for all $(\lambda, m) \in \RR^+ \times \ZZ$ and
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)^{-1}} \leq C \langle m \rangle^{-r}
\end{equation*}
holds locally uniformly in $\lambda$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
A Fourier multiplier $\mathbf a(D)$ of class $\mathcal{S}^{r}(\ZZ)$ is \emph{elliptic}, if $\mathbf a(m) \in GL(\CC^d)$ for all $m \in \ZZ$ and
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\mathbf{a}(m)^{-1}} \leq C \langle m \rangle^{-r}\,,
\end{equation*}
holds for all $m$. Such an $\mathbf a(D)$ induces a \emph{bounded isomorphism} between $H^{q}(\Circle,\RR^{d})$ and $H^{q-r}(\Circle,\RR^{d})$, for all $q\in \RR$.
\end{rem}
We summarize our considerations by introducing the following class of operators which will be denoted $\mathcal{E}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$.
\begin{defn}
A family $\mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ of Fourier multipliers is an element of the class $\mathcal{E}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$, if
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ is in the class $\mathcal{S}^{r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$,
\item
$\mathbf{a}(\lambda, m)$ is a positive Hermitian matrix for all $(\lambda, m) \in \RR^+ \times \ZZ$ and
\item
$\mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ is locally uniformly elliptic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}
Let $r \geq 1$, $q\geq 2r$ and $A(\lambda) = \mathbf a_\lambda(D)$ belong to $\mathcal{E}^{2r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \left\langle A_{c} h, k \right\rangle \!\,\mathrm{d} s
\end{equation*}
defines a smooth weak Riemannian metric of order $r$ on $\mathcal{I}^{q}(\Circle, \RR^d)$ with a smooth geodesic spray.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is shown in Corollary~\ref{cor:smooth-G-extension} that $G$ extends smoothly to $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$. We can write
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,h) = 2\pi \sum_{m \in \ZZ} \langle \mathbf a(\ell_{c}, m) \hat h(m), \hat h(m) \rangle\,,
\end{equation*}
and because $\mathbf a(\ell_{c}, m)$ are positive Hermitian matrices, $G_{c}(h,h) = 0$ only for $h = 0$. Thus $G$ is a Riemannian metric. It is a weak Riemannian metric, because the inner product $G_{c}(\cdot,\cdot)$ induces on each tangent space $T_{c} \mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$ the $H^r$-topology, while the manifold $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$ itself carries the $H^q$-topology and by our assumptions $q > r$.
It remains to show that the geodesic spray of $G$ exists and is smooth. For each $\lambda \in \RR^+$, the operator $A(\lambda)$ is an elliptic Fourier multiplier and thus induces a bi-bounded linear isomorphism on $C^\infty(\Circle,\RR^d)$. Thus we can apply Theorem~\ref{thm:geodesic-equations}, which shows that the geodesic spray exists on the space $\operatorname{Imm}(\Circle,\RR^d)$ of smooth immersions. We will show that the map $S_{c}(h)$ extends smoothly to the Sobolev completion $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$. Then $F(c,h) = (h,S_{c}(h))$ is necessarily the geodesic spray of $G$ on $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$.
We have the following formula for $S_{c}(h)$,
\begin{equation*}
S_{c}(h) = -A_{c}^{-1}\left\{ (D_{c,h} A_{c}) h
+ \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle A_{c} h
+ \langle A_{c} h, D_{s} h \rangle v + (w + w_{0}) D_{s} v \right\}\,.
\end{equation*}
The map
\begin{equation*}
A \mapsto A^{-1}, \quad \mathcal U \subset \mathcal{L}(H^q, H^{q-2r}) \to \mathcal{L}(H^{q-2r}, H^q)\,,
\end{equation*}
defined on the open subset $\mathcal U$ of invertible operators is smooth and so is $c \mapsto A_{c}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:smoothness-Ac}; therefore so is the composition
$c \mapsto A_{c}^{-1} : \mathcal I^q \to \mathcal L(H^{q-2r},H^q)$. Thus we need to show that
\begin{equation*}
(c,h) \mapsto (D_{c,h} A_{c}) h
+ \langle D_{s} h, v \rangle A_{c} h
+ \langle A_{c} h, D_{s} h \rangle v + (w + w_{0}) D_{s} v\,,
\end{equation*}
is smooth between $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to H^{q-2r}$. The first term $(D_{c,h} A_{c})h$ is the derivative of $(c,h) \mapsto A_{c}h$ with respect to the first variable and hence the map $(c,h) \mapsto (D_{c,h} A_{c})h$ is smooth between $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to H^{q-2r}$. Arc-length derivation
\begin{equation*}
(c,u) \mapsto D_{s} u\,,\quad
\mathcal I^q \times H^\rho \to H^{\rho-1}\,,\quad 0 \leq \rho \leq q\,,
\end{equation*}
is smooth and pointwise multiplication in $C^\infty(\Circle,\RR)$ extends to a continuous bilinear mapping
\begin{equation*}
H^\sigma \times H^\rho \to H^\rho\,,\quad \sigma > \frac 12 \,,\; 0 \leq \rho \leq \sigma\,.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, noting that $v = D_{s} c$ and $q - 1 > \frac 12$, the expression
$\langle D_{s} h, v \rangle A_{c} h + \langle A_{c} h, D_{s} h \rangle v$ is a smooth map $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to H^{q-2r}$. Next we use the fact that the antiderivative
\begin{equation*}
u \mapsto \left( \theta \mapsto \int_{0}^\theta u(\sigma) \,\mathrm{d} \sigma \right)\,,\quad
H^\rho \to H^{\rho+1}\,,\quad \rho \geq 0\,,
\end{equation*}
is a bounded linear mapping. Thus $(c,h) \mapsto w(c,h)$ maps smoothly $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to H^{q-2r+1}$ and because $q-2r + 1 > \frac 12$ we have that $(c,h) \mapsto w(c,h) D_{s} v$ is smooth between $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to H^{q-2r}$. The last term is $w_{0}(c,h)$. First we note that the map $c \mapsto \psi_{c}$ between $\mathcal I^q \to \mathcal D^q$ is smooth. A term-by-term inspection shows that the map $(c,h) \mapsto f(c,h)$, where $f(c,h)$ is the integrand in the definition of $w_{0}(c,h)$ is a smooth map $\mathcal I^q \times H^q \to L^1$ and thus $(c,h) \mapsto w_{0}(c,h)$ is smooth as well. Thus the extension of $G$ to $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$ has a smooth spray.
\end{proof}
As a corollary, using the Cauchy--Lipschitz theorem, we obtain the local existence of geodesics on the Hilbert manifold $\mathcal{I}^{q}(\Circle,\RR^d)$.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:Hq-local-well-posedness}
Let $A_{\lambda} = \mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ belong to the class $\mathcal{E}^{2r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$, where $r \geq 1$, and let $q \ge 2r$. Consider the geodesic flow on the tangent bundle $T\mathcal{I}^{q}$ induced by the Fourier multiplier $A_{\lambda}$. Then, given any $(c_{0},h_{0}) \in T\mathcal{I}^{q}$, there exists a unique non-extendable geodesic
\begin{equation*}
(c, h)\in C^\infty(J,T\mathcal{I}^{q})
\end{equation*}
with $c(0) = c_{0}$ and $h(0) = h_{0}$ on the maximal interval of existence $J$, which is open and contains $0$.
\end{cor}
As a consequence of a no-loss-no-gain argument, we also obtain local well-posedness on the space of smooth curves.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:smooth-local-well-posedness}
Let $A_{\lambda} = \mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ belong to the class $\mathcal{E}^{2r}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$, where $r \geq 1$. Consider the geodesic flow on the tangent bundle $T\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})$ induced by the Fourier multiplier $A_{\lambda}$. Then, given any $(c_{0},h_{0}) \in T\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})$, there exists a unique non-extendable geodesic
\begin{equation*}
(c, h)\in C^\infty(J,T\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d}))
\end{equation*}
with $c(0) = c_{0}$ and $h(0) = h_{0}$ on the maximal interval of existence $J$, which is open and contains $0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since the metric is invariant by re-parametrization, it is invariant in particular by translations of the parameter. A similar observation has been used in~\cite[Section 4]{EK2014} to show that local existence of geodesic still holds in the smooth category. The proof is based on a \emph{no loss-no gain result} in spatial regularity, initially formulated in~\cite{EM1970} (see also~\cite{Bru2016}). The same argument is still true here and leads to the local existence of the geodesics on the Fr\'{e}chet manifold $\Imm(\Circle,\RR^{d})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Strong Riemannian metrics}
\label{sec:strong-Riemannian-metricse}
The goal of this section is to show, that metrics of order $s > \frac32$ (induced by a Fourier multiplier $A_{\lambda}$ in the class $\mathcal{E}^{2s}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$), induce \emph{strong} smooth Riemannian metrics on the Sobolev completion $\mathcal{I}^{s}$ of the same order as the metric. Let $A(\lambda)$ be of class $\mathcal E^{2s}_\lambda(\ZZ)$ with $s > \frac 32$. In Section~\ref{sec:smoothness-spray} it was shown that the corresponding Riemannian metric
\begin{equation}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \left\langle A_{c} h, k \right\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{equation}
can be extended smoothly to $\mathcal I^q(\Circle,\RR^d)$ for $q \geq 2s$. Now we want to improve this to $q \geq s$. Of particular interest is the case $q=s$, when the topologies induced by the inner products $G_{c}(\cdot, \cdot)$ coincide with the manifold topology.
Any positive Hermitian matrix $\mathbf{a}$ has a unique positive square root $\mathbf{b}$ which depends smoothly on $\mathbf{a}$. We have, moreover, the stronger result that an operator $A(\lambda) = \mathbf{a}_{\lambda}(D)$ in the class $\mathcal{E}^{2s}_\lambda$ has a square root $B(\lambda) = \mathbf{b}_{\lambda}(D)$ in the class $\mathcal{E}^{s}_\lambda$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:square-root}). With $B_{c} = R_{\psi_{c}} \circ B(\ell_{c}) \circ R_{\psi_{c}^{-1}}$ we have the identities
\begin{align}
A(\ell_{c}) & = B(\ell_{c})^{2}\,, &
A_{c} &= B_{c}^{2}\,;
\end{align}
furthermore, because $\mathbf b(\lambda, m)$ is a Hermitian matrix, the operator $B(\ell_{c})$ is $L^{2}(d\theta)$-symmetric and for each curve $c$ the operator $B_{c}$ is $L^{2}(ds)$-symmetric. Therefore we can rewrite the metric $G$ in the symmetric form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symmetric-metric}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \left\langle A_{c} h, k \right\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s = \int_{\Circle} \left\langle B_{c} h, B_{c} k \right\rangle \,\mathrm{d} s\,.
\end{equation}
We obtain therefore the following expression for the operator $\check G_{c}$ on $T\mathcal{I}^{s}$:
\begin{equation*}
\check G_{c} = B_{c}^{t} \circ M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}}\circ B_{c} \,,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
B_{c}: \HRd{s} \to L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d, \qquad B_{c}^{t}: L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d \to \HRd{-s}\,,
\end{equation*}
and $B_{c}^{t}$ is the transpose of $B_{c}$. The latter formula can now be used to obtain the following result concerning the smooth extension of this family of inner products into a strong Riemannian metric on $\mathcal{I}^{s}$, provided $s > 3/2$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:smoothness-strong-metric}
Let $s > 3/2$ and $B_{\lambda} \in \mathcal{E}^{s}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$. Then the expression
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \int_{\Circle} \sprod{B_{c} h}{B_{c} k} \,\mathrm{d} s\,,
\end{equation*}
defines a \emph{smooth and strong} Riemannian metric on $\mathcal{I}^{s}(\Circle,\RR^d)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
For strong metrics on a Lie group the invariance of the metric implies the geodesic and metric completeness of the space, see \cite[Lemma 5.2]{GMR2009}. This has been used in \cite{BEK2015} to show completeness of the $H^s$-metric on $\Diff(\RR^d)$, see also \cite{BV2014} for integer orders on the diffeomorphism group of a general manifold. Unfortunately, there is no automatic analogue of this result in our situation. To prove the global well-posedness on the space of regular curves additional assumptions on the dependence of the operator $A$ on the length will be necessary. In future work, we plan to follow this line of research and use a similar strategy as in \cite{Bru2015} for integer orders to obtain this result.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Since $B_{\lambda} \in \mathcal{E}^{s}_{\lambda}(\ZZ)$ and $s > 3/2$, the mapping
\begin{equation*}
\check G_{c} = B_{c}^{t} \circ M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}}\circ B_{c}
\end{equation*}
defines, for each $c\in \mathcal{I}^{s}$, a bounded isomorphism between $\HRd{s}$ and its dual $\HRd{-s}$. Thus we need only to show that the mapping
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto \check G_{c}, \qquad \mathcal{I}^{s} \to \mathcal{L}(\HRd{s},\HRd{-s})
\end{equation*}
is smooth. Since transposition between Banach spaces is itself a bounded operator it follows that the transpose
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto B_{c}^{t}, \quad \mathcal{I}^{s} \to \mathcal{L}(L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d,\HRd{-s})
\end{equation*}
is smooth iff
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto B_{c}, \quad \mathcal{I}^{s} \to \mathcal{L}(\HRd{s},L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d)
\end{equation*}
is smooth, which is the case by Proposition~\ref{prop:smoothness-Ac}. Now, the mapping
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}} , \qquad \mathcal{I}^{s} \to \mathcal{L}(L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d,L^{2}(\Circle,\mathbb{R}^{d})} % L^{2} space on R^{d),
\end{equation*}
is smooth for $s > 3/2$. Finally, since composition of bounded operators between Banach spaces is itself a bounded operator, it follows that the composition
\begin{equation*}
c \mapsto B_{c}^{t} \circ M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}}\circ B_{c}, \qquad \mathcal{I}^{s} \to \mathcal{L}(\HRd{s},\HRd{-s}),
\end{equation*}
is smooth.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:strong-geodesic-spray}
A smooth, strong Riemannian metric on a Hilbert manifold has a smooth spray (see~\cite{Lan1999} for instance). However, formula~\eqref{eq:geodesic-spray-imm} is no longer useful in that case because it is not clear that this expression extends to a smooth map from $\mathcal{I}^{s}$ to $\HRd{s}$. Following Lang~\cite[Proposition 7.2]{Lan1999}, we introduce the $H^{s}$ inner product on $\HRd{s}$:
\begin{equation*}
\llangle h,k \rrangle_{H^{s}} := \int_{\Circle} \sprod{\Lambda^{s} h}{\Lambda^{s} k} \,\mathrm{d} \theta
\end{equation*}
so that
\begin{equation*}
G_{c}(h,k) = \llangle P_{c}h,k \rrangle_{H^{s}}, \quad \text{where} \quad P_{c} := \left(\Lambda^{-s} \circ B_{c}\right)^{t} \circ \Lambda^{-s} \circ M_{\abs{c^{\prime}}} \circ B_{c}.
\end{equation*}
Here, $Q^{t}$ is the transpose of a bounded operator
\begin{equation*}
Q: \HRd{s} \to \HRd{s}.
\end{equation*}
In that case, there is an alternative expression for the spray, which is nevertheless equivalent to~\eqref{eq:geodesic-spray-imm}. It is given implicitly by the formula
\begin{equation*}
\llangle S_{c}(h), P_{c}k \rrangle_{H^{s}} = \frac{1}{2} \llangle \left(D_{c,k}P_{c}\right)h,h \rrangle_{H^{s}} - \llangle\left(D_{c,h}P_{c}\right)h,k \rrangle_{H^{s}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Black-box functions are systems that require a number of input parameters to produce one or multiple (numeric) outputs.
In most cases these are
\begin{enumerate*}[(a)]
\item expensive to evaluate in terms of time and/or monetary cost, and
\item knowledge of their internal working is not available, which often manifests through the absence of derivatives.
\end{enumerate*}
Such problems occur in production engineering~\cite[\eg][]{Sieben2010}, where the inputs are possible settings of industrial machines or used materials and the output is one or multiple measurements regarding the quality of fabricated parts.
Since this makes a single evaluation expensive, one tries to find the optimal settings of production steps in a minimal number of tries.
Design of Computer Experiments (DACE) \cite{SWMW89} is a discipline focused on solving such problems and sequential model-based optimization (SMBO)~\cite{jones_1998} has become the state-of-the-art optimization strategy in recent years.
The generic SMBO procedure starts with an initial design of evaluation points, and then iterates the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fit a regression model to the outcomes and design points obtained so far,
\item query the model to propose a new, promising point, often by optimizing a so-called infill criterion or acquisition function,
\item evaluate the new point with the black-box function and add it to the design.
\end{enumerate}
Several adaptations and extensions, \eg, multi-objective optimization~\cite{HWB15}, multi-point proposal~\cite{ginsbourger2010kriging,bischl_2014}, more flexible regression models~\cite{hutter_sequential_2011} or alternative ways to calculate the infill criterion~\cite{bergstra2011algorithms} have been investigated recently.
A different field of application for SMBO is the hyperparameter optimization for machine learning methods~\cite[\eg][]{thornton_2013,lang_2015,HB2016}.
Here, the black-box is a machine learning method and the objective(s) is one or multiple performance measure(s), validated via resampling on a data set of interest.
The black-box function can be more complex, for example a machine learning pipeline which includes preprocessing, feature selection and model selection.
\medskip
After a brief comparison with related software in Subsection~\ref{ssec:related} and clarification of our main contributions in Subsection~\ref{ssec:contributions}, we introduce the general SMBO procedure in more detail in Section~\ref{sec:methodology}.
Section~\ref{sec:software} highlights the capabilities of our software \mlrMBO, showcased by some code examples.
In Section~\ref{sec:benchmarks} we empirically demonstrate that \mlrMBO achieves state-of-the-art performance on a wide range of synthetic and real-world single- and multi-objective scenarios.
Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} gives an outlook on future work.
\subsection{Related Software}
\label{ssec:related}
We will briefly present an overview of available software for \MBO, starting with implementations based on the Efficient Global Optimization algorithm (EGO), \ie, the SMBO algorithm proposed by \citet{jones_1998} using Gaussian processes (GPs), and continue with extensions and alternative approaches.
Both \pkg{DiceOptim}~\cite{RGD12} and \pkg{rBayesianOptimization}~\cite{R:rBayesianOptimization} are \Rlang packages that offer EGO implementations.
A sophisticated EGO implementation can be found in the Python package \pkg{Spearmint}~\cite{snoek_practical_2012}.
It focuses on hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms with enhancements regarding variable costs of experiments and parallelization.
All three packages offer different GP kernels and infill criteria, but only support numerical (non-conditional) parameters and, except for Spearmint, no multi-criteria optimization or parallelization is available. A multi-criteria version of Spearmint is introduced in \cite{hernandez2016predictive}.
The C++ library \pkg{BayesOpt}~\cite{JMLR:v15:martinezcantin14a} contains an extended version of EGO, including Student-t processes, support of mixed and conditional parameters as well as meta-criteria algorithms to automatically find reasonable infill criteria during optimization.
It offers interfaces for Python, Matlab and Octave.
\pkg{SMAC}~\cite{hutter_sequential_2011} is one of the most established frameworks and allows to optimize mixed parameter spaces as it uses a random forest instead of a GP for regression.
Besides general black-box optimization, it is focused on algorithm configuration.
However, \pkg{SMAC} is limited to single-criteria optimization and parallelization is not supported.
\pkg{Hyperopt}~\cite{bergstra2011algorithms} is an optimization package in Python that supports numerical, categorical and conditional parameters.
Instead of a regression it uses a tree of Parzen estimators (TPE) to compute point suggestions.
It supports distributed parallel and asynchronous execution.
\pkg{Hyperopt} can be used for general black-box optimization, but is mainly focused on machine learning tasks.
Another \Rlang implementation for sequential black-box optimization is \pkg{SPOT}~\cite{beielstein_spot_2012}.
It is a toolbox with different modeling techniques and offers a wide variety of statistical methods.
\pkg{SPOT} contains sophisticated algorithms to handle functions with noisy evaluations, is able to handle constrains in functions and supports multi-objective optimization.
\subsection{Main Contributions and Prior Applications}
\label{ssec:contributions}
The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of the \Rlang package \mlrMBO, which implements a generic SMBO framework and provides a large variety of different SMBO methods due to its modular structure.
\mlrMBO is even more flexible than SPOT in its choice of surrogate models as it is connected to the \Rlang package \mlr~\cite{mlr_2016} which interfaces more than $60$ machine learning regression algorithms.
Besides the default SMBO procedure, \mlrMBO focuses on three domains: Mixed parameter space optimization, multi-point proposals and multi-objective optimization.
Even combinations of the three domains are possible, which to our knowledge no other software is currently capable of.
\mlrMBO is easy to use as many default implementations for the individual steps of the SMBO procedure are directly supported in a plug-and-play style.
Simple interfaces are available to extend the package with user specific variants.
Benchmarks show that \mlrMBO achieves state-of-the-art performance in each domain.
Additionally, \mlrMBO has been successfully applied in some practical settings.
In \cite{koch2012,bischl2014} it was used to optimize the hyperparameters of machine learning pipelines (joint pre-processing and model hyperparameters) for support vector machines and general machine learning models, respectively, in a single objective setting.
\citet{hess2013} proposed an \mlrMBO ensemble-based approach to identify the best surrogate model during optimization through reinforcement learning.
\citet{HDBGW2016} considered a multi-objective benchmark and optimized the runtime-accuracy trade-offs of several approximate support vector machine solvers.
\citet{HB2016} introduced the general capability of \mlrMBO to solve multi-objective machine learning tasks.
\citet{Steponavice2016} investigated the impact of different initial design sampling techniques on the performance of multi-objective model-based optimization methods by using \mlrMBO.
\section{Sequential Model-Based Optimization}
\label{sec:methodology}
This section describes the general SMBO setup and presents the individual building blocks in Subsection~\ref{ssec:smbo}.
While SMBO is modular and can thus be customized for a variety of
different tasks, we highlight the most prominent combinations of components
described in the literature like EGO~\cite{jones_1998}
(Subsection~\ref{ssec:ego}) or SMAC-like~\cite{hutter_sequential_2011} optimizers (Subsection~\ref{ssec:mso}).
Subsections~\ref{ssec:multipoint} and~\ref{ssec:multiobjective} introduce parallelization through multi-point proposal, and multi-objective optimization.
\subsection{Sequential model-based optimization}
\label{ssec:smbo}
Let $\fx: \X \to \R$ be an arbitrary black-box function with a $d$-dimensional input domain $\X = \X_1 \times \X_2 \times \cdots \times \X_d$ and a deterministic output~$y$.
Each $\X_i$ ($i=1,\cdots,d$) can be either numeric and bounded (\ie $\X_i = [l_i, u_i] \subset \R$) or a finite set of $s$ categorical values ($\X_i = \left\{ v_{i1}, \ldots, v_{is} \right\}$).
Without loss of generality, we want to find the input~$\xv^\ast$ with
\[ \xv^\ast = \argmin_{\xv\in\X} f(\xv). \]
In the context of \MBO, we usually assume that $f$ is expensive to evaluate, hence the total number of function evaluations is limited by a budget.
At the heart of SMBO are so-called surrogate models~\fh which cheaply estimate the expensive black-box function~$f$ and which are iteratively updated and refined.
The general approach is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:smbo_approach}.
The figure outlines the following steps, whereas each step is explained in more detail in the following subsections:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item An initial design of $n_{\text{init}}$~points $\xv^{(j)}$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n_{\text{init}}$) is sampled from $\X$ and $f$ is evaluated at these points to yield outcomes $y^{(j)} = f(\xv^{(j)})$.
The tuples $\left(y^{(j)}, \xv^{(j)}\right)$ constitute the data to build the initial surrogate model $\fh$ in the next step.
\item \label{step:fit} Fit a surrogate model to all evaluated points $\xv^{(j)} \in \X$ and corresponding values $y^{(j)}$.
\item An \emph{infill criterion} proposes $m$ points $\xv^{(j+i)}$ ($i = 1, \ldots, m$).
The criterion is defined on \X and operates on the surrogate~\fh to
determine points which are promising for the optimization.
These points should either have a good expected objective value or high potential to improve the quality of the surrogate model.
\item The proposed points are evaluated using $f$ and the new tuples $\left(y^{(j+i)}, \xv^{(j+i)}\right)$ are added to the design.
\item If the budget is not exhausted (and no other termination criteria is met), go to step~\ref{step:fit}.
\item If the budget is exhausted or another termination criteria is met, return the proposed solution for the optimization problem.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\tikzstyle{b} = [rectangle, draw, node distance=2em and 2.2em, text width=5em, text centered, minimum height=4em, thick, font=\footnotesize]
\tikzstyle{l} = [draw, -latex',thick]
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto]
\node [b] (design) {(1)\\ Generate initial design (\ref{sssec:initial})};
\node [rectangle, left=of design] (off) {};
\node [b, right=of design] (fitting) {(2)\\ Fit surrogate model (\ref{sssec:surrogate})};
\node [b, right=of fitting] (budget) {(5)\\ Budget exceeded? (\ref{sssec:termination})};
\node [b, right=of budget] (return) {(6)\\ Return best point (\ref{sssec:final_point})};
\node [b, below=of fitting] (infill) {(3)\\ Propose new point(s) (\ref{sssec:infill})};
\node [b, right=of infill] (update) {(4)\\ Evaluate function and update design (\ref{sssec:infill_opt})};
\path [l] (off) -- (design);
\path [l] (design) -- (fitting);
\path [l] (fitting) -- (infill);
\path [l] (budget) -- node [font=\footnotesize] {yes} (return);
\path [l] (budget) -- node [above, font=\footnotesize] {no} (fitting);
\path [l] (infill) -- (update);
\path [l] (update) -- (budget);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{General SMBO approach.}\label{fig:smbo_approach}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Initial Design}
\label{sssec:initial}
The initial design specifies the points of the input domain at which the
black-box function is evaluated to build the initial surrogate model~$\fh$.
If too few points are chosen or if the points do not cover $\X$ well, the fit of $\fh$ may be poor and thus points proposed based on $\fh$ may be suboptimal for the progress of the optimization.
Fitting a surrogate model may even be impossible.
On the other hand, a large initial design may reduce the available budget too
much.
\mlrMBO provides various options for the initial design:
The user can specify it manually or generate designs either completely at random, coarse grid designs or by using space-filling Latin Hypercube Designs~\citep{mckay1979comparison}.
\subsubsection{Surrogate Models}
\label{sssec:surrogate}
One of the main factors that determines the choice of surrogate model~$\fh$ is the structure of the input space \X.
If $\X \subset \R^d$, \emph{Kriging}~\cite{jones_1998} is the recommended choice and provides state-of-the-art performance.
In Section~\ref{ssec:ego}, the Kriging-based EGO approach is discussed in more detail.
If the search space \X also includes categorical parameters on the other hand, \emph{random forests} are a viable alternative~\cite{hutter_sequential_2011} as they can handle such parameters directly, without the need to encode the categorical parameters as numeric.
\mlrMBO allows the use of any of the many regression models available in the \Rlang package \mlr, which itself can also be easily extended to support custom regression learners~\cite{mlrtut_2016}.
While Kriging models and random forests already provide uncertainty estimation natively, generic bagging can be applied to arbitrary regression models to retrieve standard error estimators in \mlr.
\subsubsection{Infill Criteria}
\label{sssec:infill}
The infill criterion, or sometimes called acquisition function, guides the optimization and tries to trade-off exploitation and exploration.
This is usually achieved by combining \mhx and \shx (or \vhx) in a single formula in a well-balanced fashion, where the posterior mean \mhx and posterior standard deviation \shx (or posterior variance \vhx) are estimated by the surrogate model \fh.
\shx and \vhx are sometimes also called \enquote{local uncertainty estimators}.
Assuming that our model \fh is somewhat \enquote{spatial} in the sense that higher values of \shx indicate regions of the search space that few of our
design points lie close to and / or we have not learned the structure of $f$ very well at \xv, we are therefore looking for points with low \mhx and high \shx.
Arguably the most popular choice is the \emph{expected improvement}
\[ \EI(\xv) := \operatorname{E}(I(\xv)) \]
where the random variable $I(\xv)$ defines the potential improvement at $\xv$ over the currently best observed function value $y_{\min}$:
\[
I(\xv) := \max\left\{y_{\min} - Y(\xv), 0\right\}.
\]
Here, $Y(\xv)$ is a random variable that should express the posterior distribution at $\xv$, estimated with \fh.
For a Gaussian process, $Y(\xv)$ is normally distributed with $Y(\xv) \sim N(\mhx, \vhx)$.
Under this assumption, $\EI(\xv)$ can be expressed analytically in closed form as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ei}
\EI(\xv) = \left( y_{\min} - \mhx \right) \Phi \left( \frac{y_{\min} - \mhx)}{\shx} \right) + \shx \phi \left( \frac{y_{\min} - \mhx}{\shx} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ and $\phi$ are the distribution and density function of the standard normal distribution, respectively.
A simpler approach to balance \mhx and \shx for a point \xv is given by the \emph{lower confidence bound}
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{LCB}(\xv, \lambda) = \mhx - \lambda \shx,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda > 0$ is a constant that controls the \enquote{mean vs. uncertainty} trade-off.
Furthermore, \mlrMBO currently support pure mean \mhx minimization (pure exploitation) and pure uncertainty \shx maximization (pure exploration) and further criteria for multiple point proposals (see Section \ref{ssec:multipoint}), noisy optimization (see Section \ref{ssec:noisy}), and multi-objective optimization (See section \ref{ssec:multiobjective}).
\subsubsection{Infill Optimization}
\label{sssec:infill_opt}
The infill optimizer searches for the point~\xv which yields the best infill value.
Unlike the original optimization problem on $f$, the optimization on the infill criterion can be considered inexpensive.
While this is still a black-box optimization problem, points can be evaluated more lavishly, and~\citet{jones_1998} propose a branch and bound algorithm for this task.
\mlrMBO defaults to a more generic approach, which we call \emph{focus search}, outlined in Algorithm~\ref{algo:focus}.
It is able to handle numeric parameter spaces, categorical parameter spaces, as well as mixed and hierarchical spaces.
The algorithm starts with a large random design from which all points are evaluated by the surrogate regression model to determine the most promising point.
Next, focus search shrinks the search space around the best point and samples new random points for the now focused search space.
The shrinkage of search space is iterated $n_\text{iters}$ times.
The complete procedure can be restarted $n_\text{restart}$ times to avoid local optima.
Finally the best point over all restarts and iterations is returned.
Evolutionary algorithms like CMA-ES~\cite{R:cmaesr} or custom user-defined optimizers can be selected alternatively.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require infill criterion $c: \X \rightarrow \R$, control parameters $n_\text{restart}$, $n_\text{iters}$, $n_\text{points}$
\For{$u \in \{1, ..., n_\text{restart}\}$}
\State Set $\tilde{\X} = \X$
\For{$v \in \{1, ..., n_\text{iters}\}$}
\State generate random design $\mathcal D \subset \tilde{\X}$ of size $n_\text{points}$
\State compute $\xv_{u, v}^* = (x_1^*, ..., x_d^*) = \arg\min_{\xv \in \mathcal D} c(\xv)$
\State shrink $\tilde{\mathcal X}$ by focusing on $\mathbf x^*$:
\For{each search space dimension $\tilde {\X}_i$ in $\tilde{\X}$}
\If {$\tilde{\X}_i$ numeric: $\tilde{\X}_i = [l_i, u_i]$}
\State $l_i = \max \{l_i, x_i^* - \frac{1}{4} (u_i - l_i)\}$
\State $u_i = \min \{u_i, x_i^* + \frac{1}{4} (u_i - l_i)\} $
\EndIf
\If {$\tilde{\mathcal X}_i$ categorical: $\tilde{\mathcal X}_i = \left\{ v_{i1}, \ldots, v_{is} \right\}$, $s > 2$}
\State $\bar{x}_i$ = sample one category uniformly from $\tilde{\X}_i \backslash x_i^*$
\State $\tilde{\mathcal X}_i = \tilde{\mathcal X}_i \backslash \bar{x}_i$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State \textbf{Return} $\xv^* = \argmin\limits_{u \in \{1, ..., n_\text{restart}\}, v \in \{1, ..., n_\text{iters}\}} c(\xv_{u, v}^*)$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Infill Optimization: Focus Search.}
\label{algo:focus}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Termination}
\label{sssec:termination}
Multiple termination criteria can be used in \mlrMBO.
Commonly a limit is set for the total number of evaluations of $f$ or for the number of SMBO iterations.
Alternatively, the optimization can be terminated after a given time or after a time budget for function evaluations is exhausted.
The optimization can also be stopped as soon as a predefined objective value is reached.
Furthermore, the user can create custom termination rules.
\subsubsection{Final Point}
\label{sssec:final_point}
Finally, the final solution $\xv^*$ has to be determined.
Usually the best point observed during the optimization is picked.
Fitting a last surrogate model to find the best point predicted is a viable option, especially if $f$ is noisy.
\subsection{Efficient Global Optimization (EGO)}
\label{ssec:ego}
Kriging models~\cite{RW06} are arguable the most popular choice for a surrogate model because they are very flexible and provide a local uncertainty estimator~\cite{jones_1998}.
In general, we consider a numeric-only input domain $\X \subset \R^d$.
\citet{jones_1998} were the first who introduced surrogate models for the sequential optimization of box-constrained functions with real-valued arguments.
Their Efficient Global Optimization (EGO) algorithm employs Kriging models together with the expected improvement infill criterion (see Equation~\ref{eq:ei}).
Maximizing the \EI results in an infill criterion that balances exploitation of the model structure and exploration of regions with high uncertainty and has proven to be highly effective~\cite{jones_1998}.
It can ensure global convergence \cite{vazquez2010,Jon01} (which is somewhat unrealistic to expect under the usually tight budget constraints that exist for many expensive black-box optimization problems).
Figure~\ref{fig:ego_example} illustrates the point proposal at the 3rd (left) and the 4th iteration (right) of an EGO run on a $1d$ cosine mixture function.
It illustrates how high uncertainty ($\sh$) and a low value of $\mh$ contribute to the \EI and thus to the selection of the next point and the ability of \MBO to find the optimum even for multi-modal functions.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\begin{knitrout}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{0.969, 0.969, 0.969}\color{fgcolor}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{plot_mbo_kriging-1}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{plot_mbo_kriging-2}
\end{knitrout}
\caption{State at the 3rd (left) and 4th iteration (right) of an exemplary EGO run on a $1d$ cosine mixture function.
The upper part shows the real function $f$ as a solid line and its estimation~$\mh$ dotted.
The uncertainty is indicated by the shaded area.
Initial design points are displayed as red circles, sequential points as green squares.
The lower part shows the respective value for the \EI.
The optimum of the \EI defines the point that proposed to be evaluated next (blue triangle).}
\label{fig:ego_example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mixed Space Optimization}
\label{ssec:mso}
Real life scenarios often include mixed-valued as well as hierarchical parameter spaces with conditional parameters.
An example is the tuning of a support vector machine, for which the parameter space is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:svm_hyperparameters}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\center
\begin{tikzpicture}[->,>=stealth',shorten >=1pt,auto,node distance=3cm,
circ/.style={circle,draw,font=\scriptsize},
rect/.style={rectangle,draw,font=\scriptsize}]
\node[draw=none,fill=none] (20) at (0, 0) {$\mathcal X$};
\node[circ] (8) at (1, -1) {$C$};
\node[circ] (9) at(1, 1) {kernel};
\node[rect] (17) at (2.5, 0.5){radial};
\node[rect] (10) at (2.5, 1.5){linear};
\node[circ] (11) at(4, 0.5) {$\gamma$};
\node[rect] (15) at (5.5, -1) {$[0, \Inf]$};
\node[rect] (16) at (5.5, 0.5) {$[0, \Inf]$};
\path[every node/.style={font=\sffamily\small}]
(20) edge node {}(8)
edge node {}(9)
(8) edge node {}(15)
(9) edge node {}(10)
edge node {}(17)
(17) edge node {}(11)
(11) edge node {}(16);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Dependent search space for the tuning of a support vector machine. Circles denote parameters, rectangles denote parameter ranges, arrows denote the hierarchical structure.}
\label{fig:svm_hyperparameters}
\end{figure}
Depending on the choice of the \emph{kernel}, the hyperparameter $\gamma$ has to be optimized for the \emph{radial} kernel (so it is conditional on the setting of \emph{kernel}), but it is not present (or we could say: active) for the \emph{linear} kernel.
In contrast to $\gamma$, the hyperparameter~$C$ is unconditionally always active.
Kriging is not really suited for such problem domains, since covariance kernels natively supporting those types of data are still subject to research~\cite{zhou2012simple}.
For the \emph{initial design} all options support categorical parameters as well as hierarchical dependencies (feasible values of a parameter depend on the values of other parameters).
For the \emph{surrogate} we need a regression model that is more flexible and can handle categorical features as well as missing values to support dependent parameters.
A slightly modified \emph{random forest} can be used for this purpose.
If a hyperparameter is not active in a design point in the training set (due to unfulfilled conditions), we will mark its value as missing.
Although the random forest could potentially directly handle missing values, many implementations do not.
Hence, we impute these values in the following way:
For categorical parameters we code missing values as a new level, and for numerical parameters we code the imputed value out of the range of the box-constraints of the parameter under consideration.
This is known as the \emph{separate-class method} and was shown to perform best for decision trees in a prediction-oriented study, when missingness is related to the outcome~\cite{ding_investigation_2010}.
In order to still use \emph{infill criteria} as LCB and EI, we also have to compute an uncertainty estimate \shx for the random forest.
For bagging-like predictors this can be computed or approximated in various ways from the bootstrap.
We refer the reader to \cite{sexton_rf_se_2009,wager_confidence_2014} for further details.
In \mlr the uncertainty estimator can be deviated from an expensive extra bootstrap around the random forest, the jackknife, the infinitesimal jackknife, or a simple estimator which extracts the standard error simply from the internal bootstrap of the random forest.
In our experience, the jackknife estimator works most reliably, so it is the current default for \mlrMBO with random forests as surrogate.
However, it should be noted that the random forest is not really a spatial model as a Gaussian process and therefore the properties of the uncertainty estimator are less intuitive in comparison to the ones from Kriging models.
Our following results still indicate that we obtained state-of-the-art results with this default, and we deem this aspect a matter for further research.
\subsection{Multi-Point Proposal}
\label{ssec:multipoint}
The expensive nature of the optimization problem makes parallelization, i.e. the evaluation of different configurations on multiple CPUs, an important extension to speed up the SMBO process.
Recently many methods have been proposed to simultaneously propose $m$ points in each iteration.
We showcase three methods implemented in \mlrMBO, which are also discussed in~\cite{bischl_2014}.
A straightforward approach is \emph{qLCB} \cite{hutter_2012}, an extension of the LCB criterion.
Instead of one fixed $\lambda$, multiple $\lambda_k\; (k = 1, \ldots, m)$ are drawn from an exponential distribution to obtain $m$ points $\xv^{(j+1)}, \ldots, \xv^{(j+m)}$:
\[
\operatorname{qLCB}(\xv, \lambda_k) = \yh(\xv) - \lambda_k \shx, \quad \lambda_k \sim \operatorname{Exp}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right).
\]
The criterion is than optimized separately for every $\lambda_k$, so that overall $m$ points are proposed.
Proposals that were obtained by optimizing the qLCB for a low value of $\lambda_k$ exploit the model and are in proximity of the best found $y$ so far.
For high values of $\lambda_k$ the proposals will be of exploratory nature.
This ensures that in one SMBO iteration all proposals balance exploitation and exploration.
Another approach to propose multiple points using the expected improvement is known as \emph{constant liar} \cite{ginsbourger2010kriging}.
Here we obtain $\xv^{(j + 1)}$ in the same way as for the ordinary \EI.
To obtain $\xv^{(j + 2)}$ we assume that the evaluation at point $\xv^{(j + 1)}$ is done and update the surrogate model with a made up target value $y$.
Exemplary choices for the made up value are $\min(\yv)$, $\max(\yv)$, the mean $\bar{\yv}$, or the predicted posterior mean $\hat\mu(\xv^{(j + 1)})$ of the surrogate model.
The latter approach is also often referred to as \emph{kriging believer}.
\citet{bischl_2014} propose the multi-objective infill \MBO (MOIMBO) approach.
The posterior mean $\mhx$ and variance $\shx$ are not scalarized in a single function (as done by \EI or (q)LCB), instead a multi-objective optimization strategy (see Section~\ref{ssec:multiobjective}) is used to optimize them jointly and propose a whole set of optimal points.
To ensure that the points are diverse, a distance measure, e.g. the nearest neighbor distance, can be used as a third objective.
\subsection{Noisy Optimization}
\label{ssec:noisy}
Noisy optimization assumes that the objective function $f$ is stochastic.
Usually, one now faces the problem to optimize $\operatorname{E}[f(x)]$ instead of $f(x)$ and common strategies are intelligent repetition strategies
\cite{Preuss06considerationsof} or adapted infill criteria.
\mlrMBO currently only offers the latter (but of course the user can always opt to perform averaging in the objective function, e.g.\ by naively averaging over a constant number of repetitions himself).
A popular infill criterion for noisy functions is the \emph{expected quantile improvement}~\cite{picheny2013quantile} which is an extension of \EI.
Instead of looking for an improvement over best value observed so far (the $y_{\min}$ in the \EI formula), we exchange this with a so called \enquote{plug-in} value $q_{\min}$:
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{EQI}(\xv) = \left(q_{\min} - q(\xv) \right) \Phi \left( \frac{q_{\min} - q(\xv)}{s_{q(\xv)}} \right) + s_{q(\xv)} \phi \left( \frac{q_{\min} - q(\xv)}{s_{q(\xv)}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $q_{\min}$ is the lowest $\beta$-quantile $q(\xv_i)$ for all previously evaluated points $\xv \in \{\xv^{1}, \ldots \xv^{n}\}$, and $\beta$ is a user control parameter for the EQI.
The estimated $\beta$-quantile at point \xv is given by $q(\xv) = \mhx + \Phi^{-1}(\beta)\shx$.
This implies that the criterion will be non-zero at already evaluated points allowing re-evaluations or evaluations very close to already evaluated design points to increase knowledge of promising points.
\mlrMBO offers also the so called \enquote{augmented expected improvement} and its modular design makes extensions towards further criteria functions straightforward.
For a further in-depth discussion of this topic we refer the reader to \cite{PWG13} and their benchmark for noisy MBO approaches.
\subsection{Model-Based Multi-Objective (MBMO) Optimization}
\label{ssec:multiobjective}
Multi-objective optimization problems are characterized by a set of target functions $f(\xv) = (f_1(\xv), \dots, f_k(\xv))$ which have to be optimized simultaneously.
Since there is no total order in $\R^k, \text{for } k \geq 2$, the concept of \emph{Pareto dominance} is used.
A point $\xv$ pareto-dominates another point $\tilde \xv$, $\xv \preceq \tilde \xv$, if $f_i(\xv) \leq f_i(\tilde \xv)$ for $i = 1, \ldots, k$ and $\exists\, j\, f_j(\xv) < f_j(\tilde \xv)$, i.e., $\xv$ needs to be as good as $\tilde\xv$ in each component and strictly better in at least one.
A point $\xv$ is said to be \emph{non-dominated} if it is not dominated by any other point.
The set $P = \{\xv \, | \, \nexists\, \tilde \xv \; \tilde \xv \preceq \xv\}$ of all non-dominated points is called the \emph{Pareto set}.
It contains all incomparable trade-off solutions.
In multi-objective optimization the goal is to approximate the Pareto set or the \emph{Pareto front} $f(P)$, \ie, the image of $P$ under $f$.
In recent years some approaches were published that generalize single-objective SMBO algorithms like EGO for the multi-objective case.
We distinguish between 3 different MBMO algorithm classes:
First, \emph{scalarization based algorithms} that use EGO to optimize a scalarized version of the black-box functions with random weights for the scalarization in each iteration.
Second, \emph{Pareto based algorithms} that fit individual models for each objective and perform multi-objective optimization of infill criteria on these models.
Third, \emph{direct indicator based algorithms} that also fit individual models, but perform a single objective optimization of an infill criterion aggregating all models.
\mlrMBO supports 4 different MBMO algorithms, covering all 3 classes: ParEGO \cite{Kno06} as scalarization based, MSPOT \cite{ZBN+13} as Pareto based, and both SMS-EGO \cite{PWBV08} and $\varepsilon$-EGO \cite{Wag13} as direct indicator based algorithms.
A much more detailed discussion of these methods, their multi-point variants, and what is currently implemented in \mlrMBO is given in \cite{HWB15}.
\section{mlrMBO R Package}
\label{sec:software}
We implemented the software package \mlrMBO for the statistical programming language \Rlang.
It is designed as a modular framework.
The individual components of \MBO such as the infill criterion or the stopping conditions (cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:methodology}) can easily be combined in a plug-and-play fashion to respect the specific characteristics of the optimization problem at hand.
In the following we give a short introduction of this process which is split into multiple steps.
\paragraph{Definition of the black-box function}
For the first step \mlrMBO relies on the \pkg{smoof} package~\cite{R:smoof} which provides a unified interface to work with black-box functions.
Many test functions that are frequently used to benchmark optimizers are already included.
Additionally, the package provides the functions \code{make\{Single,Multi\}\allowbreak{}ObjectiveFunction()} as constructors for custom test functions.
Mandatory arguments are the function itself, a name and a parameter set.
In the simplest case, the latter is defined by names and box constraints, which can be specified concisely using the \pkg{ParamHelpers} package.
For more complex settings, it is also possible to connect parameters with arbitrary transformation functions (e.g., to vary a parameter on the $\log$-scale) or declare dependencies between parameters.
The following listing gives an example for the definition of the black-box $f(\mathbf{x}) = (x_2 - 0.1x_1^2 + x_1 - 6)^2 + \cos(x_1)$ with $x_1 \in [-5, 10], x_2 \in [0, 15]$:
\begin{knitrout}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{0.969, 0.969, 0.969}\color{fgcolor}\begin{kframe}
\begin{alltt}
\hlstd{fn} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{makeSingleObjectiveFunction}\hlstd{(}
\hlkwc{name} \hlstd{=} \hlstr{"my_blackbox"}\hlstd{,}
\hlkwc{fn} \hlstd{=} \hlkwa{function}\hlstd{(}\hlkwc{x}\hlstd{) (x[}\hlnum{2}\hlstd{]} \hlopt{-} \hlnum{0.1} \hlopt{*} \hlstd{x[}\hlnum{1}\hlstd{]}\hlopt{^}\hlnum{2} \hlopt{+} \hlstd{x[}\hlnum{1}\hlstd{]} \hlopt{-} \hlnum{6}\hlstd{)}\hlopt{^}\hlnum{2} \hlopt{+} \hlkwd{cos}\hlstd{(x[}\hlnum{1}\hlstd{]),}
\hlkwc{par.set} \hlstd{=} \hlkwd{makeParamSet}\hlstd{(}
\hlkwd{makeNumericParam}\hlstd{(}\hlstr{"x1"}\hlstd{,} \hlkwc{lower} \hlstd{=} \hlopt{-}\hlnum{5}\hlstd{,} \hlkwc{upper} \hlstd{=} \hlnum{10}\hlstd{),}
\hlkwd{makeNumericParam}\hlstd{(}\hlstr{"x2"}\hlstd{,} \hlkwc{lower} \hlstd{=} \hlnum{0}\hlstd{,} \hlkwc{upper} \hlstd{=} \hlnum{15}\hlstd{)}
\hlstd{)}
\hlstd{)}
\end{alltt}
\end{kframe}
\end{knitrout}
\paragraph{Definition of the Initial Design}
To specify the points to be evaluated to initialize the surrogate an initial design has to be specified.
It is recommended to use a Latin Hypercube Design by calling \code{generateDesign()} and passing the number of desired points.
If no design is given by the user, \mlrMBO will generate a \textit{maximin} Latin Hypercube Design of size $4$ times the number of the black-box function's parameters.
\paragraph{Definition of the surrogate regression model}
\mlrMBO builds up on the \code{mlr} package~\cite{mlr_2016}, which offers a unified interface for a plethora of machine learning methods in \Rlang.
For surrogate regression, Kriging (\code{makeLearner("regr.km")}) and random forests (\code{makeLearner("regr.randomForest")}) are popular choices, but other regression methods can be selected as well.
Keep in mind that if expected improvement or LCB is chosen as the infill criterion, the surrogate either has to provide an uncertainty estimator, or has to be combined with a bagging approach using the \code{makeBaggingWrapper()} in \mlr.
If no regression method is supplied by the user, the fallback is a Kriging model with a Matern-\nicefrac{3}{2} kernel and the \enquote{GENetic Optimization Using Derivatives} (genoud) fitting algorithm in a fully numeric setting, and a random forest with jackknife variance estimation otherwise.
\paragraph{Definition of the control flow}
Basic settings like the number of proposed points in each SMBO iteration or the error handling are set via \code{makeMBOControl()} which returns a base control object.
This object can be further extended to adjust the different component of the SMBO methodology.
\code{setMBOControlInfill()} adjusts the infill criterion and the infill criterion optimizer.
If the infill optimization is unspecified, \mlrMBO uses LCB as infill criterion with $\lambda = 1$ in a fully numeric setting and $\lambda = 2$ if at least one one discrete parameter is present.
To optimize the criterion, focus search with $n_\text{restarts = 3}$, $n_\text{iters} = 5$ and $n_\text{points} = 1000$ is used by default.
For multi-point proposals or multi-objective optimization, \code{setMBOControlMultiPoint()} and \code{setMBOControlMultiObj()} are used, respectively.
If multiple points are proposed, they can be evaluated simultaneously using different parallelization (i.e. multicore, sockets, and MPI) and high-performance computation systems (e.g., Slurm, LSF, OpenLava, TORQUE, or Docker Swarms) with the \Rlang packages \pkg{parallelMap} and \pkg{batchtools}~\cite{batchjobs}.
Finally, \code{setMBOControlTermination()} controls the termination criteria.
\paragraph{Putting it all together}
The actual optimization is finally started by calling the \code{mbo()} function with the (optional) initial design, the black-box function, the (optional) surrogate regression method, and the control object as arguments.
The following listing demonstrates an application of \mlrMBO to optimize our example black-box.
\begin{knitrout}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{0.969, 0.969, 0.969}\color{fgcolor}\begin{kframe}
\begin{alltt}
\hlkwd{library}\hlstd{(mlrMBO)}
\hlcom{# Create initial random Latin Hypercube Design of 10 points}
\hlkwd{library}\hlstd{(lhs)} \hlcom{# for randomLHS}
\hlstd{des} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{generateDesign}\hlstd{(}\hlkwc{n} \hlstd{=} \hlnum{5L} \hlopt{*} \hlnum{2L}\hlstd{,} \hlkwd{getParamSet}\hlstd{(fn),} \hlkwc{fun} \hlstd{= randomLHS)}
\hlcom{# Specify kriging model with standard error estimation}
\hlstd{surrogate} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{makeLearner}\hlstd{(}\hlstr{"regr.km"}\hlstd{,} \hlkwc{predict.type} \hlstd{=} \hlstr{"se"}\hlstd{,}
\hlkwc{covtype} \hlstd{=} \hlstr{"matern3_2"}\hlstd{)}
\hlcom{# Set general controls}
\hlstd{ctrl} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{makeMBOControl}\hlstd{()}
\hlstd{ctrl} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{setMBOControlTermination}\hlstd{(ctrl,} \hlkwc{iters} \hlstd{=} \hlnum{30L}\hlstd{)}
\hlstd{ctrl} \hlkwb{=} \hlkwd{setMBOControlInfill}\hlstd{(ctrl,} \hlkwc{crit} \hlstd{=} \hlkwd{makeMBOInfillCritEI}\hlstd{())}
\hlcom{# Start optimization}
\hlkwd{mbo}\hlstd{(fn, des, surrogate, ctrl)}
\end{alltt}
\end{kframe}
\end{knitrout}
The resulting object contains the full optimization path, with all $x$ and $y$ values, runtime of function evaluations, final state, potential error messages as well as optionally all fitted surrogate models.
Diagnostic visualizations of the optimization are available by calling \code{plot()} and for one and two dimensional input domains with single- or multi-objective targets, each step of the optimization process can be visualized by calling \code{exampleRun()} or \code{exampleRunMultiObj()}.
For instance, Figure~\ref{fig:ego_example} has been created with \code{exampleRun()} and \code{plotExampleRun()}.
\section{Benchmarks}
\label{sec:benchmarks}
In this section, the performance of \mlrMBO is evaluated on three extensive benchmarks.
First, we compare \mlrMBO against other black-box optimizers connected to \Rlang (Section \ref{ssec:bench_single_opt}), then against state-of-the-art optimizers that are not available in \Rlang through the optimization benchmark framework HPOlib~\cite{eggensperger2013towards} (Section \ref{ssec:SMBO_mixed}).
Finally, we perform a simulation study on multi-objective optimization problems (Section \ref{ssec:bench_multi_opt}).
All benchmarks were conducted using the \texttt{batchtools}~\cite{batchjobs} package for \Rlang.
\subsection{Model-Based Single-Objective Optimization}
\label{ssec:bench_single_opt}
We run our implementation on various single-objective optimization tasks and compare it with the three EGO implementations available in \Rlang: \pkg{DiceOptim}~\cite{RGD12}, \pkg{rBayesianOptimization}~\cite{R:rBayesianOptimization} and \pkg{SPOT}~\cite{beielstein_spot_2012}.
Additionally, to ensure that an EGO approach is suitable, we also consider a basic random search as well as the popular covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) based on the \Rlang package \pkg{cmaesr}~\cite{R:cmaesr}.
\paragraph{Benchmarks}
The methods are evaluated on a set of six $5$-dimensional, continuous, and single-objective test functions: \textit{Alpine01}, \textit{Deflected Corrugated Spring}, \textit{Schwefel}, \textit{Ackley}, \textit{Griewank} and \textit{Rosenbrock}.
All are defined in the \Rlang-package \pkg{smoof} and have been subject to optimization benchmarks previously.
\paragraph{Setup}
For the initial design, the same pre-generated maximin Latin Hypercube design containing 25~points is used for \mlrMBO, \pkg{DiceOptim}, \pkg{SPOT} and the random search.
It was not possible to pass a user-defined initial design in \pkg{rBayesianOptimization} without provoking an error.
Instead, a random design of the same size is generated internally.
We allow each algorithm \num{200} sequential iterations.
Since CMA-ES as an evolutionary algorithm does not initialize with a design, it gets an additional budget of 25~iterations (in total $225$).
All algorithms are run in their default settings carefully chosen by the respective package authors.
\paragraph{Evaluation}
The objective values of the proposed solutions are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:res_single_crit}.
All methods performed clearly better than the baseline random search approach on all six test functions.
In comparison with the other EGO-based algorithms, \mlrMBO yields a substantial better objective on four test functions and similar objective on the other two.
\pkg{SPOT} is slightly better than \mlrMBO on \textit{Griewank}, but worse on three others.
The evolutionary CMA-ES is comparable to \mlrMBO on \textit{Alpine01} and slightly better on \textit{Rosenbrock}, but considerably worse on the four other problems.
If we consider the averaged rank of the methods over all test functions as shown in Table~\ref{tab:testranks_syn}, \mlrMBO proves to be the best method overall, with \pkg{SPOT} in second place.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{knitrout}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{0.969, 0.969, 0.969}\color{fgcolor}
\includegraphics[width=\maxwidth]{mbo_y_single-1}
\end{knitrout}
\caption{Best objective value (on $y$ axis) found by respective algorithms on respective test function.}
\label{fig:res_single_crit}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\hline
Algorithm & Average Rank & Average runtime in minutes \\
\hline
\pkg{mlrMBO} & 1.95 & 8.03 \\
\pkg{SPOT} & 2.48 & 27.88 \\
\pkg{cmaesr} & 3.17 & 0.01 \\
\pkg{DiceOptim} & 3.97 & 3.35 \\
\pkg{rBayesOpt} & 4.24 & 695.96 \\
\pkg{Random} & 5.19 & 0.00 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[Results were ranked in each replication and then averaged over the replications and problems. Runtime is measured in minutes.]{Average ranks and runtime on artificial test functions.}
\label{tab:testranks_syn}
\end{table}
Besides the quality of the solution, runtime, and computational overhead should also be considered.
The timings for a complete optimization run in minutes are listed in Table~\ref{tab:testranks_syn}.
Note that we are basically measuring the overhead of the optimization algorithms, as the synthetic test functions are evaluated in microseconds.
The random search unsurprisingly comes with the least overhead, followed by CMA-ES as implemented in the package \pkg{cmaesr}.
The EGO-based approaches consume considerably more time by fitting the surrogate model and optimizing the infill criterion.
Here, \mlrMBO is slower than \pkg{DiceOptim} but still more than twice as fast as \pkg{SPOT} and orders of magnitudes faster than \pkg{rBayesianOptimization}.
However, keep in mind that EGO is tailored for expensive problems.
If we paid each function evaluation with just one minute of computation time, the differences between \SI{200}{\minute} for random search and \SI{212}{\minute} for \mlrMBO seems to be a reasonable price to pay for a much better objective value.
\subsection{Model-Based Single-Objective Optimization in Mixed Spaces}
\label{ssec:SMBO_mixed}
The second benchmark compares \mlrMBO to three\footnote{Since \pkg{BayesOpt} is neither connected to HPOlib nor possesses an \Rlang interface, we refer the reader to the benchmarks in~\cite{JMLR:v15:martinezcantin14a} and do not consider \pkg{BayesOpt} in our analysis.} other state-of-the-art Bayesian optimizers which are not connected to \Rlang: Spearmint~\cite{snoek_practical_2012}, hyperopt (called TPE in the following)~\cite{bergstra2011algorithms} and SMAC~\cite{hutter_sequential_2011}.
We use the hyperparameter optimization library HPOlib~\cite{eggensperger2013towards}, which contains a large number of standardized benchmarks.
Besides purely numerical problems, the HPOlib also defines problems with mixed and dependent parameter spaces.
We evaluate the methods on four synthetic functions (\textit{branin}, \textit{camelback}, \textit{michalewicz} and \textit{har6}), three parameter optimization problems on grids (linear discriminant analysis (\textit{lda}), logistic regression (\textit{logreg}) and a support vector machine (\textit{svm})), as well as a deep neural network (\textit{hpnnet}) with $15$~parameters, and a deep belief network (\textit{hpdbnet}) with $35$~parameters.
The latter two problems were originally proposed by \citet{bergstra2011algorithms}.
\mlrMBO uses its default settings, i.e., a Gaussian process as surrogate model for all solely numerical problems and a random forest for the problems with mixed and dependent parameter spaces (\textit{hpnnet} and \textit{hpdbnet}).
We deviate from the defaults only for the initial design of \textit{hpnnet} and \textit{hpdbnet}.
Here, the number of allowed function evaluations compared to the dimension of the parameter set is very small, therefore the initial design has only size $2d$ instead of the default $4d$.
Spearmint uses an internal dummy encoding of all categorical parameters for its Gaussian process.
The number of iterations on each benchmark as well as the specific settings of all other optimizers are defined in HPOlib.
\paragraph{Evaluation}
The results of ten runs on each benchmark are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:res_hpolib}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{knitrout}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{0.969, 0.969, 0.969}\color{fgcolor}
\includegraphics[width=\maxwidth]{hpolib-1}
\end{knitrout}
\caption{Best objective value (on $y$ axis) found by respective optimizer on $13$ HPOlib test functions. For details on the test functions we refer to \cite{bergstra2011algorithms} for \textit{hpnnet} and \textit{hpdbnet} and to \cite{eggensperger2013towards} for everything else.}
\label{fig:res_hpolib}
\end{figure}
On each of the four synthetic test functions, \mlrMBO outperforms both SMAC and TPE and has similar performance compared to Spearmint, except for \textit{michalewicz} where \mlrMBO outperforms all competitors.
For the grid optimizations, \mlrMBO also performs exceptionally well on every single one, while each other optimizer results in worse performance on at least one of the three problems, which overall places \mlrMBO on the first place in numeric settings (cf.\ Table~\ref{tab:hporanks}).
Regarding the neural network and deep belief network, \mlrMBO achieves similar results as SMAC and slightly better results than Spearmint and TPE.
Especially Spearmint has a clearly worse performance on three of the six problems, while \mlrMBO is only worse than its competitors on \textit{hpdbnet/cv\_convex}.
As a result, Table~\ref{tab:hporanks} shows that \mlrMBO also places first w.r.t.\ aggregated mean ranks for mixed hyperparameter spaces.
We can clearly see that \mlrMBO is on par with other state-of-the-art Bayesian optimization software, even in highly complex settings.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
Optimizer & Avg. rank & Avg. rank (numeric only) & Avg. rank (mixed only) \\
\hline
\pkg{mlrMBO} & 1.90 \textbf{(1)} & 1.64 \textbf{(1)} & 2.20 \textbf{(1)} \\
\pkg{smac} & 2.65 \textbf{(3)} & 2.90 \textbf{(3)} & 2.35 \textbf{(2)} \\
\pkg{spearmint} & 2.61 \textbf{(2)} & 2.32 \textbf{(2)} & 2.95 \textbf{(4)} \\
\pkg{TPE} & 2.85 \textbf{(4)} & 3.14 \textbf{(4)} & 2.50 \textbf{(3)} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Average ranks on HPOlib problems, Results were ranked in each replication and then averaged over the replications and problems. Numeric only ranks are based on benchmark $7$ to $13$ and mixed only ranks are based on $1$ to $6$.}
\label{tab:hporanks}
\end{table}
\subsection{Model-Based Multi-Objective Optimization}
\label{ssec:bench_multi_opt}
In \citet{HWB15} an exhaustive benchmark comparing all multi-objective algorithms implemented in \mlrMBO is given.
However, in 2018 an implementation bug that was likely to deteriorate the performance of ParEGO was discovered and fixed.
Therefore, we present a remake of the benchmark in this chapter, including a comparision to the \pkg{GPareto} \Rlang package.
\paragraph{Benchmarks}
The benchmark is performed on the bi-objective black-box optimization benchmarking (BBOB) test suite~\cite{tusar2016}.
It is constructed on top of ten functions of the single-objective BBOB test suite.
Two functions belong to each of the following function classes: separable (sep), moderate (mod), ill-condition (i-c), multi-modal (m-m) and weakly structured (w-s) functions.
These functions are pairwise combined to form 55 bi-objective problems, which can be grouped into 15 classes by combining the classes of the underlying single-objective functions.
The benchmark is restricted to the case $d = 5$.
\paragraph{Setup}
To simulate an expensive setting, all algorithms had a budget of $44d$~function evaluations, of which $4d$ are reserved for the initial design.
The popular evolutionary multi-objective algorithm NSGA2~\cite{DPAM02} and a random search serve as baseline for the four implementations in \mlrMBO: SMS-EGO, $\epsilon$-EGO, SMS-EGO, and MSPOT (cf.\ Section~\ref{ssec:multiobjective}).
In addition, the alternative implementation of SMS-EGO in \pkg{GPareto} is used.
\paragraph{Evaluation}
Various performance measures for comparing different approximations have been introduced.
The most popular measure may be the dominated hypervolume (also known as S-Metric).
In the bi-objective case the hypervolume simply measures the area between the discrete approximation of the Pareto front and a pessimistic reference point.
If an approximation reaches a higher hypervolume value, it is considered superior.
The final Pareto front approximations were normalized to the interval $[0, 1]^2$ with respect to a reference set.
Afterwards, ranks are computed for each test function respectively.
In Table~\ref{tab:multiranks}, the mean ranks for each function class are shown for 20~replications per test function.
Moreover, Figures~\ref{fig:res_multi_crit_hv_1} and \ref{fig:res_multi_crit_hv_2} show the raw hypervolume values for each test function.
We see that SMS-EGO, ParEGO and MSPOT outperform both baselines on nearly all test functions, with MSPOT beeing the superior algorithm.
Although gpareto has top performance for the class of two separable functions, it is inferior to all \mlrMBO implementation except $\epsilon$-EGO, especially while facing multi-modal functions.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{small}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
group & GPareto & $\epsilon$-EGO & MSPOT & ParEGO & SMS-EGO & NSGA2 & random \\
\hline
sep -- sep & \textbf{2.18} & 4.72 & 2.22 & 2.88 & 3.50 & 5.30 & 6.40 \\
sep -- mod & 3.45 & 5.55 & \textbf{1.85} & 2.56 & 2.61 & 4.85 & 6.46 \\
sep -- i-c & 3.52 & 4.95 & \textbf{1.46} & 3.81 & 2.89 & 5.05 & 6.31 \\
sep -- m-m & 4.42 & 3.96 & 3.09 & 3.39 & \textbf{2.51} & 3.90 & 6.72 \\
sep -- w-s & 3.65 & 5.17 & 2.76 & 3.17 & \textbf{2.61} & 4.42 & 6.20 \\
mod -- mod & 3.98 & 4.20 & 3.10 & \textbf{2.80} & 3.17 & 4.43 & 6.32 \\
mod -- i-c & 3.81 & 5.95 & \textbf{1.68} & 2.90 & 3.11 & 4.40 & 6.15 \\
mod -- m-m & 4.50 & 5.90 & 2.65 & 4.04 & \textbf{2.16} & 3.12 & 5.62 \\
mod -- w-s & 4.96 & 3.91 & 2.73 & 2.91 & \textbf{2.38} & 4.83 & 6.14 \\
i-c -- i-c & 4.22 & 3.63 & 2.22 & \textbf{2.07} & 3.50 & 5.65 & 6.72 \\
i-c -- m-m & 5.16 & 3.45 & \textbf{2.16} & 3.54 & 3.17 & 4.39 & 6.12 \\
i-c -- w-s & 3.67 & 4.24 & \textbf{2.41} & 3.19 & 2.92 & 4.89 & 6.67 \\
m-m -- m-m & 6.12 & 3.13 & \textbf{2.85} & 3.22 & \textbf{2.85} & 3.55 & 6.28 \\
m-m -- w-s & 5.26 & 4.90 & 2.24 & 3.08 & \textbf{2.23} & 4.19 & 6.11 \\
w-s -- w-s & 4.17 & 3.98 & \textbf{2.88} & 3.12 & 2.53 & 4.68 & 6.63 \\ \hline
over all & 4.21 & 4.51 & \textbf{2.42} & 3.11 & 2.81 & 4.51 & 6.33 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\label{tab:multiranks}
\caption{Average ranks on bi-objective BBOB problems. Results were ranked in each replication and then averaged over the replications and problems for each function class.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We introduced the \Rlang package \mlrMBO, a modular toolbox for \MBO in the \Rlang programming language.
We gave a brief introduction to software specific aspects and features.
Furthermore, we performed comprehensive benchmarks of \mlrMBO against other black-box optimizers in different scenarios.
In the single-objective benchmark \mlrMBO proved state-of-the-art performance regarding solution quality in comparison with the CMA evolutionary strategy, random search, and alternative SMBO implementations, while still being reasonably fast.
Furthermore, \mlrMBO is on par with the well known optimization frameworks SMAC, Spearmint, and TPE as shown by benchmarks using HPOlib.
The benchmark study on expensive multi-objective optimization revealed SMBO-based methods, in particular SMS-EGO, to show excellent performance.
Both the state-of-the-art NSGA-II evolutionary algorithm as well as the baseline random search algorithm were outperformed on all nine test functions (only ParEGO occasionally failed).
All in all the results demonstrate the suitability of the \mlrMBO toolbox in particular for expensive optimization scenarios in \Rlang for single- and multi-objective tasks, with continuous or mixed parameter spaces.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Part of the work on this paper has been supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 876 \enquote{Providing Information by Resource-Constrained Analysis}, project A3 (\href{http://sfb876.tu-dortmund.de}{http://sfb876.tu-dortmund.de}) and by the Competence Network for Technical, Scientific High Performance Computing in Bavaria (KONWIHR) in the project \enquote{Implementierung und Evaluation eines Verfahrens zur automatischen, massiv-parallelen Modellselektion im Maschinellen Lernen}.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery of neutrino oscillations as a result of solar and
atmospheric studies constitutes a major milestone in astroparticle
physics~\cite{Kajita:2016cak,McDonald:2016ixn}.
Earthbound experiments based at reactors and accelerators have not
only provided a confirmation of the oscillation picture but also
brought the field into the precision age.
Despite the great experimental effort, however, two of the oscillation
parameters remain poorly determined, namely the atmospheric mixing
angle $\theta_{23}$ and the CP violating phase
$\delta_{CP}$~\cite{Forero:2014bxa,Capozzi:2016rtj,Esteban:2016qun}.
Underpinning these parameters as well as determining the neutrino mass
ordering constitute important challenges in the agenda of upcoming
oscillation experiments, needed to establish the three-neutrino
paradigm. Concerning the two poorly known neutrino parameters,
$\theta_{23}$ yields two degenerate
solutions~\cite{Forero:2014bxa,Capozzi:2016rtj,Esteban:2016qun},
well known as the octant problem~\cite{Fogli:1996pv}. One of them is
known as lower octant (LO): $\theta_{23}\,< \, \pi/4$ while the other
is termed as higher octant (HO): $\theta_{23}\,> \, \pi/4$.
The role of $\theta_{13}$ and its precise determination has been
stressed in early papers~\cite{Minakata:2002jv,Maltoni:2004ei}.
The actual discovery of large $\theta_{13}$ that has opened a
tremendous opportunity for the long-baseline neutrino oscillation
experiments to resolve the octant issue within the standard 3-flavor
framework. This may however be just an approximation to the true
scenario, which may involve new physics such as
non-unitarity~\cite{valle:1987gv,Miranda:2016ptb,Miranda:2016wdr,Escrihuela:2016ube}
which may have important effects on the propagation of astrophysical
neutrinos~\cite{nunokawa:1996tg,grasso:1998tt} non-standard
interactions~\cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue} as well as a light sterile
neutrino~\cite{Kosmas:2017zbh}.
Recently there have been many papers addressing the octant issue
within the standard 3$\nu$
scenario~\cite{Agarwalla:2013ju,Agarwalla:2013hma,Chatterjee:2013qus,Bass:2013vcg,Bora:2014zwa,Das:2014fja,Nath:2015kjg}.
However it has also been shown recently that the octant sensitivity
may completely change in the presence of the above non-standard
features, i.e. non-unitarity~\cite{Dutta:2016eks}, non-standard
interaction~\cite{Agarwalla:2016fkh} or a light sterile
neutrino~\cite{Agarwalla:2016xlg}.
In this letter we specifically focus on the reactor angle
$\theta_{13}$ and on whether an improved precision in its
measurement from reactors, combined with results from future long
baseline experiments such as DUNE and/or T2HK, could provide a final
resolution to the octant puzzle.
Taking into account current global neutrino oscillation parameter
fits, we forecast the potential of DUNE~\cite{Acciarri:2015uup} and
T2HK~\cite{Abe:2015zbg} for pinning down the correct octant of
$\theta_{23}$.
We find that a sufficiently good measurement of the reactor angle
$\theta_{13}$ directly fixes values of $\theta_{23}$ for which the
octant of the atmospheric angle can be distinguished.
\section{Theory preliminaries}
\label{sec:theory-preliminaries}
Following \cite{Akhmedov:2004ny}, the appearance and survival
oscillation probabilities in the presence of matter can be written
approximately as
\begin{flalign}
\label{eq:oscil1}
P_{\mu e}\,\approx \,& 4 s_{13}^2 s_{23}^2 \sin^2\Delta_{31} \nonumber \\
& + 2\alpha \Delta_{31} s_{13} \sin 2\theta_{12}\sin 2\theta_{23} \cos(\Delta_{31} \pm \delta_{CP}) \nonumber \\
=\,& P_0 + P_I
\\ \label{eq:oscil2}
P_{\mu \mu} \,\approx \,& 1- \sin^22\theta_{23}\sin^2\Delta_{31}-4s_{13}^2 s_{23}^2 \frac{\sin^2(A-1)\Delta_{31}}{(A-1)^2}
\end{flalign}
where $s_{ij} = \sin\theta_{ij}$,
$\alpha \,=\, \frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2}$,
$\Delta_{31} \,= \,\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2 L}{4E}$ and the function A
= $\frac{2EV_{CC}}{\Delta m_{31}^2}$ describes the matter
profile. Here $V_{CC}$ is the charged current potential in earth
matter, while L and E are the propagation distance and energy of the
neutrinos, respectively. The $\pm$ sign in front of $\delta_{\rm CP}$
corresponds to neutrinos (upper sign) and antineutrinos (lower
sign). The term $P_0$ is the octant sensitive term, whereas the term
related to $\sin^22\theta_{23}$ generates the octant degeneracy.
An experiment is octant sensitive, if there is always a finite
difference between the two probabilities corresponding to the two
octants, despite the minimization performed over the different
oscillation parameters. Mathematically,
\begin{equation}
\Delta P \equiv P_{\mu e}^{\rm HO} - P_{\mu e}^{\rm LO} \neq 0
\end{equation}
Note that we assume that one of the two octants is the true octant in
order to generate the data, while the other one is the false octant in
order to simulate the theoretical model predictions. We will always
assume that $\theta_{13}$ lies in its true value
($\sin^2\theta_{13} = 0.0234$) in the true octant. Following
Eq.~\ref{eq:oscil1}, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta P = \Delta P_0 + \Delta P_I~.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, by expanding Eq.~\ref{eq:oscil1} around $\theta_{23}=\pi/4 \pm \eta$
and $\sin^2\theta_{13}=(1 + \epsilon)\sin^2\theta_{13}$ we get,
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
P_{0}\, = \,(1 \pm 2\eta + \epsilon)P^{'} + O(\epsilon \eta)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon = \pm \delta(\sin^2\theta_{13}$) denotes the error on
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$ and the $\pm$ sign in front of $\eta$ refers to HO
(upper sign) and LO (lower sign) and,
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{'} \equiv P^{'}(\theta_{23}=\pi/4,\theta_{13}=\theta_{13}^{true}) = 2s_{13}^2\sin^2\Delta_{31}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
leading to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:oscil3}
\Delta P_0 = (P_0^{\rm HO} - P_0^{\rm LO}) = P^{'}(4\eta \pm \epsilon)~.
\end{eqnarray}
The double sign in front of $\epsilon$ refers to the $\rm LO^{\rm true}$
(upper sign) and $\rm HO^{\rm true}$ (lower sign).
In the same manner, we can also write
\begin{flalign}
\label{eq:oscil4}
&\Delta P_I =B \biggl[\sin\theta_{13}^{\rm HO} \cos(\Delta_{31} \pm \delta_{\rm CP}^{\rm HO}) \nonumber \\ &\hspace{3cm}-\sin\theta_{13}^{\rm LO} \cos(\Delta_{31} \pm \delta_{\rm CP}^{\rm LO})\biggr]
\end{flalign}
where, B =
$4\sin\theta_{12}\cos\theta_{12}(\alpha \Delta) \sin\Delta_{31}$.
Notice that, as mentioned above, $\sin\theta_{13}^{\rm HO}$ and
$\sin\theta_{13}^{\rm LO}$ change shape depending on true versus
wrong octant.
For the time being suppose one neglects the error on
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$ by taking $\epsilon \to 0$. $\Delta P_0$ is
positive definite, while $\Delta P_I$ can have either sign due to
the presence of the unknown $\delta_{\rm CP}$. As a result $\Delta P$
may become zero for the unfavorable combinations of octant and
$\delta_{CP}$, so that octant sensitivity can be completely
lost. However, it has been noticed in the literature
\cite{Agarwalla:2013ju,Machado:2013kya} that this type of degeneracy
can be lifted by using both neutrino and antineutrino channels and one
can achieve good octant sensitivity in the 3-flavor scenario.
In the presence of a nonzero error on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$, then
$\Delta P_0$ is also a positive definite quantity, since the current
error on $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ is bigger than the error on
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$, i.e., we can safely assume $\eta > \epsilon$.
In this case it is clear from Eqs.~\ref{eq:oscil3} and \ref{eq:oscil4}
that the unfavorable contribution coming from $\epsilon \neq 0$
changes the magnitude of $\Delta P_0$ and $\Delta P_I$ in such a way
that overall value of $\Delta P$ decreases further than in the
previous case. As a result the octant discrimination sensitivity
decreases significantly even in the presence of neutrino and
antineutrino channels. The larger the error, the less will be the
resulting octant sensitivity. This will be clearly seen in the next
section.
\section{Simulation Details}
\label{sec:simulation-details}Here we present in some detail the
experimental configurations of the DUNE and T2HK experiments used
for this work. For a more detailed discussion
see~\cite{Chatterjee:2017xkb}
{\bf \textit {DUNE}:} Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE)
is a long-baseline (1300 km) accelerator-based experiment with
neutrinos travelling from Fermilab to South Dakota. Following the
DUNE CDR~\cite{Acciarri:2015uup}, we are using a 40 Kt LArTPC as
its far detector, and a 80 GeV proton beam with beam power 1.07
MW. A total 300 Kt.MW.yrs of exposure has been assumed with
neutrino mode running for 3.5 yrs, and the antineutrino mode
running for 3.5 yrs. All the signal and background event numbers
have been matched following Table~3.5 and Table~3.6 of
\cite{Acciarri:2015uup}. With this all the reconstructed neutrino
and antineutrino energy spectra and sensitivity results have been
reproduced as close as possible to the same reference.
As a simplified case for all the neutrino and antineutrino
appearance and disappearance channels we have assumed an
uncorrelated 4\% signal normalization error and 10\% background
normalization error.
{\bf \textit {T2HK}:} T2HK (Tokai to Hyper-Kamiokande) is an
off-axis accelerator based experiment with baseline 295
km. According to \cite{Abe:2015zbg}, it plans to use the same 30
GeV proton beam as T2K, provided by the J-PARC facility and a 560
Kton (fiducial volume) Water Chernkov far detector. An integrated
beam of power $7.5 \,\rm{MW}\times 10^7$ sec has been assumed for
this work which corresponds to $1.56\times 10^{22}$ protons on
target. In order to make the expected event numbers nearly the same for
neutrinos and antineutrinos, we consider a 2.5 yrs of neutrino
running mode and 7.5 yrs of antineutrino running mode. All the
signal and background event numbers have been matched following
Table~7 and Table~8 of Ref.~\cite{Abe:2015zbg} and all other
sensitivity results have been reproduced with good agreement. As a
simplified case we have assumed an uncorrelated 5\% signal
normalization error, and 10\% background normalization error with
no energy calibration error.
We have performed a realistic simulation by using the GLoBES
package \cite{Huber:2004ka,Huber:2007ji}. The best fit values of
the oscillation parameters were taken from \cite{Esteban:2016qun}
except for the top plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:12}, in which we have
followed \cite{Forero:2014bxa}. They are the following:
$\sin^2\theta_{12}$ = 0.306, $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ = 0.0216,\,
$\sin^2\theta_{23}$ = 0.441 for NH ,\, $\delta_{CP}$ = 1.45$\pi$,\,
$\Delta m_{21}^2$ = 7.5$\times10^{-5}\;\rm eV^2$,\,\,\,and
$\Delta m_{31}^2$ = 2.524$\times10^{-3}$
(-2.514$\times10^{-3}$)\;$\rm eV^2$ for NH (IH). Here NH (IH) is
short for normal hierarchy (inverted hierarchy). In all of our
numerical analysis, we have assumed NH as fixed both in data and
theory. In order to determine the sensitivity towards the
measurement of the octant of $\theta_{23}$, we have defined the
$\chi^2$ function as,
\begin{equation}
\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm GLoBES}+\chi^2_{\rm Priors}
\end{equation}
where $\chi^2_{\rm GLoBES}$ is the standard GLoBES Poissionian
chi-squared, while $\chi^2_{\rm Priors}$ is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prior}
\chi^2_{\rm Priors}=\sum_{i=2,3}\left(\frac{s^{2,\,\rm TRUE}_{1i}-s^{2,\,\rm TEST}_{1i}}{\delta\left(s^{2,\,\rm TRUE}_{1i}\right)}\right)^2
\end{equation}
with $\delta\left(s_{ij}^{2,\,\rm TRUE}\right)$ is the $\sin^2\theta_{ij}^{\rm TRUE}$ error from~\cite{Esteban:2016qun},
while $s^{2,\,\rm A}_{ij}=\sin^2\theta_{ij}^{\rm A}$. Here $A=$ TRUE, TEST
denote the true and test values of the angles respectively. We have
not included either $\delta_{\rm CP}$ or $\theta_{23}$ priors, as we
are focusing on the capability of each experiment to measure them. In
order to distinguish the true octant from the false one. We define the
chi-squared difference as
$\Delta \chi^2_{\rm oct}=|\chi^2_{\rm min}(\theta_{23}\leq
\pi/4)-\chi^2_{\rm min}(\theta_{23}>\pi/4)|.$
Here $\chi^2_{\rm min}(\theta_{23})$ is the $\chi^2$ function
minimized over other oscillation parameters. Note that one can assume
one of the octants (say, $\theta_{23}\leq \pi/4$) as true and the other
one as false, and vice-versa.
Recent reactor experiments have reached a precision at the percent
level for the measurement of the reactor angle, fixing its central
value around $\sin^2\theta_{13}\sim 0.02$. Current and foreseen
precision levels on the reactor angle are given in
table~\ref{tab:dt13}. For the simulation we took the central value of
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$ from the global fit~\cite{Esteban:2016qun}, and vary the error on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ as a prior as in Eq.~\ref{eq:prior}. This makes the analysis more
robust, as taking a single experiment error cannot give a general picture for the value of $\sin^2\theta_{13}$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline \hline
& DC~\cite{moriond} & RENO~\cite{RENO:2015ksa} & Daya-Bay~\cite{An:2016ses} & Global~\cite{Esteban:2016qun}\\ \hline \hline
$s_{13}^2/10^{-2}$& 2.85 & 2.09 & 2.09 & 2.34\\
$\delta\left(s_{13}^2\right)/s_{13}^2$ & 16.7\% & 13.4\% & 4.9\% & 3.5\% \\
$\delta\left(s_{13}^{2,\rm Expec}\right)/s_{13}^2$ & 10\% & 5\% & 3.6\% & <3\%\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Current and expected values of the reactor mixing angle
$\theta_{13}$ and its sensitivity for different experiments and current
global neutrino oscillation fit. The expected values are based on~\cite{Seo:2017tjb}. The \% is calculated by taking the $1\sigma$ region from the central value. }
\label{tab:dt13}
\end{table}
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sec:results-discussions}
In this section we present our numerical results and their
comprehensive discussion. In our whole analysis we have used a
line-averaged constant matter density of 2.95 gm/$\rm cm^3$ for DUNE
and 2.8 gm/$\rm cm^3$ for T2HK within the PREM
\cite{DZIEWONSKI1981297,stacey:1977} profile.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23test_delcptest_panel_oldfit.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23test_delcptest_panel.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:12} Precision measurement of $\theta_{23}$ and
$\delta_{CP}$ at 4$\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 19.33) confidence. Left
(Right) panels correspond to DUNE (T2HK). Differently shaded
(colored) regions correspond to various errors associated with
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$. The Top panel uses the Global Fit
in~\cite{Forero:2014bxa}, while the Bottom panel corresponds to the
Global Fit in~\cite{Esteban:2016qun}. The star denotes the bestfit
point.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Precision measurement}
\label{sec:prec-meas}
Fig.~\ref{fig:12} represents the 4$\sigma$ confidence level
measurement of $\theta_{23}$ and $\delta_{\rm CP}$ for various
combinations of the relative error associated with
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$. The symbol "star" in the body of the plot
corresponds to the best fit value for two assumptions: (I) Top, the
global fit in~\cite{Forero:2014bxa} and (II) Bottom, the global fit
in~\cite{Esteban:2016qun}. The left (right) panel is for DUNE
(T2HK). The cyan band corresponds to 1.2\%, the orange band
corresponds to 2.4\%, the red band is for 3.6\% and the blue band
corresponds to 4.8\% error on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$. In contrast, the
green band is generated by the free marginalization over
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$.
We have marginalized over $\Delta m_{31}^2$ and $\theta_{12}$ with
1$\sigma$ prior on $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ taken from
\cite{Esteban:2016qun}. Left panel, clearly shows that DUNE can not
exclude the wrong octant for errors above $\sim$2.0\%, while it can
surely exclude the wrong octant at 4$\sigma$ confidence if
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$ is more tightly constrained as for the case of
option (II), as seen from the cyan shaded region. Thanks to its higher
statistics in the disappearance channel, T2HK performs better, and can
exclude the wrong octant up to 2.4\% $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ error for the
option (I), and 3.6\% in the case of the option (II), i.e., T2HK can
measure the atmospheric mixing angle very precisely.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23true_th23test_panel.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:12_all}$4\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 19.33) precision measurement of
$\theta_{23}$. The left (right) panel is for DUNE
(T2HK). Differently shaded regions correspond to various errors
associated with $\sin^2\theta_{13}$. The thick dashed line
represents the current best fit value from \cite{Forero:2014bxa}.}
\end{figure}
Note that from Fig.~\ref{fig:12} one can compare the result for two
oscillation fits. Although Ref.~\cite{Esteban:2016qun} contains the
most recent data from Daya-Bay, T2K, and NO$\nu$A, which constrain
$\theta_{13}$, they do not include the atmospheric data sample, as
in~\cite{Forero:2014bxa}. While the latter has an impact upon which
is the preferred octant, it has worse precision on the
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$, which plays a role in the octant
discrimination. The two analyses are therefore complementary, though
an update of~\cite{Forero:2014bxa} is clearly desirable (work in this
direction is currently underway).
Our work shows that, in both cases, DUNE by itself will not be enough
to solve the octant problem, while T2HK can have a better chance to
uncover the right value of the atmospheric angle.
%
In contrast to the determination of the neutrino mass ordering,
despite the unprecedented level of precision on $\theta_{13}$ that
may be reached in future studies, there will always be a region that
is octant blind in any experiment, close to the maximality limit.
We now turn to a very general question, namely, how well can these
two experiments measure $\theta_{23}$ irrespective of its true value
chosen by nature.
Fig.~\ref{fig:12_all} addresses this issue. The
simulation procedure is exactly the same as for fig.~\ref{fig:12},
except for the fact that we have marginalized over $\delta_{\rm CP}$
both in the data and the theory. As a result this figure represents
the most conservative scenario. If we draw a horizontal line for each
true value of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$, it touches the different colored
shaded regions associated to different $\sin^2\theta_{13}$
errors. The horizontal boundary of each touched shaded region
corresponding to a particular color represents the 4$\sigma$
uncertainty on $\sin^2\theta_{23}$. It can be determined simply by
looking at the brown thick dashed line at $\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true) =
0.441 and focusing on the cyan band. This procedure extracts all the
relevant information coming from fig.~\ref{fig:12}. It is noticeable
that DUNE measures the LO ($\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true)\,$<$ 0.45)
better than the HO. However, the performance of T2HK is substantially
higher than that of DUNE in both the octants. An important
consequence of the green area in Fig.~\ref{fig:12_all} is the fact
that neither DUNE nor T2HK can distinguish the octant without prior
knowledge of $\theta_{13}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23true_th13error_panel.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:13} Octant discrimination potential as a function
of the relative error on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ for the true value of
$\delta_{\rm CP}^{\rm TRUE}\,=\,1.45\pi$. The left (right) panel
represents the results for DUNE (T2HK). The red, green, blue and
cyan curves delimit the $\theta_{23}$ ``octant-blind'' region
corresponding to 2, 3, 4 and 5$\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 4, 9, 16, and 25 respectively) confidence.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ Octant discrimination}
Here we analyse the potential of DUNE and T2HK for excluding the wrong
octant provided the data is generated in the true
octant. Fig.~\ref{fig:13} illustrates the octant sensitivity as a
function of the relative error on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$. The left
(right) panel corresponds to the result for DUNE (T2HK). The colored
curves indicate the sensitivity for discriminating the false octant
from the true one depending on the relative $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ error.
The red, green, blue and cyan correspond to the 2$\sigma$, 3$\sigma$,
4$\sigma$ and 5$\sigma$ confidence level cases, respectively.
NH is assumed as the true hierarchy both in data and theory (note that
the IH case can be considered in exactly the same way). Concerning
theory, we have marginalized over the oscillation parameters
$\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$, $\theta_{23}$, $\delta_{\rm CP}$ and
$\Delta m_{31}^2$ within their allowed range, for a given prior on
$\sin^2\theta_{12}$. One sees from the figure that, depending on the
$\sin^2\theta_{13}$ error, the octant sensitivity increases or
decreases. For example, from the cyan curve for DUNE or T2HK, one sees
that the 1\% error corresponds to 5$\sigma$ sensitivity for
$\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true) $<$ 0.45 and $\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true) $>$
0.58. As the the error increases up to around 6\%, the sensitivity is
gradually lost. So the measurement of the octant of $\theta_{23}$
strongly depends on the relative error of the $\sin^2\theta_{13}$
determination. The octant discrimination sensitivity is slightly
better for T2HK than DUNE due to its high statistics.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23true_delcptrue_panel.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:13_all} Octant discrimination potential at
4$\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 19.33) confidence level in the
$\left[\sin^2\theta_{23},\delta_{\rm CP}\right]$(true) plane. The
red, green, blue and cyan curves delimit the ``octant-blind''
regions corresponding to 1.2\%, 2.4\%, 3.6\% and 4.8\% relative
errors on $\sin^2\theta_{13}$.}
\end{figure}
In fig.~\ref{fig:13}, we generated the data assuming
$\delta_{\rm CP}$(true) = 1.45$\pi$. So, it is natural to ask what
would be the octant sensitivity over the entire
$\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true) and $\delta_{\rm CP}$(true)
plane. Fig.~\ref{fig:13_all} provides a clear answer to this
question. The simulation details are exactly the same as for
fig.~\ref{fig:13}. This figure neatly summarizes the effect of
the relative $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ error upon the octant sensitivity. We
have assumed a 4$\sigma$ confidence level for the exclusion of the
wrong octant and then varied the various error combinations as
indicated by the different colors. A band of uncertainty clearly
arises, decreasing the 4$\sigma$ sensitivity range for
$\sin^2\theta_{23}$(true). It is important to notice that our result
is almost independent of $\delta_{\rm CP}$(true). As discussed
earlier, T2HK gives slightly better sensitivity than DUNE.
\subsection{ Other T2HK setups}
Here we further elaborate upon the T2HK experimental setup. The
details of the T2HK setup for Fig.~\ref{fig:12} have been already
described in sec.~\ref{sec:simulation-details}. But for right
panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:14}, we have considered 295 km of baseline
and two 187 kton tank as Water Cherenkov far detector placed in
Japan at an off-axis angle of $2.5^0$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DUNE_T2HK_th23test_delcptest_panel_JDx2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:14} Measurement of $\theta_{23}$ and
$\delta_{CP}$ at 4$\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2$ = 19.33) confidence. The
symbol "star" denotes $\sin^2\theta_{23}^{\rm TRUE}$ = 0.441 and
$\delta_{\rm CP}^{\rm TRUE}$ = 1.45$\pi$. Left (Right) panels
correspond to DUNE (T2HK). Differently shaded (colored) regions
correspond to various errors associated with $\sin^2\theta_{13}$. }
\end{figure}
We call this setup as T2HK-2$\times$JD. A total exposure of (1.3 MW)
$\times$ (10$\times 10^7$ Sec) with a 1:3 $\nu$ and $\bar{\nu}$
running ratio has been assumed. We have assumed an uncorrelated 5\%
(3.5\%) signal normalization, 10\% background normalization error, and
5\% energy calibration error for $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$ appearance (disappearance)
channel. The event numebers and other details have been matched with
\cite{Abe:2016ero}. From these two figures it is clear that the impact
of two setups is not significantly different from each other rather
they are very similar from the perspective of this work. We have also
checked that the result remain also valid for the setup T2HK-JD+KD
following the same reference \cite{Abe:2016ero}, where one detector
with 187 kton fiducial mass is placed in Japan having baseline 295 km
and another detector with 187 kton fiducial mass is placed in Korea
having baseline 1100 km.
\section{Conclusions}
Based upon the current global information on neutrino oscillation
parameters we have performed a quantitative analysis of the potential
of upcoming long baseline experiments DUNE and T2HK in resolving the
atmospheric octant ambiguity.
We have found that a precise measurement of the reactor angle
$\theta_{13}$ plays a key role in resolving the octant of the
atmospheric angle $\theta_{23}$ using such future accelerator neutrino
experiments. This highlights the complementarity of reactor and
accelerator-based studies in gaining fundamental information on
neutrino properties. However, in contrast to the determination
of the neutrino mass ordering, no matter how good the precision on
$\theta_{13}$ reached in future studies, there will always be an
octant blind band in any experiment, close to the limit
$\theta_{23} \to \pi/4$.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Work supported by Spanish grants FPA2014-58183-P, Multidark
CSD2009-00064, SEV-2014-0398 (MINECO), PROMETEOII/2014/084
(Generalitat Valenciana). P. S. P. acknowledges the support of
FAPESP/CAPES grant 2014/05133-1, 2015/16809-9 and 2014/19164-6.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL}
\providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
Complex decision making tasks over a distributed quantum network, a network including entangled nodes, can be analyzed with a quantum game theory approach. Quantum games extend the applicability of classical games to quantum networks, which may soon be a reality. Quantum game theory imports the ideas from quantum mechanics such as entanglement and superposition, into game theory. The inclusion of entanglement leads to player outcomes that are correlated so that entanglement often behaves like mediated communication between players in a classical game. This can lead to a game that has different Nash equilibria with greater payoffs than the classical counterpart. The analysis of quantum games with entanglement can resemble the correlated equilibria of classical games.
The entanglement is imposed by a referee, and acts like a contract that cannot be broken between the players, and can persist non-locally after the initial entanglement has been performed and communication forbidden. This is in contrast to classical correlated equilibria that rely on communication between the players, whose contracts can be broken, and cannot exhibit the non-local behavior associated with quantum mechanics. The correlations produced by entanglement can achieve probability distributions over the payoffs that are not possible in the classical game, even when mixed strategies are used.
When interacting with a network, the agents will often have incomplete information about the other nodes. Quantum games with incomplete information can be treated within a Bayesian approach. With this approach in mind, we are interested in quantized games with classical priors, i.e. a statistical mixture of two quantum games. Detailed analysis of Bayesian quantum games can potentially lead to applications in quantum security protocols\cite{Maitra2015}, the development of distributed quantum computing algorithms\cite{Li2009}, or improving the efficiency of classical network algorithms \cite{Zabaleta2017}. Experiments have begun to demonstrate the results of quantum game theory in nuclear magnetic resonance \cite{Du2002}, quantum circuits in optical \cite{Zeilinger}, and ion-trap platforms \cite{Shuichi}, which, in some cases, i.e. optical, can be easily imagined on a distributed quantum network.
\subsection{Quantizing a classical game}
To quantize a classical game, we follow the approach given in the seminal Einstein-Wilkens-Lewenstein scheme. The scheme goes as follows; both players qubits are initialized to the $\ket{0}$ state, an entangling operation, $J$, is applied, the players apply their strategy choice, $U_{A,B}(\theta,\phi,\alpha)$, an un-entangling operation is applied, the payoffs are determined from the probability distribution of the final state $\ket{\psi_f}$. This procedure can be encoded in the quantum circuit show in Figure \ref{fig:QPD}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{QPD.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:QPD}Quantum circuit for two-player game }
\end{figure*}
The amount of entanglement that occurs can be varied by varying the parameter $\gamma$ in the entangling operation:
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}(\gamma)=e^{ i \gamma \hat{\sigma}_x \otimes \hat{\sigma}_x }=
\begin{pmatrix}
Cos(\gamma/2) & 0 &0 &\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2)\\
0 & Cos(\gamma/2) &-\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2) &0) \\
0 & -\imath \: Sin(\gamma/2) &Cos(\gamma/2) & 0 \\
\imath \:Sin(\gamma/2) & 0 &0 & Cos(\gamma/2)
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:J}
\end{equation}
At maximal entanglement,$\gamma=\pi/2$, this operation produces a Bell state, and at $\gamma=0$ is the identity operator.
The game is defined by setting the possible strategies of the players. For this we parametrize a single qubit rotation, $U$, with three parameters,$ (\theta,\phi,\alpha)$ in:
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}(\theta, \phi,\alpha)=
\begin{pmatrix}
e^{-\imath \phi} Cos(\theta/2) & e ^{\imath \alpha} Sin(\theta/2) \\
- e ^{-\imath \alpha} Sin(\theta/2)&e^{\imath \phi} Cos(\theta/2)
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:strat}
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in [0,\pi],\phi \in [0,2\pi],\alpha \in [0,2\pi]$.
The outcome of the game is given by:
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_f(A,B)}= \hat{J}^{\dagger}(U_A \otimes U_B)\hat{J}\ket{00}
\label{eq:psif}
\end{equation}
And the average payoff $\langle\$\rangle$ is derived from the expectation values of a measurement performed at the end and the payoff vector $\$_j$
\begin{equation}
\langle\$^A(A,B) \rangle = \sum\limits_{j}\Braket{\psi_f(A,B) | \psi_f(A,B)}_j \$^A_j
\label{eq:payoff}
\end{equation}
There are four possible outcomes, $\{\ket{00},\ket{ 01}, \ket{10}, \ket{ 11}\}$. Correspondence to the classical game is made by associating each outcome as one of the classical strategy choices, such that $\ket{0}$ corresponds to Confess (C), and $\ket{1}$ corresponds to Defect (D), as is illustrated in the canonical prisoner’s dilemma game with payoff matrix shown in Table \ref{tab:PDmatrix}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Payoff matrix for prisoner's dilemma}
\label{tab:PDmatrix}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.5ex} $A| B_1$ & $ \Ket{0}(C)$ &$\Ket{1}(D)$\\
\hline\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.5ex} $ \Ket{0}(C)$ & $ (3,3)$ & $(0,5)$ \\
\hline
\rule[-1ex]{0pt}{3.5ex} $\Ket{1}(D)$& $ (5,0)$ & $(1,1)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Forming a Bayesian game}
The Bayesian game is constructed with the protocol laid out by Harsanyi\cite{Harsanyi}. In the Bayesian game the players have incomplete knowledge about their opponent’s payoff matrices. This is represented by having the players receive a statistical mixture of different payoff matrices. Below we analyze games that are represented by two different payoff matrices. If, for example, player A’s payoff is the same in both matrices while player B’s vary, this represents player A having incomplete knowledge about player B’s preferences. If both have different payoffs, this could be interpreted as two players having incomplete knowledge about what game their playing. This game can be represented by the quantum circuit shown in Figure \ref{fig:quantumcircuit}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{quantumcircuit.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:quantumcircuit} Quantum circuit for Bayesian game}
\end{figure}
$U_Q$ is a unitary operation on the control qubit. $J_1$ and $J_2$ are controlled entangling operations acting on $A$ and $B_1$ or$ A$ and $B_2$, depending on the state of the control qubit. This representation is equivalent to playing a statistical mixture of two quantum circuits shown in Figure \ref{fig:QPD} with different two-player games.
The average payoff for player A in the Bayesian game is given by:
\begin{equation}
\langle \$_A\rangle = \langle\$^A(A,B_1) \rangle (p)+ \langle\$^A(A,B_2) \rangle(1-p)
\label{eq:Bpayoff}
\end{equation}
The B player's average payoff is still calculated according to Equation \ref{eq:payoff}.
\subsection{Solution Concepts}
The primary solution concept used in game theory is the Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies where neither player could benefit by unilaterally deviating. The payoff to the player’s at the Nash equilibrium represents a stable payoff in a repeated game or large ensemble, because it is self-enforcing.
There are refinements to the concept of a Nash equilibrium that are used to capture different types of games. Relevant to quantum games is the concept of a correlated equilibrium. A correlated equilibrium is a game where the player’s strategy choices are correlated in some way, such as reacting to advice or a contract, such that probability distributions are possible that are not in the image of the classical game with mixed strategies. Entanglement acts to correlate the player’s outcomes in a similar way, except in quantum games the entanglement is imposed by a referee, and once the entanglement is produced, the player’s cannot break the contract.
\subsection{Solution methods}
The method of best responses is used to find the Nash equilibria of the game. There have been analytic solutions found for certain cases of quantum games(cite), but with the aim to examine a wide range of games, including a Bayesian framework and asymmetric payoffs, and for these cases, analytic solutions remain elusive. Therefore we adopt a numerical procedure.
First, the possible strategies must be chosen. Equation \ref{eq:strat} represents a completely arbitrary strategy choice. It is instructive to analyze the game with a more discretized set of strategies. We chose a step size for each parameter $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha)$. Then we compile a list that contains all possible combinations of integer multiples of these steps, within the bounds of the parameters:
\begin{equation}
V = \{U(0,0,\Delta \alpha), U(0,0,2\Delta \alpha), U(0,0,3\Delta \alpha)\ldots(0, \Delta \phi,0), U(0, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha)\ldots U(\pi,2\pi,2\pi)\}
\label{eq:space}
\end{equation}
Where $V_i$ represents the ith element of the list. This set defines the possible strategies of a game. Several of these matrices are redundant, because for example, when $\theta = 0$, $\alpha$ is undefined.
To construct the best response list for player A, for each possible strategy choice of player B, we compute the payoff for player A for each of their possible strategy choices. Then we select the elements which have the highest payoff, or best response, $U^*$. This produces a list of A’s best responses to each of B’s strategy choices: $\Omega_A = \{U^*_{Aj}, U_{Bj}\}$, where j ranges over all possible strategy choices. Then similarly B’s best response list is composed,$\Omega_B = \{U_{Aj}, U^*_{Bj}\}$. The Nash equilibria are given by the intersection of the best response functions: $\Omega_A \cap \Omega_B$. For the Bayesian game, this procedure is straightforwardly extended to three players.
Many of the interesting features of the games we examine exist with the stepping parameters $(\pi, \pi/2, \pi/2)$, which has a total of 8 unique strategy choices. The majority of the data are presented with these stepping parameters. Next we examine the behavior of one game in more detail as we step finer in each of the strategy parameters. This eventually becomes computationally impractical as the step sizes get too small. For example, the stepping parameters $(\pi/8, \pi/8, \pi/8)$ yield 1824 unique strategy choices. The code in Mathematica with this many strategy choices takes ~1 hour to compute all of the Nash equilibria for the two-player game for all values of entanglement, making solutions to the Bayesian game impractical to find with the current method.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Two-player game results}
Here we present the solutions for several two-player games found in the literature \cite{flitney, Avishai2012} and textbook games. For the sake of space, we will not discuss the real world interpretration of these games, rather we focus on their mathematical propeties.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{BayesianData.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:BayesianData} Payoff at Nash equilibria for various games}
\end{figure}
The data are shown in Figure \ref{fig:BayesianData}, where a pair of two-player games are presented with their payoff matrices inset in the form of Table \ref{tab:PDmatrix}. In the case of asymmetric games, in the two-player games, player A is plotted in blue, and player B is plotted in red. The payoffs at the Nash equilibria are plotted for both players as a function of the entanglement parameter $\gamma$.
The Nash equilibria curves come in two types, constant with $\gamma$, or increasing with $\gamma$. It is instructive to compare these to the solutions of the corresponding classical games. In all cases, the values of the payoff at no entanglement, i.e. $\gamma = 0$, match those of the classical game. For games only have one constant Nash equilibria curve, such as in the games labeled `Type B,' `Deadlock', and `Stag hunt,' there is one Nash equilibrium of the classical game and it is Pareto optimal. As the entanglement increases, the Nash equilibrium vanishes above some critical value.For games that have Nash equlibrium that grows with $\gamma$ (i.e. `Prisoner's dilemma') there is only one Nash equilibrium of the classical game but it is not Pareto efficient. The Nash equilibra for these games also vanish for some critical value of entanglement. The vanishing of the Nash equilibrium at a critical entanglement has been compared to a phase transition-like behavior\cite{Du2003}.
For games that have two Nash equilibrium in the classical game, one Pareto optimal, the Pareto optimal solution remains for all values of entanglement, whereas the second Nash equlibrium grows and converges with the optimal one at maximal entanglement. In these cases, the Pareto optimal Nash equilibrium does not vanish at some critical entanglement. For two player games with no Nash equilibrium classically, such as the `matching pennies' game, there are no Nash equilibria in the corresponding quantum game.
In short, games with one equilibrium seem to lose that equilibrium at a critical entanglement, and in games with two equilibria, those equilibria persist for all values of entanglement. Becuase our methods are numerical, these observations are not tantamount to formal proofs, and counter-examples may be found, but they are suggestive of a deeper structure.
The `DA's brother' is an interesting outlier from this categorization. The classical game has only one Nash equilibrium, and it is Pareto optimal. However, as the entanglement increases, a second Nash equilibrium appears and then converges to the Pareto optimal solution as in the case of games with two equilibria mentioned above. Additionally, the Pareto efficient solution does not vanish at some critical value of entanglement.
\subsection{Bayesian game results}
Three-player Bayesian games can be composed out of a pair of two-player games. This can be interpreted as the player's having incomplete information about their opponents payoffs. The solutions to the Bayesian games composed of various two-player game combinations are plotted in 3D below the two-player results in Figure \ref{fig:BayesianData}. The payoff for only player A is plotted against the entanglement, $\gamma$, and the probability to play with each player, $p$ from Equation \ref{eq:Bpayoff}. The Bayesian graphs are oriented so that the top two-player game is in the back of the 3D plot with the bottom game in the front, and no entanglement on the right with maximal entanglement on the left.
As expected, the $p=0$ and $p=1$ solutions to the Bayesian game match the two-person game solutions for players A and B respectively. Along the $\gamma=0$ plane, the results match those of the classical game with mixed strategies. In games with the same number of Nash equilibria in the two component two-player games such as in `Deadlock' vs. `Prisoner's dilemma', the solutions at $p=0$ continuously and linearly transform into the solutions at $p=1$.
When there are a different number of Nash equilibria in the two component two-player games, the equilibria must vanish, or appear, at some value of $p$. This is similar to the vanishing, or appearance, of Nash equilibria at a critical entanglement in the two-player games, only here, we also see them in the Bayesian game as the degree of incomplete information, $p$, changes.
The `DA's brother' vs. `Prisoner's dilemma' Bayesian game has been partially analyzed before\cite{Avishai2012}, and is the subject of a more detailed analysis that will be presented elsewhere\cite{QIP}.
\subsection{Towards continuous strategy choices}
Returning to a two-player game, we now examine the game as the discretization of the strategy choices in Equation \ref{eq:space} becomes finer, approaching the limit of completely arbitrary SU(2) rotations. The Nash equilibria of the `DA's brother' are now calculated using the stepping parameters $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha)=(\pi/8, \pi/8, \pi/8)$ which yields 1824 unique strategy choices. As seen in the left graph of Figure \ref{fig:continuous}, the space between the two Nash equilibria becomes filled with many additional equilibria. The Nash equilibria found with $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha)=(\pi, \pi/2, \pi/2)$ form the upper and lower bounds of the new Nash equilibria. In the right graph of Figure \ref{fig:continuous} the strategy parameters of the Nash equilibria for the players are compared by plotting $\theta_A$ vs $\theta_B$ against each other for each Nash equilibrium. This shows that the Nash equilibria generally follow the trend $\theta_A = \theta_B$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{continuous.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:continuous}DA's brother game with finer steps in strategy}
\end{figure}
Taking a slice of the payoff as a function of entanglement data at $\gamma =0.7$, a histogram of the payoffs achieved suggests that there is some structure within the distribution, as shown in the left hand graph of Figure \ref{fig:continuous2}. In this data the stepping parameters used were $(\Delta \theta, \Delta \phi, \Delta \alpha)=(\pi/32, \pi/8, \pi/8)$, yielding 7968 unique strategy choices. The data suggest that more Nash equilibria occur near the original Pareto optimal solution that occured with $\Delta \theta = \pi$. There may be some indication that the Nash equilibria are beginning to converge towards the two original Nash equilibria However, as computation with finer steps is impractical with our current numerical method, further study is required.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\columnwidth]{continuous2.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:continuous2} An analysis of the finer strategy steps at one value of entanglement.}
\end{figure}
There is also a relationship between the payoff that is rewarded and the strategy choice at each Nash equilibrium. In the right side graph of Figure \ref{fig:continuous2} we plot the $\theta_A$ parameter of each Nash equilibria against the payoff of player A. When $\theta_A = \theta_B=0$, the payoff is the Pareto optimal solution, which is expected from the results with $\Delta \theta = \pi$. Then, as $\theta$ approaches $\theta = \pi$, the other equilibrium of the original game, the payoff transforms to the payoff of the second equilibria. Further study is needed to understand these relationships.
\subsection{Discussion and conclusions}
The Nash equilibria that arise in a quantum game, where entanglement produces correlations in the player's outputs, can be compared to the correlated equilibrium in classical game theory\cite{Auman1974}. A correlated equilibrium in classical games can arise when mixed strategies are used and there is communication between the players in the form of advice from a referee or a contract. If players receive some piece of advice, or react in a predetermined way to a random event, they can employ strategies that are correlated with one another and realize self-enforcing equilibria that are different from those in the mixed game without communication.
When entanglement produces correlated outcomes for the players, the equilibria produced strongly resemble the correlated equilibria. In contrast to the classical case, the role of advice is played by the initial entanglement. And once that entanglement is imposed on the players by a referee, it forms an effective contract that cannot be broken. The correlations will persist even if the players are not allowed communication after the initial entanglement. In addition, quantum correlations can exhibit probability distributions that are not allowed by classical correlations, and can persist non-locally.
The sudden dissapearance of a Nash equilibrium as the entanglement is increased suggests that the correlations can benefit the player's up to a point, but when the correlations are too strong, the Nash equilibrium no longer occurs. It would be interesting to find examples of classical games where the enforcement of some contract produces a benefit for the players, but if it is enforced too strongly, it ceases to allow a Nash equilibrium. In addition, the abrupt changing of the structure of Nash equilibrium as a function of the player's incomplete information could strongly effect any protocol on a network where the agents have some uncertainty about the payoffs or players in the game.
\subsection*{Disclosures}
The authors have no relevant financial interests in the manuscript and no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
With the tremendous increase of mobile users for high-speed video services and machine-type communication nodes for Internet-of-Things (IoT) applications in the coming years, the next generation mobile communication systems (5G) will encounter severe scarcity of radio resources. Non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA), in which the users access the network in the same frequency band and are distinguished in the power domain, is expected as one of the candidate solutions to greatly enhance the spectral efficiency \cite{dai2015NOMA}. The basic idea of NOMA (as proposed in \cite{saito2013non}) is that two users, a far user and a near user, access in the same frequency band, and are allocated with higher and lower transmit power, respectively. The far user directly decodes its desired information, while the near user adopts successive interference cancellation (SIC) to firstly decode and subtract the signal of the far user, and then decode the desired information for itself. Inspired by the fact that the near user receives strong radio signal (including desired signal and interference), it is promising to apply RF-enabled wireless energy harvesting technology \cite{krikidis2014simultaneous, ding2015application} for this near user, which facilitates the application of self-sustained devices in the IoT networks \cite{bi2016wireless}, such as sensor nodes and RFIDs.
NOMA has been extensively studied in the literature. Saito, et. al \cite{saito2013non} firstly proposed the concept for 5G, and system-level performance was evaluated in \cite{saito2013system}, which shows that both network capacity and cell-edge user throughput can be improved compared with the conventional orthogonal multiple access. Uplink NOMA was considered in \cite{al2014uplink}, in which a novel subcarrier and power allocation algorithm was proposed to maximize the users' sum-rate. Taking user fairness into account, the power allocation problem was studied in \cite{timotheou2015fairness}. In multiuser scenario, user pairing was introduced, and its impact on the performance was characterized in \cite{ding2016impact}. Further, since the near user can decode the information of the far user, the authors in \cite{ding2015cooperative} proposed a cooperative NOMA scheme, i.e., the near user can serve as a relay to help the far user. The work was further extended to combine simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) \cite{liu2016cooperative, xu2017joint}. However, the previous work only considers transmit power consumption. In fact, the receiving circuit power consumption cannot be ignored in applications such as wireless sensors \cite{cui2005energy}. In NOMA system, SIC receiver in the near user consumes more energy than conventional receivers. A constant receive power model with ambient energy source is adopted in \cite{zhou2015outage}, which provides an intuition on how to efficiently allocate the harvested energy. Nevertheless, as wireless radio energy is controllable compared with ambient energy, how to split the received signal between energy harvesting and information decoding is an open problem.
{For RF-enabled wireless energy harvesting, two types of receiver structures, power splitting receiver and time switching receiver, have been initially proposed in \cite{zhang2013mimo} and extensively studied in \cite{liu2013wireless} and \cite{zhou2013wireless}.} The research on SWIPT further extends to multiuser OFDM systems \cite{ng2013wireless, zhou2014wireless}, relay networks \cite{zhu2015wireless}, and cellular network \cite{huang2014enabling}. Since the receiver can harvest energy from both desired signal and interference, strong interference will benefit wireless energy harvesting. Based on this, two-user interference channel and multi-user interference channel were studied in \cite{park2013joint} and \cite{lee2015collaborative}, respectively. However, most of the previous works mainly focus on characterizing the rate-energy tradeoff by adjusting the portion of received signal on energy harvesting and information decoding. Again, the harvested energy is mainly used for data transmission rather than receiving.
In this paper, we study a NOMA system composed of a base station (BS) and two users, where the near user is powered by wireless energy harvesting. It splits the received radio signal into two parts for energy harvesting and information decoding, respectively. The harvested energy is used to power the information decoding module. We aim to characterize the achievable rate region $(R_1, R_2)$ of the near user (with rate $R_1$) and the far user (with rate $R_2$). A generalized energy harvesting scheme based on the conventional time switching and power splitting is proposed. To obtain the achievable rate region, the problem of maximizing the achievable rate of UE 2 given the target rate of UE 1 is formulated and solved under both constant and dynamic decoding power assumptions. With constant decoding power consumption, two special cases, time switching scheme and power splitting scheme, are firstly studied and closed-form solutions are obtained. Then the analysis is extended to the generalized scheme, where the rate maximization is a convex optimization problem, and hence can be efficiently solved by a numerical search algorithm. Numerical results show that the generalized scheme achieves a larger rate region compared with the conventional time switching and power splitting schemes. With dynamic decoding power consumption, both optimal and suboptimal algorithms are proposed, and the achievable rate regions with different parameter settings are analyzed.
The primary contributions of this paper are summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item {To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time considering decoding power consumption in wireless powered NOMA system. To characterize the achievable rate region, a rate maximization problem is formulated by maximizing the achievable rate of UE 2 under the constraint of UE 1's target rate.}
\item With constant decoding power model, the boundaries of the achievable rate regions for time switching scheme and power splitting scheme are characterized in closed-form. For time switching scheme, there exists a \emph{cut-off} line on the rate region. The rate pairs on the right side of this cut-off line are not achievable. For power splitting scheme, there is a stringent feasibility requirement on the channel quality of UE 1.
\item {A generalized energy harvesting scheme is proposed, for which the boundary of the achievable rate region with constant decoding power consumption can be obtained by solving two convex optimization subproblems.} It is proved that the optimal solution is the most \emph{economical} one, i.e., the harvested energy is equal to the information decoding power consumption. It is also shown that the generalized scheme has a larger rate region compared with the conventional schemes.
\item With dynamic decoding power model, an exhaustive search algorithm and an efficient suboptimal algorithm is proposed to find the boundary of the achievable rate region. Numerical results show that by trading rate with power consumption, the rate region can be greatly extended compared with that under constant power model.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:model} describes the system model and the problem formulation. The problems under constant and dynamic decoding power assumption are analyzed in Sections \ref{sec:const} and \ref{sec:dyn}, respectively. Extensive results and discussions are presented in Section \ref{sec:comp}. Finally, Section \ref{sec:concl} concludes the paper.
\section{System Model and Problem Formulation} \label{sec:model}
Consider a downlink wireless communication system as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:system}, where a BS serves a near user (UE 1) and a far user (UE 2) in the same frequency band. Power domain NOMA scheme is applied in this system, i.e., the BS simultaneously transmits data to both users by superposition coding with different power levels. After receiving the coded signal, UE 2 directly decodes its desired information by viewing the interference from UE 1 as noise. UE 1 applies SIC scheme to improve its performance by firstly decoding and removing the signal for UE 2, and then decoding the desired signal for itself. By adjusting the power allocation between two users, per-user data rate can be flexibly controlled. UE 1 is also equipped with an energy harvester, in which the energy carried in the radio signal is harvested to power the signal receiving and decoding module. {As the received signal strength is weak, UE 2 is powered in other ways such as battery. The model can be extended to multi-user case by grouping users into pairs, each of which consists of a near user and a far user. The user pairs are allocated with orthogonal frequency bands, so that each pair can be managed independently. While how to group users into pairs can refer to \cite{ding2016impact}.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{model.eps}
\caption{A NOMA system with wireless powered SIC decoder in the near user.} \label{fig:system}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Signal Model}
The desired signal for UE $i \in \{1, 2\}$ is denoted by $x_i$ with mean $\mathbb{E}[|x_i|^2] = 1$. The superposition coded signal can be represented as
\begin{align}
x = \sqrt{P_1}x_1 + \sqrt{P_2}x_2,
\end{align}
where $P_i$ is the transmit power for UE $i$. The received signal at UE $i$ is
\begin{align}
y_i &= h_ix + n_i, \nonumber\\
&= h_i\sqrt{P_1}x_1 + h_i\sqrt{P_2}x_2 + n_i, \quad i = 1, 2,
\end{align}
where $h_i$ is the channel coefficient from the BS to UE $i$, $n_i$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. Assume that ${|h_1|^2} > {|h_2|^2}$, and the link quality $|h_1|^2$ is good enough so that UE 1 can be powered by wireless energy harvesting.
{It is remarkable that only transmit power adaptation is considered in this paper. Since the end-to-end energy transfer efficiency is low in current state-of-art \cite{zeng2017commun}, the BS is most likely equipped with multi-antenna to achieve highly directional power transmission, and hence, transmit beamforming needs to be considered. This paper can be viewed as a special case with fixed beamformer. Joint optimization of transmit power and beamformer for multi-antenna case is left for future work.
}
\subsection{Energy Harvesting Scheme and Constraints}
{In general, the conventional power splitting scheme may not work as the received power may be less than the power consumption of the information decoding module.} In this paper, a generalized scheme for energy harvester design is proposed, which combines time switching scheme and power splitting scheme. Specifically, each transmission slot is divided into two sub-slots. In the first sub-slot, UE 1 works as a \emph{pure} energy harvester and only the information for UE 2 is carried in the radio signal. Denote $P_2^{(1)}$ as the transmit power for UE 2 in the first sub-slot. {The BS's transmit power is subject to a peak power constraint, i.e.,}
\begin{align}
P_2^{(1)} \le P_{\mathrm{max}}, \label{eq:Pmax_1}
\end{align}
where $P_{\mathrm{max}}$ is the BS's power budget. According to information theory, the achievable rate of UE 2 in the first sub-slot can not exceed the channel capacity, i.e.,
\begin{align}
R_2^{(1)} \le \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_2^{(1)}}{\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:R2_1}
\end{align}
In the second sub-slot, UE 1 adopts power splitting scheme, i.e., a portion of signal power, denoted by $\rho (0 \le \rho \le 1)$, is split to energy harvester, and the other portion, denoted by $1-\rho$, is split to information decoder. Denote $P_1^{(2)}$ and $P_2^{(2)}$ as the power allocation for the respective users in the second sub-slot. Under the peak power constraint, we have
\begin{align}
P_1^{(2)} + P_2^{(2)} \le P_{\mathrm{max}}. \label{eq:Pmax_2}
\end{align}
Since the interference can be completely eliminated by SIC, UE 1 can be viewed as an interference-free receiver. Hence, its achievable rate satisfies
\begin{align}
R_1^{(2)} \le \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}}{\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:R1_2}
\end{align}
UE 2 decodes its desired signal by viewing the interference from UE 1 as noise. The achievable rate is constrained by
\begin{align}
R_2^{(2)} \le \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_2|^2P_2^{(2)}}{|h_2|^2P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:R2_2}
\end{align}
In addition, to guarantee that SIC works, UE 1 should be able to successfully decode the data for UE 2. Thus, besides (\ref{eq:R2_2}), $R_2^{(2)}$ is also constrained by the decoding ability of UE 1, i.e.,
\begin{align}
R_2^{(2)} \le \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_2^{(2)}}{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:R2_2sic}
\end{align}
Without loss of generality, assume the slot length is normalized to 1.
Denote the length of the first sub-slot by $t (0 \le t \le 1)$, and that of the second sub-slot by $1-t$. The total harvested energy should be no smaller than the required energy for information decoding, i.e.,
\begin{align}
t\xi |h_1|^2 P_2^{(1)} \!+\! (1 \!-\! t) \rho \xi |h_1|^2 \big(P_1^{(2)} \!+\! P_2^{(2)}\big) \ge (1 \!-\! t)P_{\mathrm{SIC}}, \label{eq:Psic}
\end{align}
where $0 < \xi < 1$ is the energy harvesting efficiency, and $P_{\mathrm{SIC}}$ is the total power consumption for information decoding. {In this paper, a linear energy harvesting model ($\xi$ is constant) is adopted for analytical tractability. This model has been widely used in the literature. Although in practice, the relationship between received power and harvested power maybe non-linear \cite{boshkovska2015practical}, $\xi$ is approximately constant at low input power regime.}
The conventional time switching scheme can be viewed as a special case of the generalized scheme with $\rho = 0$, and the conventional power splitting scheme is a special case with $t = 0$. Later, we will extensively study generalized scheme as well as the two special cases.
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
In this paper, we aim to characterize the achievable rate regions of UE 1 and UE 2 under the proposed schemes, which can be represented as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{R} = \{&(R_1, R_2) \big| R_1 = (1-t)R_1^{(2)}, \nonumber\\
{}& R_2 = t R_2^{(1)}+(1-t)R_2^{(2)}, \nonumber\\
{}& 0 \le t \le 1, 0 \le \rho \le 1, \nonumber\\
{}& R_2^{(1)}\!, P_2^{(1)}\!, R_1^{(2)}\!, R_2^{(2)}\!, P_1^{(2)}\!, P_2^{(2)} \textrm{~satisfy~(\ref{eq:Pmax_1})\textrm{-}(\ref{eq:Psic})} \}, \label{eq:region}
\end{align}
where all the variables are nonnegative. The achievable rate region can be described by the boundary curve which maps each feasible $R_1$ to the maximum of $R_2$. Thus, the boundary curve of the achievable rate region (\ref{eq:region}) can be found by maximizing $R_2$ for each $R_1 = r$, which is formulated as
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:mix}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P0}) \quad \max_{t, \rho, \bm{R}, \bm{P}} \;&\; t R_2^{(1)} + (1-t)R_2^{(2)} \label{prob:mixobj}\\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; (1-t)R_1^{(2)} = r, \label{prob:R1cnstr}\\
\;&\; 0\le t < 1, 0 \le \rho < 1, \label{prob:mixrr}\\
\;&\; (\ref{eq:Pmax_1})\textrm{-}(\ref{eq:Psic}), \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the optimization variables include $t$, $\rho$, $\bm{R} = [R_2^{(1)}, R_1^{(2)}, R_2^{(2)}]$ and $\bm{P} = [P_2^{(1)}, P_1^{(2)}, P_2^{(2)}]$. In addition, as $r=0$ is trivial, only the case $r>0$ needs to be studied. In this case, it can be easily found that $t \neq 1$ and $\rho \neq 1$ according to (\ref{prob:R1cnstr}). Thus, we have $t < 1$ and $\rho < 1$ as in (\ref{prob:mixrr}) so that the terms $\frac{1}{1-t}$ and $\frac{1}{1-\rho}$ which will appear in the following contents are well defined.
{Notice that according to (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) and (\ref{eq:R1_2}), the feasible range of $r$ can be expressed as $0 \le r \le (1-t)\log_2 \big( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_{\max}}{\sigma^2}\big)$, where $t$ and $\rho$ satisfy (\ref{eq:Psic}). There is no closed-form feasible range of $r$ in general, but for some special cases, the range can be explicitly given as detailed in the next section.}
In reality, the information decoding power consumption $P_{\mathrm{SIC}}$ can be modeled either constant or dynamic based on receiver circuit structure and decoding scheme. In the following sections, we will solve the problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) under different power consumption models.
\section{Constant Decoding Power Consumption Case} \label{sec:const}
In this section, we characterize the achievable rate region with constant power consumption model. This model has been widely used in the literature {(see \cite{wang2006realistic, imran2011energy} for example)} and well models the iterative decoding scheme with fixed number of iterations in real system. In addition, well-structured results can be obtained based on this model as shown later. These results are helpful for a better understanding of the relation between parameters and performance, and provide some intuitions for the design of real systems.
At first, with constant decoding power consumption, some quick observations on the problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) are summarized as follows.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:equal}
\textbf{(Equality Constraints)} To achieve the maximum of the problem ($\mathbf{P0}$), the constraints (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}), (\ref{eq:R2_1}), (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}), (\ref{eq:R1_2}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2}) (or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic})) are satisfied with equality.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{proof:equal}.
\end{proof}
{Based on Lemma \ref{lemma:equal}, all the optimization variables can be represented in terms of $t$ and $\rho$. Specifically, as (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}) and (\ref{eq:R2_1}) are tightly satisfied, $P_2^{(1)}$ and $R_2^{(1)}$ become constant. $R_1^{(2)}$ can be directly written in terms of $t$ and $\rho$ according to (\ref{prob:R1cnstr}). As (\ref{eq:R1_2}) is satisfied with equality, $P_1^{(2)}$ can be written as a function of $R_1^{(2)}$ and $\rho$. With equality in (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}), we have $P_2^{(2)} = P_{\max} - P_1^{(2)}$. Finally, $R_2^{(2)}$ can also be written in terms of $t$ and $\rho$ according to either (\ref{eq:R2_2}) or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}) based on the following lemma.}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:R2}
\textbf{(Constraint on $R_2^{(2)}$)} If
\begin{align}
|h_2|^2 \le (1-\rho) |h_1|^2, \label{eq:constrR2}
\end{align}
$R_2^{(2)}$ is constrained by (\ref{eq:R2_2}). Otherwise, it is constrained by (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The lemma is proved by directly comparing the right hand sides of (\ref{eq:R2_2}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}).
\end{proof}
To start with, two special cases are considered: time switching scheme and power splitting scheme, where there is only a single variable $t$ or $\rho$. Then the analysis is extended to the generalized scheme.
\subsection{Time Switching Scheme} \label{sec:ts}
Recall that time switching scheme is a special case of the generalized scheme with $\rho = 0$. In this case, (\ref{eq:constrR2}) always holds and hence, $R_2$ is constrained by (\ref{eq:R2_2}), and the power constraint (\ref{eq:Psic}) degrades to
\begin{align}
t\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} \ge (1-t)P_{\mathrm{SIC}}. \label{eq:Psicts}
\end{align}
As the constraints (\ref{eq:Pmax_1})-(\ref{eq:R2_2}) are all satisfied with equality, the problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) can be reformulated with a single variable $t$ as
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:tsequal}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P1}) \;\: \max_t &\; f_0(t) \\
\mathrm{s.t.} &\; \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} \!+\! P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \!\le\! t \!\le\! 1\!-\!\frac{r} {\log_2\big( 1\!+ \!\frac{|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big)}, \label{prob:tstf}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the objective function is
\begin{align}
f_0(t) = &\: \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) - \nonumber\\
&\: (1-t) \log_2 \bigg( \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2} \big(2^{\frac{r}{1-t}}-1\big) + 1\bigg),
\end{align}
the left hand side of (\ref{prob:tstf}) is derived from (\ref{eq:Psicts}), and the right hand side of (\ref{prob:tstf}) holds as $r = \le (1-t)\log_2 \big(1+ \frac{|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2} \big)$. We have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:mono}
\textbf{(Monotonicity)} The function $f_0(t)$ is non-increasing for $0 \le t < 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{proof:mono}.
\end{proof}
Based on Lemma \ref{lemma:mono}, the optimal solution of problem ($\mathbf{P1}$) can be directly obtained by taking the minimum value of $t$. The result is summarized in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:ts}
The optimal solution for the problem ($\mathbf{P1}$) is
\begin{align}
{}& R_{2,\mathrm{TS}}^* = \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) - \nonumber\\
{}& \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} \!+\! P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \log_2 \bigg( \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2} \Big(2^{\frac{r(\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} \!+\! P_{\mathrm{SIC}})}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}}\!-\!1\Big) \!+\! 1 \bigg), \label{eq:R2opt}
\end{align}
which is achieved when
\begin{align}
t = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}. \label{eq:tsoptcon}
\end{align}
The feasible range of $r$ is
\begin{align}
0 \le r \le \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{eq:R1feasi}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
In Theorem \ref{thm:ts}, the feasible range of $r$ is obtained by guaranteeing that the feasible range of $t$ defined by (\ref{prob:tstf}) is nonempty. Notice that when (\ref{eq:tsoptcon}) holds, (\ref{eq:Psicts}) is satisfied with equality. That is, Theorem \ref{thm:ts} holds as the amount of harvested energy equals to the required energy for information decoding, which is intuitively the most \emph{economical} way of dividing the received signal between energy harvesting and information decoding.
Based on Theorem \ref{thm:ts}, we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:ps}
For all $r$ satisfying (\ref{eq:R1feasi}), we have
\begin{align}
\frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}R_{2,\mathrm{max}} \le R_{2,\mathrm{TS}}^* \le R_{2,\mathrm{max}},
\end{align}
where $R_{2,\mathrm{max}} = \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big)$.
\end{corollary}
Corollary \ref{cor:ps} tells us that when $R_1 = 0$, $R_{2,\mathrm{TS}}^*$ achieves its maximum, i.e., all the power resource is allocated to UE 2. However, when $R_1$ equals to the right hand side of (\ref{eq:R1feasi}), $R_{2,\mathrm{TS}}^*$ achieves its minimum, which is strictly larger than 0. It means that there is a \emph{cut-off} line on achievable rate region for time switching scheme. When $R_1$ achieves the maximal value, $R_1$ cannot be further increased by sacrificing $R_2$. This is due to the nature of time switching: to harvest energy, the length of the first sub-slot can never be zero.
\subsection{Power Splitting Scheme}
In power splitting scheme, we have $t = 0$. In this case, the power constraint (\ref{eq:Psic}) degrades to
\begin{align}
\rho \xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} \ge P_{\mathrm{SIC}}. \label{eq:Psicps}
\end{align}
Based on the above equation, there is a feasibility issue for power splitting scheme, as detailed in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:feasible}
\textbf{(Feasibility)} If
\begin{align}
|h_1|^2 \le \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}, \label{eq:deepfade}
\end{align}
there does not exist any achievable rate pair $(R_1, R_2)$ in power splitting mode so that $R_1 > 0$ and $R_2 > 0$.
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lemma:feasible} is directly obtained from (\ref{eq:Psicps}) as if (\ref{eq:deepfade}) holds, (\ref{eq:Psicps}) cannot be satisfied with any feasible value $0 \le \rho < 1$. According to the above lemma, power splitting scheme is not applicable if the channel of near user is in deep fading.
If $|h_1|^2 > \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, the problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) can be reformulated as
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:ps}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P2}) \quad \max_{\rho} \;&\; \min\bigg\{\log_2 \bigg(\frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}} + \sigma^2}{|h_2|^2P_1^{(2)} + \sigma^2}\bigg), \nonumber\\
\;&\; \qquad \log_2 \bigg(\frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_{\mathrm{max}} + \sigma^2}{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}\bigg) \bigg\} \label{prob:psobj} \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; \log_2 \bigg(1+\frac{|h_1|^2(1-\rho)P_1^{(2)}}{\sigma^2} \bigg) = r, \label{prob:psP1} \\
\;&\; \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} \le \rho < 1,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $P_1^{(2)}$ in the objective function can actually be represented in terms of $\rho$ based on (\ref{prob:psP1}), and the solution is summarized in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:ps}
If $|h_1|^2 > \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, the optimal solution for the problem ($\mathbf{P2}$) is
\begin{align}
R_{2,\mathrm{PS}}^* = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \log_2 \Big( \frac{(|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + \sigma^2) (\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} - P_{\mathrm{SIC}})}{(\xi P_{\mathrm{max}} (|h_2|^2(2^r-1) + |h_1|^2) - P_{\mathrm{SIC}}) \sigma^2} \Big), \\ \qquad\qquad\quad\quad \textrm{if~} |h_2|^2 \le |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}\\
\log_2 \Big( 1+ \frac{\xi|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}} - P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi\sigma^2} \Big) - r, \quad \textrm{else}
\end{array}\right. \label{eq:optR2}
\end{align}
which is achieved when
\begin{align}
\rho = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}.
\end{align}
The feasible range of $r$ is
\begin{align}
0 \le r \le \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{\xi|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}} - P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi\sigma^2} \bigg). \label{eq:feasir}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As the objective function in (\ref{prob:psobj}) is a non-increasing function of $P_1^{(2)}$ and $\rho$, and $P_1^{(2)}$ is an increasing function of $\rho$, the maximum rate is achieved when $\rho = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}$ and $P_1^{(2)} = \frac{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}} (2^r-1)\sigma^2}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} - P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}$. Then the closed-form rate $R_{2,\mathrm{PS}}^*$ is obtained by comparing the two items in the minimization in (\ref{prob:psobj}).
The feasible range of $r$ is obtained according to (\ref{prob:psP1}).
\end{proof}
Notice that the optimal is achieved when the harvested energy is equal to the required decoding energy, which is the same with the time switching case. However, the difference is that the power splitting can tradeoff $R_1$ and $R_2$ completely. That is, when $R_1$ gradually decreases to zero, $R_2$ gradually increases to its maximum, and vice versa. In particular, when $|h_2|^2 > |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, $R_1$ trades off with $R_2$ linearly. However, power splitting scheme has stringent requirement on the channel gain of UE 1 (see Lemma \ref{lemma:feasible}). As a result, it is not applicable when the channel of UE 1 is not good enough.
\subsection{Generalized Scheme}
For the generalized scheme, based on Lemma \ref{lemma:R2}, the original problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) is divided into two subproblems, as detailed in the following subsections, respectively.
\subsubsection{Subproblem with $|h_2|^2 \le (1-\rho) |h_1|^2$} \label{sec:sub1}
When $|h_2|^2 \le (1-\rho) |h_1|^2$, $R_2^{(2)}$ is equal to the right hand side of (\ref{eq:R2_2}). Thus, the problem can be reformulated as
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:mix1}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P3.1}) \quad \max_{t, \rho} \;&\; \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) - \nonumber\\
&\;(1-t) \log_2 \bigg( \frac{|h_2|^2}{(1-\rho) |h_1|^2} \big(2^{\frac{r}{1-t}}-1\big) + 1\bigg) \label{prob:mix1obj} \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; 1-\rho \ge \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}, \label{prob:mix1rho}\\
{} \;&\; (1-t) \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) \ge r, \label{prob:mix1r}\\
{} \;&\; \frac{t}{1-t} + \rho \ge \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}, \label{prob:mix1Psic}\\
{} \;&\; 0 \le t < 1, 0 \le \rho < 1, \label{prob:mix1trho}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where (\ref{prob:mix1r}) comes from the fact that $P_1^{(2)} \le P_{\mathrm{max}}$, and (\ref{prob:mix1Psic}) is equivalent to (\ref{eq:Psic}). As the objective function in (\ref{prob:mix1obj}) is a decreasing function of $\rho$, it is maximized when $\rho$ achieves its minimum, i.e., $\rho = \max \big\{0, \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t} \big\}$. Based on the optimal value of $\rho$, there are two cases as follows.
\textbf{Case (1.1):} If $0 \le \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t}$, i.e., $t \le t_U$, where
\begin{align}
t_U = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}},
\end{align}
we have $\rho = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t}$. In this case, (\ref{prob:mix1Psic}) is satisfied with equality, and the problem can be transformed into
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:mix1t}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P3.1c}) \quad \max_{t} \;&\; f_1(t) \label{prob:mix1tobj} \\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; f_2(t) \ge r, \label{prob:mix1tr}\\
{} \;&\; \max \{0, t_L\} \le t \le t_U, \label{prob:mix1ttrho}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with a single variable $t$, where the objective function is
\begin{align}
f_1(t) =&\: \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) - \nonumber\\
&\: (1\!-\!t) \log_2 \bigg( \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2(\frac{1}{1\!-\!t} \!-\! \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}})} \big(2^{\frac{r}{1\!-\!t}}\!-\!1\big) \!+\! 1\bigg),
\end{align}
the constraint function in (\ref{prob:mix1tr}) is
\begin{align}
f_2(t) = (1\!-\!t) \log_2 \bigg( 1\!+\! \frac{|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\Big( \frac{1}{1-t} \!-\! \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}\Big) \bigg), \label{eq:f2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
t_L = 1- \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}} + \xi |h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}.
\end{align}
The constraint (\ref{prob:mix1ttrho}) is obtained from $\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2} \le 1-\rho \le 1$ and $0 \le t < 1$. It can be proved that $f_1(t)$ and $f_2(t)$ are both concave functions.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:concave1}
\textbf{(Concavity of $f_1(t)$)} If ${P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} < {\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, the function $f_1(t)$ is concave for all $0 \le t < t_U$. If ${P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \ge {\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, $f_1(t)$ is concave for $1-\frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} < t < t_U$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{proof:concave1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:concave2}
\textbf{(Concavity of $f_2(t)$)} If $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} \le \xi (|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + \sigma^2)$, the function $f_2(t)$ is concave for $0 \le t < 1$. If $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} > \xi (|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + \sigma^2)$, $f_2(t)$ is concave for $1-\frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}} - \xi\sigma^2} < t < 1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By taking the second derivative, we find that
\begin{align}
f_2''(t) = -\frac{1}{(1-t)^3\ln 2}\bigg(\frac{1}{1-t} - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}} - \xi \sigma^2}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} \bigg)^{-2} \le 0
\end{align}
holds for both cases. Therefore, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Based on Lemmas \ref{lemma:concave1} and \ref{lemma:concave2}, we have the following conclusion.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:convex1}
The problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$) is a convex optimization problem.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since
\begin{align}
1-\frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}} - \xi\sigma^2} < 1-\frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} < t_L, \label{eq:tLB}
\end{align}
$f_1(t)$ and $f_2(t)$ are all concave functions in the range of $t$ defined by (\ref{prob:mix1ttrho}). Hence, the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$) is convex \cite[Chap.~4]{boyd2004convex}.
\end{proof}
As ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$) is a convex optimization problem, there exists a unique optimal solution which either satisfies $f_1'(t) = 0$ or is the boundary point defined by (\ref{prob:mix1tr}) and (\ref{prob:mix1ttrho}). However, the equation $f_1'(t) = 0$ is difficult to be directly solved. Instead, by exploring the concavity of the objective and constraints, the optimal solution can be found by a numerical search algorithm as follows.
Firstly, the feasible set of $t$, denoted by $\mathcal{T}$, is determined according to the constraints (\ref{prob:mix1tr}) and (\ref{prob:mix1ttrho}). Denote $t_1 = \max \{ 0, t_L\}$, $t_2 = t_U$. If $f_2(t_1) \ge r$ and $f_2(t_2) \ge r$, we have $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_2]$. If $f_2(t_1) < r$ and $f_2(t_2) \ge r$, due to the concavity of $f_2(t)$, there is a unique $t_3$ that satisfies $f_2(t_3) = r$, which can be found by bisection search \cite[Chap.~2.1]{richard1985douglas}. Then we have $\mathcal{T} = [t_3, t_2]$. If $f_2(t_1) \ge r$ and $f_2(t_2) < r$, similarly we have $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_3]$. While if $f_2(t_1) < r$ and $f_2(t_2) < r$, we firstly find any $t_0$ such that $f_2(t_0) \ge r$, and then find $t_3 \in [t_1, t_0]$ and $t_4 \in [t_0, t_2]$ such that $f_2(t_3) = r$ and $f_2(t_4) = r$. The values of $t_0$, $t_3$ and $t_4$ can all be found by bisection search. Thus, the feasible set of $t$ is $\mathcal{T} = [t_3, t_4]$.
Secondly, we search over the feasible set $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_2]$ to find the optimal value of $f_1(t)$. If $f_1'(t_1) < 0$, we have $\max_{t \in [t_1, t_2]} f_1(t) = f_1(t_1)$ due to its concavity. Similarly, if $f_1'(t_2) > 0$, we have $\max_{t \in [t_1, t_2]} f_1(t) = f_1(t_2)$. Otherwise, the optimal solution satisfies $f_1'(t) = 0$, which can be found by bisection search as $f_1'(t)$ is monotonically non-increasing. {The algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:num}. The complexity of the algorithm depends on the complexity of bisection search. In particular, the bisection search terminates when a target accuracy $\epsilon>0$ is achieved, i.e., $|f_2(t_3) - r| < \epsilon$ for instance. Thus, the complexity is $\mathcal{O}(\log_2 \frac{1}{\epsilon})$.}
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Numerical Search Algorithm} \label{alg:num}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE The problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$)
\ENSURE $\max_t f_1(t)$
\STATE \textbf{1. Determine the feasible set} $\mathcal{T}$
\IF {$f_2(t_1) \ge r$ and $f_2(t_2) \ge r$}
\STATE $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_2]$.
\ELSIF {$f_2(t_1) < r$ and $f_2(t_2) \ge r$}
\STATE Find $t_3 \in \{t_1, t_2\}$ so that $f_2(t_3) = r$ by bisection search. Then $\mathcal{T} = [t_3, t_2]$.
\ELSIF {$f_2(t_1) \ge r$ and $f_2(t_2) < r$}
\STATE Find $t_3 \in \{t_1, t_2\}$ so that $f_2(t_3) = r$ by bisection search. Then $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_3]$.
\ELSIF {$f_2(t_1) < r$ and $f_2(t_2) < r$}
\STATE Find $t_0 \in \{t_1, t_2\}$ so that $f_2(t_0) \ge r$ by bisection search. Then find $t_3 \in \{t_1, t_0\}$ and $t_4 \in \{t_0, t_2\}$ so that $f_2(t_3) = f_2(t_4) = r$ by bisection search. Finally, $\mathcal{T} = [t_3, t_4]$.
\ENDIF
\STATE \textbf{2. Find the optimal value in set} $\mathcal{T} = [t_1, t_2]$
\IF {$f_1'(t_1) < 0$}
\STATE $\max_t f_1(t) = f_1(t_1)$.
\ELSIF {$f_1'(t_2) > 0$}
\STATE $\max_t f_1(t) = f_1(t_2)$.
\ELSE
\STATE Find $t_0 \in \mathcal{T}$ so that $f_1'(t_0) = 0$ by bisection search. Then $\max_t f_1(t) = f_1(t_0)$.
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\textbf{Case (1.2):} If $t \ge t_U$ on the other hand, we have $\rho = 0$. Thus, the scheme degrades to time switching, and the rate maximization problem has been solved in Section \ref{sec:ts}. According to Theorem \ref{thm:ts}, the optimal solution is achieved at $t = t_U$, which is also included in the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$). Therefore, we have the following conclusion.
\begin{proposition}
The problem ($\mathbf{P3.1}$) is equivalent to the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$).
\end{proposition}
To this end, in the case that $|h_2|^2 \le (1-\rho) |h_1|^2$, the original problem degrades to the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$). Hence, it can be efficiently solved by Algorithm \ref{alg:num}.
\subsubsection{Subproblem with $|h_2|^2 \ge (1-\rho) |h_1|^2$}
When $|h_2|^2 \ge (1-\rho) |h_1|^2$, the problem can be reformulated as
\begin{subequations} \label{prob:mix2}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P3.2}) \; \max_{t, \rho} \;&\; t \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) + \nonumber\\
&\; (1-t) \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2} \bigg) -r, \label{prob:mix2obj}\\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; 1-\rho \le \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}, \label{prob:mix2rho}\\
\;&\; \textrm{(\ref{prob:mix1r})-(\ref{prob:mix1trho})}. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
As the objective function in (\ref{prob:mix2obj}) is also a decreasing function of $\rho$, it is maximized when $\rho$ achieves its minimum, which is $\rho = \max \big\{1-\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}, \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t} \big\}$ according to (\ref{prob:mix1Psic}) and (\ref{prob:mix2rho}). Based on the optimal value of $\rho$, there are two cases as follows.
\textbf{Case (2.1):} If $1-\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2} \le \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t}$, i.e., $t \le t_L$, we have $\rho = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} - \frac{t}{1-t}$, and the problem can be reformulated as
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:mix2t}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P3.2c}) \quad \max_{t} \;&\; f_3(t) \label{prob:mix2tobj}\\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;&\; f_2(t) \ge r,\label{prob:mix2tf1}\\
{} \;&\; 1- \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} < t \le t_L, \label{prob:mix2trho}\\
{} \;&\; 0 \le t < 1, \label{prob:mix2tt}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the objective function is expressed as
\begin{align}
f_3(t) = t \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) + f_2(t) - r,
\end{align}
$f_2(t)$ is expressed as (\ref{eq:f2}), and the inequality on the left hand side of (\ref{prob:mix2trho}) comes from the constraint $\rho < 1$. Notice that the problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) exists only if $t_L \ge 0$, i.e., $|h_2|^2 \ge |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$. Similar to the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$), the problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) is also convex as shown in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:convex2}
The problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) is a convex optimization problem.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Based on (\ref{eq:tLB}) and Lemma \ref{lemma:concave2}, the function $f_2(t)$ is concave in the feasible range defined by (\ref{prob:mix2trho}) and (\ref{prob:mix2tt}). Hence, the problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) is convex as $f_3(t)$ is the summation of a linear function and a concave function.
\end{proof}
Therefore, the problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) can also be solved by a numerical search algorithm similar to Algorithm \ref{alg:num}.
\textbf{Case (2.2):} If $t \ge t_L$ on the other hand, we have $\rho = 1-\frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}$, which is in fact considered and solved in the problem ($\mathbf{P3.1}$).
In summary, the optimal solution for ($\mathbf{P0}$) can be obtained depending on the channel coefficients $h_1, h_2$ and the target rate of UE 1 $R_1 = r$. If $t_L < 0$, i.e., $|h_2|^2 < |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, $R_2$ is only constrained by the decoding ability of UE 2, and the problem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$) is infeasible. Hence, the optimal solution of the original problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) is equivalent to that of the subproblem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$). If $|h_2|^2 \ge |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$ on the other hand, the optimal solution for ($\mathbf{P0}$) is the maximum between the solutions for the subproblems ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$) and ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$). The procedure is detailed in Algorithm \ref{alg:gen}.
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Finding Achievable Rate Region for Generalized Scheme} \label{alg:gen}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $h_1, h_2, R_1 = r$
\ENSURE $R_2$
\IF {$|h_2|^2 < |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$}
\STATE Find the optimal solution $R_{2,1}$ of subproblem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$). Then $R_2 = R_{2,1}$.
\ELSE
\STATE Find the optimal solution $R_{2,1}$ of subproblem ($\mathbf{P3.1c}$).
\STATE Find the optimal solution $R_{2,2}$ of subproblem ($\mathbf{P3.2c}$).
\STATE $R_2 = \max\{R_{2,1}, R_{2,2}\}$.
\ENDIF
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
It is easily found that the optimal solution is achieved when the decoding power constraint (\ref{prob:mix1Psic}) is satisfied with equality, which is the same with previous two cases. Therefore, the most \emph{economical} way of splitting the power is also optimal for the generalized scheme. Also notice that the condition $|h_2|^2 < |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$ is consistent with Theorem \ref{thm:ps}. It determines either (\ref{eq:R2_2}) or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}) is more stringent. It can be seen that (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}) is a critical condition for wireless powered NOMA system. Since part of the received radio signal is split to energy harvester, the signal for information decoding is lowered so that the received SINR for UE 2 in SIC may be lower than that in UE 2. The two cases need to be dealt with separately.
\subsection{Achievable Rate Regions and Discussions} \label{sec:constfig}
Based on Theorems \ref{thm:ts}, \ref{thm:ps} and Algorithm \ref{alg:gen}, the achievable regions of time switching scheme, power splitting scheme and generalized scheme can be depicted. { In particular, the line-of-sight pathloss model $\mathrm{PL} = 30.8 + 24.2 \log_{10} (d)$ (in dB) is adopted \cite{3GPP2010TR}, where $d$ is the transmission distance, and $P_{\max} = 40$ W. The noise power spectral density is -174 dBm/Hz, the bandwidth is 10 MHz, thus we have $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm. We also set $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 80$ mW and $\xi = 0.5$.}
Firstly, the transmit distances for the users are set to $d_1 = 0.5$ m and $d_2 = 10$ m, respectively. In this case, the parameters satisfy $|h_1|^2 > \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$ and $|h_2|^2 < |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$. The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RateNormal}. It can be seen that the proposed generalized scheme achieves a larger rate region compared with the conventional time switching scheme and power splitting scheme. There is a trade-off between the time switching scheme and the power splitting scheme. When $R_1$ is small, the achievable rate of UE 2 with the time switching scheme is larger than that with the power splitting scheme. When $R_2$ is large, the relation reverses. In addition, the \emph{cut-off} line for time switching scheme, $R_1 = \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big)$, is depicted in the figure. {The proposed scheme is also compared with an conventional orthogonal multiple access scheme, TDMA. In TDMA, the BS firstly transmits data to UE 2, while UE 1 harvests energy simultaneously. Then the BS transmits data to UE 1. If the harvested energy is not enough, UE 1 applies power splitting scheme to harvest more energy. It can be seen that the proposed scheme performs better than the conventional TDMA scheme.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{RateNormal.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions for constant decoding power ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 80$ mW, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:RateNormal}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:RatePSlinear}, we set $d_2 = 1.2$ m so that $|h_2|^2 > |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}} > 0$. It can be seen that the boundary curves for the time switching scheme and the generalized scheme overlaps when $R_1 \le \frac{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} + P_{\mathrm{SIC}}} \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_1|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big)$, which means that $\rho = 0$ is optimal. The reason is that in this condition, the decoding ability of UE 1 becomes the bottleneck, i.e., $R_2$ is constrained by the maximum supportable rate of UE 2's signal decoding in SIC. Hence, all the received power should be split for information decoding in the second sub-slot in order to get a higher SINR. Besides, the boundary curve for the power splitting scheme forms a straight line, which is consistent with Theorem \ref{thm:ps}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{RatePSlinear.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions for constant decoding power ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 80$ mW, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 1.2$ m).} \label{fig:RatePSlinear}
\end{figure}
Further, the infeasible case for power splitting (i.e., $|h_1|^2 < \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$) is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:RatePSfail}. In this case, the achievable rate region of the power splitting scheme becomes a straight line with $R_1 = 0$. It can been seen that there is also a \emph{cut-off} line for the achievable rate region of the generalized scheme. Since the pure power splitting scheme is infeasible, the existence of this line comes from the nature of the time switching scheme, i.e., $t$ is strictly larger than 0. The \emph{cut-off} line can be expressed as $R_1 = \max_{0\le t \le 1} f_1(t)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{RatePSfail.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions for constant decoding power ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 80$ mW, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.75$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:RatePSfail}
\end{figure}
\section{Dynamic Decoding Power Consumption Case} \label{sec:dyn}
Recently, the relation between decoding performance and number of iterations (proportional to decoding power consumption) has been found. For instance, an iterative decoding method for LDPC code was studied in \cite[Fig.~8]{kou2001low}. It is shown that to achieve the same error rate, the number of iterations is reduced with the increase of $E_b/N_0$, which corresponds to a decrease of information rate under a fixed SNR. Based on this, dynamic decoding power consumption is considered in this section. It is expected that the achievable rate region can be enlarged compared with dynamic power model. Take the power splitting scheme as an example, the stringent requirement on $h_1$ can be loosen under the dynamic power model, as one can reduce the required decoding power by sacrificing some rate. With this dynamic model, the equality conditions (see Lemma \ref{lemma:equal}) may not hold any more. Consequently, the problem becomes more complex. To solve the problem, both exhaustive search algorithm and low-complex suboptimal algorithm will be proposed.
\subsection{Dynamic Power Model and Problem Formulation}
As shown in \cite[Theorem 1]{blake2015energy}, the decoding power consumption is lower-bounded as
\begin{align}
P_{\mathrm{DEC}} \ge \frac{\omega R}{\sqrt{-\log_2(2p_e)}},
\end{align}
where $\omega$ is a constant parameter related to circuit technology and coding block length, $R$ is the information rate, and $p_e$ is the symbol error rate, which is a function of SINR $\gamma$. Specifically, the symbol error rate for BPSK is expressed as
\begin{align}
p_e = Q(\sqrt{\gamma}) = \int_{\sqrt \gamma}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}} \mathrm{d}x.
\end{align}
{In this paper, the symbol error rate of BPSK is adopted as an approximation. As BPSK usually achieves the lowest error rate, the approximated decoding power consumption is a lower bound. Although there may be a performance gap in practice, the bound is useful to demonstrate the behavior of NOMA system under dynamic power settings.} With this model, the total power consumption of UE 1 is
\begin{align}
P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = \frac{\omega R_1^{(2)}}{\sqrt{-\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_1}))}} + \frac{\omega R_2^{(2)}}{\sqrt{-\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_2}))}} + P_r, \label{eq:Psicdyn}
\end{align}
where $P_r$ is the constant power consumption of analog receive circuit including filter, low noise amplifier, analog-to-digital converter and so on \cite{cui2005energy}, and
\begin{align}
\gamma_1 &= \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}}{\sigma^2}, \label{eq:gamma1}\\
\gamma_2 &= \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_2^{(2)}}{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}. \label{eq:gamma2}
\end{align}
In dynamic decoding power case, some constraints are still satisfied with equality as shown in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:equal2}
\textbf{(Equality Constraints)} When the maximum of problem ($\mathbf{P0}$) with dynamic power model (\ref{eq:Psicdyn}) is achieved, the constraints (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}), (\ref{eq:R2_1}), and (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) are satisfied with equality.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix \ref{proof:lemma2}.
\end{proof}
Different from Lemma \ref{lemma:equal}, the equality of (\ref{eq:R1_2}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2}) (or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic})) is not guaranteed as the users may sacrifice their data rate to reduce the decoding power. Based on Lemma \ref{lemma:equal2}, ($\mathbf{P0}$) can be reformulated as follows with variables $t, \rho, R_2^{(2)}$ and $P_1^{(2)}$.
\begin{subequations}\label{prob:dyn}
\begin{align}
(\mathbf{P4}) \max_{t, \rho, R_2^{(2)}, P_1^{(2)}} \;&\; t \log_2 \bigg( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\bigg) + (1-t)R_2^{(2)} \label{prob:dynobj}\\
\mathrm{s.t.} \quad\;&\; \log_2(1 + \gamma_1) \ge \frac{r}{1-t}, \label{prob:R1dyn}\\
\;&\; R_2^{(2)} \le \min \{R_{2,1}, R_{2,2} \}, \label{prob:dynR2}\\
\;&\; \xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}\Big(\frac{t}{1\!-\!t} \!+\! \rho\Big) \ge \nonumber\\
\;&\; \qquad \frac{\omega r}{(1\!-\!t) \sqrt{-\!\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_1}))}} \!+\! \nonumber\\
\;&\; \qquad\qquad \frac{\omega R_2^{(2)}}{\sqrt{-\!\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_2}))}} \!+\! P_r, \label{prob:dynPsic} \\
\;&\; 0\le t < 1, 0 \le \rho < 1,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are expressed as (\ref{eq:gamma1}) and (\ref{eq:gamma2}), respectively, $P_2^{(2)} = P_{\mathrm{max}} - P_1^{(2)}$, and
\begin{align}
R_{2,1} &= \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_2^{(2)}}{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho) P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}\bigg), \label{prob:dynR21} \\
R_{2,2} &= \log_2 \bigg( 1 + \frac{|h_2|^2P_2^{(2)}}{|h_2|^2P_1^{(2)}+\sigma^2}\bigg). \label{prob:dynR22}
\end{align}
Notice that the constraint (\ref{prob:dynPsic}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
R_2^{(2)} \le &\; \frac{\sqrt{-\!\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_2}))}}{\omega} \bigg( \xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}\Big(\frac{t}{1\!-\!t} \!+\! \rho\Big) \!-\! \nonumber\\
&\; \quad \frac{\omega r}{(1\!-\!t) \sqrt{-\!\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_1}))}} \!-\! P_r \bigg) \nonumber\\
\buildrel def \over = &\; R_{2,\mathrm P}. \label{prob:dynR23}
\end{align}
Thus, the optimal value of $R_2^{(2)}$ can be written as $R_2^{(2)} = \min\{R_{2,\mathrm P}, R_{2,1}, R_{2,2}\}$ which is a function of $t$, $\rho$, and $P_1^{(2)}$, .
Due to the existence of $Q$ function in the power constraint (\ref{prob:dynPsic}), the problem $(\mathbf{P4})$ is quite complex, and well-structured solution is difficult to be found. In the following subsection, we propose optimal and suboptimal algorithms to solve the problem.
\subsection{Optimal and Suboptimal Algorithms}
The optimal algorithm is based on exhaustive search. By exploring the monotonicity of (\ref{prob:R1dyn}), the search range can be restricted. For a given target $r \in \Big[0, \log_2 \big( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2} \big) \Big]$, we have
\begin{align}
t &\le 1 - \frac{r}{\log_2 \big( 1 + \frac{|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2} \big)} \buildrel def \over = t_{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{align}
So the search range of $t$ is $t \in [0, t_{\mathrm{max}} ]$. Once both $r$ and $t$ are given, we have
\begin{align}
\rho &\le 1 - \frac{\sigma^2}{|h_1|^2 P_1^{(2)}} \big( 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} - 1 \big) \nonumber\\
&\le 1 - \frac{\sigma^2}{|h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}} \big( 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} - 1 \big) \buildrel def \over = \rho_{\mathrm{max}}.
\end{align}
Hence, the search range of $\rho$ is $\rho \in [0, \rho_{\mathrm{max}} ]$. Finally, we have
\begin{align}
P_1^{(2)} \ge \frac{\sigma^2}{|h_1|^2 (1-\rho)} \big( 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} - 1 \big) \buildrel def \over = P_{\mathrm{min}}.
\end{align}
Therefore, the search range of $P_1^{(2)}$ is $P_1^{(2)} \in [ P_{\mathrm{min}}, P_{\mathrm{max}} ]$. Since the constraint (\ref{prob:R1dyn}) is automatically satisfied in this range, the feasibility only depends on if $R_{2, \mathrm P}$ is nonnegative.
As $t$, $\rho$ and $P_1^{(2)}$ are continuous variables, to search over the feasible ranges numerically, the feasible regions are discretized by step sizes $\delta t$, $\delta \rho$, and $\delta P$. The selection of the step sizes determines overall search time and accuracy. {The optimality is guaranteed with an acceptable accuracy by sufficiently small granularity of discretization.}
{As the exhaustive search algorithm is time consuming due to its high computational complexity, we further propose a low-complex suboptimal algorithm inspired by the constant decoding power case, where the constraint (\ref{eq:R1_2}) is satisfied with equality. Assume the equality holds in the dynamic decoding power case, then $P_1^{(2)}$ can be represented in terms of $t$ and $\rho$ based on (\ref{prob:R1dyn}), i.e., $P_1^{(2)} = P_{\mathrm{min}}$. As a result, the search over $P_1^{(2)}$ can be omitted, and the complexity is greatly reduced from $O(N^3)$ to $O(N^2)$ where $N$ is the number of iterations for each parameter. The algorithm is summarized as Algorithm \ref{alg:exh}. The operation $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the maximum integer no larger than $x$. It is shown later in the numerical results that the suboptimal algorithm actually achieves the optimal solution in many cases.
}
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Suboptimal Search Algorithm} \label{alg:exh}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $h_1, h_2, R_1 = r$
\ENSURE $R_2$
\STATE Initialize $R_2 = 0$.
\FORALL {$t = 0, \delta t, 2\delta t, \cdots, \lfloor \frac{t_{\mathrm{max}}}{\delta t} \rfloor \delta t$}
\FORALL {$\rho = 0, \delta \rho, 2\delta \rho, \cdots, \lfloor \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{max}}}{\delta \rho} \rfloor \delta \rho$}
\STATE Set $P_1^{(2)} = P_{\mathrm{min}}$, and calculate $R_{2, \mathrm P}$, $R_{2,1}$, and $R_{2,2}$ according to (\ref{prob:dynR23}), (\ref{prob:dynR21}), and (\ref{prob:dynR22}), respectively.
\IF {$R_{2, \mathrm P} \ge 0$}
\STATE Calculate $R_{2, \mathrm{temp}} = t \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big) + (1-t) \min\{ R_{2,1}, R_{2,2}, R_{2,\mathrm P}\}$.
\IF {$R_{2, \mathrm{temp}} > R_2$}
\STATE Update $R_2 = R_{2, \mathrm{temp}}$.
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Achievable Rate Regions and Discussions}
In numerical results, the channel model is the same as Section \ref{sec:constfig}. For the dynamic power consumption model, we set $P_r = 30$ mW and $\omega = 0.044$ so that the maximum power consumption equals to 80 mW for fair comparison. {The step sizes for exhaustive search are $\delta t = 10^{-3}$, $\delta \rho = 10^{-3}$ and $\delta P = 0.1$ dB.}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:RateNormaldyn}, the distances of the two users are set as $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m. It can be seen that the relationship among the curves is similar with that in Fig.~\ref{fig:RateNormal}, {and the suboptimal algorithm performs the same as the exhaustive search one}. However, the achievable rate regions are not convex any more. For instance, there is a inflection point on the curve for the generalized scheme at $R_1 \approx 340$ Mbps. The reason is that in dynamic decoding power case, the problem $(\mathbf{P4})$ may have multiple local optimal points, among which the global optimal one varies for different values of $r$. It is worth noting that a convex rate region can be obtained by time sharing, which is depicted with dotted lines.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{RateNormaldyn.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions for dynamic decoding power ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{r} = 30$ mW, $\omega = 0.044$, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:RateNormaldyn}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:RatePSfaildyn}, the distances of the two users are set as $d_1 = 0.75$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m. Different from constant power consumption case where the power splitting scheme is infeasible, a non-zero rate region is achievable in dynamic power consumption case by reducing the decoding power to meet the available harvested energy. Thus, adapting decoding power to data rate helps to enhance the feasibility of the power splitting scheme. {In the power splitting case, the suboptimal algorithm performs worse than the optimal one, and is infeasible when $R_1 < 160$ Mbps. The reason is that to keep (\ref{prob:R1dyn}) satisfied with equality, the decoding power cannot be reduced by increasing SNR of UE 1, as its data rate increases simultaneously.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{Ratefaildyn.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions for dynamic decoding power ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{r} = 30$ mW, $\omega = 0.044$, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.75$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:RatePSfaildyn}
\end{figure}
\section{Extended Results and Comparison} \label{sec:comp}
In this section, extended numerical results are presented to show the influence of power consumption and energy harvesting efficiency. We fix the parameters $P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $\omega = 0.044$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m, and change the values of $P_{\mathrm{SIC}}$, $P_r$ and $\xi$. Notice that when $\omega = 0.044$, the maximum power consumption for SIC decoding is approximately 50 mW in our settings. Thus, we set $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} - P_r = 50$ mW so that the comparison between static power model and dynamic power model is fair.
The performance comparison for the generalized scheme with different power consumption is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:MixvsP}. It can be seen that the achievable rate region for dynamic power model is larger than that for static power model. In addition, with the increase of decoding power consumption, the rate regions shrink. It is worth noting that the regions shrink towards $R_1$-axis as only the near user is influenced by the decoding power. Furthermore, only the curve with static power $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 100$ mW has a cut-off line since $\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}} < 100$ mW. It can be predicted that if $P_r \ge 100$ mW, there is also a cut-off line on the curve with dynamic power model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{MixvsP.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions with generalized scheme versus power consumption ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $\omega = 0.044$, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:MixvsP}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:TSvsP} shows that the achievable rate regions of the time switching scheme are of the same shape, i.e., there is always a cut-off line. In addition, with the increase of power consumption, the difference between the cut-off lines under static power model and dynamic power model becomes small.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{TSvsP.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions with time switching scheme versus power consumption ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $\omega = 0.044$, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:TSvsP}
\end{figure}
Then, the performance comparison of the power splitting scheme is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:PSvsP}. Similarly, the rate region for the dynamic decoding power model is larger than that for the constant decoding power model. In addition, when power splitting scheme is infeasible under constant decoding power model, it still works well under dynamic decoding power model. In the dynamic decoding power model, the performance change over power consumption is gradual.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{PSvsP.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions with power splitting scheme versus power consumption ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $\omega = 0.044$, $\xi = 0.5$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:PSvsP}
\end{figure}
{Finally, the influence of energy harvesting efficiency $\xi$ on the rate region is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:MixvsXi}. It is shown that the rate regions are enlarged with the increase of the energy harvesting efficiency. The result is similar as Fig.~\ref{fig:MixvsP}, because increasing energy harvesting efficiency has similar impact as decreasing power consumption.
}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{MixvsXi.eps}
\caption{Achievable rate regions with generalized scheme versus $\xi$ ($P_{\mathrm{max}} = 40$ W, $\sigma^2 = -104$ dBm, $P_{\mathrm{SIC}} = 80$ mW, $P_{r} = 30$ mW, $\omega = 0.044$, $d_1 = 0.5$ m, $d_2 = 10$ m).} \label{fig:MixvsXi}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:concl}
In this paper, we characterized the achievable rate regions of the NOMA system with wireless powered near user for time switching, power splitting and generalized schemes. Under the constant decoding power model, the achievable rate regions of time switching and power splitting are of closed-form expressions. Specifically, there exists a cut-off line on the boundary of the rate region with the time switching scheme, and the boundary of the power splitting scheme is linear if $|h_2|^2 \ge |h_1|^2 - \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$. In addition, if $|h_1|^2 \le \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi P_{\mathrm{max}}}$, UE 1 can not be self powered by the power splitting scheme. The rate region with the generalized scheme can be derived via solving two convex optimization subproblems, and is shown larger than the conventional ones. Under the dynamic decoding power model, the rate region is further expanded with efficient rate-dependent information decoder. Also, the barrier for applying the power splitting scheme, i.e., the feasibility requirement on $h_1$ is broken. UE 1 can support a lower rate with reduced decoding power consumption.
{ Possible extensions of this work are as follows. Firstly, perfect channel state information is assumed in this paper for theoretical analysis. In practice, it would be interesting to study the influence of channel training and feedback overhead. Secondly, joint transmit power and beamforming design for multi-antenna case would be an interesting research direction.}
\appendices
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:equal}} \label{proof:equal}
Since $R_2^{(1)}$ is only constrained by (\ref{eq:R2_1}), and $R_2^{(2)}$ is constrained by both (\ref{eq:R2_2}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2sic}), it is obvious that equality in (\ref{eq:R2_1}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2}) (or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic})) should be satisfied for maximization.
The equality of the power constraints (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}) and (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) can be proved by contradiction. Take (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}) as an example, assume that $ P_2^{(1)} < P_{\mathrm{max}}$ achieves the maximum average rate. Consider a value $\hat P_2^{(1)}$ that satisfies $ P_2^{(1)} < \hat P_2^{(1)} \le P_{\mathrm{max}}$. It does not violate the decoding power constraint (\ref{eq:Psic}). With $\hat P_2^{(1)}$, a higher rate $R_2^{(1)}$ is achieved according to (\ref{eq:R2_1}), and hence a larger objective. It contradicts the optimality assumption of $ P_2^{(1)}$. The equality of (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) can be proved similarly.
Given the condition that (\ref{eq:Pmax_1})-(\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) and (\ref{eq:R2_2}) (or (\ref{eq:R2_2sic})) are satisfied with equality, the objective (\ref{prob:mixobj}) is an decreasing function of $P_1^{(2)}$. As $P_1^{(2)}$ is lower bounded by (\ref{eq:R1_2}), the objective is minimized when (\ref{eq:R1_2}) is satisfied with equality.
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:mono}} \label{proof:mono}
Denote $\alpha = \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big), \beta = \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}$. As $0 < |h_2|^2 < |h_1|^2$ by assumption, we have $0 < \beta < 1$. Then $f_0(t)$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
f_0(t) = \alpha - (1-t) \log_2 ( \beta2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} + 1-\beta).
\end{align}
The first derivative of $f_0(t)$ at $t = 0$ is
\begin{align}
f_0'(0) = & \Big[ \log_2 ( \beta2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} \!+\! 1\!-\!\beta) \!-\! \frac{\beta r 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}}}{(1-t) ( \beta2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} \!+\! 1\!-\!\beta)} \Big] \bigg|_{t = 0} \nonumber\\
= & \frac{(\beta2^r + 1-\beta) \log_2 ( \beta2^r + 1-\beta) - \beta r 2^r}{ \beta2^r + 1-\beta}.
\end{align}
Denote
\begin{align}
g(\beta) = (\beta2^r + 1-\beta) \log_2 ( \beta2^r + 1-\beta) - \beta r 2^r,
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
g''(\beta) = \frac{(2^r-1)^2}{(\beta2^r + 1-\beta) \ln 2} \ge 0,
\end{align}
which indicates that $g(\beta)$ is a convex function of $\beta$. Therefore, the maximum of $g(\beta)$ is achieved at the boundary points, i.e.,
\begin{align}
g(\beta) \le \max \{g(0), g(1) \} = 0.
\end{align}
Hence, we have
\begin{align}
f_0'(0) = \frac{g(\beta)}{ \beta2^r + 1-\beta} \le 0.
\end{align}
Notice that the second derivative of function $f_0(t)$ satisfies
\begin{align}
f_0''(t) = -\frac{ \beta (1-\beta) r^2 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} \ln{2}}{(1-t)^3(\beta 2^{\frac{r}{1-t}} + 1 - \beta)^2} \le 0,
\end{align}
i.e., the first derivative $f_0'(t)$ is non-increasing. Consequently,
\begin{align}
f_0'(t) \le f_0'(0) \le 0, \; \forall 0 \le t < 1,
\end{align}
which means that $f_0(t)$ is a non-increasing function.
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:concave1}} \label{proof:concave1}
The proof can be divided into three steps.
\subsubsection{Simplification}
Denote $\alpha = \log_2 \big( 1+ \frac{|h_2|^2P_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sigma^2}\big), \beta = \frac{|h_2|^2}{|h_1|^2}, \zeta = \frac{P_{\mathrm{SIC}}}{\xi |h_1|^2 P_{\mathrm{max}}}$. The function can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
f_1(t) = \alpha - (1-t) \log_2 \Big( \frac{\beta}{\frac{1}{1-t} - \zeta} \big(2^{\frac{r}{1-t}}-1\big) + 1\Big).
\end{align}
Define
\begin{align}
g(x) = \log_2 \Big( \frac{\beta}{x - \zeta} \big(2^{rx}-1\big) + 1\Big).
\end{align}
As $f_1(t) = \alpha - (1-t)g(\frac{1}{1-t})$, according to the property of perspective of a function \cite[Example~3.20]{boyd2004convex}, to prove that the concavity of $f_1(t)$, we only need to prove the convexity of $g(x)$ for $\max\{1, \zeta\} < x < 1+ \zeta$.
\subsubsection{Convexity of $g(x)$}
To prove the convexity of $g(x)$, we introduce two lemmas as follows.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:convex}
Define
\begin{align}
g_0(x) = \frac{K}{x - \zeta} \big(2^{rx}-1\big) + 1,
\end{align}
where $K > 0, \zeta > 0, r > 0$, and $x > 1$. If $0 < \zeta < 1$, the function $g_0(x)$ is convex for all $1 \le x < 1+ \zeta$. If $\zeta \ge 1$, $g_0(x)$ is convex for $\zeta < x < 1+ \zeta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By taking the second derivative of $g_0(x)$, we have
\begin{align}
g_0''(x) = \frac{K}{(x\!-\!\zeta)^3}\Big(2^{rx}\big((r(x\!-\!\zeta)\ln2\!-\!1)^2+1\big)-2\Big).
\end{align}
Denote
\begin{align}
g_1(x) = 2^{rx}\big((r(x-\zeta)\ln2-1)^2+1\big)-2.
\end{align}
Since
\begin{align}
g_1'(x) = 2^{rx}(r\ln2)^3(x-\zeta)^2 > 0,
\end{align}
$g_1(x)$ is an increasing function. We discuss the sign of $g_0''(x)$ for two cases.
\textbf{(a)}: If $0 < \zeta < 1$, we have $x-\zeta>0$ and
\begin{align}
g_1(x) \ge g_1(1) = 2^{r}\big((r(1-\zeta)\ln2-1)^2+1\big)-2 \stackrel{def}{=} g_2(r).
\end{align}
Again, we have
\begin{align}
g_2'(r) = 2^{r}\ln2\big( (r(1-\zeta)\ln2 -\zeta)^2 + 1-(1-\zeta)^2\big) > 0,
\end{align}
i.e., $g_2(r)$ is an increasing function. Therefore, we have $g_2(r) \ge g_2(0) = 0$, which means that $g_1(x) \ge 0$, and hence $g_0''(x) \ge 0$ for all $x>1$.
\textbf{(b)}: If $x > \zeta \ge 1$, we have $g_1(x) > g_1(\zeta) = 2(2^{r\zeta}-1) > 0$, which again, guarantees that $g_0''(x) \ge 0$. As a result, $g_0(x)$ is convex, and hence, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:logconvex}
If the convex positive function $g_0(x)$ is logarithmically convex, i.e., $\log_2 g_0(x)$ is convex, we have $g_0(x) + \delta$ is also logarithmically convex for any $\delta > 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\log_2 g_0(x)$ is convex, its second derivative is nonnegative. We have
\begin{align}
g_0''(x)g_0(x) - (g_0'(x))^2 \ge 0.
\end{align}
The second derivative of $\log_2 (g_0(x) + \delta)$ is
\begin{align}
g_0''(x)(g_0(x)+\delta) - (g_0'(x))^2 \ge g_0''(x)\delta \ge 0.
\end{align}
Therefore, $\log_2 (g_0(x) + \delta)$ is convex.
\end{proof}
As $g(x) = \log_2(g_0(x) + \frac{K}{\beta} - 1) + \log_2(\frac{\beta}{K})$, based on Lemmas \ref{lemma:convex} and \ref{lemma:logconvex}, $g(x)$ is convex if there exists some $K > \beta$ so that $\log_2g_0(x)$ is convex. The second derivative of $\log_2g_0(x)$ can be expressed as $\frac{g_4(x)}{g_3(x)}$, where the denominator
\begin{align}
g_3(x) = (K2^{rx} + x - \zeta - K)^2 (x-\zeta)^2 \ln2 > 0,
\end{align}
and the nominator
\begin{align}
&g_4(x) = (K2^{rx} + x - \zeta - K)^2 + \nonumber\\
&\; (x\!-\!\zeta)^2 \big( K2^{rx}(r\ln2)^2(x \!-\!\zeta\!-\!K) \!-\! 2K2^{rx}r\ln2 \!-\! 1\big)
\end{align}
can be viewed as a quadratic function of $K$. If the coefficient of $K^2$
\begin{align}
g_5(x) = (2^{rx} - 1)^2 - (x-\zeta)^2 2^{rx} (r\ln2)^2
\end{align}
is positive, as $x$ is bounded, there must exist some $K>\beta$ so that $g_4(x) \ge 0$ holds for all $\zeta < x < 1+\zeta$, which results in $(\log_2g_0(x))'' \ge 0$, and hence, $\log_2g_0(x))$ is convex. Therefore, we only need to prove that $g_5(x) > 0$.
\subsubsection{Proof of $g_5(x) > 0$}
Notice that
\begin{align}
g_5'(x) = \big( 2(2^{rx} \!-\! 1) \!-\! 2(x \!-\! \zeta)r\!\ln\!2 \!-\! ((x \!-\! \zeta)r\ln2)^2 \big) 2^{rx}r\!\ln\!2 .
\end{align}
Denote
\begin{align}
g_6(x) = 2(2^{rx} \!-\! 1) \!-\! 2(x \!-\! \zeta)r\ln2 \!-\! ((x \!-\! \zeta)r\ln2)^2.
\end{align}
As
\begin{align}
g_6''(x) = 2 (2^{rx}-1) (r\ln2)^2 > 0
\end{align}
for all $x > \zeta$, $g_6'(x)$ is increasing, i.e.,
\begin{align}
g_6'(x) = 2(2^{rx} - 1 - (x-\zeta)r\ln2)r\ln2 > g_6'(\zeta) > 0.
\end{align}
As a result, $g_6(x)$ is also an increasing function. We have $g_6(x) > g_6(\zeta) > 0$, which further indicates that $g_5'(x) > 0$. Again, we prove that $g_5(x)$ is increasing and therefore, $g_5(x) > g_5(\zeta) > 0$.
By tracing back from step 3) to step 1), the lemma can be proved.
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:equal2}} \label{proof:lemma2}
The equality of (\ref{eq:Pmax_1}) and (\ref{eq:R2_1}) is the same as Lemma \ref{lemma:equal}. We now prove the equality of (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) by contradiction.
Suppose the strict inequality holds in (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}). Since $Q(\sqrt{\gamma_2})$ is a decreasing function of $\gamma_2$, it is also a decreasing function of $P_2^{(2)}$. Hence, ${\sqrt{-\log_2(2Q(\sqrt{\gamma_2}))}}$ is an increasing function of $P_2^{(2)}$. By properly increasing $P_2^{(2)}$ and $R_2^{(2)}$ so that the right hand side of (\ref{eq:Psic}) keeps fixed, we can obtain a higher average rate without violating any constraints. It contradicts the optimality assumption, and hence, (\ref{eq:Pmax_2}) must be satisfied with equality.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum entanglement has been widely studied in the context of holographic field theories after the pioneering Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) proposal \cite{Ryu:2006bv, Ryu:2006ef}. Quantum complexity is another notion in quantum information theory which has been recently included in the context of holographic field theories. Roughly speaking, quantum complexity of a state is the minimum number of information gates needed to prepare a state from a given reference state. There exist some efforts to develop a holographic dual for quantities related to this notion in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{Susskind:2014rva, Stanford:2014jda, Susskind:2014moa, Brown:2015bva, Brown:2015lvg, Ben-Ami:2016qex, Couch:2016exn, Chapman:2016hwi, Carmi:2016wjl}.
From a more geometrical point of view, it is well-established that the von Neumann entropy of a subregion in a given state corresponds to the area of a co-dimension two surface in the gravity solution dual of the state. People have also tried to find geometrical duals for other quantities in the context of information theory; such as Renyi entropies \cite{Hung:2011nu, Dong:2016fnf}, information metric (fidelity susceptibility) \cite{MIyaji:2015mia, Alishahiha:2015rta, Banerjee:2017qti}\footnote{See also \cite{Bak:2015jxd}.}, fisher information \cite{Lashkari:2015hha}, etc.. Some of these geometrical objects are still co-dimension two objects in the dual theory but some are not.
There are two distinct proposals to compute complexity of a state in the dual gravity theory. The first one, which is sometimes called the `complexity=volume' proposal, states that the complexity of a given state at a given time in the boundary theory is given by the volume of an extremal co-dimension one surface in the bulk which meets the corresponding time slice. To be more concrete, one can state this proposal as
\begin{equation}\label{CV}
\mathcal{C}_V=\mathrm{max}\left[\frac{V}{G_N\ell}\right],
\end{equation}
where the maximum is chosen among those co-dimension one surfaces which end on the corresponding time slice on the conformal boundary. In this proposal $\ell$ is some length scale which should be identified case by case, e.g. the radius of the asymptotically AdS solution or the radius of the horizon in case of AdS black-hole geometries. This non recognized length scale seems to be a disadvantage of this proposal.
The other proposal, which is sometimes called `complexity=action', states that the complexity of a given state at a given time is equal to the on-shell action of the dual (Einstein) gravity theory computed in the domain of dependence of any Cauchy surface in the bulk which ends on the given time slice at the conformal boundary.\footnote{Recently some progress have been made for complexity in higher derivative theories in \cite{Alishahiha:2017hwg}.} This region is known as the Wheeler-DeWitt patch corresponding to the given boundary time slice. Although this proposal (in contrast with the previous one) does not need any length scale by definition, it has its own challenges due to surface terms and corner contributions of the Wheeler-DeWitt patch (see \cite{Lehner:2016vdi, Carmi:2016wjl}). We will come back to this point in the next section.
A natural generalization of the `complexity=volume' proposal concerns with generic mixed states. A specific way of constructing a mixed state out of the entire state of a system is to trace out a part of the space-like manifold of the dual field theory. The mixed state constructed in this way is described by what is well-known as the reduced density matrix. Then the complexity of such a (static) state is proposed to be given by the volume enclosed by the Ryu-Takayanagi surface and the corresponding subregion in the boundary theory.\footnote{Recently a covariant generalization of this proposal is given in \cite{Carmi:2016wjl}.} To be more concrete the subregion complexity is defined as \cite{Alishahiha:2015rta}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{subregion}}=\mathrm{max}\left[\dfrac{V(\gamma)}{8\pi \ell G_N}\right], \label{b1}
\end{align}
where $\gamma$ is the RT surface of the corresponding subregion and $\ell$ is a length scale of the dual geometry. The maximization is among volumes enclosed by surfaces ending on the same subregion. This proposal (up to a numerical factor) reduces to `complexity=volume' given in \eqref{CV} if the subregion is chosen to be the whole time slice of the dual theory.
Different proposals for complexity all lead to UV divergent results since they all contain a volume of a surface which reaches the conformal boundary of an asymptotically AdS geometry. This is the same as what happened in the case of holographic entanglement entropy. Natural questions about such quantities are: ``What is the divergent structure of this quantity?", ``How it can be regularized?", ``What kind of universal information can be extracted from it?", and ``Is it possible to find any monotonic function out of this quantity under the RG flow of the dual theory?". Specifically for the case of subregion complexity one may also ask about the (subregion) shape dependence of the divergence structure.
Some of the above questions has been recently addressed for different proposals of complexity and even for complexity of reduced states due to smooth subregions \cite{Carmi:2016wjl}. The goal of this paper is to investigate the divergence structure of subregion complexity when the subregion is a singular surface. Similar to the case of entanglement entropy we expect new divergent (sometimes new universal) terms due to singularities in the subregion. There has been done a considerable amount of efforts to investigate the role of singularities of entangling regions in the context of (mostly holographic) entanglement entropy \cite{Casini:2006hu, Casini:2008as, Hirata:2006jx, Myers:2012vs, Singh:2012ala, Bueno:2015rda, Bueno:2015xda, Pang:2015lka, Alishahiha:2015goa, Miao:2015dua, Bueno:2015qya, Bueno:2015lza, Myers:2012ed, Mozaffar:2015xue}.
We will consider the simplest case of a singular surface in a $(2+1)$-dimensional field theory and its generalizations to enough symmetric singular surfaces in higher dimensions (see \cite{Myers:2012vs, Singh:2012ala} for a similar analysis for entanglement entropy) and study the divergent structure due to subregion complexity proposal \cite{Alishahiha:2015rta}.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in section \ref{sec:2} we define different families of singular surfaces which we study. If the reader is just interested in the final results, we have summarized our subsequent results in this section. In the following sections we study complexity of different subregions and we finalize in the last section with addressing interesting directions for future studies.
\section{ Singular Subregions and Summary of Results}\label{sec:2}
We are interested in asymptotically AdS solutions of Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant in $d+1$ dimensions. The simplest case which we study in this section is the pure $AdS_{d+1}$ solution in the Poincare patch with the following coordinates
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}\left[-dt^2+dz^2+d\rho^2 + \rho^2 (d\theta ^2+ \sin ^2\theta d \Omega _n^2) +\sum _{i=1}^{m} (dx ^i)^{2}\right],\label{a1}
\end{equation}
where $z $ is the radial coordinate and $L$ is the AdS radius.
Here $ d\theta ^2+ \sin ^2\theta d \Omega _n^2$ is the metric on a unit sphere $S_{n+1}$ and the term $\sum _{i=1}^{m} (dx ^i)^{2}$ indicates a flat $R^m$ space in Cartesian coordinates. The conformal boundary of this solution is achieved in the $z \rightarrow 0$ limit. Hence, the boundary metric reads
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-dt^2+d\rho ^2+ \rho^ 2(d\theta ^2+ \sin ^2\theta d\Omega _n ^2)+\sum _{i=1}^{m} (dx ^i)^{2}. \label{a2}
\end{equation}
For the whole manifold of the bulk, as well as the boundary, the range of the parameter $\theta$ is $(-\pi,\pi)$ for $n=0$ and $(0,\pi)$ for $n>0$. However, throughout this paper we consider different kinds of singular subregions, i.e. the conic singular subregions, in which $-\Omega<\theta<\Omega$ for $n=0$ and $0<\theta<\Omega$ for $n>0$. The simplest conical geometry is a kink ($k$) in $d=3$ where $n=m=0$,
as the following subregion of the boundary
\begin{align*}
k=\lbrace t_E=0,\rho=[0,\infty),-\Omega<\theta< \Omega\rbrace .
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}\label{fig:kc}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.7]
\draw [fill=blue!20!white] (0,0)--(3,0)--(4,1)--(1,1)--(0,0);
\draw [fill=white] (1.25,0)--(2,.7)--(2.05,0)--(1.25,0);
\draw [blue!60!black,<->,line width=.2mm](1.74,.45).. controls (1.85,.4) and (1.93,.4) .. (2.02,.45);
\draw [blue!40!black] (1.8,0.2) node {{\large $\mathbf{\Omega}$}};
\draw [fill=blue!10!white] (6+2,0)--(7.7+2,.5)--(7.7+2,2.7)--(6+2,2.5)--(6+2,0);
\draw [fill=blue!10!white] (6+2,0)--(7.5+2,-.5)--(7.5+2,2.5)--(6+2,2.5)--(6+2,0);
\draw [blue!80!white,densely dashed,-] (6+2,0)--(7.5+2,.44);
\draw [fill=blue!20!white] (6+2,0)--(7.5+2,.44)--(7.5+2,2.5)--(6+2,2.5)--(6+2,0);
\draw [blue!60!black,<->,line width=.3mm](7.5+2,-.5).. controls (7.8+2,-.2) and (7.85+2,.4) .. (7.7+2,.5);
\draw [blue!60!black,thick] (7.95+2,0) node {{\large $\mathbf{\Omega}$}};
\shade[top color=blue!30!white](5,1.8) arc (180:0:1cm and .25cm)--(6,-.2)--cycle;
\draw [](5,1.8) arc (180:360:1cm and 0.25cm) -- (6,-.2) -- cycle;
\draw [](5,1.8) arc (180:0:1cm and 0.25cm);
\draw [blue!60!black,thick] (6,.3) node {2{\large $\mathbf{\Omega}$}};
\draw [blue!60!black,<->,line width=.2mm](5.74++.12,.45-.35)..controls(5.85+.12,.5-.35) and (5.93+.12,.5-.35) .. (6.02+.12,.45-.35);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Left: The blue plane represents a constant time slice of a $d=3$ CFT with a kink ($k$) entangling region on it. Middle: Conical entangling region in a $d=4$ CFT. Right: A crease ($k\times R^m$) entangling region as a direct generalization of the kink in higher dimensions.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The cone family $(c_n)$ of singular surfaces in $d=n+3$ dimensions consists of manifolds with $m=0$ and $n\ge 1$ in Eq. (\ref{a2}) confined to the region
\begin{align*}
c_n=\lbrace t_E=0,\rho=[0,\infty),\theta= \Omega \rbrace .
\end{align*}
The crease family in $d=3+m$ dimensions is the manifold $(k \times R^m)$ derived by considering $n=0$ and $m \ge 1$ in Eq. (\ref{a1}).
We also consider mixed cases where both integers $n$ and $m$ are nonzero which we call them cone-crease.
We also study singular surfaces in asymptotically AdS$_{d+1}$ geometries given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}\left[dz^2+f_1(z)\left(-dt^2+d\rho^2 + \rho^2 (d\theta ^2+ \sin ^2\theta d \Omega _n^2)\right) +f_2(z)R^2 d \Omega _m^2\right].\label{a9}
\end{equation}
In these cases $f_1$ and $f_2$ are functions which are determined by the gravity equations of motion. We study different cones and creases in these asymptotically AdS geometries.
In Ref. \cite{Myers:2012vs} the holographic entanglement entropy for the above singular surfaces is calculated in Einstein gravity and also some specific higher derivative gravity theories. In this paper we calculate the holographic complexity in each case by using the proposal of Ref. \cite{Alishahiha:2015rta}. As we have mentioned in the previous section, according to this proposal the volume of a co-dimension one surface enclosed by the subregion in the boundary theory and the RT co-dimension two surface in the bulk is proportional to the complexity of the (mixed) state corresponding to the subregion.
To do so, one should find the RT surface corresponding to subregion $A$ which we denote by $\gamma_A$ and calculate the volume $V(\gamma_A)$ enclosed by $\gamma_A$. The holographic complexity is proposed to be given by Eq. \eqref{b1} \cite{Alishahiha:2015rta}.
We choose $\ell$ in the asymptotically AdS gravity solutions to be identified with the AdS radius. In what follows we will study this quantity in different singular subregions.
\subsection*{Summary of Results}
Since the detailed calculations presented in next sections may be involved, here we briefly summarize our results. We study the divergent structure of holographic subregion complexity and find new divergences due to singular subregions which in some cases lead to new universal terms.
In the case of a crease entangling region in a (2+1)-dimensional boundary theory (see the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:kc}) we find that there is a new divergent term of the form $\log\delta$ which is a universal term. The entanglement entropy for the same subregion also leads to a logarithmic universal term.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$ d$ & Backgrround & Geometry of & Crease & Expected & New \\
& spacetime & entangling surface & dimension & divergences & divergences \\
\hline
3 & $R^3$ & $k$ & 0 & $1/\delta ^2$ & $\log \delta$\\
\hline
4 & $R^4$ & $c_1$ & 0 & $1/\delta ^3$ , $1/\delta$ & $\log \delta$\\
\hline
5 & $R^5$ & $c_2$ & 0 & $1/\delta ^4 , 1/\delta ^2 , \log \delta$ & $\log ^2 \delta$\\
\hline
6 & $R^6$ & $c_3$ & 0 & $1/\delta^5 , 1/\delta ^3 ,1/\delta$ & $\log\delta$\\
\hline
7 & $R^7$ & $c_4$ & 0 & $1/\delta ^6,1/\delta^4,1/\delta^2 , \log \delta$ & $\log ^2 \delta$\\
\hline
\hline
$>3$ & $R^d$ & $k\times R^{d-3}$ & $d-3$ & $1/\delta^{d-1}, 1/\delta^{d-3}$ & - \\
\hline
4 & $R^3\times S ^1$ & $k\times S^1$ & 1 & $1/\delta^3$ & -\\
\hline
5 & $R^3\times S ^2$ & $k\times S^2$ & 2 & $1/ \delta^4, 1/\delta^2,\log \delta$& -\\
\hline
6 & $R^3 \times S^3$ & $k\times S^3$ & 3 & $1/\delta^5, 1/\delta^3$& - \\
\hline
6 & $R^4\times S^2$ & $k\times ( R^1\times S^2)$ & 3 & $1/\delta^5, 1/\delta^3,1/\delta$& -\\
\hline
\hline
5 & $R^5$ & $c_1\times R^1$ &1 & $1/\delta^4 , 1/\delta ^2 ,\log \delta$ & $1/\delta$\\
\hline
6 & $R^6$ & $c_1\times R^2$ &2 & $1/\delta^5 , 1/\delta ^3 ,1/\delta$ & $1/\delta ^2$\\
\hline
5 & $R^4\times S^1$ & $c_1\times S^1$ & 1 & $1/\delta^4, 1/\delta^2,\log \delta$ & $1/\delta $\\
\hline
6 & $R^4\times S^2$ & $c_1\times S^2$ & 2 & $1/\delta^5,1/\delta ^3,1/\delta$ & $1/\delta^2, \log\delta$\\
\hline
\hline
6 & $R^6$ & $c_2\times R^1$ &1 & $1/\delta^5 , 1/\delta ^3 ,1/\delta$ & $1/\delta \log\delta$\\
\hline
7 & $R^7$ & $c_2\times R^2$ &2 & $1/\delta^6 , 1/\delta ^4 ,1/\delta ^2, \log\delta $ & $1/\delta ^2\log\delta$\\
\hline
6 & $R^5\times S^1$ & $c_2\times S^1$ &1 & $1/\delta^5 , 1/\delta ^3 ,1/\delta$ & $1/\delta\log\delta$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{5mm}
For the case of a crease entangling region with a flat locus, which we denote by $k\times R^m$ (see the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:kc}) there is no universal term due to the singularity and even no actual new divergent term, although the subleading divergent term gets corrections from the singularity. This resembles to the entanglement entropy in having no new universal term. Even for the case of $k\times S^1$, which again the locus of the singularity is flat, there is no new universal term and no new divergent contribution from the singularity.
In the case of creases with a curved locus we again find that there is no new divergent term. This is in contrast with what happens for entanglement entropy of these surfaces. We study the case of $k\times S^2$ and $k\times S^3$ and also $k\times R\times S^2$ and in all of them although there is a $\log\delta$ term but it is suppressed with a positive power of $\delta$ resulting in no new divergent term.
The most interesting behavior happens for conical subregions which we show by $c_n$ (see the middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:kc}). For these subregions we find that there is new universal $\log\delta$ term for odd $n$ and $\log^2\delta$ for even $n$'s. We have worked out a few examples of this for $n=1,2,3,4$. In comparison with entanglement entropy of these surfaces we find a shift from odd to even $n$'s where $\log^2\delta$ and $\log\delta$ appear respectively. It would be very interesting to find out whether these universal terms are related to some characteristic feature of the dual field theory.
The other family of singular surfaces which we have studied are conical creases of the form $c_n\times R^m$ and $c_n\times S^m$. Among these surfaces the only case which we find that a universal $\log\delta$ term appears is $c_1\times S^2$. In other cases new divergent terms appear due to the singularity which have the form of $1/\delta\log\delta$ or $1/\delta^2\log\delta$. These are very similar to what has been recently found from the `complexity=action' proposal \cite{Carmi:2016wjl}. This similarity may be due to the singularities within the Wheeler-DeWitt patch. We have summarized our results in the above table.
\section{Flat Locus Singular Surfaces}
\subsection{Kink $k$}
The simplest case is a kink in a 2+1 dimensional boundary theory. The bulk metric dual to the vacuum state is given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}\left(-dt^2+dz^2+d\rho^2 + \rho^2 d\theta ^2\right),\label{a3}
\end{equation}
and the subregion in defined in constant time slice as $ \rho \in [0,H] $ and $ \theta \in [-\Omega,\Omega]$, where $H$ is an IR cut-off. The corresponding Ryu-Takayanagi surface can be described by $ z=z ( \rho,\theta )$, hence the entanglement entropy is given by
\begin{align}
S_{3}^{\mathrm{kink}}=\dfrac{2 \pi L^2}{l_{p}^2} \int d\rho d\theta\dfrac{ \sqrt{\rho ^2+\rho ^2 z'^2+\dot{z} ^2 }}{z^2}, \label{a4}
\end{align}
where $ z'=\partial_ {\rho} z$ and $ \dot{z}=\partial_ {\theta} z$. Since there is no length scale except $\rho$, the radial coordinate $z$ depends on $\rho$ linearly \cite{Hirata:2006jx}, i.e.
\begin{align}
z=\rho \, h(\theta), \label{a5}
\end{align}
and $h(\theta)$ should be found such that it minimizes the entropy (area) functional and is anchored to the kink in the asymptotic boundary. Applying this into Eq. (\ref{a4}) gives
\begin{align}
S_{3,k}=\dfrac{4\pi L^2}{l_{p}^2} \int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho }\int_{0}^{\Omega - \epsilon} d \theta \dfrac{\sqrt{1+h^2+\dot{h}^2}}{h^2}, \label{a6}
\end{align}
where $ \dot{h}=dh/d\theta $, $ h(0)=h_0 $ and $z=\delta $ is UV cut-off.
However, since the integrand of Eq. (\ref{a6}) does not depend on $\theta$ explicitly, we have the following conserved quantity along $\theta$ translation
\begin{align}
K=\dfrac{(1+h^2)}{h^2 \sqrt{1+h^2+\dot{h}^2}}=\dfrac { \sqrt{1+h_{0}^2}}{h_{0}^2}. \label{a7}
\end{align}
To find the holographic subregion complexity we should write the volume $ V(\gamma) $ of the subregion of the bulk
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)&= L^3 \int_{\delta / h_0}^{H}d\rho \rho \int_{-\Omega +\varepsilon}^{\Omega -\varepsilon}d\theta \int_{\delta}^z \dfrac{dz}{z^3}\\
&=\dfrac{L^3}{2} \int_{\delta / h_0}^{H}d\rho \rho \int_{-\Omega +\varepsilon}^{\Omega -\varepsilon}d\theta \left(\dfrac{1}{\delta^2}-\dfrac{1}{ z^2}\right)\\
& = \dfrac{\Omega L^3}{2 \delta ^2}\left(H^2-\dfrac{\delta^2}{h_0^2}\right) -L^3\int_{\delta / h_0}^{H } \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho} \int _ 0 ^{ \Omega -\varepsilon} \dfrac{d \theta}{h^2}, \label{a8}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is a short distance cut-off in the boundary corresponding to $\delta$ in the bulk. To clarify the singular terms of Eq. (\ref{a8}) we convert $\theta$ integration to an integral over $h$ as follows
\begin{align}
\int _ 0 ^{ \Omega-\varepsilon} \dfrac{ d\theta}{h^2}=\int_{h_0}^{\delta / \rho}\dfrac{d h}{h^2 \dot{h}}. \label{a9}
\end{align}
One can easily find the following expression from Eq. (\ref{a7})
\begin{align}
\dot{h}=-\sqrt{\dfrac{(1+h^2)^2 h_0^4-h^4(1+h_0^2)(1+h^2)}{h^4(1+h_0^2)}}.\label{a10}
\end{align}
Using the coordinate transformation $ y=\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{h^2}-\dfrac{1}{h_0^2}}$, where $ y\rightarrow \infty $ as we approach the boundary via $\theta\rightarrow\Omega $, we have
\begin{align}
&\int_{h_0}^{\delta / \rho} \dfrac{d h}{h^2 \dot{h}}=\int _ 0^{\sqrt{(\rho /\delta)^2-1/{h_0^2}}} d y\sqrt{\dfrac{(1+h_0^2)}{(1+h_0^2+y^2 h_0^2)(2+h_0^2+y^2 h_0^2)}}. \label{a11}
\end{align}
In the limit $ \delta\rightarrow 0 $ and hence $ y\rightarrow\infty $ the integrand is finite. So we can find it just for $ y\rightarrow\infty $. We have finally
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)=L^3\left[\frac{\Omega}{2}\dfrac{H^2}{\delta^2}+\alpha(h_0)\log\left( \dfrac{\delta}{H }\right)\right]+ \mathrm{finite}\ , \label{a12}
\end{align}
where $ \alpha (h_0) $ is the cut-off independent term given by
\begin{align}
\alpha(h_0)=\int _ 0^{\infty} d y\sqrt{\dfrac{(1+h_0^2)}{(1+h_0^2+y^2 h_0^2)(2+h_0^2+y^2 h_0^2)}}\ , \label{a13}
\end{align}
which vanishes in the smooth region limit (i.e. $\Omega\to\pi$).
Thus the divergent structure of holographic complexity of kink is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_k=\frac{L^2}{8\pi G_N}\left[\frac{\Omega}{2}\dfrac{H^2}{\delta^2}+\alpha(h_0)\log\left( \dfrac{\delta}{H }\right)\right]. \label{a12}
\end{align}
\subsection{Cone $c_n$}
As indicated in the previous section, to consider a conical subregion $c_n$ with $n=d-3$, we use the following form of the bulk metric
\begin{align}
ds^2=\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}\left[-dt^2+dz^2+d\rho ^2+ \rho^ 2(d\theta ^2+ \sin ^2\theta d\Omega _n ^2)\right], \label{a15}
\end{align}
where $d\Omega_n$ is the metric of a unit sphere $S_n$. The subregion in the boundary is defined by $ \rho \in [0,H] $ and $ \theta \in [0,\Omega]$. The extension of this region in the bulk is denoted by the function $ z(\rho ,\theta )$. One should find the profile of this extension via minimizing the following area functional
\begin{equation}
S= L^{d-1} \Omega_n \int d\rho d\theta\,\dfrac{\rho^{d-3}}{z^{d-1}}\,\sin^{d-3}\theta\,\sqrt{\rho ^2+\rho ^2 z'^2+\dot{z}^2}, \label{a16}
\end{equation}
where $ \Omega_n$ is the volume of the unit $n$-sphere and $ \dot{z}=\partial_ {\theta} z , z'=\partial _{\rho} z $.
As in the previous case, $z$ can depend on $\rho$ only linearly, i.e. $z(\rho,\theta) =\rho\, h(\theta)$. Using this assumption, and change of variable $ y=\sin\theta=y(h) $ which gives
$$ \dot{h} =\dfrac{\sqrt{1-y^2}}{y'}\;\;\;\;,\;\;\;\;\ddot{h}=-\dfrac{y {y'}^2 +(1-y^2) y''}{{y'}^3},$$
the equation of motion for the case $d=4$ read as follows
\begin{align}
0=& h (1+h^2) y (1-y^2)y'' -y y'\left( 3+h^2 +(3+5 h^2 +2 h^4){y'}^2\right)\nonumber\\
& +2h y^2\left(1+(1+h^2){y'}^2\right) -h\left(1+(1+h^2) {y'}^2\right)+(3+h^2)y^3 y' -h y^4,\label{a18}
\end{align}
where $ y'=\frac{dy}{dh} $ and $ y''=\frac{d^2 y}{dh^2} $. Since we are interested in the singular behavior of the complexity near the boundary, where $ h\rightarrow 0 $, let us concentrate on this limit (still for $d=4$). For this reason we consider a power law expansion for $y(h)$ in terms of $h$ and put it in Eq. (\ref{a18}). Then using the boundary condition $y(0)= \sin \Omega$ we find the following result
\begin{equation}
y=\sin (\Omega) -\dfrac{1}{4}\cos (\Omega) \cot(\Omega) h^2+\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\right).\label{a19}
\end{equation}
The expansion for $\dot{h} $ follows consequently from $ \dot{h} =\dfrac{\sqrt{1-y^2}}{y'(h)}$ as
\begin{equation}
\dot{h}=-\dfrac{2\tan(\Omega)}{h} - \dfrac{1}{2}h(3-\cos(2\Omega)) \csc(2\Omega)\log(h)+\mathcal{O}\left(h\right).\label{a20}
\end{equation}
The corresponding volume is given by
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)&=L^4 \Omega _{1}\int d\rho \rho^{2}\int d\theta \sin (\theta) \int_{\delta} ^z \dfrac{dz}{z^4}\nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{L^4}{3}\Omega _{1}\int d\rho \rho^{2}\int d\theta \sin (\theta) \left(\dfrac{1}{\delta^{3}}-\dfrac{1}{z^{3}}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{2\pi L^4 H^3}{9\delta ^3}(1-\cos(\Omega)) -\dfrac{L^4 2\pi}{3}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H\dfrac{d\rho}{\rho} \int_ {h_0}^{\delta / \rho} dh\dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{h^3\dot{h}}+\textnormal{ finite }.\label{a21}
\end{align}
Using asymptotic expansions (\ref{a19}) and (\ref{a20}) the integrand of (\ref{a21}) has the following behavior near the boundary
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{h^3\dot{h}}\sim -\dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{\cos( \Omega)}{h^2}+\frac{1}{8}\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) \log (h)+\dfrac{1}{8}\cos(\Omega)\cot ^2(\Omega)+ \mathcal{O}\left(h\right).\label{a22}
\end{equation}
Let us divide singular parts of $V(\gamma)$ into $I_1$ and $L_2$ where the latter contains the singularities due to the integrand while the former shows the contribution of the limits of the integrations, i.e.
\begin{align}
I_1&= -\dfrac{L^4 2\pi}{3}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H\dfrac{d\rho}{\rho} \int_ {h_0}^{\delta / \rho} dh\Bigg[\dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{h^3\dot{h}} + \dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{\cos( \Omega)}{h^2} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{5mm} - \frac{1}{8}\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) \log (h)-\dfrac{1}{8}\cos(\Omega)\cot ^2(\Omega)\Bigg], \label{a23}\\
I_2&=\dfrac{2\pi L^4 H^3}{9\delta ^3}(1-\cos(\Omega))-\dfrac{L^4 2\pi}{3}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H\dfrac{d\rho}{\rho} \int_ {h_0}^{\delta / \rho} dh \Bigg[-\dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{\cos( \Omega)}{h^2} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{5mm}+\frac{1}{8}\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) \log (h)
+\dfrac{1}{8}\cos(\Omega)\cot ^2(\Omega)\Bigg].\label{a24}
\end{align}
So the singular part of the complexity is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{4,c_1}=\dfrac{1}{8\pi L G_N}( I_1+I_2).\label{a25}
\end{equation}
In the limit $h\rightarrow \delta/\rho$ there is no singular term from integration over $h$ (neither from the integrand nor from the integration limits); we have just a logarithmic singularity from the lower limit of the integration over $\rho$ as follows
\begin{align}
I_1=&\dfrac{L^4 2\pi}{3} \log \delta \int_ {h_0}^ 0 dh\left(\dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{h^3\dot{h}} +\dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{\cos( \Omega)}{h^2}-\frac{1}{8}\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) \log (h)-\dfrac{1}{8}\cos(\Omega)\cot ^2(\Omega)\right). \label{a26}
\end{align}
The singular terms in $I_2$ can be calculated directly. Hence we have
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{4,c_1}=&\dfrac{L^3}{8 G_N}\left[\dfrac{2\left(1-\cos(\Omega)\right)}{9}\dfrac{H^3}{\delta ^3}-\frac{\cos(\Omega)}{3}\dfrac{ H}{\delta}+\dfrac{\beta(h_0)}{3}\log\left(\dfrac{\delta}{H}\right) \right], \label{a27}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\beta(h_0)=&2 \int_ {h_0}^{0} dh\big(\dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{h^3\dot{h}}+\dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{\cos( \Omega)}{h^2}-\frac{1}{8}\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) \log (h) - \dfrac{1}{8}\cos(\Omega)\cot ^2(\Omega)\big)\nonumber\\
&-\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{ h_0} -\dfrac{h_0}{4}\cos(\Omega) \cot ^2(\Omega)+\frac{1}{4} h_0( 1-\log(h_0))\cot ^2 (\Omega ) \sin (\Omega ) \csc (2\Omega)(3 - \cos (2\Omega)) .
\end{align}
One can perform similar computations for cones in higher dimensions. We have done this for $c_2$ and $c_3$ in CFT$_5$ and CFT$_6$ respectively. The method is similar to what we have presented in $d=4$, so we will skip the details and report the results in these cases.
In the case of $c_2$ one finds two family of divergent terms proportional to $\log \delta$ and $\log ^2\delta$ which are given by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{C}_{5,c_2}^{\log}&=\dfrac{L^4 }{8 G_N}\log \left(\frac{\delta}{H}\right)
\left(\int_{h_0} ^0 dh\left[\dfrac{\sin ^2(\theta)}{h^4 \dot{h}}-\dfrac{4 \cos ^2 (\Omega) \cot (\Omega)}{9 h}+\dfrac{2 \cos (\Omega) \sin(\Omega)}{3 h^3}\right] -\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)\sin(\Omega)}{3 h_0 ^2}\right)\nonumber\\
\mathcal{C}_{5,c_2}^{\log ^2}&=\dfrac{L^4}{36 G_N}\cos ^2 (\Omega) \cot (\Omega) \log ^2\left(\dfrac{\delta}{H}\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
One should note that the $\mathcal{C}_{5,c_2}^{\log ^2}$ is not a universal term.
For the case $c_3$ we find
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{6,c_3}^{\log }=&\dfrac{L^5\pi}{20 G_N}\log\left(\frac{\delta}{H}\right)\Bigg[\int_ {h_0}^{0} dh\Bigg(\dfrac{\sin ^3(\theta)}{h^5\dot{h}}+\frac{3}{4} \dfrac{\cos(\Omega)\sin ^2(\Omega)}{h^4} - \frac{3}{256}\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)(67+35 \cos(2\Omega))}{h^2}\nonumber\\
&- \frac{27}{8192}(155+ 106 \cos(2\Omega) +15 \cos(4\Omega)) \cot^2(\Omega) \csc(\Omega)\big)\Bigg) -\dfrac{\cos(\Omega) \sin^2(\Omega)}{4 h_0^3}+\dfrac{3 \cos(\Omega)(67+35\cos(2\Omega)}{256 h_0}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{27h_0}{8192}(155+ 106 \cos(2\Omega) +15 \cos(4\Omega))\cot^2(\Omega) \csc(\Omega)\big) \Bigg]
\end{align}
\subsection{Crease $ k\times R^{m} $ }
Consider the following metric for a $AdS_{d+1}$ space-time in the bulk
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}\left[-d t^2+dz^2+d\rho ^2+ \rho^ 2 d\theta ^2+\sum _{i=1}^{m} (dx ^ i)^{2}\right]. \label{a30}
\end{equation}
where the Cartesian coordinates $x^i$ denote a $R^m$ flat space for $m=d-3$. Consider a kink subregion defined as $\theta \in [-\Omega,\Omega]$ and $\rho \in [0,\infty]$ for the full range of $x^i\in[-\infty,\infty]$. However, to avoid IR singularities in the following calculations we restrict ourselves to the limited region $\rho \in [0,H]$ and $x^i \in[-\frac{\tilde{H}}{2},\frac{\tilde{H}}{2}]$. Assume that the extension of the entangling region in the bulk is given by the radial coordinate $z=z(\rho,\theta)$.
Hence, the induced metric on the extended surface read
\begin{equation}
h=\left(\begin{array}{c c c cc}
\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}(1+(z')^2)&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}z' \dot{z} &&&\\
\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}z' \dot{z}&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}(\rho ^2+\dot{z}^2)&&&\\
&&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}&&\\
&&&\ddots &\\
&&&&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2} \\
\end{array}\right) . \label{a31}
\end{equation}
The area functional to be minimized is given by
\begin{align}
S_{d,k\times R^{d-3}} =& L^{d-1}\tilde{H}^{d-3} \int d\rho d \theta\, \dfrac{\sqrt{\dot{z}^2+\rho ^2(1+z'^2)}}{z^{d-1}}. \label{a32}
\end{align}
Again one can use the scaling property $z=\rho h(\theta),$ to find the equation of motion as
\begin{equation}
h(1+h^2)\ddot{h}+(d-1)\dot{h}^2 +h^4 +d h^2+ (d-1)=0.\label{a34}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{a34}) can be integrated over to find the following constant along the $\theta$ variation
\begin{equation}
K_d=\dfrac{(1+h^2)^{\frac{(d-1)}{2}}}{h^{(d-1)} \sqrt{\dot{h}^2+h^2+1}}=\dfrac{(1+ h_0^2)^{\frac{(d-2)}{2}}} {h_0^{(d-1)}}\ .\label{a35}
\end{equation}
Noticing that $h$ is a decreasing function near the boundary, we have from Eq. (\ref{a35})
\begin{equation}
\dot{h}=-\dfrac{ \sqrt{1+h^2}\sqrt{(1+h^2)^{d-2}-K_d^2 h^{2(d-1)}}}{k_d h^{d-1}} \ .\label{a36}
\end{equation}
One can find the volume as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)&=L^d \tilde{H}^{d-3}\int \rho d\rho \int d\theta \int _{\delta} ^{z}\dfrac{dz}{z^d}\nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{ L^dH^2\tilde{H}^{d-3} \Omega}{(d-1)\delta ^{d-1}} -\dfrac{2 L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} }{(d-1)}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho ^{d-2 }} \int _{h_0}^{\delta / \rho}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^{d-1}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the limit $ h\rightarrow0 $ the integrand in the last term behaves as
\begin{align}
\dfrac{1}{h^{d-1}\dot{h}}\sim - K_d +O(h^2).
\end{align}
So we can write
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)=&\dfrac{ L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} \Omega H^2}{(d-1)\delta ^{d-1}}\\
&-\dfrac{2 L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} }{(d-1)}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho ^{d-2 }} \int _{h_0}^{\delta / \rho}dh \left(\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^{d-1}}+ K _d \right) +\dfrac{2 L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} }{(d-1)}\int _{\delta / h_0}^H \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho ^{d-2 }} \int _{h_0}^{\delta / \rho}dh K _d.
\end{split}
\end{align}
We can separate the divergent term as follows
\begin{align}
I_1=\int _{\delta / h_0}^H \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho ^{d-2 }} \int _{h_0}^{\delta / \rho}dh \left(\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^{d-1}}+ K _d \right).
\end{align}
Let us denote
\begin{align}
J(h)=\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^{d-1}}+ K _d,
\end{align}
it is clear from Eq. (\ref{a36}) that $J(h) \sim(h^2) $ as $ h\rightarrow0 $. We can find the integral $(I_1)$ by parts
\begin{align}
I_1=&-\dfrac{1}{(d-3) H^{d-3}}\int_{h_0}^{\delta / H} dh J(h) -\dfrac{\delta}{d-3}\int _{\delta /h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d\rho}{\rho^{d-1}} J(h)\vert _ {h=\frac{\delta}{\rho}}\nonumber\\
&=-\dfrac{1}{(d-3) H^{d-3}}\int _{h_0}^{\delta / H} dh J(h) -\frac{\delta}{d-3} I_2.
\end{align}
Now for finding the divergences of $ I_2 $, we make a change of variable from $ \rho$ to $ q=\frac{\delta}{\rho} $ and then Taylor expand the terms around $ \delta=0 $
\begin{align}
I_2=&- \dfrac{1}{\delta^{d-2}}\int _{h_0}^{\delta /H} dq q^{d-3} J(q)\nonumber\\
&=- \dfrac{1}{\delta^{d-2}} \left[\int _{h_0}^0 dq q^{d-3} J(q) + \frac{\delta}{H}\big( q^{d-3} J(q)\big ) _{q={\delta / H}}+\cdots\right] \nonumber\\
&=- \dfrac{1}{\delta^{d-2}} \int _{h_0}^0 dq q^{d-3} J(q) +O(\delta ^d).
\end{align}
From Eq. (\ref{a36}) $ q^{d-3} J(q) \sim q^{d-1} $ for small $q$, hence in the above expression the integral over $ q $ is finite. We have also
\begin{align}
I_1= \dfrac{\delta}{d-3}\dfrac{1}{\delta^{d-2}} \int _{h_0}^0 dq q^{d-3} J(q) +finite.
\end{align}
So the singular terms of the volume is as follows
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)=&\dfrac{ L^dH^2\tilde{H}^{d-3} \Omega}{(d-1)\delta ^{d-1}}+\dfrac{2 K_d L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} }{(d-1)}\left[-\dfrac{h_0}{d-3} (\dfrac{h_0}{\delta})^{d-3}+\dfrac{\delta}{d-2} (\dfrac{h_0}{\delta})^{(d-2)}\right] \nonumber\\
&-\dfrac{2 L^d\tilde{H}^{d-3} }{(d-1)(d-3)\delta ^{d-3}} \int _{h_0}^0 dq q^{d-3} J(q) + \textnormal{finite}.
\end{align}
The complexity is finally given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{k\times R^m}=\dfrac{V(\gamma)}{8\pi L G_N}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Conical Crease $ c_{n} \times R^{m}$}
In this section we consider the special cases of $ n=1,2 $ and $ m=1,2 $ in the metric \eqref{a1} which we denote them by cone-crease $ c_{n} \times R^{m}$. As in the previous cases the subregion is restricted to the intervals $ \theta \in [0,\Omega] $, $\rho \in [0,H] $ and $x_i \in [-\tilde{H}/2, \tilde{H}/2]$ where $H$ and $\tilde{H}$ indicate IR cut-offs. The extended surface in the bulk is demonstrated by the function $ z=z(\rho,\theta) $ with the following induced metric
\begin{equation}
h=\left(\begin{array}{c c c c c c}
\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}(1+(z')^2)&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}z' \dot{z} &&&&\\
\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}z' \dot{z}&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}(\rho ^2+\dot{z}^2)&&&&\\
&&\dfrac{L^2\rho ^2 \sin ^2(\theta)}{z^2 }g_{ab} (S^n)&&&\\
&&&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2}&&\\
&&&&\ddots &\\
&&&&&\dfrac{L^2}{z^2} \\
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
where $ g _{ [a b] }(S^n) $ is the metric of the sphere $ (S^n) $. The surface function to be extrimized is the following
\begin{align}
S_{d,c_n\times R^{m}}=& L^{d-1}\tilde{H}^{m}\Omega _n\int d\rho d \theta \dfrac{ \rho ^n \sin ^n(\theta) \sqrt{\dot{z}^2+\rho ^2(1+z'^2)}}{z^{d-1}}.
\end{align}
The equation of motion for $ z(\rho,\theta)$ after imposing the scaling relation $z=\rho h(\theta)$ reads
\begin{align}
h(1+h^2)\ddot{h}+ n\cot(\theta) h \dot{h}^3+( d+n h^2-& 1) \dot{h}^2+ n\cot(\theta) h (1+h^2)\dot{h}\nonumber\\
&+(n+1) h^4+(d+n) h^2+d-1 =0.
\end{align}
First consider $ n=1 $ and $m=1$, i.e. $ d=5 $. Let us expand $ y= \sin(\theta) $ and $ \dot{h} $ near the boundary in powers of $h$.
\begin{align}
y=& \sin (\Omega) -\frac{1}{6} h^2 \cos (\Omega) \cot (\Omega) -\frac{1}{432} h^4 (19- 5\cos(2\Omega))\cot ^2(\Omega) \csc(\Omega)+O(h^5),\label{a50} \\
\dot{h} (\theta) =&-\dfrac{3 \tan(\Omega)}{h}+\frac{1}{3}h (8 -\cos(2\Omega)) \csc (2\Omega)+f_0 h^2 \nonumber\\
&-\frac{1}{216}h^3 ( 435 -404 \cos(2\Omega) +52 \cos(4\Omega))\csc ^3(\Omega) \sec(\Omega)+\mathcal{O}(h^4), \label{a51}
\end{align}
where $ \alpha_0 $ is fixed by the condition $ f( h_0 )=0 $ at $\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right)$ and vanishes at $\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right)$.
Using equations (\ref{a50}) and (\ref{a51}) the volume functional is as follows
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)=&\dfrac{L^5 H^3\tilde{H} \Omega _1}{12 \delta ^4}(1- \cos(\Omega))
-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d \rho}{\rho^2 } \int_{h_0}^{\delta /\rho} d h \dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{\dot{h} h^4}\nonumber\\
&=V_1 +V_2.
\end{align}
Near the boundary $h \rightarrow 0$, we have
\begin{align}
\dfrac{ \sin(\theta)}{\dot{h} h^4} \sim -\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{3 h^3}+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos 2\Omega) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega)}{108 h}-\frac{1}{9} f_0 \cos (\Omega) \cot (\Omega) .
\end{align}
Now we can use it to make the $h$ integral in holographic complexity finite, i.e.
\begin{align}
V_2=&-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d \rho}{\rho^2 } \int_{h_0}^{\delta /\rho} d h \left[ \dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{\dot{h} h^4}+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)}{3 h^3}-\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos(2 \Omega) ) \cot (\Omega) \csc (\Omega )}{108 h}\right]\nonumber\\
&-\dfrac{L^5\tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d \rho}{\rho^2 } \int_{h_0}^{\delta /\rho} d h \left[-\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)}{3 h^3}+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos(2\Omega)) \cot(\Omega) \csc (\Omega)}{108 h}\right]\nonumber\\
&=I_1+I_2,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
I_2=&-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\Bigg[\dfrac{\cos(\Omega) H}{6 \delta ^2}-\frac{1}{\delta}\left (\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{3 h_0}+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega) h_0}{108 } \right)\\
& \hspace{6cm}-\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega)}{108 H}\log \left(\frac{\delta}{H}\right)\Bigg] .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Let us indicate the integrand in $ I_1 $ by $ J_5(h) $ and integrate it by parts
\begin{align}
I_1=&-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d \rho}{\rho^2 } \int_{h_0}^{\delta /\rho} d h J_5(h)\nonumber\\
&=-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\left[-\frac{1}{H}\int_{h_0}^{\delta / H} d h J_5(h) - \delta \int _{\delta / h_0}^{H} \dfrac{d \rho}{\rho^3 }J_5(h)\vert _ {h=\delta / \rho}\right].
\label{m38}
\end{align}
Near the boundary $ J_5(h) \sim \mathcal{O}(h^0) $ . We further make the coordinate transformation $ q=\delta/ \rho $ and Taylor expand the second term of Eq. (\ref{m38}) in terms of $\delta $
\begin{align}
I_1=&-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\left[-\frac{1}{H}\int _{h_0}^{\delta / H} d h J_5 (h)+1/\delta \int _ {h_0}^{\delta / H} dq q J_5(q)\right] \nonumber\\
&=-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4} \left[-\frac{1}{H}\int _{h_0}^{0} d h J_5 (h)+1/\delta \int _ {h_0}^{0} dq q J_5(q) -\dfrac{\delta f_0 \cos(\Omega) \cot(\Omega)}{ 9 H^2}\right]+\mathcal{O}(\delta) .
\end{align}
So we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)=&-\dfrac{L^5 \tilde{H} \Omega _1}{4}\Bigg[-\dfrac{H^3}{3 \delta ^4}( \cos(\Omega)-1)+\dfrac{\cos(\Omega) H}{6 \delta ^2}
\\&
-\frac{1}{\delta}\left(\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{3 h_0}+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega) h_0}{108 }-\int _ {h_0}^{0} dq q J_5(q) \right)\\ &-\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega) }{108 H}\log \left(\frac{\delta}{H}\right)\Bigg]+ \textnormal{finite}
\end{split}
\end{align}
For $ c_1 \times R^2 $ the result is as follows
\begin{align}
V(\gamma )=& -\dfrac{L ^6 \Omega _1 \tilde{H}^2}{5}\left[ -\dfrac{H^3(1- \cos(\Omega))}{3 \delta ^5}
+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega) H}{12 \delta ^3} \right.\nonumber\\
&+\dfrac{1}{\delta ^2} \left( \dfrac{-\cos(\Omega)}{8 h_0}-\dfrac{h_0 \cot (\Omega) \csc (\Omega)(-11+5\cos(2\Omega))}{512}+\frac{1}{2}\int _{h_0} ^{0} dq q^2 J(q)\right)\nonumber\\
& \left. +\dfrac{ \cot (\Omega) \csc (\Omega)(-11+5\cos(2\Omega))}{256 H \delta} \right] ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
J(h)=\dfrac{\sin (\theta)}{ h^5 \dot {h}}+\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{4 h^4}-\dfrac{\cot(\Omega)\csc(\Omega) (-11+5 \cos(2\Omega))}{256 h^2}.
\end{align}
For $ c_2\times R ^1 $ similar steps leads to
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)=&-\dfrac{\Omega _2 L^6 \tilde{H} }{5}\Bigg[-\dfrac{H^4(\Omega -\frac{1}{2} \sin (2\Omega))}{8 \delta ^5}+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega) \sin (\Omega) H^2}{12 \delta ^3 }\\
&+\frac{1}{\delta}\left(-\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)\sin(\Omega)}{4 h_0^2}-\dfrac{\cos ^2(\Omega) \cot (\Omega) (\log (h_0)-1)}{16}+\int _{h_0} ^{0 }dq q J(q) \right)\\
&+\dfrac{\cos ^2(\Omega) \cot (\Omega)}{16}\dfrac{1}{\delta}\log\left(\frac{\delta}{H}\right)\Bigg],
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
J(h)=\dfrac{\sin ^2(\theta)}{\dot{h} h^5}+\dfrac{\cos(\Omega) \sin (\Omega)}{2 h^4}-\dfrac{\cos ^2(\Omega) \cot (\Omega)}{16 h^2}.
\end{align}
\section{Curved Locus Singular Surfaces}
In this section, we consider several singular embeddings which have curved locus such as $ k\times\Sigma $ and $ c_n \times\Sigma $ , where locus $ \Sigma $ will take the form $ S^m $ or $ S ^{m-p} \times R^p $.
\subsection{Crease $ k \times \Sigma $}
Consider the geometries $ k\times S^2 $ , $ k\times S^3 $ and $ k\times R \times S^2 $ . We will see that singularities with even dimensional locus will contribute through a logarithmic term.
To begin with, let us consider $ d=5 $ CFT on background $ R^3\times S^2 $ . The action for six-dimensional dual Einstein gravity reads
\begin{align}
I_6 =\frac{1}{l_p ^4} \int d^6 x \sqrt{- g} \left[\frac{20}{L^2}+ R \right].
\label{e25}
\end{align}
We consider the following ansatz for the solution,
\begin{align}
d s^2= \frac{L^2}{z^2}\big [dz^2 +f_1 (z) (dt^2 +d\rho ^2+ \rho^2 d \theta ^2 )+f_2 (z) R_1^2 d \Omega _2 ^2\big ],
\label{e27}
\end{align}
where $ d \Omega_2 ^2 =d \xi_0^2 +\sin ^2 (\xi _0) d \xi_1^2 $ represents a two-sphere metric and $ f_1 $ and $ f_2 $ are functions of the radial coordinate. The boundary of this solution is $ R^3 \times S^2 $ with $ R_1 $ the radius of $ S^2$; so we can recover the flat boundary results in the limit $ R_1 \rightarrow\infty $. Using the Fefferman-Graham expansion near the boundary to find $f_1$ and $f_2$ leads to
\begin{align}
f_1 &= 1+\dfrac{z^2}{12 R_1^2}+ \dfrac{17 z^4}{576 R_1^4}-\dfrac{z^6}{324 R_1^6}+\cdots\\
f_2 &= 1-\dfrac{z^2}{4 R_1^2}-\dfrac{5 z^4}{192 R_1^4}+\dfrac{z^6}{72 R_1^6}+\cdots
\label{e28}
\end{align}
The subregion of interest here is $ \rho\in [ 0, H ] $ and $ \theta \in [-\Omega , \Omega] $ where $ H $ is again a IR cut-off. The coordinates are $ (z , \theta ,\xi_0 , \xi_1 ) $ on the minimal surface and $ \rho =\rho(z, \theta) $ on the sphere.
In the limit $ R_1\rightarrow \infty $ one may expect from the case of entanglement entropy that leading order correction to the holographic subregion complexity would be $\mathcal{O}(1/R_1^2) $, however, we show that in this case there is no new divergent term up to $\mathcal{O}(1/R_1^4)$. We first work out the solution $\rho(z,\theta)$ in this approximation with the following ansatz
\begin{align}
\rho(z,\theta)=\dfrac{z}{h(\theta)} +\dfrac{z^2}{R_1} g_2 (\theta)+\dfrac{z^3}{R_1^2}g_3 (\theta)+\dfrac{z^5}{R_1^4}g_5 (\theta)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^7\right)
\label{e33}
\end{align}
Using the ansatz (\ref{e33}) in the equation of motion of $ \rho(z,\theta) $ leads to vanishing of even terms $ g_{2n}$.
In order to separate the logarithmic divergence, we impose $ \rho= \rho_0 (z,\theta)+\rho_1(z,\theta)/R_1^2+\rho_2(z,\theta)/R_1^4 $, where $ \rho_0=z/h(\theta) $ and $ \rho_1=z^3 g_3 (\theta)$, $\rho_2=z^5 g_5(\theta) $ are higher corrections in the large $ R_1 $ regime.
Now we come back to the metric (\ref{e27}) and find the volume holographic complexity as
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)= &L^5 R _1 ^2 \Omega _ 2 \int d\rho d\theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 \rho}{z^5}\nonumber\\
&= L^5 R_{1}^{2} \Omega _2 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 }{z^5} \int _{\rho(z,\theta)}^{H} d\rho \rho \nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{ L^5 R_{1}^{2} \Omega _2}{2} \left(- \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 \rho ^2}{z^5}+ H^2 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 }{z^5}\right) \nonumber\\
&=V_1+V_2
\label{e34}
\end{align}
Now, we can insert the ansatz $ \rho= \rho_0+\rho_1/R_1 ^2 +\rho_2/R_1 ^4 $ that $ \rho_0=z/h(\theta) $, $ \rho_1=z^3 g_3(\theta) $ and $\rho_2=z^5 g_5(\theta)$ and use (\ref{e28}) in the integrand to simplify the results as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V_1=&L^5 R _1 ^2 \Omega _ 2 \Bigg[\int _{z_m}^{\delta}\frac{dz}{z^3} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}-\frac{1}{6 R_1^2}\int _{z_m}^{\delta} \frac{dz}{z}\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\frac{2}{R_1 ^2}\int _{z_m}^{\delta} \frac{dz}{z}\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh g_3(\theta)}{\dot{h}h}\\
&-\dfrac{5}{288 R_1^4}\int _{z_m}^{\delta }dz z \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}-\frac{1}{3 R_1^4}\int _{z_m}^{\delta} dz z\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}dh\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h}+\frac{1}{R_1 ^4}\int _{z_m}^{\delta} dz z\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}dh\dfrac{g_3^2(\theta)}{\dot{h}}\\
&+\frac{2}{R_1 ^4}\int _{z_m}^{\delta} dz z\int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh\dfrac{g_5(\theta)}{\dot{h}h}\Bigg],
\end{split}
\label{e35}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
V_2=L^5 R _1 ^2 \Omega _ 2 H^2 \Omega \left(\frac{1}{4\delta ^4}-\dfrac{1}{12 R_1^2 \delta ^2}\right)
&+\dfrac{5 \Omega L^5 R _1 ^2 \Omega _ 2 H^2}{288 R_1^4}\log \delta
+\mathrm{finite}
\label{e36}
\end{align}
where $ \delta $ is the UV cut-of. We have also changed the integration limits from $ (-\Omega,\Omega) $ to $ (0,\Omega) $ and then changed the integration variable in $ V_1 $ to $ h(\theta) $.
It is instructive to use the following constant of motion
\begin{align}
K_5= \dfrac{(1+h^2)^2}{h^4 \sqrt{1+h^2 +\dot{h}^2}},
\label{e37}
\end{align}
which is related to $ h(0) $ at the turning point. To find the logarithmic divergent parts it is enough to find the asymptotic behavior of $ h $ and $ g_3 $. Solving $ g_3 $ in terms of $ h $ in the limit of small $ h $ leads to
\begin{align}
g_3=\frac{b_3}{h^3}+\dfrac{1+88 b_3}{56 h}+\dfrac{4+72 b_3}{189}h+\mathcal{O}\left(h^3\right),
\label{e38}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
g_5=\frac{9 b_3^2}{5h^5}+\dfrac{b_3(345+15856b_3)}{7000 h^3}+\mathcal{O}\left(h^{-1}\right),
\label{k38}
\end{align}
where $ b_3 $ can be fixed by demanding $ g_3 $ to have an extremum at $\theta=0$.
We will need to find the series expansion of $ h_{1c} $ in terms of $ \delta $ as follows
\begin{align}
h_{1c}(\delta)= \left(\frac{1}{H}+\dfrac{b_3 H}{R_1^2}-\dfrac{b_3^2 H^3}{5 R_1^4}\right) \delta +\Bigg(\dfrac{(1+88 b_3)}{56 H R_1^2}+\dfrac{(1+88 b_3)H b_3}{56 R_1^4}\Bigg) \delta ^3+ \mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^5\right)
\label{e39}
\end{align}
where $ h_{1c}=h(\Omega-\epsilon) $. The result is obtained for the leading corrections in $ R_1 $ at any order of $ \delta$ \cite{ref.1}.
Now we look at (\ref{e35}) to analyze the divergent terms in the asymptotic limit
\begin{align}
\dfrac{1}{\dot{h} h^2}\sim - K_5 h^2 +2 K_5 h^4+\mathcal{O}\left(h^6\right)
\label{e40}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h} h}\sim - K_5 b_3 -\dfrac{K_5(1-24 b_3)h^2}{56}+\mathcal{O}\left(h^4\right).
\label{e41}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{g_3^2}{\dot{h} }\sim -\dfrac{K_5 b_3^2}{h^2}-\dfrac{k_5(b_3+32b_3^2)}{28}+\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right).
\label{g42}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h} h}\sim -\dfrac{9 K_5 b_3^2}{5h^2}- \dfrac{b_3(345-9344b_3)k_5}{7000}+\mathcal{O}\left(h^2\right).
\label{g43}
\end{align}
We organiz different terms of the integrand in following form
\begin{align}
I_1=\int _{z_m}^{\delta }\frac{dz}{z^3} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}
\label{e42}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I_2=\int _{z_m}^{\delta }\frac{dz}{z} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}
\label{e43}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I_3=&\int _{z_m}^{\delta }\frac{dz}{z} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh g_3}{\dot{h}h}=\int _{z_m}^{\delta }\frac{dz }{z} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh\left(\dfrac{ g_3}{\dot{h}h}+K_5 b_3 \right)-K_5 b_3\int _{z_m}^{\delta} \frac{dz }{z}(h_{1c}-h_0)\nonumber\\
&=I'_1+I'_2
\label{e44}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I''_1=\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} \dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}
\label{e43}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I''_2=\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h^2}
\label{e43}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I''_3=&\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}dh(\dfrac{g_3^2}{\dot{h}}+\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2})-\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c}dh\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\nonumber\\
&=I'''_1+I'''_2
\label{e43}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I''_4=&\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh(\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h}h}+\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2}{5h^2})-\int _{z_m}^{\delta } z dz \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh\dfrac{9k_5b_3^2}{5h^2}\nonumber\\
&=I'''_3+I'''_4
\label{e43}
\end{align}
Now we differentiate each of them with respect to the UV cut-off and look for $ 1/\delta $ divergent terms. One can easily find
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I_1}{d\delta}=&\frac{1}{\delta ^3} \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta ^3} \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\frac{1}{\delta ^2}\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^2}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta ^3} \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^0\right).
\label{e45}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I_2}{d\delta}=&\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^2}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{e46}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\frac{d I'_1}{d\delta}=&\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{h_1c} dh\big[\dfrac{ g_3}{\dot{h}h}+K_5 b_3\big]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{0} dh\left(\dfrac{ g_3}{\dot{h}h}+K_5 b_3\right)+\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h}+K_5 b_3\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+...\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\delta} \int _{h_0}^{0} dh\left(\dfrac{ g_3}{\dot{h}h}+K_5 b_3\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{e47}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\frac{d I'_2}{d\delta}=&-\frac{k_5 b_3}{\delta}(h_{1c}-h_0)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{ h_0k_5 b_3}{\delta}-\dfrac{k_5 b_3}{H}(1+b_3 H^2/R_1^2-b_3^2 H^4/{5 R_1^4})+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{e48}
\end {align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I''_1}{d\delta}=&\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\delta ^2\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{1}{\dot{h}h^2}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^4\right).
\label{g42}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I''_2}{d\delta}=&\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}} dh\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h}\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0} dh\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h^2}+\delta ^2\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{g_3}{\dot{h}h}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{g43}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I'''_1}{d\delta}=&\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}} dh\left(\dfrac{g_3 ^2}{\dot{h}}+\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0} dh\left(\dfrac{g_3^2}{\dot{h}}+\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\right)+\delta ^2\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{g_3^2}{\dot{h}}+\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0}dh\left(\dfrac{g_3^2}{\dot{h}}+\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{g44}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I'''_2}{d\delta}=&-\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}}\dfrac{k_5 b_3^2}{h^2}\nonumber\\
&=\delta k_5 b_3^2\left(\dfrac{1}{h_{1c}}-\dfrac{1}{h_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&=-\dfrac{\delta k_5 b_3^2}{h_0}+k_5 b_3^2H\left[1-\dfrac{b_3 H^2}{R_1^2}+\frac{b_3^2 H^4}{5R_1^4}\right]+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{g45}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I'''_3}{d\delta}=&\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}} dh\left(\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h}h}+\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2 }{5h^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0} dh\left(\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h}h}+\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2}{5h^2}\right)+\delta ^2\frac{d h_{1c}}{d\delta}\left[\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h}h}+\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2 }{5h^2}\right]_{h=h_{1c}}+\cdots\nonumber\\
&=\delta \int _{h_0}^{0}dh\left(\dfrac{g_5}{\dot{h}h}+\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2}{5h^2}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{g45}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\dfrac{d I'''_4}{d\delta}=&-\delta \int _{h_0}^{h_{1c}}\dfrac{9k_5 b_3^2}{5h^2}\nonumber\\
&=\delta \frac{9k_5 b_3^2}{5}\left(\dfrac{1}{h_{1c}}-\dfrac{1}{h_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&=-\delta \dfrac{9 k_5 b_3^2}{5h_0}+\frac{9k_5 b_3^2H}{5}\left[1-\dfrac{b_3 H^2}{R_1^2}+\frac{b_3^2 H^4}{5R_1^4}\right]+\mathcal{O}\left(\delta ^2\right).
\label{g46}
\end{align}
So from (\ref{e42})-(\ref{e48}) we can find the logarithmic divergences in the holographic complexity for $ k\times S^2 $ geometry as follows
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}^{\log}_{k\times S^2}=\dfrac{L^5 R_1^2 \Omega _2}{8 \pi L G} \left[-\frac{1}{6 R_1^2}\int _{h_0} ^0 \frac{dh}{\dot{h} h^2}+\frac{2}{R_1^2} \int _{h_0} ^0 dh\left(\frac{g_3}{\dot{h} h}+k_5 b_3\right) +\dfrac{2 h_0 k_5 b_3}{R_1^2}+\dfrac{5 \Omega L^5 R _1 ^2 \Omega _ 2 H^2}{288 R_1^4}\right] \log (\delta)
\label{g48}
\end{align}
Note that in this case no new divergent term appears due to the singular surface. All new $\log\delta$ terms are suppressed with a factor of $\delta^\alpha$ where $\alpha\ge 1$.
\subsubsection*{Subregion $ k\times S^3 $}
Now we want to find the holographic subregion complexity for $ k\times S^3 $ geometry in a CFT on $R^3\times S^3 $. We will show that in this case the singularity gives no logarithmic contribution to subregion complexity. Consider the following metric
\begin{align}
d s^2= \frac{L^2}{z^2}\big [dz^2 +f_1 (z) (dt^2 +d\rho ^2+ \rho^2 d \theta ^2 )+f_2 (z) R_1^2 d \Omega _3 ^2\big ],
\label{e50}
\end{align}
where $ d \Omega_3 ^2 =d \xi_0^2 +\sin ^2 (\xi _0) d \xi_1^2+ \sin ^2 (\xi _0)\sin ^2 (\xi _1) d \xi_2 ^2 $ is the unit $S^3$ and we find $ f_1 $ and $ f_2 $ as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
f_1 &= 1+\dfrac{3 z^2}{20 R_1^2}+ \dfrac{69 z^4}{1600 R_1^4}+ \dfrac{z^6}{R_1^6}\left(\frac{33}{8000}-\frac{1}{200}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right)\\
f_2&= 1-\dfrac{ 7 z^2}{20 R_1^2}-\dfrac{11 z^4}{1600 R_1^4}+ \dfrac{z^6}{R_1^6}\left(\frac{67}{8000}+\frac{1}{200}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right)
\label{e51}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Similar to the previous case the induced coordinates on the RT surface are $ (z, \theta ,\xi_0 ,\xi_1 , \xi_2) $ and $\rho=\rho(z,\theta)$. Using the equation of motion for $ h $ we can find the following constant of motion
\begin{align}
K_6= \dfrac{(1+h^2)^{5/2}}{h^5 \sqrt{1+h^2 +\dot{h}^2}},
\label{e55}
\end{align}
which can be fixed in terms of the boundary data. Using the metric (\ref{e50}) we find the holographic complexity as
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)= &L^6 R _1 ^3 \Omega _ 3\int d\rho d\theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 ^{3/2} \rho}{z^6}\nonumber\\
&= L^6 R_{1}^{3} \Omega _3 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 ^{3/2}}{z^6} \int _{\rho(z,\theta)}^{H} d\rho \rho \nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{ L^6 R_{1}^{3} \Omega _3}{2} \left(- \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2 ^{3/2} \rho ^2}{z^6}+ H^2 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_1 f_2^{3/2 }}{z^6}\right) \nonumber\\
&=V_1+V_2
\label{e56}
\end{align}
Inserting the ansatz $ \rho=\rho_0 +\rho_1/R_1^2 $, $ \rho_0=z/h(\theta) $and $ \rho_1=z^3 g_3(\theta) $ and using the expansions (\ref{e51}) in the integrand, simplifies the result as
\begin{align}
V_1=L^6 R _1 ^3 \Omega _ 3\int _{z_m}^\delta\frac{dz}{z^2}\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}\left(\frac{1}{2z^2}-\frac{9}{20 R_1^2}+\frac{1}{R_1 ^2}hg_3(\theta)\right),
\label{e57}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
V_2=L^6 R _1 ^3 \Omega _ 3 H^2 \Omega \left(\frac{1}{10\delta ^5}-\dfrac{9}{60 R_1^2 \delta ^3}\right)+\mathrm{finite},
\label{e58}
\end{align}
where $ \delta $ is the UV cut-of, such that $ \rho(z, \Omega-\epsilon) = H $ and $ z_m $ is defined such that $ \rho(z_m,0)=H $. We have also changed the integration limits from $ (-\Omega,\Omega) $ to $ (0,\Omega) $ and then changed the integration variable in $ V_1 $ to $ h(\theta) $.
Similar to what we have done in the previous sections in details, one can work out the logarithmic divergence in this case. Here we step the details and report to the final result
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{k\times S^3}=\dfrac{L^6 R_1^3 \Omega _3}{8 \pi L G_N} \left[\dfrac{\Omega H^2 }{10 \delta ^5} -\dfrac{9 \Omega H^2}{60 R_1 ^2 \delta ^3}-\frac{1}{6 \delta ^3}\int _{h_0} ^0 \frac{dh}{\dot{h} h^2}+\frac{9}{ 20 R_1^2 \delta} \int _{h_0} ^0 \frac{dh}{\dot{h} h^2}-\frac{1}{ R_1^2 \delta}\int _{h_0} ^0 dh\frac{g_3}{\dot{h} h} \right].
\label{e69}
\end{align}
In this case no new divergent term appears due to the singular surface and all new $\log\delta$ terms are suppressed with a factor of $\delta^\alpha$ where $\alpha\ge 1$.
\subsubsection*{Subregion $ k\times R^1 \times S^2 $}
In the following we give another example showing that odd dimensional locus does not contribute to logarithmic singularities, althogh it has non-zero curvature. We consider a CFT defined on $ R^4 \times S^2 $. The bulk metric is given by
\begin{align}
d s^2= \frac{L^2}{z^2}\big [dz^2 +f_1 (z) (dt^2 +d\rho ^2+ \rho^2 d \theta ^2+d x^2 )+f_2 (z) R_1^2 d \Omega _2 ^2\big ],
\label{e70}
\end{align}
where $ d\Omega _2 $ is the line element over $ S^2 $ and $ f_1$ and $ f_2 $ have the following expansions
\begin{align}
f_1 = 1+\dfrac{ z^2}{20 R_1^2}+ \dfrac{ z^4}{100 R_1^4}+\dfrac{z^6}{ R_1^6}\left(\frac{1}{1200}-\frac{1}{400}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right),\nonumber\\
f_2= 1-\dfrac{z^2}{5 R_1^2}-\dfrac{7 z^4}{800 R_1^4}+\dfrac{z^6}{ R_1^6}\left(\frac{7}{4800}+\frac{1}{200}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right).
\label{e71}
\end{align}
The subregion $ k \times R ^1 \times S^2 $ is defined by $ \theta \in [-\Omega,\Omega], \ x \in[-\infty ,\infty] $ and $ \rho \in [0,\infty] $. we put IR cut-offs on $ x $ and $ \rho $ directions such that $ x\in [-\tilde{H}/2 , \tilde{H}/2 ] $ and $ \rho \in[\rho_m , H] $, where $\rho_m $ is given in terms of $\delta $. Similar to the previous cases $ (z, \theta, x,\xi_0, \xi_1) $ are the coordinates on the RT surface with $ \rho =\rho (z,\theta)$. The equation of motion for $ h $ gives the following constant of motion
\begin{align}
K_6= \dfrac{(1+h^2)^{5/2}}{h^5 \sqrt{1+h^2 +\dot{h}^2}},
\label{e75}
\end{align}
Returning to the metric (\ref{e70}) we find the holographic complexity as
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)= &L^6 R _1 ^2 \tilde{H}\Omega _ 2\int d\rho d\theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1 ^{3/2} \rho}{z^6}\nonumber\\
&= L^6 R_{1}^{2}\tilde{H} \Omega _2\int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1^{3/2}}{z^6} \int _{\rho(z,\theta)}^{H} d\rho \rho \nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{ L^6 R_{1}^{2}\tilde{H} \Omega _2}{2} \left(- \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1 ^{3/2} \rho ^2}{z^6}+ H^2 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1^{3/2 }}{z^6}\right) \nonumber\\
&=V_1+V_2.
\label{e76}
\end{align}
We then insert the ansatz $ \rho=\rho_0+\rho_1/R_1^2 $, $ \rho_0=z/h(\theta)$ and $ \rho_1=z^3 g_3(\theta) $ and use (\ref{e71}) in the integrand to simplify the expressions as follows
\begin{align}
V_1=-L^6 R _1 ^2 \tilde{H}\Omega _ 2 \int^{z_m}_\delta \frac{dz}{z^2}\int _{h_0}^{h_1c}\dfrac{dh}{\dot{h}h^2}\left(\frac{1}{z^2} -\frac{1}{8 R_1^2}+\frac{2}{R_1 ^2}h g_3(\theta)\right),
\label{e77}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
V_2=L^6 R _1 ^2\Omega _ 2 H^{2} \tilde{H} \Omega \left(\frac{1}{5\delta ^5}-\dfrac{1}{24 R_1^2 \delta ^3}\right)+\mathrm{finite},
\label{e78}
\end{align}
Again we step the details of the rest of this calculation we find
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{k \times R^1\times S^1}=\dfrac{L^6 R_1^2 \tilde{H}\Omega _2}{8 \pi L G} \left(\dfrac{\Omega H^2 }{5 \delta ^5}-\dfrac{\Omega H^2}{24 R_1 ^2 \delta ^3}-\frac{1}{3 \delta ^3}\int _{h_0} ^0 \frac{dh}{\dot{h} h^2}+\frac{1}{ 8 R_1^2 \delta} \int _{h_0} ^0 \frac{dh}{\dot{h} h^2}-\frac{2}{ R_1^2 \delta}\int _{h_0} ^0 dh\frac{g_3}{\dot{h} h}\right).
\label{e88}
\end{align}
As the case of $k\times S^2$ and $k\times S^3$ new logarithmic divergent term in this case are also suppressed with a factor of $\delta^\alpha$ with a positive power.
\subsection{Conical Crease $ c_n \times \Sigma $}
In this section, we will calculate holographic complexity for subregions with conical singularities of the form $ c_n\times S^m$.
\subsubsection*{Subregion $c_1\times S^1$}
To begin with, we concider the simplest case with $m=1$. In this case, the background geometry for CFT is $ R^4\times S^1$. The dual bulk geometry is then given by
\begin{align}
d s^2= \frac{L^2}{z^2}\big [dz^2 +f_1 (z) (dt^2 +d\rho ^2+ \rho^2 d \theta ^2 +\rho ^2 \sin ^2(\theta) d \phi ^2)+f_2 (z) R_1^2 d \xi _0^2\big ],
\label{f_1}
\end{align}
where $ f_1=1+O(1/R_1^6) $ and $ f_2=1+O(1/R_1^6) $. The singular subregion of our interest is defined as $\theta \in [0,\Omega], \ \xi_0 \in[0 ,2 \pi] $, $ \phi \in[0 ,2 \pi] $ and $ \rho \in [0, H] $.
One can find that $ g_3 =0 $ is the exact solution for this case and since the equation of motion for $ h $ is the same as $ c_1 \times R^1$ case, the holographic subregion complexity might become same. Returning to the metric (\ref{f_1}) gives the holographic complexity as
\begin{align}
V(\gamma)= &L^5 R _1 4\pi ^2 \int d\rho d\theta dz \dfrac{f_2 ^{1/2} f_1 ^{3/2} \rho ^2 \sin (\theta)}{z^5}\nonumber\\
&=L^5 R _1 4\pi ^2\int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 ^{1/2} f_1^{3/2}\sin (\theta)}{z^5} \int _{\rho(z,\theta)}^{H} d\rho \rho ^2 \nonumber\\
&=\dfrac{L^5 R _1 4\pi ^2}{3}\left(- \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 ^{1/2}f_1 ^{3/2} \rho ^3}{z^5}+ H^3 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 ^{1/2}f_1^{3/2 }}{z^5}\right) \nonumber
\label{f_4}
\end{align}
Similar analysis to previous cases leads to the following divergence structure for the holographic subregion complexity for this case
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{C}_{c_1\times S^1}=&\dfrac{L^4 R_1 \pi}{6G_N}\Bigg[\dfrac{1}{4 \delta ^4}H^3 (1-\cos(\Omega))-\dfrac{\cos(\Omega) H}{6 \delta ^2}\\
&+\frac{1}{\delta}\Bigg(\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)}{3 h_0}+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega) h_0}{108 }-\dfrac{ \cos (\Omega) \cot (\Omega) f_0 h_0^2}{18}\\
&-\int _ {h_0}^{0} d h \left( \dfrac{\sin(\theta)}{\dot{h} h^3}+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)}{3 h^2}-\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos(2 \Omega) ) \cot (\Omega) \csc (\Omega )}{108 }+\dfrac{ \cos (\Omega) \cot (\Omega) f_0 h}{9} \right)\Bigg)\\
&+\dfrac{(-13+5 \cos (2\Omega)) \cot (\Omega) \csc(\Omega) }{108 H}\log (\delta )\Bigg]+\mathrm{finite}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsubsection*{Subregion $ c_1 \times S^2 $}
Next we consider the singular subregion $ c_1 \times S^2 $ in a CFT defined on $ R^4 \times S^2 $. The bulk metric is given by
\begin{align}
d s^2= \frac{L^2}{z^2}\big [dz^2 +f_1 (z) (dt^2 +d\rho ^2+ \rho^2 d \theta ^2+\rho ^2 \sin(\theta ) ^2 d \phi ^2 )+f_2 (z) R_1^2 d \Omega _2 ^2\big ],
\label{f_12}
\end{align}
where $ d\Omega _2 $ is line element over $ S^2 $ and $ f_1$ and $f_2 $ have the following expansions
\begin{align}
f_1 = 1+\dfrac{ z^2}{20 R_1^2}+ \dfrac{ z^4}{100 R_1^4}+\dfrac{z^6}{ R_1^6}\left(\frac{1}{1200}-\frac{1}{400}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right),\nonumber\\
f_2= 1-\dfrac{z^2}{5 R_1^2}-\dfrac{7 z^4}{800 R_1^4}+\dfrac{z^6}{ R_1^6}\left(\frac{7}{4800}+\frac{1}{200}\log{z}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(z^8\right).
\end{align}
Using the metric (\ref{f_12}) we find the holographic complexity as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
V(\gamma)= & 2\pi L^6 R _1^2 \Omega _2 \int d\rho d\theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1 ^{3/2} \rho ^2 \sin (\theta)}{z^6}\\
&= 2\pi L^6 R _1^2 \Omega _2\int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1^{3/2}\sin (\theta)}{z^6} \int _{\rho(z,\theta)}^{H} d\rho \rho ^2 \\
&=\dfrac{ 2\pi L^6 R _1^2 \Omega _2}{3}\left(- \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1 ^{3/2} \rho ^3}{z^6}+ H^3 \int d \theta dz \dfrac{f_2 f_1^{3/2 }}{z^6}\right)
\label{f_16}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Similar analysis to previous sections leads to
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{C}_{c_1\times S^2}^{\log }=\frac{L^5 R _1^2 \Omega _2}{12G_N}\Bigg[&\frac{3}{R_1^2}\bigg(\int _{h_0}^{0} dh\bigg[\dfrac{\sin (\theta) g_3}{\dot{h}h^2}-\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)} {80 h^2}+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)(1+\csc ^2(\Omega) )\log (h)}{384}\\
&+\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)(-3 +27 \cot ^2(\Omega)-45 \csc ^2 (\Omega) +3840 b_3)}{15360}\bigg]+\frac{\cos (\Omega)}{80 h_0 }\\
&+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)(1+\csc ^2 (\Omega))}{ 384}(h_0\log(h_0)-h_0)\\
&+\dfrac{\cos(\Omega)(-3 +27 \cot ^2(\Omega)-45 \csc ^2 (\Omega) +3840 b_3) h_0}{15360 }\bigg)\\
&-\frac{1}{8 R_1^2}\bigg(\int _{h_0}^{0} dh\left[\dfrac{\sin (\theta) }{\dot{h}h^3}+\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)}{4 h ^2}-\dfrac{\cos (\Omega) \csc ^2 (\Omega)(-11+5 \cos (2\Omega))}{256}\right]\\
&-\frac{\cos (\Omega)}{4 h_0}-\dfrac{\cos (\Omega)\csc ^2(\Omega) h_0 (-11+\cos(2\Omega))}{256}\bigg)\Bigg]\log(\delta).
\label{f_33}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\section{Discussions}
In this paper we studied the divergence structure of holographic subregion complexity for various singular surfaces. We showed that there are new divergences due to singularities in the subregion. More specifically we have shown that for a kink in a (2+1)-dimensional field theory and also cones $c_n$ in even dimensional field theories a new universal $\log\delta$ terms appears. In odd dimensional field theories the singularity of a cone $c_n$ gives rise to a $\log^2\delta$ divergent term. We also showed that surprisingly crease singularities of any type do not give rise to any universal term or even any new divergent term. For generalized conical singularities the situation is completely different. There are examples which new power law divergences appear but there is no new universal term due to the singularity. We found also an example, i.e. $c_1\times S^2$, with a curved locus that has a new universal term. Another type of conical singularity has $\frac{1}{\delta}\log\delta$ and $\frac{1}{\delta^2}\log\delta$ divergent terms for even and odd dual field theories respectively. The latter family is very similar to what has been recently found using `complexity=action' proposal on the Wheeler-DeWitt patch which also posses corners. We have summarized all of these results in a table in section \ref{sec:2}.
There are several directions to follow in future works. Regarding the divergence structure of subregion complexity, the most important question is whether one can define any monotonic function from the universal terms which leads to a kind of 'c-function' in higher \textit{odd}-dimensional dual field theories?
Another interesting open question is how to generalize complexity proposals beyond Einstein gravity. Recently there have been some proposals trying to address this question (see e.g. \cite{Bueno:2016gnv}).
A natural question about this work is how to study the role of singularities of subregions in the `complexity=action' proposal. Recently some progress have been made in \cite{Carmi:2016wjl} for spherical subregions. The authors have proposed the intersection between the ``entanglement wedge" and the corresponding WDW patch for `complexity=action' for mixed states constructed from subregions. It would be instructive to understand this proposal by considering more complicated examples.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Mohsen Alishahiha, Amin Faraji-Astaneh and Mohammad H. Vahidinia for fruitful discussions
and M. Reza Mohammadi-Mozaffar for careful reading of the manuscript.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last several years high-index dielectric nanoparticles and nanostructures~\cite{Kuznetsov2016, krasnok2012all, jahani2016all} proved to be a promising platform for various nanophotonic applications, in particular for the design of functional nanoantennas~\cite{rolly2013controllable, krasnok2014superdirective, li2015all}, enhanced spontaneous emission~\cite{Regmi2016, krasnok2015enhanced, Bonod16, sun2016fluorescence}, photovoltaics~\cite{Brongersma2014}, frequency conversion~\cite{carletti2015enhanced, makarov2016self, Shorokhov2016}, Raman scattering~\cite{dmitriev2016resonant}, and sensing~\cite{Caldarola2015}. The great interest in such nanostructures is caused mainly by their ability to control the electric and magnetic components of light at the nanoscale~\cite{Kuznetsov2016}, while exhibiting low dissipative losses inherent to the materials with a negligible concentration of free charges~\cite{Caldarola2015}. In particular, it has been demonstrated that nanoantennas composed of high-index nanoparticles have the ability to realize directional scattering of the incident light and to effectively transform the near field of feeding quantum sources into propagating electromagnetic waves~\cite{krasnok2012all}.
Modification of the spontaneous emission rate of a quantum emitter induced by its environment, known as the Purcell effect~\cite{Purrel1946PR, Pelton}, is not so pronounced in all-dielectric structures~\cite{Bozhevolnyi2016, krasnok2012all}, as in microcavities~\cite{Vahala_2003} or plasmonic nanoantennas~\cite{Russell2012, Akselrod2014}. This is due to the fact that optical resonances of high-index nanoparticles are characterized by relatively low quality factors and large mode volumes, which results in low efficiency of light-matter interaction. However, it was recently shown that this disadvantage can be overcome by relying on the Van Hove singularity of a chain of high-index nanoparticles~\cite{krasnok2016demonstration}. Such approach allows to substantially enhance the local density of optical states (LDOS) at the location of a quantum source and thus achieve high values of the Purcell factor with relatively small dielectric nanostructures while leaving unaltered all their other advantages.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{concept}
\caption{The schematic presentation of all-dielectric nanoantenna driven by electron-hole plasma photoexcitation via fs-laser pulse pumping of few boundary nanoparticles. The nanoantenna allows tuning the LDOS and radiation power pattern of a source (green arrow), and enables unidirectional launching of propagating plasmonic surface waves.}\label{concept}
\end{figure}
High-index dielectric nanostructures are also of a special interest for nonlinear nanophotonics, because they can exhibit strong nonlinear responses. It was recently predicted and experimentally demonstrated that photoexcitation of dense electron-hole plasma (EHP) in silicon (Si) nanoparticles~\cite{makarov2015tuning, Shcherbakov2015, Baranov2016} and nanodimers~\cite{baranov2016tuning} by femtosecond laser (fs-laser) pulses is accompanied by a dramatic modification of the radiation properties, whereas generation of EHP in germanium nanoantennas can even turn them into plasmonic ones in the mid-IR region~\cite{GePRL}. Here, we propose a highly tunable all-dielectric nanoantenna, consisting of a chain of Si nanoparticles excited by an electric dipole source, which allows for tuning its radiation properties via electron-hole plasma photoexcitation. We theoretically and numerically demonstrate the tuning of radiation power patterns and Purcell factor by pumping several boundary nanoparticles in the chain with relatively low peak intensities of fs-laser pulses. Moreover, we show that the proposed nanoantenna, being driven by fs-laser pulses, allows unidirectional launching of surface plasmon waves (Fig.~\ref{concept}), making this solution attractive for all-optical light manipulation systems.
\section{Results and discussion}
To briefly recall the origin of the \textit{Van Hove singularity}, let us consider a general periodic one-dimensional system supporting a set of guided modes. Decomposing its Green tensor into a series of eigenmodes, one can calculate the Purcell factor in such a system according to Ref.~\cite{Hughes}
\begin{equation}
{F} \simeq \frac{1}{\pi }{\left( {\frac{\lambda }{2}} \right)^2}\frac{c}{{{A_{{\rm{eff}}}}{V_{\rm gr}}}},
\end{equation}
with $A_{\rm eff}$ being the effective area of the resonant guided mode, $\lambda$ the free space wavelength, $V_{\rm gr}$ the group velocity of the mode, and $c$ is the speed of light. The divergence of the Purcell factor, occurring at the point of zero group velocity, is known as a Van Hove singularity. This expression clearly suggests that the Purcell factor benefits from slow light modes of the structure. In reality, its finite size prevents this divergence, but nevertheless largely enhanced Purcell factor can still be traced to the Van Hove singularity of the original structure.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dispers1}
\caption{Dispersion curves of the eigenmodes in an infinite dielectric chain. Inset: dispersion curves of group velocity ($V_{\rm gr}$) of waveguiding modes in the infinite dielectric chain. The blue and red curves correspond to TM- and TE-modes, respectively.}\label{dispers}
\end{figure}
Here, we realize a Van Hove singularity using a chain of $N$ spherical dielectric nanoparticles excited by an electric dipole (green arrow), placed in the center of the chain and perpendicularly oriented to the chain axis, Fig.~\ref{concept}. We choose Si particles with dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon_1$ close to 16 in the operational frequency range~\cite{Aspnes1983}. The nanoparticles have all the same radius $r$ and the center-to-center distance between neighboring particles is $a$.
The optical properties of nanoparticle-based nanoantennas can be understood from the infinite chain modal dispersion~\cite{Koenderink_09_NLetters, Alu_2006}. Therefore we start by calculating the optical properties of the infinite structure with an analytical approach, based on the well-known coupled-dipole model. Each particle is modeled as a combination of magnetic and electric dipoles with magnetic $\textbf{m}$ and electric $\textbf{p}$ momenta, oscillating with frequency $\omega$ [$\propto \exp(-i\omega t)$]. In the CGS system this approach leads to the linear system of equations:
\begin{align}\label{eq1}
\mathbf{p}_i &={\alpha_e}_i \sum\limits_{j \ne i}\left( \widehat{C}_{ij} \mathbf{p}_j - \widehat{G}_{ij} \mathbf{m}_j \right),\\ \nonumber
\mathbf{m}_i &={\alpha_m}_i \sum\limits_{j \ne i} \left( \widehat{C}_{ij} \mathbf{m}_j + \widehat{G}_{ij} \mathbf{p}_j \right),
\end{align}
where $\widehat{C}_{ij} = A_{ij}\widehat{I} + B_{ij}(\widehat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij} \otimes \widehat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij})$, $\widehat{G}_{ij} = - D_{ij}\widehat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij} \times \widehat{I}$, $\otimes$ is the dyadic product, $\widehat{I}$ is the unit $3 \times 3$ tensor, $\widehat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}$ is the unit vector in the direction from $i$-th to $j$-th sphere, and
\begin{align}
A_{ij} &=\dfrac{\exp(i k_h r_{ij})}{r_{ij}} \left( k_h^2-\dfrac{1}{r_{ij}^2}+\dfrac{i k_h}{r_{ij}} \right),\\ \nonumber
B_{ij} &=\dfrac{\exp(i k_h r_{ij})}{r_{ij}} \left( -k_h^2 + \dfrac{3}{r_{ij}^2} - \dfrac{3 i k_h}{r_{ij}} \right),\\ \nonumber
D_{ij} &=\dfrac{\exp(i k_h r_{ij})}{r_{ij}} \left( k_h^2 + \dfrac{i k_h}{r_{ij}} \right),
\end{align}
where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between the centers of $i$-th and $j$-th spheres, $\varepsilon_h $ is the permittivity of the host medium, $k_h=\sqrt{\varepsilon_h}\omega/c$ is the host wavenumber, $\omega=2\pi\nu$, and $\nu$ is the frequency. The quantities $\alpha_m$ and $\alpha_e$ are the magnetic and electric polarizabilities of a spherical particle~\cite{Bohren}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\alpha_e=i\dfrac{3\varepsilon_h a_1}{2k^3_h}, ~~~\alpha_m=i\dfrac{3 b_1}{2k^3_h},
\end{equation}
where $a_1$ and $b_1$ are electric and magnetic Mie coefficients. The coupled dipole approximation outlined above is justified for the geometrical parameters of the nanoparticles and their relative distance~\cite{Savelev2014}.
The solution of Eq.~\ref{eq1} without source [dispersion of waveguide eigenmodes $\omega(k)$] for the infinite dielectric chain with $r=70$~nm and $a=200$~nm in free space is shown in Fig.~\ref{dispers}. Here, we use the dimensionless wavenumber $q = \beta a/\pi$, where $\beta$ is the Bloch propagation constant. The blue and red curves correspond to transverse magnetic (TM) and transverse electric (TE) modes, respectively, which are the only modes excited by the dipole source with the chosen orientation. Both of these modes are characterized by induced magnetic and electric moments (except the points at the band edge). Due to the spectral separation of resonances of the single particle, the magnetic moments are dominant in the first branch (TM), and electric moments in the second one (TE). The inset in Fig.~\ref{dispers} shows the calculated group velocities of the waveguide modes as a function of frequency. It can be seen that the group velocity $V_{\rm gr}$ drops to zero at the band edge around $ka/\pi \approx 0.675$ and $ka/\pi \approx 0.83$. Since the symmetry of the ED source matches the symmetry of the TM staggered mode (and not the TE one), we may expect significant enhancement of the Purcell factor for a finite system around the first frequency.
To confirm this expectation, we calculate the Purcell factor using the Green's tensor approach~\cite{Novotny_Hecht_book}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
F = \frac{3}{{2k_h^3}}{\bf{z}} \cdot {\rm{Im}}[{\bf{G}}\left( {0,0;\omega } \right) ]\cdot {\bf{z}}
\end{equation}
with ${\bf{G}}\left( {0,0;\omega } \right)$ being Green's tensor of an electric dipole in the center of chain (point of the dipole source localization) and ${\bf{z}}$ being the unit vector pointing in the $z$ direction (Fig.~\ref{concept}). Fig.~\ref{2fig} shows the calculated Purcell factor as a function of wavelength and ratio $r/a$ for a dipole source located in the center of a dielectric chain with different number of particles: (a)~$N=4$, (b)~$N=6$, (c)~$N=8$, and (d)~$N=10$. We observe that increasing the number of nanoparticles $N$ gives rise to enhancement of Purcell factor. For example, the maximal value of the Purcell factor for $N=10$ reaches 250. Along with the calculations shown in Fig.~\ref{dispers}, we conclude that the maximum of Purcell factor arises around the Van Hove singularity.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{maps.pdf}
\caption{The log-scale Purcell factor as the function of the radiation wavelength and ratio $r/a$ for the dielectric chain with $\varepsilon_1=16$, for different number of nanoparticles: (a)~$N=4$, (b)~$N=6$, (c)~$N=8$, and (d)~$N=10$; $r$ is taken equal to 70~nm, $a$ is a period of the chain.}\label{2fig}
\end{figure}
Now, we are ready to show that the excitation of slow guided modes determining a Van Hove singularity is very sensitive to the electrodynamical properties of the system. Our aim is to utilize this effect to engineer highly tunable nanoantennas, for which relatively low intensities of external laser pulses can control and cause a dramatic modification of the optical properties of the material, and consequently the radiation properties (intensities of emission and power patterns) of the nanoantenna. To enable the switching of the nanoantenna properties we employ the nonlinear response caused by \textit{electron-hole plasma photoexcitation} the in boundary particles of the Si nanoantenna.
To describe EHP-induced tuning of the nanoantenna, we employ the analytical approach developed in Ref.~\cite{Baranov2016}. The dynamics of volume-averaged EHP density $\rho_{eh}$ is modeled via the rate equation
\begin{equation}\label{plasma}
\frac{{d{\rho _{{\text{eh}}}}}}{{dt}} = - \Gamma {\rho _{{\text{eh}}}} + \frac{{{W_1}}}
{{\hbar \omega }} + \frac{{{W_2}}}{{2\hbar \omega }},
\end{equation}
where, $W_{1,2}$ are the volume-averaged absorption rates due to one- and two-photon processes, and $\Gamma$ is the EHP recombination rate which depends on EHP density~\cite{Cardona}. The absorption rates are written in the usual form as ${W_1} = \frac{\omega }{{8\pi }} \left\langle {{{\left| {{\mathbf{\tilde E_{\rm in}}}} \right|}^2}} \right\rangle {\rm Im} (\varepsilon)$
and ${W_2} = \frac{\omega }{{8\pi }} \left\langle {{{\left| {{\mathbf{\tilde E_{\rm in}}}} \right|}^4}} \right\rangle \operatorname{Im} {\chi ^{(3)}}$, where angle brackets denote averaging over the nanoparticle volume, and $\operatorname{Im} {\chi ^{(3)}} = \frac{{\varepsilon {c^2}}} {{8\pi \omega }}\beta $ with $\beta$ being two-photon absorption coefficient. The relaxation rate of EHP in c-Si is dominated by Auger recombination $\Gamma = \Gamma _{\text{A}} \rho_{\rm eh}^2$ with $\Gamma_{\rm A}=4 \cdot 10^{ - 31}$~s$^{-1}$cm$^6$ (Ref.~\cite{Shank}). Now the permittivity of photoexcited Si should be related to time-dependent EHP density:
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon( {\omega ,{\rho _{\rm eh}}}) = \varepsilon_0+\Delta\varepsilon_{\rm bgr}+\Delta\varepsilon _{\rm bf} + \Delta\varepsilon _{\rm D},
\label{eps}
\end{equation}
where ${\varepsilon _{{\text{0}}}}$ is the permittivity of non-excited material, while $\Delta\varepsilon_{\text{bgr}}$, ${\Delta\varepsilon _{{\text{bf}}}}$, and $\Delta\varepsilon _{{\text{D}}}$ are the contributions from bandgap renormalization, band filling, and Drude term, respectively. The detailed expressions for all contributions in Eq.~(\ref{eps}) can be found in Ref.~\cite{Baranov2016}. In total, these three contributions lead to decrease of the real part of permittivity with increasing EHP density.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{14.pdf}
\caption{(a)~Spectral dependence of the Purcell factor for the chains of dielectric nanoparticles for different number of nanoparticles $N$: (i)~$N=4$; (ii)~$N=6$; (iii)~$N=8$. (b)~Radiation power patterns (E-plane) of the electric dipole source at the radiation wavelength of 600~nm. Red curves correspond to the unaffected chains ($\Delta\varepsilon=0$), whereas the blue ones correspond to the chains with photo-excited boundary particles ($\Delta\varepsilon=2$). }\label{3fig}
\end{figure}
The spectral dependency of the Purcell factor before and after EHP photoexcitation are presented in Fig.~\ref{3fig}(a) for a different number of particles $N$. The calculations are performed for the change of the real part of Si permittivity $\Delta \varepsilon=-2$ [where $\Delta \varepsilon=\varepsilon( {\omega ,{\rho _{\rm eh}}}) - \varepsilon_0$], which is achieved at the wavelength of 600~nm upon excitation of EHP with density $\rho_{eh}\approx 1.5 \cdot 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$. The decrease of the Purcell factor approximately by a factor of 2 in all cases (i--iii), along with the spectral broadening, are caused by symmetry breaking of the chain and corresponding decrease of the quality factor of the Van Hove singularity mode. The EHP photoexcitation also modifies the radiation pattern of the nanoantenna, Fig.~\ref{3fig}(b). Before the plasma excitation ($\Delta\varepsilon=0$) the radiation pattern has two symmetric lobes directed along the chain axis in forward and backward directions (red curves). In this case, the maximal value of directivity grows with increasing of $N$. After the plasma excitation ($\Delta\varepsilon=-2$), nanoantenna radiates mostly in the direction of the affected particles. We note that the degree of modification of the radiation pattern grows with increasing number of particles. For example, in the case of $N$=8~[Fig.~\ref{3fig}(b)iii], the directivity in the left direction is two times larger that in the right one. Thus, the EHP photoexcitation can be applied for all-optical switching of radiation patterns. Such dramatic tuning of the radiation pattern is caused by the Van Hove singularity regime of the initially unaffected nanoantenna.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{12.pdf}
\caption{(a)~Purcell factor for the chain of $N=8$ dielectric nanoparticles arranged on a SiO$_2$ substrate as a function of radiation wavelength. Difference of the dielectric permittivities of unaffected and affected particles are $\Delta\varepsilon=0$ (red curve), $\Delta\varepsilon=-1$ (green curve), and $\Delta\varepsilon=-2$ (blue curve). (b)~Power patterns for different $\Delta\varepsilon$.}\label{4fig}
\end{figure}
In the vast majority of nanoantenna realizations, the substrate substantially affects the nanoantenna characteristics (see, for example, Ref.~\cite{Krasnok2015}). For this reason, we analyze how a SiO$_2$ substrate affects the nanoantenna's characteristics. To simulate the nanoantenna consisting of 8 nanoparticles, located on the SiO$_2$ substrate with $\varepsilon_{\rm sub}=2.21$, we utilize the commercial software CST Microwave Studio. To calculate the Purcell factor, the method based on the input impedance of a small (in terms of radiation wavelength) dipole antenna~\cite{krasnok2015antenna} has been applied. The corresponding results are presented in Fig.~\ref{4fig}(a). These spectra qualitatively agree with our analytical calculations presented above. However, in this case, the substrate breaks the mirror symmetry with respect to the $z$ axis, which leads to a reduction of Purcell factor. Moreover, the numerical calculations reveal that the sharpest effect of EHP photoexcitation on the radiation pattern manifests itself when three boundary particles are illuminated [see inset in the Fig.~\ref{4fig}(a)]. During the EHP photoexcitation, the maximum of Purcell factor slightly decreases from 5.9 to 4.7 for $\Delta\varepsilon=-1$ and to 4.1 for $\Delta\varepsilon=-2$ accompanied by shifting of the resonant frequency to the shorter wavelengths due to the decrease of boundary particles dielectric permittivity.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{waveguide2.pdf}
\caption{Radiation of the nanoantenna composed by 8 Si nanoparticles placed with period 200~nm on a silver substrate with the 60~nm spacer glass layer; the dipole source is located at the center of the chain perpendicularly to the substrate. (a,c)~Electric field distribution profiles in the plane orthogonal to the source dipole in the cases of unaffected and affected three boundary nanoparticles, respectively. (b,d)~Electric field intensities as a function of $x$ coordinate in the cases of unaffected and affected three boundary nanoparticles, respectively.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{4fig}(b) demonstrates the change in radiation pattern induced by EHP photoexcitation for the nanoantenna on SiO$_2$ substrate. When $\Delta\varepsilon$=0 (unaffected nanoantenna) the radiation power pattern is symmetric with respect to the dipole axis and has two main lobes. It can be observed that the mirror symmetry of the radiation patterns with respect to the $z$ axis is broken, and the main lobes are oriented into the substrate, which has higher refractive index than the upper space. The modification of three boundary particles dramatically changes the power pattern: the reconfiguration is sufficient for practical applications even for $\Delta\varepsilon=-1$.
This effect can be used for the unidirectional launching of waveguide modes in plasmonic waveguides at will. Fig.~\ref{fig6} demonstrates this phenomenon, showing the calculated radiation of a nanoantenna composed of 8 Si nanoparticles placed with the period of 200~nm on a silver substrate with the 60~nm spacer glass (SiO$_2$) layer. The SiO$_2$ spacer serves as a buffer layer for the protection of silver substrate from sulfidation. The dipole source is located at the center of chain perpendicular to the substrate. Figs.~\ref{fig6}(a) and (b) show the electric field distribution profile and the electric field intensity as a function of the $x$ coordinate in the cases of the unaffected nanoantenna, respectively. It can be seen that the nanoantenna launches surface plasmons symmetrically to the positive and negative directions of axis $x$. However, when three boundary nanoparticles are illuminated by the pump beam, the nanoantenna launches surface plasmons almost unidirectionally, Figs.~\ref{fig6}(c,d). We achieve a value of front-to-back ratio up to 5 for this geometry, Fig.~\ref{fig6}(d).
As a final step of our analysis, we estimate the parameters of a pump pulse required for generation of $1.5 \cdot 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ EHP, assumed in the electromagnetic calculations above. At the high intensities required for photoexcitation of Si, two-photon absorption (TPA) usually dominates over one-photon process~\cite{Baranov2016}. Silicon has a particularly large TPA coefficient between 600 and 700 nm~\cite{Reitze}. We set the wavelength of pump pulse to 650 nm in order to avoid the interference between pump and dipole source signals. Estimating the enhancement factors for $ \left\langle {{{\left| {{\mathbf{\tilde E_{\rm in}}}} \right|}^2}} \right\rangle$ and $ \left\langle {{{\left| {{\mathbf{\tilde E_{\rm in}}}} \right|}^4}} \right\rangle$ for a Si nanoparticle on a substrate and using equations (\ref{plasma}) to calculate the dynamics of EHP density, we find that a 200 fs pulse with peak intensity of 35~GW/cm$^2$ and 25~GW/cm$^2$ provides $1.5 \cdot 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ EHP in the nanoparticle on a glass and silver substrates, respectively, during $\approx 1$ ps that should be sufficient for obtaining the degree of tuning demonstrated above.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have proposed highly tunable all-dielectric nanoantennas, consisting of a chain of Si nanoparticles excited by an electric dipole source, that allow tuning their radiation properties via electron-hole plasma photoexcitation. We have theoretically and numerically demonstrated the tuning of radiation power patterns and the Purcell effect by additional pumping several boundary nanoparticles with relatively low peak intensities. We have also demonstrated that these effects remain valid for the nanoantenna situated on a dielectric surface. The proposed nanoantenna, driven by fs-laser pulses, also allows tunable unidirectional launching of surface plasmon waves, with interesting implications for modern nonlinear nanophotonics.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was financially supported by Russian Science Foundation (Grant 15-19-30023) and by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project~16-37-60076). This work was also partially supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
|
\section{Introduction}
By the time Nicolaus Copernicus postulated that the Earth revolves around the Sun -- and not vice versa -- humans had already been studying eclipses for thousands of years \citep{lizha1998}. Indeed, one of the oldest-known astrophysical phenomena is syzygy, when three or more celestial bodies become co-linear. Although often defined in terms of the Sun, Moon and Earth only, syzygys could involve other Solar system bodies, and more than three total. \cite{mcdonald1986} computed the frequencies of a variety of Solar system syzygys, and \cite{peagle2016} provided specific examples, such as when the Sun, Venus, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn achieved syzygy in the year 1683, and when the Sun, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn will achieve syzygy in the year 2040.
In the argot of astronomers, the terms {\it eclipse}, {\it transit}, and {\it occultation} have come to represent syzygy in different contexts (e.g. the Sun is eclipsed, whereas exo-planets transit, and stars are occulted). Semantics aside, the geometrical configuration provided by a syzygy yields invaluable information. The Sun's corona is visible from Earth only during particular types of syzygys, the rings around the asteroid Chariklo were detected only because of a different type of syzygy \citep{braetal2014}, and the first putative detection of rings around an exo-moon were made possible because of syzygys \citep{kenmam2015}. In fact, exo-planetary systems containing multiple planets which transit their parent star or stars have the potential to be ``most information-rich planetary systems besides our own solar system'' \citep{raghol2010}. The idea of exo-syzygy is not just a possibility, but a reality: exo-planets like Kepler-1647~b have already achieved syzygy with both of its parent stars and the Earth \citep{kosetal2016}.
Almost ubiquitously, syzygys have been studied by assuming a viewpoint on or close to the Earth's surface. However, the motivation for studying syzygys in a more general context has now received added impetus with (i) the numerous space missions that visit other parts of the Solar system (and beam back data from a variety of viewpoints), and (ii) the febrile desire to find habitable planets and understand what life is like on them. Cassini, MESSENGER and New Horizons are but a few of the robotic spacecraft which have provided us with different perspectives. The great fortune that our nearest stellar neighbour (Proxima Centuri) happens to host a detectable planet in the habitable zone \citep{angetal2016} has provided an ideal flyby candidate for the Breakthrough Starshot mission\footnote{http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/}, which has already received significant financial backing.
Here, we formulate a geometry for three-body syzygys in a general-enough context for wide applications and which yields an easy-to-apply collection of formulae given only the radii and mutual distances of the three bodies. We then apply the formulae to a wide variety of Solar system syzygys and extrasolar syzygys. We begin in Section 2 by establishing our setup. We then place eclipses into context for three different combinations of stars, planets and moons in Sections 3-5 by providing limits in each case from the results of the derivations in Appendices A and B and from stability criteria. We apply our formulae to a plethora of specific cases for the Solar system in Section 6 and for extrasolar systems in Sections 7-8. We conclude with a useful algorithm, including a user-friendly flow chart, in Section 9.
All data used in the applications are taken from two sources unless otherwise specified: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Solar System Dynamics website\footnote{http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/} and the Exoplanet Data Explorer\footnote{http://exoplanets.org/}.
\section{Setup}
We model planetary systems that include three spherical bodies, at least one of which is a star.
Because we consider the systems only at syzygy,
no motion is assumed, allowing for a general treatment with wide applicability.
\subsection{Nomenclature}
We denote the star as the ``primary'', the body on or around which an
observer/detector might see an eclipse as the ``target'', and the
occulting/transiting/eclipsing body as the ``occulter''. The occulter
may be a planet (Case I), star (Case II) or moon (Case III), and we
consider these individual cases in turn in Sections 3-5. We denote the
radii of the primary, occulter and target to be, respectively $R_1$,
$R_2$ and $R_3$, and the pairwise distances between
the centres of the objects as $r_{12}$, $r_{23}$ and $r_{13}$. We assume that
the primary is the largest of the three objects, such that $R_1 > R_2$ and $R_1 > R_3$,
but make no assumptions about the relative sizes of the occulter and target.
All results are derived in terms of the radii and mutual distances only.
The masses of the bodies $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ rarely factor in the equations,
but regardless are convenient identifiers for diagrams and will primarily
be used for that purpose.
\subsection{Mutual distances}
The values of any two of $r_{12}$, $r_{13}$ and $r_{23}$ may be given, allowing for
trivial computation of the third value. For Cases I and II, when the occulter is a planet or star,
the astrocentric distances $r_{12}$ and $r_{13}$ are often known, whereas for Case III,
when the occulter is a moon, $r_{13}$ and $r_{23}$ are often known from observations.
However, in both observational and theoretical studies, orbits with respect to centres
of mass (as in barycentric and Jacobi coordinates) are sometimes more valuable.
Denote $r_{123}$ as the distance of the target to the centre of mass of the primary and occulter.
Then
\begin{equation}
r_{13} = r_{123} + \left(\frac{M_1}{M_1 + M_2}\right) r_{12}
.
\label{r13}
\end{equation}
Observations from Earth rarely catch three-bodies in an exo-planetary system in syzygy.
Therefore, instantaneously measured or estimated mutual distances may
not be as helpful as orbital parameters, such as semimajor axis $a$, eccentricity
$e$ and true anomaly $\Pi$. They are related to separation as
\begin{equation}
r_{12} = \frac{a_{12} \left(1 - e_{12}^2\right)}{1 + e_{12} \cos{\left[\Pi_{12}(t_{\rm s})\right]} }
\label{r12}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}with similar forms for $r_{23}$, $r_{13}$ and $r_{123}$.
The values of $a$ and $e$ can be treated as fixed
on orbital timescales, whereas $\Pi$ is a proxy for time evolution. In three-body
systems, at some points along the mutual orbits -- at nodal intersections --
the three bodies achieve syzygy. The inclinations, longitudes of ascending nodes
and arguments of pericentre
of the bodies help determine eclipse details associated with motion (such as duration length);
here we consider only the static case at syzygy, and hence are unconcerned with
these other parameters, as well as the time at which the true anomalies achieve syzygy.
\subsection{Radiation cones}
In all cases, the radiation emanating from the primary will form two different types of cones
with the occulter, because the latter is smaller than the former. The first type of cone,
yielding total and annular eclipses,
is formed from outer or external tangent lines (Fig. \ref{cart1}; for derivations, see Appendix A). The second
type of cone, yielding partial eclipses, form from the inner or internal tangent
lines (Fig. \ref{cart2}; for derivations, see Appendix B).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{UmbraAntumbra3.eps}
\caption{
A geometrical sketch for the umbra and antumbra. The cone defined by the radiation
emitted from the spherical primary
has a height $h$ and circumscribes the occulter. If the target intersects the umbral cone at syzygy,
then a total eclipse will occur as seen by an observer on the target. The projected area of
the total eclipse area is defined by the radius $R_{\rm umb}$. Otherwise, an annular eclipse will
occur, with a projected radius of $R_{\rm ant}$. The primary is always
larger than the occulter and target.
}
\label{cart1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Penumbra7.eps}
\caption{
A geometrical sketch for the penumbral shadow, which,
in contrast to Fig. \ref{cart1}, is bounded by internal
tangent lines between the primary and occulter (the external
tangent lines of Fig. \ref{cart1} produce a longer cone). The height of
the cone here is $d$. The illustration
depicts the shadow falling on only part of the target; for a distant-enough
or small-enough target, $R_{\rm pen}$ would no longer be defined.
}
\label{cart2}
\end{figure}
\section{Case I: planet occulter}
We now apply our geometrical formalism to three general cases, starting
with that of a planet occulter. One specific example of this case would be Mercury
transiting the Sun as viewed from Earth. In what follows, we note that
given semimajor axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$, one can
generate bounds on the mutual distances by considering their pericentric
$\left[a(1-e)\right]$ and apocentric $\left[a(1+e)\right]$
values.
\subsection{Never total eclipses}
From equation (\ref{cond}), a total eclipse can never occur if
\begin{equation}
{\rm max}(h+n) < {\rm min}(r_{13}) - R_3
\label{nevminmax}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}or
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1}{R_1 - R_2} < \left(\frac{a_{13}}{a_{12}}\right)
\left(\frac{1 - e_{13} - \frac{R_3}{a_{13}}}{1 + e_{12}}\right)
.
\label{rratio}
\end{equation}
In all cases, because the primary is a star and the target
must lie at a sufficiently large distance from the occulter to remain stable,
the term $R_3/a_{13}$ is negligible. For example, in an extreme case, for a
Jupiter-sized planet at 0.05 au away from a star (with another planet in-between),
then $R_3/a_{13} \approx 1\%$.
The ratio on the left-hand side of the equation could take on a variety of values
depending on the nature of the star. If the star is a giant branch star, then
$R_1 \gg R_2$ and
\begin{equation}
\left[1 + \frac{R_2}{R_1} \right] a_{12} \left(1 + e_{12}\right) \lesssim a_{13} \left(1 - e_{13} \right)
\label{never}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}which is effectively a condition on crossing orbits and hence is
always true for our setup. {\it Therefore, total eclipses cannot occur in extrasolar
systems with two planets and one giant star}.
If instead the star is a main sequence star larger than a red dwarf, then it is useful to
consider the fact that the planet's size is bounded according to
max$(R_2) \approx 0.01R_{\odot}$. For a red dwarf,
around which potentially habitable planets like Proxima b
have been discovered \citep{angetal2016}, max$(R_2) \approx 0.1R_{\odot}$.
In either approximation, {\it for any main sequence stars, equation (\ref{never}) holds and total
eclipses can never occur}.
\subsection{Always total eclipses}
For smaller stars, like white dwarfs, we now consider the opposite extreme.
A total eclipse will {\it always} occur if
\begin{equation}
{\rm min}(h+n) \ge {\rm max}(r_{13}) - R_3
\label{alwminmax}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}or
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1}{R_1 - R_2} \ge \left(\frac{a_{13}}{a_{12}}\right)
\left(\frac{1 + e_{13} - \frac{R_3}{a_{13}}}{1 - e_{12}}\right)
,
\label{alwear}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}which we approximate as
\begin{equation}
a_{12} \left(1 - e_{12}\right) \gtrsim a_{13} \left(1 + e_{13} \right)
\left[1 - \frac{R_2}{R_1} \right]
.
\label{always}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}by removing the $R_3/a_{13}$ term but otherwise not making any assumptions
about the relative values of $R_1$ and $R_2$. Equation (\ref{always}) holds true when
the term in the square brackets is sufficiently small.
{\it Therefore, if the primary and occulter are about the same size (such as an Earth-like
planet orbiting a white dwarf), then a total eclipse
always occurs}. Otherwise, the bracketed term determines the factor by
which the apocentre of the outer planet must be virtually reduced in
order to satisfy the equation. Usefully, the equation explicitly contains
the pericentre of the inner planet and the apocentre of the outer planet.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{ConPlot.eps}
\caption{
Where total eclipses in circumbinary systems cannot occur.
Here circular orbits ($e_{12} = e_{123} = 0$) and equal
stellar densities are assumed. The units of $R_1$ and $R_2$
were arbitrarily chosen, and in fact may be any other unit.
This plot was derived from equation (\ref{Rseven}).
}
\label{cont}
\end{figure}
\section{Case II: stellar occulter}
Because circumbinary planets are now known to be common and will continue to represent
a source for some of the most fascinating planetary systems in the foreseeable
future \citep{armetal2014,martri2015,sahetal2015}, the case of a stellar occulter is important to consider.
When a system contains two stars and one circumbinary planet, then the planet's
orbital elements are usually measured with respect to the centre of mass
of the stars (and contain a subscript of ``123'', as indicated in Section 2).
\subsection{Never total eclipses}
Hence, combining the condition for total eclipses to
never occur (equation \ref{nevminmax})
with equation (\ref{r13}) yields
\begin{equation}
{\rm min}(h+n) < {\rm max}(r_{123}) + {\rm max}\left(\frac{r_{12}M_1}{M_1+M_2}\right) - R_3.
\end{equation}
This expression, under the reasonable assumption $e_{12}$~$=$~$0$ for
circumbinary planet host stars, gives
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1}{R_1-R_2} < \frac{a_{123}\left(1 - e_{123}\right)}{a_{12}}
+ \frac{M_1}{M_1+M_2} - \frac{R_3}{a_{12}}
.
\label{e12circ}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}The last term can be neglected because $R_3 \ll R_1 < a_{12}$.
We can go further and consider cases in which both stars
have the same density. Then equation (\ref{e12circ})
becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1R_2 \left(R_{1}^2 + R_{2}^2\right)}
{\left(R_1 - R_2\right)\left(R_{1}^3 + R_{2}^3\right)}
<
\frac{a_{123} \left(1 - e_{123} \right)}{a_{12}},
\end{equation}
\noindent{}which illustrates that to ensure a total eclipse will never
occur, a planet's pericentre must be sufficiently distant, and the stellar
orbit must be sufficiently tight.
We can now take the relation even further. If we know that the planet
is on a circular orbit ($e_{123}=0$),
then we may use the stability boundary of equation 3 of
\cite{holwie1999}, which yields
(still assuming $e_{12} = 0$),
\
\
\[
{\rm min}\left(a_{123}\right) \approx
\]
\begin{equation}
\ \ \ a_{12} \left[
1.60 + 4.12 \left(\frac{M_2}{M_1 + M_2} \right) - 5.09 \left(\frac{M_2}{M_1 + M_2}\right)^2
\right].
\end{equation}
This boundary, along with the assumptions of circularity and equal stellar densities,
allow us to write the condition for ensuring total eclipses on the target in
terms of only the stellar radii as
\[
\frac{R_{1}^6 R_2 - 3.12 R_{1}^4 R_{2}^3 + 5.12 R_{1}^3 R_{2}^4
+ 1.97R_{1}R_{2}^6 - 0.97R_{2}^7
}
{\left(R_1 - R_2\right)\left(R_{1}^3 + R_{2}^3\right)^2}
< 1.6
.
\]
\begin{equation}
\label{Rseven}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}We plot Fig. \ref{cont} from equation (\ref{Rseven}), and recall
that our setup requires $R_1>R_2$. The plot emphasizes that the radii of
both stars must be close to each other in order to maintain the possibility
of a total eclipse.
\subsection{Always total eclipses}
In order to guarantee a total eclipse, we combine equation (\ref{alwminmax})
with equation (\ref{r13}) to yield
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1}{R_1-R_2} \ge \frac{a_{123}\left(1 + e_{123}\right)}{a_{12}}
+ \frac{M_1}{M_1+M_2} - \frac{R_3}{a_{12}}
.
\label{e12tot}
\end{equation}
This equation illustrates that when $R_1 = R_2$, a total eclipse will
always occur. We can again neglect the last term. Under the assumption
of equivalent stellar densities, we find
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_1R_2 \left(R_{1}^2 + R_{2}^2\right)}
{\left(R_1 - R_2\right)\left(R_{1}^3 + R_{2}^3\right)}
\ge
\frac{a_{123} \left(1 + e_{123} \right)}{a_{12}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Case III: moon occulter}
For a moon occulter (such as the Sun-Earth-Moon system),
we follow a similar procedure as
to the last two sections in order
to provide relations which establish parameter space regimes
in which total eclipses can never or always occur.
First we note that additional constraints can be imposed
on the moon's orbital size, from both below and above.
These constraints may be used with the formulae below depending
on what quantities are known.
As detailed in \cite{payetal2016}, moons can exist in stable orbits if they
reside somewhere outside of the Roche, or disruption, radius of the planet,
and inside about one-half of a Hill radius (see also
\citealt*{hamkri1997}, \citealt*{dometal2006} and \citealt*{donnison2010}). Hence,
\begin{equation}
k_{\rho} \left(\frac{M_1}{\rho_2} \right)^{1/3} < r_{23} < k_{\rm H} a_{13} \left(1 - e_{13}\right) \left(\frac{M_3}{3M_1} \right)^{1/3}
\end{equation}
\noindent{}where $\rho$ refers to density, and $k_{\rho}$ and $k_{\rm H}$ are constants.
$k_{\rho}$ is a constant which can take on a variety of values
depending on the body's shape, composition and spin, and typically span the range 0.78-1.53
\citep[Table 1 of][]{veretal2017}. Although a common value of $k_{\rm H}$ is 0.5, it is
dependent on the direction of revolution and other properties of the moon.
\subsection{Never total eclipses}
In the context of typically-known orbital elements in systems
with a moon, equation (\ref{nevminmax}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{R_1}{R_1-R_2}\right) {\rm max}\left(r_{13} - r_{23}\right)
<
{\rm min}\left(r_{13}\right) - R_3
,
\end{equation}
\noindent{}which can be simplified, by neglecting a $R_3/a_{13}$ term,
to
\begin{equation}
\frac{a_{23}}{a_{13}} > \frac{1+e_{13}-\left(1 - e_{13}\right)
\left[\frac{R_1 - R_2}{R_1} \right] }
{1-e_{23}}.
\label{moon1}
\end{equation}
If both orbits are circular, then equation (\ref{moon1}) reduces
to the compact form
\begin{equation}
\frac{a_{23}}{a_{13}} > \frac{R_2}{R_1}.
\label{simple}
\end{equation}
For the case of the Sun, Moon and Earth, both sides of equation (\ref{simple})
are nearly equal (to within a few per cent of about 0.0025). Hence, because the
equation sometimes holds, the Moon sometimes produces total eclipses, and
sometimes does not.
\subsection{Always total eclipses}
In a similar fashion, the condition to ensure that total eclipses will occur
(equation \ref{alwminmax}) gives
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{R_1}{R_1-R_2} \right){\rm min}\left(r_{13} - r_{23}\right)
\ge
{\rm max}\left(r_{13}\right) - R_3
,
\end{equation}
\noindent{}or, by neglecting a $R_3/a_{13}$ term,
\begin{equation}
\frac{a_{23}}{a_{13}} \le \frac{1-e_{13}-\left(1 + e_{13}\right)
\left[\frac{R_1 - R_2}{R_1} \right] }
{1+e_{23}}
\label{moon1}
.
\end{equation}
\section{Application to Solar system}
We begin applying our general formalism to real systems by considering
three-body subsets of the Solar system. Table \ref{ectable} lists
some properties of these subsystems. For almost every subsystem,
we provide two extreme cases, when the distance between the occulter
and target are minimized and maximized. We achieve these limits
by computing the relevant ratios of orbital pericentres and apocentres.
We emphasize that the values in the table are theoretical estimates
based on our formalism here and do not take into account the
many complications that exist in reality, such as oblateness
and albedo effects. Nevertheless, the table reveals interesting
facets about eclipses.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c}
\label{ectable}
\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{primary} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{occulter} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{target} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{23}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{12}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{umbra or} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{engulfed} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{engulfed} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm umb}$ or} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{max($\phi_{23}$)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{max$(g)$}
\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{antumbra} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{in umb/ant?} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{in pen?} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm ant}$ (km)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{}
\\
\hline
\\
Sun & Mercury & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.217' & $4.45 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
Sun & Mercury & Earth & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.158' & $2.53 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
Sun & Venus & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 1.09' & $1.12 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Sun & Venus & Earth & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.933 & $8.79 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Sun & Moon & Earth & min & max & ant & no & no & 149 & 29.9' & $0.847$ \\
Sun & Moon & Earth & max & min & umb & no & no & 110 & 31.5' & 1.0 \\
Jupiter & Io & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0213' & $6.80 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Jupiter & Europa & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0183' & $5.00 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Jupiter & Ganymede & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0308' & $1.42 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Callisto & Earth & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0030' & $1.31 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
Sun & Earth & Moon & min & min & umb & yes & yes & -- & 32.5' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Earth & Moon & max & max & umb & yes & yes & -- & 31.4' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Earth & Mars & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.803' & $1.20 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Sun & Earth & Mars & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.429' & $4.99 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Sun & Phobos & Mars & min & min & ant & no & no & 9.34 & 12.5' & $0.289$ \\
Sun & Phobos & Mars & max & max & ant & no & no & 5.02 & 13.1' & $0.463$ \\
Sun & Deimos & Mars & min & min & ant & no & no & 61.4 & 2.12' & $8.40 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Sun & Deimos & Mars & max & max & ant & no & no & 49.8 & 2.12' & $1.22 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
Sun & Earth & Jupiter & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0744' & $1.33 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Sun & Earth & Jupiter & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0655' & $1.25 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Sun & Io & Jupiter & min & min & umb & no & no & 1490 & 6.46' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Io & Jupiter & max & max & umb & no & no & 1520 & 5.86' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Europa & Jupiter & min & min & umb & no & no & 990 & 6.46' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Europa & Jupiter & max & max & umb & no & no & 1050 & 5.86' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Ganymede & Jupiter & min & min & umb & no & no & 1690 & 6.46' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Ganymede & Jupiter & max & max & umb & no & no & 1780 & 5.86' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Callisto & Jupiter & min & min & umb & no & no & 694 & 6.46' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Callisto & Jupiter & max & max & umb & no & no & 877 & 5.86' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Pluto & Charon & circ & min & umb & yes & yes & -- & 1.08' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Pluto & Charon & circ & max & umb & yes & yes & -- & 0.649' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Charon & Pluto & circ & min & umb & no & no & 603 & 1.08' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Charon & Pluto & circ & max & umb & no & no & 604 & 0.649' & 1.0 \\
Sun & Jupiter & Pl. Nine & circ & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 0.0043' & 0.010 \\
Jupiter & Io & Europa & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 52.3' & $5.18 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Io & Europa & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 48.9' & $4.73 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Io & Ganymede & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 19.5' & $1.87 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Io & Ganymede & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 19.3' & $1.84 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Ganymede & Callisto & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 22.8' & $7.81 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Jupiter & Ganymede & Callisto & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 21.9' & $7.46 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Saturn & Encleadus & Tethys & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 30.9' & $5.09 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
Saturn & Titan & Hyperion & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 84.7' & $9.62 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
Saturn & Titan & Hyperion & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 50.7' & $3.78 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
Uranus & Titania & Oberon & min & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 37.4' & $1.55 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
Uranus & Titania & Oberon & max & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 36.7' & $1.51 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
Neptune & Triton & Nereid & circ & max & ant & yes & yes & -- & 9.12' & $5.49 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
Neptune & Triton & Nereid & circ & min & ant & yes & yes & -- & 1.00' & $3.25 \times 10^{-3}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Eclipse properties of three-body subsystems within the Solar system at syzygy. A value of ``circ'' in the fourth and fifth columns indicates a circular orbit. The penultimate column provides the maximum possible angular diameter as observed on the target, and the final column gives the maximum eclipse depth (from equation \ref{gval}). When this latter value is equal to unity, a total eclipse occurs for an observer co-linear with the syzygy.}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{PapPlot.eps}
\caption{
The eclipse depths and angular diameters of some exo-planetary syzygys in
the TRAPPIST-1, Kepler-444 and Kepler-47 systems. Kepler-47 is a circumbinary
system and the other two are single-star systems. The letters indicate
which bodies are in syzygy.
}
\label{Exostats}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c}
\label{ectable}
\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{primary} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{occulter} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{target} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{23}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_{12}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{umbra or} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{engulfed} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{engulfed} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm umb}$ or} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{max($\phi_{23}$)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{max$(g)$}
\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{antumbra} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{in umb/ant?} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{in pen?} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$R_{\rm ant}$ (km)} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{}
\\
\hline
\\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet b & Planet e & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 18.7' & $1.96 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet c & Planet e & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 23.9' & $3.18 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet d & Planet e & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 32.5' & $5.89 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet b & Planet f & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 12.3' & $1.46 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet c & Planet f & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 14.1' & $1.93 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet d & Planet f & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 14.2' & $1.96 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet e & Planet f & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 30.0' & $8.78 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet b & Planet g & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 9.37' & $1.27 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet c & Planet g & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 10.3' & $1.54 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet d & Planet g & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 9.44' & $1.28 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet e & Planet g & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 15.9' & $3.63 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
TRAPPIST-1 & Planet f & Planet g & circ & circ & ant & yes & yes & -- & 38.5' & $2.14 \times 10^{-2}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Eclipse properties of three potentially habitable planets (planets e, f and g) in the TRAPPIST-1 system. The columns are equivalent to those in Table 1 for easy comparison; the penultimate column provides the maximum possible angular diameter as observed on the target, and the final column gives the maximum eclipse depth (from equation \ref{gval}). All planets are assumed to be coplanar and have circular orbits. Data for these computations is taken from Gillon et al. (2017).}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Observers on Earth}
The first ten cases are applicable to observers on Earth.
The disc of Venus appears 5-10 times larger than the disc
of Mercury when transiting the Sun. Mercury's angular diameter
can change significantly -- by about a quarter -- depending on
its distance from both the Sun and the Earth.
Both Mercury and Venus
generate transit depths which are less than $10^{-3}$,
and antumbral cones which completely engulf the Earth.
The Sun-Earth-Moon cases emphasize how unusual the
situation is in which humans find themselves. Depending on
the Sun-Earth and Earth-Moon distances, either
a total eclipse or annular eclipse can occur\footnote{In rare
cases, a ``hybrid'' or ``mixed'' eclipse occurs when
both total and annular eclipses occur during the same event.
More technically, the transition into and out of syzygy creates changes
in all mutual distances such that during this transition
some parts of the Earth satisfy the upper branch
of equation (\ref{cond}) and others satisfy the lower branch of that
equation.}.
The minimum eclipse depth is about 0.85, which demonstrates
that at a minimum, 92 per cent of the Sun's disc is covered
by the Moon. Neither the umbral nor antumbral cones ever
engulf the Earth. In fact, the projected radius of the shadow
cast on Earth does not exceed 150 km (or 93
miles)\footnote{Actually a more accurate upper limit, due
to effects not considered here, is 140 km.}.
The penumbral cone also does not engulf the Earth, and
produces a much larger shadow with a projected radius of
3380-3640 km (2100-2260 miles).
Compared to every other table entry with the Sun as primary,
the angular diameter of the moon on the
Sun's disc is large: about half of a degree. Only observers
on Mars watching Phobos transit the Sun would see an angular
diameter which is a third of that of the Moon on the Sun.
If an astronaut was standing on the Moon during an Earth
eclipse of the Sun, they would always see a total eclipse.
\subsection{Other perspectives}
Observatories on Mars must fit themselves into smaller targets
-- on the order of just km or tens of km -- in order to see annular
eclipses produced by that planet's satellites.
Phobos' eclipses are substantial enough to block out
about one-third to one-half of the Sun's light.
The eclipses due to the Earth as viewed on Mars are less
prominent, and are roughly comparable to Venus transits
of the Sun as viewed on Earth.
Regarding the outer Solar system,
Jupiter is large enough to easily create
total eclipses on all of the Galilean satellites.
Pluto and Charon
create total eclipses on one another, with the umbral
shadow of Pluto completely engulfing Charon. If Planet Nine
\citep{deldel2014,iorio2014,batbro2016}
exists (assuming a radius of $1.5R_{\oplus}$ and a separation
of 750 au), then the
view from that distant
wanderer during a Jupiter eclipse would see a transit
depth of 1 per cent, despite an angular diameter of
just one-quarter of an arcsecond.
The last 13 rows of the table describe situations where
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune is considered
to be the primary and the occulter and target are two
attached moons. In all cases, an annular eclipse occurs,
and the antumbral shadow encompasses the target.
The transit depths are within an order of $10^{-3}$
and the angular diameters are on the order of tens of
arcminutes. The largest value of $\phi_{23}$ (over one degree)
occurs with Titan and Hyperion, which are highly disparate
in size (Titan is 19 times greater in radius) and yet very
close to each other (in fact within a $4$:$3$ mean motion resonance).
\section{Application to known exo-systems}
Exo-planetary systems are now known to host a wide variety of exo-planets, with masses
ranging from 1.6 Lunar masses \citep{wolszczan1994,konwol2003} all the way into the stellar regime.
About 41 per cent of all known planets are in multiple-planet systems, which lead to eclipses
of Type I. A couple dozen planets have two stellar hosts and orbit in a circumbinary fashion,
leading to Type II eclipses. Although no exo-moons have yet been confirmed (for Type III eclipses),
vigorous searches have been undertaken \citep{heller2017},
even despite our current unfortunate observational sensitivity to a distance range of tenths of au
(where we do not see any moons in the Solar system).
The data we have on exo-planets is typically not as accurate as those for the Solar system planets,
and contains missing parameters. For example, exo-planets detected by transit photometry but not confirmed
with Doppler radial velocity measurements do not have measured masses. Exo-planets detected by radial velocity
measurements but not with transit have no radius measurements, and only lower bounds on mass. Transiting
exo-planets sometimes do not have secure eccentricity values, meaning that their apocentric and pericentric
distances are uncertain. Further, other physical effects which could have significant impacts
on transits (but not treated here) such as oblateness, tidal distortions,
and extended atmospheres are often or always not well-constrained in exoplanetary systems.
Despite these caveats, we can analyze some systems of interest: TRAPPIST-1 \citep{giletal2017},
Kepler-444 \citep{cametal2015} and Kepler-47 \citep{oroetal2012}. TRAPPIST-1 and Kepler-444
are single-star 7-planet and 5-planet systems, containing all terrestrial/rocky planets of radii
between about $0.4-1.2R_{\oplus}$. Kepler-47 is a 2-planet circumbinary planetary system
with two planets of radii $3.0R_{\oplus}$ and $4.7R_{\oplus}$. Conveniently, all planets in all
systems are lettered in alphabetical order according to their distance from the parent star(s).
By using semimajor axis values to represent distances, we compute some quantities of interest.
Figure \ref{Exostats} displays the maximum eclipse depth ($g$) versus the maximum angular diameter ($\phi_{23}$)
for three-body combinations in these systems. The two highest eclipse depths both arise from
the circumbinary Kepler-47 system, and viewers on the outermost planet (d) in the TRAPPIST-1 system
will see very similar transit features from each of the inner planets (b and c). In that system, the transit
of planet b as viewed from planet c has the largest angular diameter: over one degree.
We take a closer look at the TRAPPIST-1 system in Table 2, where we compute eclipse quantities
for the three targets which are most likely to be habitable (planets e, f and g). In no case on these
planets will a total eclipse occur, and in all cases the eclipse depth is between one and ten per cent
and the maximum angular diameter between about ten and thirty arcseconds.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{FlowEclipse3.eps}
\caption{
Algorithm to compute eclipse properties given only radii and mutual distances.
}
\label{Flowchart}
\end{figure*}
\section{Application to anticipated exo-systems}
The discovery of exo-moons will inevitably introduce questions about whether and
what types of eclipses will occur. The formalism here can be applied directly to
such situations. As a proof-of-concept, imagine that a large moon was found orbiting
a Jupiter in a low-mass star system, such that $R_1 = 0.2R_{\odot}$,
$R_2 = R_{\rm Jup}$ and $R_3 = 0.5R_{\oplus}$, with $r_{12} = 1$~au
and $r_{23} = 385 \times 10^3$~km (the mean Moon-Earth distance). In this case,
the moon would experience total
eclipses, and, as viewed from the moon, max$\left(\phi_{23}\right) \approx 6.4'$.
Another type of planetary system include planets orbiting stars at the point
during their evolution -- the asymptotic giant branch phase -- when the host star
radius is maximum. So far, only one planet candidate has been reported to
orbit such a star \citep{keretal2016}, but only after the stellar radius has
contracted following a period of expansion. Suppose instead that the star had $R_1 = 1.5$~au
and hosted two Earth-like planets ($R_2 = R_{\oplus}$ and $R_3 = R_{\oplus}$).
Suppose these planets were sufficiently far ($r_{12} = 2.5$~au and $r_{23} = 3.0$~au)
to have survived the tidal pull of the star on the asymptotic giant branch \citep{musvil2012}. Then
an annular eclipse would occur, and despite the relatively enormous stellar
size, max$(\phi_{23}) = 0.59'$. However,
$g = 2.6 \times 10^{-8}$, producing a negligible change in brightness of the giant star.
Now consider white dwarf planetary systems. At least 5 of the Solar system planets will survive
into the Solar white dwarf phase \citep{veras2016a,veras2016b}, and signatures of planetary debris persist
in the atmospheres of over 30 per cent of all white dwarfs \citep{koeetal2014} and is detected in
circumstellar discs \citep{farihi2016}. Planets are hence expected to orbit white dwarfs at distances
of a few au. A white dwarf hosting two Earth-like planets then feature syzygys where all three objects
are nearly the same size. Imagine that $R_1 = R_{\oplus}$, $R_2 = 0.95 R_{\oplus}$, $R_3 = 0.95 R_{\oplus}$,
$r_{12} = 2.5$~au and $r_{13} = 3.0$~au. Then a total eclipse will occur such that even though
the umbral shadow does not quite engulf the target ($R_{\rm umb} = 5990$ km), the penumbral shadow does.
Despite the total eclipse, the maximum angular diameter which would be eclipsed is just 0.97'.
\section{Summary}
Syzygys are common features of planetary systems, including our own. Here,
we have constructed an infundibuliform geometry which characterises eclipses, transits
and occultations under one framework. Given only radii and mutual distances, several
quantities -- such as eclipse type, shadow radii and transit depth -- can be computed with basic
trigonometry (Appendices A and B). We illustrate a user-friendly equation flow detailing these computations
in Fig. \ref{Flowchart}.
We have also analyzed three classes of special cases, when the occulter is
a planet (Section 3), star (Section 4) and moon (Section 5). We found that
total eclipses cannot occur in two-planet systems with a main sequence
or giant branch parent star, but may occur often for two-planet systems containing
a white dwarf. In circumbinary systems with circular orbits and similarly dense stars,
by appealing to stability criteria we have parametrized the condition for total
eclipses to never occur to just two variables: the stellar radii (equation \ref{Rseven}).
The relations in this paper represent useful estimates which may be employed in mission planning
and for added perspective on a wide variety of exo-systems.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the referee for helpful comments on the manuscript. DV has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement n. 320964 (WDTracer).
|
\section{Introduction}
Galaxy clusters are large structures in the Universe, composed of tens to hundreds of galaxies bound by gravity. In the hierarchical formation model, they are formed and grow by accretion of smaller groups or isolated galaxies. In this scenario, understanding how these accreted galaxies interact with the very dense cluster environnement is an important step towards explaining the global picture of galaxy evolution and structure formation \citep{kauffmann1999, kauffmann1999b}.
Numerous studies have been performed on the properties of subhaloes in numerical simulations \citep[see for example][]{ghigna1998, delucia2004, gao2004, contini2012, vandenbosch2015}.
They predict that during infall, subhaloes are subject to the tidal forces of their hosts, which strip from them part of their dark matter \citep{hayashi2008, giocoli2008}. Subhaloes which have been accreted earlier have experienced tidal stripping from the host for a longer time, and have thus lost a higher fraction of their initial mass. See also \citet{gao2004, vandenbosch2005b, limousin2009, giocoli2010}.
In addition, there is a correlation between the distance of the subhalo to the cluster centre and the time since accretion, with subhaloes accreted earlier residing on more tightly bound orbits. This effect is due on one hand to the inside-out assembly of dark matter haloes (i.e. at higher accretion redshift the host halo was smaller, leading to satellites being accreted at smaller cluster-centric distance compared to later redshifts \citep{tormen1998}), and on the other hand to dynamical friction that slows subhaloes down and make them sink into the centre of the host as time passes \citep{gao2004}.
So observationally, to study the evolution of subhaloes during infall, we can use the distance from the satellite to the centre of the cluster as an indicator of the time since the accretion of the satellite.
In observations, the distances that are measured are projected along the line of sight, but \citet{vandenbosch2015} shows the correlation between this projected distance and the accretion redshift is still very strong, although weaker than for the 3-dimensional distance.
Note that \citet{vandenbosch2015} shows that the segregation is much stronger if the present subhalo mass is normalized by its mass at accretion. Indeed looking at the global satellite population, tidal stripping and dynamical friction have opposite effects on the radial distribution of subhalo masses in the cluster. While stripping tends to reduce more strongly the mass of satellites close to the centre, the satellites which are bigger at accretion are subjected to stronger dynamical friction and thus more driven to the centre.
Since in observations the mass at accretion is not an observable, we use as a proxy the stellar mass. As the host tidal forces strip preferentially the outer part of the subhaloes, the baryonic part at their centre is not significantly disturbed. While it is also possible that stellar mass is created during infall, most galaxies have their star formation quenched at accretion \citep{zu2015, zu2016}. The stellar mass is thus well correlated to the subhalo mass at accretion \citep{vale2006, cooray2006, behroozi2010, smith2016}.
In summary, we measure $M_{\rm sat}^{\rm DM}/M_{\rm sat}^{\rm star}$ as a function of the projected distance from the satellite to the cluster centre, to see how the dark matter halo of the satellites is affected by the tidal stripping of the host throughout infall.
A well-established tool to measure the total projected mass of a galaxy, including the dark matter halo, is gravitational lensing. The light coming from background sources is deviated when it passes by a massive (lens) object, and the amplitude of the deviation depends on the total mass of the lens object. Lensing measurements of the mass of an object are independent of its nature (baryons, dark matter, etc.) and its state (equilibrium, etc.).
The first measure of the mass of subhaloes in a cluster was performed by \citet{natarajan1998} in the cluster AC114, measuring the perturbation by subhaloes of the shear distribution of background sources. In a later work on the cluster Cl0024+16 using HST images, \citet{natarajan2009} present the first indication for tidal stripping on the dark matter haloes of satellite galaxies.
Later, \cite{okabe2014} performed a similar analysis for the Coma cluster using data from the Subaru telescope.
Alternatively, the dark matter mass of satellites can be measured in a statistical way using galaxy-galaxy weak lensing over a large sample of galaxies.
It consists of the measurement of the average tangential shear in the shape of background galaxies in circular bins centred on a lens object, in order to measure the mass of the lens. In galaxy-galaxy lensing the lens is the dark matter halo of a galaxy, and so has a relatively low mass: the shear induced by a single galactic halo is very low, so to obtain a measurable lensing signal the shear induced by numerous lenses needs to be stacked together \citep{brainerd1996}.
\citet{yang2006} first suggested to apply the galaxy-galaxy lensing method to measure the mass of subhaloes in clusters, and \citet{li2013b} first measured the mass of satellite galaxies in groups using data from SDSS and the CFHT Stripe 82 (CS82) survey.
Using this method, \citet{gillis2013} measured the total mass of galaxies in low and high density environments, arguing that the galaxies in high density environment were subject to tidal stripping, compared to the ones in low density environment. In the $100\deg^2$ overlap between the DR2 of the KiDS lensing survey and the GAMA spectroscopic survey \cite{sifon2015} repeat the analysis but the statistical errors prevent them from measuring tidal stripping of dark matter for galaxies in clusters with a mass $M_{\rm host} > 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. Finally, in the $170\deg^2$ of the CFHT Stripe 82 survey, \cite{li2015} measured the mass of the dark matter haloes and the evolution of the mass-to-light ratio for satellite galaxies as a function of their distances to the centres of the redMaPPer clusters, and obtain a significant signal consistent with tidal stripping. Finally, \citet{vanuitert2016} measured the stellar-to-halo mass relation for galaxies from the GAMA survey, comparing central to satellite galaxies, and found no significant difference.
We extend these works by considering the stellar mass distribution of the satellites, and further splitting our galaxy samples according to it. As mentioned above, it appears from simulations that for satellites, the quantity which is more segregated with respect to the distance to the centre of clusters is the present subhalo mass \textit{normalized by the mass at accretion}. We use the stellar mass as an observational proxy for the mass at accretion.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:methodology}, we present the lensing method and the halo model we use to fit the data. In Section \ref{sec:data}, we present our source and lens catalogues, then in Section \ref{sec:results} we show the results of the analysis, and we discuss them in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. We conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
We assume a WMAP7 cosmology \citep{komatsu2011}, with $(\Omega_{\rm M}, \Omega_{\Lambda}, h, \sigma_8, w) = (0.27,0.73,0.70,0.81,-1)$. When relevant, the dependence on $h$ is clearly stated.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
\subsection{Lensing}
In the weak lensing regime, the distortion induced on the image of source galaxies by a single lens galaxy is so weak that it is too tiny to be detected: the observed shape of a background source is the sum of its intrinsic ellipticity and of the lensing shear, and the shear represents only a few per cent of the total ellipticity. However, by stacking the measurements of many individual lensing signals together, the average tangential shear generated by a sample of lenses can be detected.
We measure the galaxy-galaxy lensing observable, the excess surface mass density profile $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ in comoving units as a function of the distance to the (stacked) lenses, and this quantity is related to the tangential shear $\gamma_t$ by:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma(R) = \Sigma_{\rm crit}\gamma_{\rm t}(R) = \bar{\Sigma}(<R) - \bar{\Sigma}(R) \mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\Sigma}(R)$ is the mean surface density at a projected distance $R$ from the lens centre, $\bar{\Sigma}(<R)$ is the mean surface density in a disk of radius $R$ centred on the lens, and $\Sigma_{\rm crit}$ is the critical surface density in comoving units. It is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{\rm crit} = \frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{\rm s}}{D_{\rm l}D_{\rm ls}}\frac{1}{(1 + z_{\rm l})^2}
\end{equation}
where $D_{\rm l}$ and $D_{\rm s}$ are the angular diameter distances respectively to the lens and to the source, and $D_{\rm ls}$ is the angular diameter distance between the lens and the source. $z_{\rm l}$ is the redshift of the lens.
\subsection{Halo Model}
\label{sec:model}
The lensing signal around the satellite galaxies is described by a four-term halo model \citep[e.g.][]{cooray&sheth2002, sheth2003, giocoli2010, gillis2013}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma = \Delta\Sigma_{\rm star} + \Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat} + f_{\rm sat}\Delta\Sigma_{\rm host} +\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 2h} \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm star}$ is the baryonic component of the satellites, $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat}$ corresponds to the contribution of the satellite dark matter (ie the subhalo), $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm host}$ is the contribution of the host (cluster) haloes of the satellites, and $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 2h}$ is the two-halo term, produced by the neighbouring haloes. The factor $f_{\rm sat}$ represents the fraction of satellites in the lens sample, and we fix $f_{\rm sat} = 1$ as we study the lensing signal produced by a theoretically pure satellite sample. We note that in the case $f_{\rm sat} \neq 1$ the term $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat}$ should actually be written $f_{\rm sat}\Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat} + (1 - f_{\rm sat})\Delta\Sigma_{\rm cent}$, with a contribution from both satellite (in subhaloes) and central galaxies (in haloes). We write only $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat}$ for clarity. We do not take into account a central baryonic component in the host clusters.
The model is expressed in comoving units. We describe the different terms in this section.
\subsubsection{The stellar component}
We consider the baryonic component of the satellite galaxy mass to be a point source, with mass $M_*$ equal to the median stellar mass of the sample. Thus:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma_{\rm star}(R) = \frac{M_{*}}{R^2}\mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The satellite term}
The galaxies are assumed to live in dark matter haloes, characterized by a NFW density profile \citep{NFW1996}. In the case of satellite galaxies, we use a smoothly truncated NFW profile, whose spatial density distribution is defined by \citep{baltz2009}:
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_{\rm crit}\delta_{\rm c}}{(r/r_{\rm s})(1+r/r_{\rm s})^2(1+(r/r_{\rm t})^2)} \mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where $r_{\rm t}$ is the truncation parameter which ensures that the total NFW mass does not diverge. We fix it at $r_{\rm t} = 2r_{200}$ \citep{hilbert2010, oguri2011}, a value for which the profile hardly deviates from a standard NFW inside the virial radius. This profile has two free parameters: the halo mass $M_{200}$ and the concentration $c=r_{200}/r_{\rm s}$. The virial radius $r_{200}$ defines a sphere with a density 200 times higher than the critical density of the Universe, which gives
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm crit} = \frac{3}{800\pi}\frac{M_{200}}{r_{200}^3} \mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
and $\delta_{\rm c}$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\rm c} = \frac{200}{3}\frac{c^3}{\ln(1 + c) - \frac{c}{1 + c}} \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
To reduce the number of free parameters, we use a mass-concentration relation, defined at $z=0$ in \cite{neto2007}:
\begin{equation}
c_0 = 4.67 \times \left( \frac{M_{200}}{10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\odot}} \right)^{-0.11}
\end{equation}
and add the redshift dependence $c = c_0/(1+z)$. To verify the influence of this choice of a mass-concentration relation, we compare $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm sat}$ computed using different mass-concentration relations \citep{neto2007, duffy2008, dutton2014, shan2017} at $M_{sat}=10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, and find a maximum deviation in the amplitude of the signal of $\sim 1\%$, which is negligible compared to the error bars on our measurements.
\subsubsection{The host halo term}
As we measure the lensing signal of satellite galaxies in clusters, an important component of the total signal is the one induced by the host clusters.
We stack the lensing signal for satellites located at different projected distances to the centre of their cluster. The mean host halo signal is expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{eq_host}
\Delta\Sigma_{\rm host}(R, M_{\rm host}) = \frac{\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \Delta\Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R,R_{\rm s}, M_{\rm host})P(R_{\rm s})\operatorname{d}\!R_{\rm s}}{\int_{r_1}^{r_2} P(R_{\rm s})\operatorname{d}\!R_{\rm s}} \mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R,R_{\rm s}, M_{\rm host})$ is the mean contribution of one host with mass $M_{\rm host}$ located at a projected distance $R_{\rm s}$ from the satellite, and $P(R_{\rm s})$ is the probability for a satellite to be located at a distance $R_{\rm s}$ from the centre of its host cluster. Therefore the term $\Delta\Sigma_{\rm host}(R, M_{\rm host})$ is the mean contribution of a host located at a distance $R_{\rm s}$ ranging between $r_1$ and $r_2$, and weighted by $P(R_{\rm s})$ which is described later. Figure \ref{fig:hosts} shows a sample of lensing signals produced by a host located at different distances to the satellite, both with and without the weighting. We assume that all the host haloes have the same mass, and we measure this average mass $M_{\rm host}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{host_M105-11_oneplt_new.pdf}
\caption{ Lensing signal produced by host haloes at different distances from the satellite $R_{\rm s} \in [0.12; 0.52]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. The dashed red curves represent hosts which all have the same weight, whereas for the blue lines hosts are weighted by $P(R_{\rm s}) = N_{\rm sat}(R_{\rm s})$. The total host term is a continuous sum of weighted single halo terms, as in equation \ref{eq_host}. For this plot we fixed $M_{\rm host}$ at $10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and use $N_{\rm sat}(R_{\rm s})$ from the satellites with $10.5 < \log(M_*/M_{\odot}) < 11$ and $0.1 < R_{\rm s}/h^{-1}\si{Mpc} < 0.55$.
}
\label{fig:hosts}
\end{figure}
The contribution of one host halo located at a distance $R_{\rm s}$ from its satellite is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R,R_{\rm s}) = \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 1host}(<R, R_{\rm s}) - \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 1host}(R,R_{\rm s}) \\
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R,R_{\rm s})= \frac{1}{\pi R^2} \int_0^R R' \int_0^{2\pi} \Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R_{\rm g}')\operatorname{d}\!\theta \operatorname{d}\!R' \\
- \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R_{\rm g})\operatorname{d}\!\theta
\end{multline}
where $\Sigma_{\rm 1host}(R_{\rm g})$ is the projected surface density of the host halo, a NFW halo of mass $M_{\rm host}$, measured at a distance $R_{\rm g} = |\vec{R} - \vec{R_{\rm s}}| = \sqrt{R^2+R_{\rm s}^2-2RR_{\rm s}\cos{\theta}}$ from the host centre, where $\theta$ is the angle between the vector joining the centre of the satellite to the centre of the host, and the vector joining the centre of the satellite to the point of measurement. As we average the signal in circles or disks centred on the satellite, we integrate over $\theta$.
To obtain the probability function $P(R_{\rm s})$, we use the distribution of satellites in the data, stacked for all the clusters, in each bin of cluster-centric distance and stellar mass, ie. $P(R_{\rm s}) = N_{\rm sat}(R_{\rm s})$. In order to smooth the obtained distribution, for each stellar mass bin we fit the distribution with two second order polynomials, one for each cluster-centric bin. The $N_{\rm sat}$ distributions and the best-fit curves are shown in figure \ref{fig:sat_distrib}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{fit_Nsat_2pol2_notnorm_new.pdf}
\caption{ Satellite spatial distribution in three bins in stellar mass: $10 < \log (M_*/M_{\odot}) < 10.5$, $10.5 < \log (M_*/M_{\odot}) < 11$ and $11 < \log (M_*/M_{\odot}) < 11.5$. The dashed and dotted curves are the best-fit second order polynomials in each cluster-centric bin.
}
\label{fig:sat_distrib}
\end{figure}
\paragraph*{Satellite concentration.} Alternatively, we fit the surface number density profile of the satellites with a NFW profile to measure their concentration. We plot the surface number density profiles $\Sigma_{\rm sat}$, for each of the three stellar mass bins on figure \ref{fig:sat_density}. Each galaxy is weighted by the probability that it is a true member of its host $P_{\rm mem}$. The left panel of the figure presents the measurement for the whole satellite sample, while the right panel plot is for our fiducial sample which contains only the galaxies with $P_{\rm mem} > 0.8$ (see section \ref{sec:lens_selection}). For each profile we fit a projected NFW profile. We normalize the measurement and the model to have the same amplitude around the scale radius.
Once normalized, the profiles for galaxies in the different stellar mass bin are similar to each other, and the best-fit concentrations we obtain have very close values between the different bins. From low to high stellar mass bins, we obtain concentrations of 3, 3.4 and 3.7 for the complete satellite sample, and 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 for the sample with $P_{\rm mem} > 0.8$.
While the full satellite sample distribution is well described by a NFW density profile, the sample with $P_{\rm mem} > 0.8$ is steeper, which is why we fit the satellite distribution with polynomials in the model.
We note that if we do not weight the galaxies by their membership probability, the full sample gives a flatter distribution than the NFW profile, and the $P_{\rm mem}$ selected sample remains steeper.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{nsat_allsamples.pdf}
\caption{Surface number density of satellites in the three stellar mass bins. The continuous lines represent the stacked measurements, where each satellite is weighted by its probability of membership to the host (see \ref{sec:lens_selection}). The left plot presents the measurements for all the satellites, while on the right plot the measurement is made for our fiducial sample, which contains only the satellites with $P_{\rm mem} > 0.8$. The dashed lines are the corresponding best-fit NFW profiles.
}
\label{fig:sat_density}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The two-halo term}
On large scales the lensing signal is dominated by neighbouring mass concentrations, e.g., nearby haloes and filaments. The contribution of the neighbours is accounted for by the two-halo term, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma_{\rm 2h} (R) = \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h} (< R) - \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h} (R)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h} ( R) = 2\rho_{\rm c,0}\Omega_{\rm m,0}\int_0^{\infty} \xi_{\rm gm}^{\rm 2h}(\sqrt{R^2 + \chi^2})\operatorname{d}\!\chi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h} (< R) = \frac{2}{R^2} \int_0^{R} R' \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h} (R') \operatorname{d}\!R' \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
In practice, we integrate up to $50\si{Mpc}$ in $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 2h}(R)$, and verify that the function has converged at this point.
$\rho_{\rm c,0}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$ are respectively the critical density and the matter density at current time, and $\xi_{\rm gm}^{\rm 2h}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\rm gm}^{\rm 2h} (r) = b_{\rm h}(M) \zeta(r) \xi_{\rm m}(r)
\end{equation}
where $b_{\rm h}$ is the halo bias from \citet{seljak2004} and $\zeta(r)$ is the scale dependency of the bias as defined in equation B7 in \citet{tinker2005}:
\begin{equation}
\zeta(r) = \frac{\left[ 1 + 1.17\xi_{\rm m}(r) \right]^{1.49} }{\left[ 1 + 0.69\xi_{\rm m}(r) \right]^{2.09} } \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
$\xi_{\rm m}(r)$ is the non-linear matter correlation function, computed as in \citet{takahashi2012}, and using the linear matter correlation function from \citet{eisenstein1998}.
The two-halo halo term becomes predominant at scales of a few Mpc (see Fig \ref{fig:lensing_M1-2e12}), and has little influence as we measure the lensing signal only up to $1.8h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. We still include it to keep the model as generally applicable as possible.
The verification of the model predictions using numerical simulations are presented in appendix \ref{sec:simus}.
\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}
\subsection{The source catalogues}
We use three shear catalogues to compute the weak lensing signal: CFHTLenS, CS82 and DES-SV, covering a total area of $393 \deg^2$. The total effective weighted source density is $n_{\rm eff} = \frac{1}{\Omega}\frac{\left(\sum w_i\right)^2}{\sum w_i^2} = 7.8$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$, with $\Omega$ the total effective area \citep{heymans2012}.
In the three catalogues, the estimation of photometric redshift, galaxy shape and stellar mass varies. To ensure that no catalogue gives biased results, we compare the results using each catalogue alone in appendix \ref{sec:cat_comp}.
\subsubsection{CFHT Stripe 82}
The CFHT Stripe 82 Survey \citep[CS82,][]{moraes2014} is a $i-$band imaging survey covering the $173 \deg^2$ of the SDSS Stripe 82 region, with a limiting magnitude of $i_{\rm AB} \sim 24.0$ and seeing between 0.4 and 0.8 arcsec.
Each object has been attributed a \textsc{mask} flag indicating the quality of the photometry. Following \cite{erben2013} we use all objects with $\textsc{mask} \leq 1$. The remaining unmasked area is $129 \deg^2$.
We use photometric redshifts computed with BPZ \citep{benitez2000} from $ugriz$ SDSS photometry as described in \cite{bundy2015}. The initial catalogue contains all the sources with a photometric redshift $z > 0$, but we test alternative cuts: we examine the balance between having more sources or having more confident redshifts by either keeping only sources with the parameter $\textsc{odds}>0.5$, or sources with $0.2 < z < 1.3$. The \textsc{odds} parameter is a measure of the peakiness of the redshift probability distribution around the best redshift, which means that objects with \textsc{odds} close to unity have a peaked and unimodal p(z), and thus have a more reliable redshift. After testing the different cuts we choose to apply $0.2 < z < 1.3$ for the rest of the work. We present the effect on our results of the different cuts in appendix \ref{sec:red_comp} \citep[see also][]{leauthaud2016}.
The galaxy shapes were measured by the CS82 collaboration as described in \citet{shan2017}, using the \texttt{lensfit} method \citep{miller2013} following the procedure developed by the CFHTLenS collaboration \citep{ erben2009,erben2013}.
The shear systematics and calibration verifications also follow CFHTLenS as described in \citet{heymans2012}.
Two calibration corrections need to be applied to the shear: one additive $c_2$ and one multiplicative $m$ (see section \ref{sec:lens_signal}). The pipeline also provides an inverse variance weight for each source, and objects with \textsc{weight} $=0$ are not used in the analysis.
We select galaxies using the object classification obtained with \texttt{lensfit}, which separates galaxies, stars and badly fit objects \citep[\textsc{fitclass} parameter, see details in][]{miller2013}.
In summary, we keep objects with $\textsc{mask} \leq 1$, $\textsc{weight} > 0$, $0.2 < z < 1.3$ and $\textsc{fitclass} = 0$
The final source catalogue contains 3,791,129 sources with shear and photometric redshift measurement, that is an effective weighted source density of $6.7$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$ (while $n_{\rm eff} = 12.3$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$ without any cuts). The completeness magnitude after the cuts is $i_{\rm AB} \sim 23.5$.
\subsubsection{CFHTLenS}
The Canada-France-Hawaii Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) is a $154\deg^2$ (146.5 after masking) multi-band \textit{u*g'r'i'z'} survey based on the Wide component of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey \citep{heymans2012}.
The photometric redshifts were measured over the whole survey using the BPZ code with PSF-matched photometry \citep{hildebrandt2012}. We verify the effect on the lensing signal of the same source cuts as for the CS82 catalogue in appendix \ref{sec:red_comp}. Similarly to the CS82 catalogue, we finally use the cut $0.2 < z < 1.3$ for the rest of the work.
The weak lensing data processing was performed with THELI \citep{erben2013}, and the shape measurement with \texttt{lensfit} \citep{miller2013}. The same calibration parameters as for the CS82 catalogue need to be applied to the shear.
In addition to the \textsc{fitclass} parameter, we cut our catalogue according to the \textsc{star\_flag} parameter to separate galaxies from stars. It classifies objects as galaxies or stars depending on their size, magnitude and colour information.
Similarly to the CS82 catalogue, we keep objects with $\textsc{mask} \leq 1$, $\textsc{star\_flag} = 0$, $\textsc{fitclass} = 0$, $0.2 < z < 1.3$ and $\textsc{weight} > 0$. The final catalogue contains 5,615,617 sources on an effective area after masking of $125 \deg^2$, which gives an effective weighted source density of 10.7 galaxies/arcmin$^2$ (and $n_{\rm eff} = 14.2$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$ without cuts).
\subsubsection{DES Science Verification Data}
The Dark Energy Survey \citep[DES,][]{flaugher2005, flaugher2015, des2016} is an ongoing wide-field multi-band imaging survey, which will cover around $5000\deg^2$ in the grizY filters, to a depth of $i_{\rm AB} < 24$.
In this analysis we use data taken during the Science Verification period (SVA1), which covers an area of $139 \deg^2$ after masking, with a depth comparable to the full survey\footnote{\url{https://des.ncsa.illinois.edu/releases/sva1}}.
We use the shear catalogue obtained using the \texttt{NGMix}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/esheldon/ngmix}} algorithm \citep{sheldon2014} and described in \cite{jarvis2015}, and photometric redshifts from \cite{bonnett2016}. After applying the cuts $\textsc{sva1\_flag} = 0$ (good galaxy) and $\textsc{ngmix\_flag} = 0$ (good shape measurement), the catalogue contains 3,446,533 galaxies, or a weighted density of $6.8$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$ ($n_{\rm eff} = 17.2$ galaxies/arcmin$^2$ without cuts). The completeness magnitude after the cuts is $i_{\rm AB} \sim 23$.
The multiplicative calibration factor, which needs to be applied to the shear as described in section \ref{sec:lens_signal}, is given in the \texttt{NGMix} catalogue as the sensitivity estimate \textsc{sens\_avg} and is related to the usual factor by $\textsc{sens\_avg} = 1 + m$.
The DES-SV data release contains a second catalogue with galaxy shape measurement, using an alternative algorithm \texttt{Im3shape}\footnote{\url{https://bitbucket.org/joezuntz/im3shape-git}}. We made some lensing measurements using both catalogues and found no significant difference, and thus chose to use the \texttt{NGMix} catalogue.
The redshift distributions of the sources in the three catalogues are presented in figure \ref{fig:redshifts_sources}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{Z_hist_new_v2.pdf}
\caption{ Redshift distribution of the source galaxies in the CS82, CFHTLenS and DES-SV surveys.
}
\label{fig:redshifts_sources}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lens selection}
\label{sec:lens_selection}
Our sample consists of the overlap of the satellite galaxies from the redMaPPer catalogue with the CFHTLenS, CS82 and DES-SV fields.
The redMaPPer cluster catalogue is derived from photometric galaxy samples using the red-sequence Matched-filter Probabilistic Percolation cluster finder \citep{rykoff2014,rykoff2016}. For each galaxy the algorithm estimates the membership probability according to its color, position to the centre of the cluster and luminosity. To reduce contamination by line-of-sight galaxies, we select satellites with membership probability $P_{\rm mem} > 0.8$; as shown in \citet{zu2016b}, cutting at this value should eliminate most of the contamination. In our analysis we use the catalogues extracted from the 5-band $(ugriz)$ photometry of the SDSS Data Release 8 \citep[DR8,][]{sdss2011}, described in \citet{rykoff2014} and covering the CS82 and CFHTLenS fields, and from the $griz$ photometry of the Dark Energy Survey Science Verification Data described in \citet{rykoff2016}.
For the lenses we use the redMaPPer redshifts, as they are more robust than photometric redshifts estimated using other methods \citep[see][section 5]{bundy2015}. In order to have the same redshift range in the three samples, we keep only galaxies with $0.2 < z < 0.55$. The redshift distribution of the satellite galaxies in the two radial bins is shown in the left panel of figure \ref{fig:redshifts-Mstar}. In this redshift range, the redMaPPer cluster catalogue contains 289 clusters in the CFHTLenS footprint, 491 in CS82 and 349 in DES-SV. We note that the whole CFHTLenS field does not overlap with the redMaPPer cluster catalogue: there are around $30 \deg^2$ not covered, which gives an effective unmasked area of $\sim 115 \deg^2$ for CFHTLenS. The cluster density is $2.5\deg^{-2}$ in the CFHTLenS and DES-SV fields, and $3.8\deg^{-2}$ in the CS82 field. We suspect that this difference is due to the presence of a large structure in the CS82 field, as the cluster distribution appears to have a significant excess at $z\sim0.4$ compared to the other fields.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{Mstar-Zsat_hist_norm_combined_Rbin1-2_new.pdf}
\caption{ Redshift (\textit{left panel}) and stellar mass (\textit{right panel}) distribution of the satellite galaxies in the combined catalogue, for the galaxies in the inner radial bin ($R_{\rm s} \in [0.1;0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$) in blue and the outer radial bin ($R_{\rm s} \in [0.55;1]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$) in red. The distributions are normalized so their integrals sum to one, and the vertical lines in the right panel represent the limits of the stellar mass bins.
}
\label{fig:redshifts-Mstar}
\end{figure}
We select satellite galaxies according to their projected cluster-centric distance, in the two following bins: the satellites in the inner part of the clusters, with $R_{\rm s} \in [0.1; 0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$, and the satellites in the outer part of the clusters, with $R_{\rm s} \in [0.55; 1]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. Indeed, the redMaPPer clusters used in the analysis have a richness between 20 and 180, which, according to the mass-richness relation from \cite{rykoff2012} corresponds to a virial mass between $10^{14}$ and $10^{15}$, which gives a virial radius in the range $0.6 - 1.4h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$.
A possible alternative binning would be in fractions of $R_{\rm vir}$, ensuring that all the satellites are taken for each cluster. This choice would in addition avoid the selection effect discussed in section \ref{sec:cluster_mass}. However, we do not have precise estimations of the virial radius or mass for each cluster, and we should therefore use some mass-richness relation. These relations always show an important scatter \citep[see for example ][]{rozo2014, rozo2015a}, which would add noise to our bining.
We further split our lens sample in three stellar mass bins: the low mass sample with $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [10; 10.5]$, the intermediate mass sample with $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [10.5; 11]$ and the high mass sample with $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [11; 11.5]$. We have six lens samples, for each of which the number of lenses, mean stellar mass and mean redshift are shown in table \ref{tab:lenses}.
We describe in the next section how the stellar masses were obtained.
\subsection{Stellar mass}
The CFHTLenS catalogue provides stellar masses for the galaxies, computed as described in \cite{velander2014}, by fitting spectral energy distribution (SED) templates, using the software \textsc{le Phare} \citep{arnouts1999, ilbert2006} following the method of \cite{ilbert2010}.
For CS82 and DES-SV we estimate the stellar masses using the software \textsc{le Phare} through the \textsc{gazpar}\footnote{\url{http://gazpar.lam.fr/index}} web service, and the available photometry for each survey:
\begin{itemize}
\item for the CS82 catalogue we use the \textit{ugriz} SDSS Stripe 82 Coadd photometry and YJHK photometry from the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Large Area Survey;
\item for DES-SV we use the \textit{griz} photometry.
\end{itemize}
For both catalogues the fitted SED templates are built from the stellar population synthesis (SPS) package from \citet{bruzual&charlot2003}, with a \citet{chabrier2003} initial mass function (IMF), and the star formation history is described as a decreasing exponential function $e^{-t/\tau}$ with $0.1 \leq \tau \leq 30$Gyr. Dust extinction was applied following two laws, a starbust \citep{calzetti2000} and an intermediate slope ($\lambda^{0.9}$) law, and reddening excess $E(B-V)$ ranging from 0 to 0.7.
The stellar mass distribution of the satellite galaxies in the two radial bins is shown in the right panel of figure \ref{fig:redshifts-Mstar}. The distributions for the satellites in the inner part of clusters and in the outer part are quite similar. Moreover, assuming that the stellar masses of galaxies do not vary much on average during infall \citep[due to the star formation quenching and the relative insensitivity of the stellar component to stripping, see][]{smith2016}, we consider that any measured mass difference between the satellites in the two radial bins is due to the evolution of the subhaloes during accretion.
We study the validity of the assumption that the stellar mass remains constant during accretion in section \ref{sec:star_evol}.
\subsection{Computation of the lensing signal}
\label{sec:lens_signal}
We measure $\Delta\Sigma$ by stacking lens-source pairs in 13 radial bins from 0 to $1.8h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. For each sample of lenses, $\Delta\Sigma(R)$ is estimated using
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma(R) = \frac{\sum_{\rm ls}w_{\rm ls}\gamma_{\rm t}^{\rm ls}\Sigma_{\rm crit}(z_{\rm l}, z_{\rm s})}{\sum_{\rm ls}w_{\rm ls}} \mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{\rm t}^{\rm ls}$ is the tangential shear, $w_{\rm ls} = w_{\rm s}/\left(\Sigma_{\rm crit}\left(z_{\rm l}, z_{\rm s}\right)\right)^{2}$, and $w_{\rm s}$ is an inverse variance weight factor associated to each source galaxy and introduced to account for shape measurement error and intrinsic scatter in galaxy ellipticity \citep{heymans2012}. The sum is calculated over all the lens-source pairs.
The multiplicative calibration factor $m$ needs to be taken into account in a statistical way \citep{miller2013}, we apply it to the mean shear measurement using the correction proposed in \citet{velander2014} and \citet{hudson2015}:
\begin{equation}
1 + K(z_{\rm l}) = \frac{\sum_{\rm ls} w_{\rm ls}(1+m)}{\sum_{\rm ls} w_{\rm ls}}\mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
which gives a calibrated lensing signal:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Sigma^{\rm cal}(R) = \frac{\Delta\Sigma(R)}{1 + K(z_{\rm l})} = \frac{\sum_{\rm ls}w_{\rm ls}\gamma_{\rm t}^{\rm ls}\Sigma_{\rm crit}} {\sum_{\rm ls} w_{\rm ls}(1+m)} \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
We only use lens-source pairs with $z_{\rm source} > z_{\rm lens} + z_{\rm lens}^{\rm err} + z_{\rm source}^{\rm err}$ to ensure that no sources are at lower redshift than the lens.
The error bars on the lensing signal are obtained with a block bootstrap on the data: the field is divided in blocks, and the lensing signal is measured on the resampled blocks to estimate the variance of the measurement.
We compute the lensing signal for each lens sample, using a modified version of the \texttt{athena}\footnote{\url{http://www.cosmostat.org/software/athena/}} software, a 2d-tree code estimating second-order correlation functions from input galaxy catalogues.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Fitting procedure}
We fit the lensing signal with the model described in section \ref{sec:model}, which has two free parameters: the mean satellite mass $M_{\rm sat}$ and the mean host mass $M_{\rm host}$.
We obtain the best-fit parameters by maximizing the likelihood $\mathcal{L}$, and to obtain the intervals of confidence we use a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method using \textsc{emcee} \citep{foreman-mackey2013} which is a Python implementation of an affine invariant MCMC ensemble sampler.
The likelihood $\mathcal{L}$ is expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi |C|}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{13}\frac{(x^{\rm obs}_{i} - x^{\rm mod}_{i})^2}{\sigma_i^2})
\end{equation}
where $x^{\rm obs}_i$ are the measurements and $x^{\rm mod}_i$ the model predictions in the 13 radial bins. The $\sigma_i$ are the diagonal terms of the covariance matrix $C$ computed with the block bootstrap. We use only the diagonal as the full matrix is quite noisy.
The average amplitude of a non-diagonal term of the covariance matrix is around $10\%$ of a diagonal term, which is consistent with the noise in matrices computed with bootstrap as shown in \citet{viola2015}. The use of only diagonal terms might result in overestimating the quality of the fit, which could underestimate the size of the errorbars on the mass measurements.
We assume flat and broad priors: for the satellite mass we choose $\log(M_{\rm sat}/h^{-1}M_{\odot}) \in [9.5;13.5]$ and for the cluster mass $\log(M_{\rm host}/h^{-1}M_{\odot}) \in [13.5;16]$.
\subsection{Dependance of the SHMR on the projected cluster-centric distance}
\label{sec:shmr}
We plot the lensing signal for each of the lens samples in figure \ref{fig:all_lensing}, with columns from left to right showing the bins in log stellar mass [10;10.5], [10.5;11], [11;11.5]. The top line shows the signal for satellites in the inner parts of clusters ($R_{\rm s} \in [0.1;0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$), and the bottom line for satellites in the outer part ($R_{\rm s} \in [0.55;1]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$). In addition, for each sample we plot the best-fit model: the blue continuous line is the full model, and the blue shaded area is the $68\%$ credible interval.
The maximum likelihood results with the $68\%$ credible intervals are presented in table \ref{tab:lenses}, with the average stellar mass and redshift for each lens sample.
In addition, we present the joint 2-dimensional and marginalized 1-dimensional posterior probability distributions for the two parameters $M_{\rm sat}$ and $M_{\rm host}$ for each of the six samples in figure \ref{fig:corners}.
For the low mass satellites, the signal-to-noise is too low to obtain strong constraints. For the intermediate and high mass samples, we find that at a given stellar mass, the dark matter halo mass is shifted toward lower mass for satellites in the inner part of clusters, compared to the satellites in the outer part.
A summary of the measured satellite dark matter mass as a function of the mean stellar mass in each sample is shown in figure \ref{fig:shmrelation}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c}
$M_*$ range [$M_{\odot}$] & $R_s [h^{-1}\si{Mpc}]$ & $N_{\rm lenses}$ & $<\log{M_{*}/M_{\odot}}>$ & $<z_{\rm l}>$ & $\log(M_{\rm sat}/h^{-1}M_{\odot})$ & $\log(M_{\rm host}/h^{-1}M_{\odot})$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{10-10.5} & 0.1-0.55 & 48891 & 10.31 & 0.35 & $11.55^{+0.26}_{-1.05}$ & $14.17^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ \\
& 0.55-1 & 1292 & 10.32 & 0.37 & $11.18^{+0.63}_{-1.26}$ & $14.31^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{10.5-11} & 0.1-0.55 & 6935 & 10.73 & 0.37 & $11.76^{+0.23}_{-0.75}$ & $14.17^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ \\
& 0.55-1 & 1836 & 10.73 & 0.36 & $12.54^{+0.16}_{-0.48}$ & $14.29^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{11-11.5} & 0.1-0.55 & 2126 & 11.17 & 0.38 & $12.44^{+0.19}_{-0.64}$ & $14.20^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ \\
& 0.55-1 & 677 & 11.17 & 0.36 & $12.95^{+0.13}_{-0.48}$ & $14.34 ^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Description of the lens samples and best-fit parameters.}
\label{tab:lenses}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{all_dsigs_NEW_withcontours_nodetails.pdf}
\caption{ Lensing by the redMaPPer satellite galaxies. The top line shows the lensing signal for the satellites in the inner part of the cluster, with $R_{\rm s} \in [0.1; 0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$, and the bottom one for the satellites in the outer part, with $R_{\rm s} \in [0.55; 1]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. The left column is for satellites with $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [10; 10.5]$, the middle column for $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [10.5; 11]$ and the right one for $\log(M_*/M_{\odot}) \in [11; 11.5]$. The black dots are the data points with bootstrap errors, the blue curve is the best-fit model, and the blue surface shows the 68\% confidence interval.
}
\label{fig:all_lensing}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\subfloat[$10 < \log M_* < 10.5$, $0.1 < R_{\rm s} < 0.55$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M10-105_Rbin1.pdf}} & \subfloat[$10.5 < \log M_* < 11$, $0.1 < R_{\rm s} < 0.55$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M105-11_Rbin1.pdf}} & \subfloat[$11 < \log M_* < 11.5$, $0.1 < R_{\rm s} < 0.55$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M11-115_Rbin1.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[$10 < \log M_* < 10.5$, $0.55 < R_{\rm s} < 1$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M10-105_Rbin2.pdf}} & \subfloat[$10.5 < \log M_* < 11$, $0.55 < R_{\rm s} < 1$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M105-11_Rbin2.pdf}} & \subfloat[$11 < \log M_* < 11.5$, $0.55 < R_{\rm s} < 1$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm]{cornerplt_M11-115_Rbin2.pdf}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Joint 2-dimensional and marginalized 1-dimensional posterior probability distributions for our two parameters $M_{\rm sat}$ and $M_{\rm host}$ for each of the six samples: the top line presents the bins with $R_{\rm s} \in [0.1;0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$, and the bottom line $R_{\rm s} \in [0.55;1]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$. The columns, from left to right represent the stellar mass bins $\log(M_{*}/M_{\odot}) \in [10-10.5], [10.5-11], [11-11.5]$. In the 1d distributions, the blue lines are the maximum likelihood parameters, and the black dashed lines are the 68\% credible intervals. In the 2d distributions, the blue crosses are the maximum likelihood solutions, and the black contours are the 68\% and 95\% joint credible regions. Masses are in units of $h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and distances in $h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$.}\label{fig:corners}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{shmr.pdf}
\caption{Stellar-to-halo mass relation measured for the satellite galaxies in our sample, in blue for the galaxies in the inner part of clusters ($R_{\rm s}\in[0.1;0.55]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$) and in red for the galaxies in the outer part of clusters ($R_{\rm s}\in[0.55;1.]h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$). The black line is the SHMR for field/central galaxies at $z=0.35$, computed from simulations in \citet{moster2013}.
}
\label{fig:shmrelation}
\end{figure}
We expect the satellites in the outer parts of the clusters to be similar to field/central galaxies. As the distance to the centre of the cluster correlates with the accretion redshift, most of them have only started recently their accretion process, and have not yet been submitted to strong tidal forces from the cluster for a long time. On the contrary, the satellites close to centre of the cluster have undergone the influence of the cluster much more strongly and for a longer time, and have thus been stripped of a significant part of their dark matter. This hypothesis is in agreement with our measurements.
We plot on figure \ref{fig:shmrelation} the stellar-to-halo mass relation for field/central galaxies measured from N-body simulations in \citet{moster2013}. Their relation is indeed consistent with the one we measure for satellites in the outskirts of clusters. In addition, the shift of the SHMR towards lower subhalo mass is consistent with the results obtained in \citet{rodriguez2012, rodriguez2013} using extended abundance matching technique.
Assuming that our measurements do reflect the dark matter stripping scenario, we quantify the effect for the two higher mass bins by computing stripping factors which represent the amount of stripped dark matter, defined as
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm strip} = 1 - \frac{M_{\rm sat}^{\rm inner}}{M_{\rm sat}^{\rm outer}} \mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
For the intermediate mass bin, we obtain $\tau_{\rm strip}^{\rm inter} = 0.83^{+0.15}_{-0.69}$, and for the high mass $\tau_{\rm strip}^{\rm high} = 0.69^{+0.26}_{-1.14}$. Our error bars do not allow us to have strong constrains, but we still compute a theoretical value for the stripping factor as a comparison. Using the equation from \citet{gao2004} for the infall mass, the stripping rate can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm strip}(R_{\rm s}) = 1 - \frac{M_{\rm sub}(R_{\rm s})}{M_{\rm infall}} = 1 - 0.65\left(\frac{R_{\rm s}}{R_{\rm vir}}\right)^{2/3}\mathrm{.}
\end{equation}
We take for the distance cluster centre-satellite the median value in the inner bin sample $R_{\rm s} = 0.28h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$ and for the host virial radius the value corresponding to the median between our best-fit host masses $R_{\rm vir} = 1.16h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$, and obtain a stripping rate $\tau_{\rm strip} = 0.75$.
We compute the relative likelihood of obtaining a value of $\tau_{\rm strip}$ equal to 0 (no stripping) or 0.75 (theoretical value for stripping) using our posterior probability distributions as
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{L}(\tau ) = \mathcal{L}\left(M_{\rm sat}^{\rm inner} = (1-\tau)M_{\rm sat}^{\rm outer}\right) \\
= \int \mathcal{L}\left(M_{\rm inner} = (1-\tau)M'\right) \times \mathcal{L}\left(M_{\rm outer} = M'\right)dM'
\end{multline}
assuming the independence of our samples. We obtain for the high mass sample $P(\tau= 0) = 0.43$ and $P(\tau=0.75) = 0.84$, and for the intermediate mass sample $P(\tau= 0) = 0.28$ and $P(\tau=0.75) = 0.59$, which shows that our results clearly favour the stripping scenario over the no stripping one. In addition we perform a Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test to verify if the posterior probability distributions for $M_{\mathrm{sat}}^{\mathrm{inner}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{sat}}^{\mathrm{outer}}$ are statistically different, and reject the null hypothesis (no stripping) since the p-value is below $1\%$.
Finally, we compute the ratio subhalo mass over stellar mass for the subhaloes in the intermediate and high stellar mass bins, and plot it in figure \ref{fig:shmratio}. We also plot the results from \citet{sifon2015} and \citet{li2015} and find them to be broadly consistent with our results.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{shmratio.pdf}
\caption{Subhalo to stellar mass ratio as a function of the cluster-centric distance, calculated for the satellites in the intermediate (green) and high (blue) stellar mass bins. We do not plot the low stellar mass bin as it is not very constrained. We plot as a comparison the results from \citet{li2015} and \citet{sifon2015}.
}
\label{fig:shmratio}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mass of the redMaPPer clusters}
\label{sec:cluster_mass}
We now look at our measurement of the mass of the host redMaPPer clusters. In each of the cluster-centric bins, we find that the best-fit host halo mass has a consistent value across the different stellar mass bins. However, the average host mass is lower for satellites in the inner part of clusters ($\log M_{\rm host} \sim 14.20$) than for satellites in the outskirts ($\log M_{\rm host} \sim 14.30$).
This is due to a selection effect: larger host clusters have more satellites at a distance ranging between 0.55 and 1$h^{-1}\si{Mpc}$, and are thus more represented in the outer part satellite bin, pushing the mean host halo mass towards higher values.
We verify this assumption by computing the mean host richness in each satellite bin. For galaxies in the inner part of clusters, we find that the mean richness of their host varies between 43 and 45 (depending on the stellar mass bin), while for galaxies in the outer part the mean richness is between 58 and 63.
In addition, we compute from the richness the halo mass using the mass-richness relation from \citet{rykoff2012}: we find that for the satellites in the centre the mean host halo mass in each of the different samples computed from the mean richness is in the range $\log(M_{\rm host}/h^{-1}M_{\odot}) \in [14.21;14.22]$, and for the satellites in the outskirts the mean host mass is in $\log(M_{\rm host}/h^{-1}M_{\odot}) \in [14.31;14.34]$, which agrees very well with our mass measurements given in table \ref{tab:lenses}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Stellar mass evolution during infall}
\label{sec:star_evol}
In this study, our observations suggest that for a given stellar mass, satellite galaxies have a more massive dark matter halo if they are in the outskirts of their host cluster than if they are close to its centre. We explain these observations with the following scenario: during its accretion to a cluster, a galaxy has its star formation quenched while its dark matter halo is stripped by the tidal forces of the host. In this section, we consider whether some alternative infall processes could be considered, such as evolution of the satellite stellar mass.
A first possibility is that if the stellar component of the galaxy gets stripped along the dark matter halo, the stellar mass and the dark matter mass would decrease during infall.
However, as tidal forces are expected to remove matter from a galaxy starting from the outside towards the centre, stellar matter is expected to remain undisturbed much longer than dark matter. Using hydrodynamical simulations, \citet{smith2016} studied how the stellar component of a galaxy is affected by stripping compared to the dark matter halo. Using their equation 2, we compute the fraction of remaining stellar matter after stripping, assuming that dark matter has been stripped by a factor of $\tau_{\rm strip}$. Using the best-fit values obtained in section \ref{sec:shmr}, we find that for the high mass sample $99\%$ of the stellar component remains, and $91\%$ for the intermediate mass sample. The possibly removed amount of stellar matter is thus very small and would not change our conclusions. Even if the equation from \citet{smith2016} underestimates the amount of stellar stripping, considering that stars are partly stripped during accretion only strengthens our conclusions: if a satellite galaxy has been stripped of $dM_*$ stars during infall, its progenitor was a galaxy of stellar mass $M_* + dM_*$ which would have a more massive dark matter halo than a progenitor of stellar mass $dM_*$ \citep[assuming that the relation between stellar mass and dark matter mass is monotonic, as in][]{moster2013}.
We now focus on the more interesting topic of star formation during accretion. Indeed, what we explain as a stripping of the dark matter at constant stellar mass might also be an increase of the stellar mass at fixed (or less shifted) dark matter mass. We verify here how this scenario would fit with our observations, by estimating how much stars could have formed during the infall process for our sample of galaxies in the inner part of clusters. First, using the equation from \citet{giocoli2008} we estimate the time \textit{since} accretion $t_{\rm inf}$ and the redshift \textit{at} accretion $z_{\rm inf}$:
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm inf} = \ln\left[0.65\left(\frac{R_{\rm s}}{R_{\rm vir}}\right)^{2/3}\right]t_{\rm dyn}(z)\mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where \citep{vandenbosch2005b}
\begin{equation}
t_{\rm dyn}(z) = 2\left(\frac{\Delta_{\rm vir}(z)}{\Delta_{\rm vir}(0)}\right)^{-0.5}\frac{H(0)}{H(z)}\mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{\rm vir}(z)$ is the virial overdensity at redshift $z$. Using the same values for $R_{\rm s}$ and $R_{\rm vir}$ as for the stripping factor in section \ref{sec:shmr}, we find $t_{\rm inf} = 2.03\si{Gyr}$ and $z_{\rm inf} = 0.62$.
We can then obtain the amount of star formation that occurred during the infall time, assuming that there is no quenching due to the cluster environment at all. We use star formation rates computed in \citet{buat2008}, that is, for the three stellar mass bins, from low to high: $SFR(M_*^1, z_{\rm inf}) \sim 5 \si{M}_{\odot}\si{/yr}$, $SFR(M_*^2, z_{\rm inf}) \sim 11\si{M}_{\odot}\si{/yr}$ and $SFR(M_*^3, z_{\rm inf}) \sim 23 \si{M}_{\odot}\si{/yr}$.
We can then compute the stellar mass at infall for the three stellar mass bins:
\begin{equation}
M_{*\rm ,inf} = M_{*} - t_{\rm inf}*SFR(z_{\rm inf})\mathrm{,}
\end{equation}
which gives $\log(M_{*\rm ,inf}^1/M_{\odot}) = 10.00$, $\log(M_{*\rm ,inf}^2/M_{\odot}) = 10.50$ and $\log(M_{*\rm ,inf}^3/M_{\odot}) = 11.00$. Using the relation from \citet{moster2013}, we infer the corresponding dark matter halo mass before accretion, and show in figure \ref{fig:shmr_alt} the corresponding evolution scenario compared to the scenario with constant stellar mass. In the case where we consider an evolution in the stellar mass (green arrows), the shift in dark matter mass is less important than for the case with fixed stellar mass (black arrows), but still consistent with some stripping of the dark matter halo.
It is important to note that we use here star formation rates that correspond to star-forming galaxies \citep{buat2008} and that many studies show that cluster galaxies are at least partly quenched in this dense environment. The two scenarios we present are therefore only the two extreme limits (with no star-formation and with no quenching), and a more detailed study of the coevolution of stellar and dark matter should be carried out.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{shmr_alternatives2.pdf}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig:shmrelation} zoomed on the two higher stellar mass bins. We show two possible scenario to explain our observations: the black arrows would represent a stripping of the dark matter at fixed stellar mass, while the green arrows represent a coevolution of the stellar and dark matter, with star formation rates from \citet{buat2008}.
}
\label{fig:shmr_alt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Systematic error}
We perform different tests to verify the robustness of our results. The analyses are described in appendix \ref{sec:num_sim} and \ref{sec:syst_err}, and we summarize here the conclusions.
To verify if no systematic bias is introduced in the lensing profiles by the differences in the source catalogues (shape measurements, redshift estimations, etc.) we perform the same measurement using each catalogue individually. The subhalo masses agree within one sigma between the different lensing catalogues.
We then examine the influence of the redshift quality in the CS82 and CFHTLenS catalogues, by testing different quality cuts and comparing the results. We chose for our fiducial source catalogue all galaxies with $0.2 < z < 1.3$.
Finally, using the BigMultiDark simulations \citep[described in appendix \ref{sec:simus}]{giocoli2016, klypin2016}, we test the influence of line-of-sight projections on our measurements. In the redMaPPer cluster catalogue we cut satellites according to their cluster membership probability to improve the purity of the satellite catalogue, but some contamination by non-member galaxies is still possible. We quantify the effect of this on the lensing signal using simulations, and find that contamination can decrease the amplitude of the lensing profile by $\sim 1\%$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Many numerical simulations and observations suggest that dark matter haloes of satellite galaxies are subjected to the tidal stripping induced by the gravitational potential of their host cluster. In this work, we study this effect by measuring the mass of satellite galaxies using galaxy-galaxy lensing: we compare the mass of satellites located in the outer part of clusters (which have just started their accretion process and are therefore less perturbed by the cluster), with satellites in the inner parts of clusters (which, in average, have been subject to the influence of the cluster for a longer time). We further divide our satellites in stellar mass bins, as the stellar mass of a galaxy appears to be a good tracer of the mass of the galaxy before infall.
We find good agreement with \citet{moster2013} for the mass of satellite galaxies in the outer radial bin and a suggested shift to smaller subhalo masses in the inner radial bin, in agreement with the dark matter stripping scenario. For the intermediate and high stellar mass bins, we find stripping factors of $\tau^{\rm inter}_{\rm strip} = 83^{+15}_{-69} \%$ and $\tau^{\rm high}_{\rm strip} = 69^{+26}_{-114} \%$.
Using the posterior probability distributions, we find that the theoretical stripping scenario $\tau_{\rm strip} = 0.75$ is favoured with respect to the no stripping scenario $\tau_{\rm strip} = 0$. We find for the intermediate mass sample $P(\tau_{\rm strip} = 0.75) = 0.59$ and $P(\tau_{\rm strip} = 0) = 0.28$, and for the high mass sample $P(\tau_{\rm strip} = 0.75) = 0.84$ and $P(\tau_{\rm strip} = 0) = 0.43$.
While our estimations of the subhalo masses appear to be consistent with a stripping of the dark matter by the gravitational potential of the host clusters, some other effects can have an influence on the results. We consider two possible evolutions in stellar mass, stripping or star-formation, and find that while stellar stripping can be neglected in the process, stellar formation could partly explain our observations. To disentangle the contributions of dark matter stripping and star formation, a study of the coevolution of dark and stellar matter during accretion should be carried out.
To improve the measurements of the subhalo mass, different solutions can be considered. Future lensing surveys will cover thousands of square degrees instead of hundreds, decreasing statistical errors. In addition, spectroscopically confirmed clusters can be studied, to remove contamination and have more precise redshifts. The improvement of the lensing measurement of subhaloes will allow not only to constrain their mass evolution more precisely, but also to study their density profiles and measure the tidal truncation radius.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT), which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Science de l'Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. The Brazilian partnership on CFHT is managed by the Laborat\'orio Nacional de Astrof\'isica (LNA). We thank the support of the Laborat\'orio Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia (LIneA). We thank the CFHTLenS team. This work was granted access to the HPC resources of Aix-Marseille Universit\'{e} financed by the project Equip@Meso (ANR-10-EQPX-29-01) of the program "Investissements d'Avenir" supervised by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche. This work is based in part on data products produced by GAZPAR located at the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille. M. L thanks CNRS for financial support. MM is partially supported by CNPq and FAPERJ. Fora Temer. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in the framework of the TR33 'The Dark Universe'. Carlo Giocoli thanks CNES and acknowledges support from the Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research (MIUR) through the SIR individual grant SIMCODE, project number RBSI14P4IH. HH was supported by an Emmy Noether grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant no.: Hi 1495/2-1).
|
\section{Introduction}
We define (an extension of) first-order logic for
scenarios where the underlying model is not
fully known. This is achieved by
evaluating a formula
with respect to several models simultaneously,
not unlike in first-order modal logic.
The set (or even a proper class) of models is taken to
represent a collection of all possible models.
The approach uses some ingredients
from Hodges' team semantics.
We shall not formally define what we mean by
incomplete information (or imperfect information for
that matter). However, we will not directly
investigate any variant of quantifier independence as in IF-logic
(which is sometimes referred to as first-order logic
with \emph{imperfect} information).
To demonstrate the defined framework from a
technical perspective we also provide a
complexity (of satisfiability) result that can be
easily extended to further similar systems not
formally studied here.
\section{First-order logic with incomplete information}
Let $\tau$ be a relational signature. Let $F(\tau)$ be
the smallest set such that the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For any $R\in\tau$, $Rx_1...x_k\in F(\tau)$.
Here $x_1,...,x_k$ are arbitrary variables (with
possible repetitions) from a fixed countably infinite
set $\mathrm{VAR}$ of first-order variable symbols. $R$ is a $k$-ary
relation symbol.
\item
$x=y\in F(\tau)$ for all $x,y\in\mathrm{VAR}$.
\item
If $\varphi,\varphi'\in F(\tau)$, then $(\varphi\wedge\varphi')\in F(\tau)$.
\item
If $\varphi\in F(\tau)$, then $\neg\varphi\in F(\tau)$.
\item
If $x\in\mathrm{VAR}$ and $\varphi\in F(\tau)$, then $\exists x\varphi\in F(\tau)$.
\end{enumerate}
The above defines the exact syntactic version of first-order logic we
shall consider here.
The semantics of (this version of) first-order logic is here defined
with respect to \emph{$\tau$-interpretation classes}; a $\tau$-interpretation is a
pair $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ where $\mathfrak{M}$ is a $\tau$-model
and $f$ a finite function that maps a finite set of variable symbols
into the domain of $\mathfrak{M}$.
A $\tau$-interpretation class is a
set (or a class) of $\tau$-interpretations with the functions $f$
having the same domain.
From now on we will only consider $\tau$-interpretation
classes that are sets and call these classes \emph{model sets}; we
acknowledge that a pair $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ is more
than a model due to the function $f$, and indeed such pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$
are often called interpretations (while $f$ is an assignment).
Having acknowledged this issue, we shall not dwell on it any more,
and we shall even occasionally call pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ models.
We note that a model set could also be called a \emph{model team} or
even an \emph{unknown model} (in singular indeed).
A \emph{choice
function} for a model set $\mathcal{M}$ is a
function that maps each model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ in $\mathcal{M}$ to
some element $a$ in the domain of $\mathfrak{M}$.
Recall that $h[a/b]$ denotes the function $h$
modified or extended so that $b$ maps to $a$.
If $F$ is a choice function, we let $\mathcal{M}[F/x]$ denote
the class
\begin{equation*}
\{(\mathfrak{M},f[F(\mathfrak{M},f)/x])
\, |\, (\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\}.
\end{equation*}
We let $\mathcal{M}[\top/x]$ denote
the class
\begin{equation*}
\{(\mathfrak{M},f[b/x])
\, |\, (\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\text{ and }b\in\mathit{Dom}(\mathfrak{M})\}.
\end{equation*}
The \emph{common domain} of a model set $\mathcal{M}$ is
the (possibly empty) intersection of the domains of the models in $\mathcal{M}$. If $A$
is any subset (including the empty set) of the common domain of $\mathcal{M}$,
we let $\mathcal{M}[A/x]$ denote
the class
\begin{equation*}
\{(\mathfrak{M},f[b/x])
\, |\, (\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\text{ and }b\in A\}.
\end{equation*}
Recall that a \emph{constant function} is a function
that maps each input to the same element.
Thus a constant choice function for a model set $\mathcal{M}$ is a
choice function that
maps each model to the
same element in the intersection of the
domains of the models in $\mathcal{M}$).
(The empty function is not a constant choice function for
any other than the empty model set.)
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a $\tau$-interpretation class, i.e., a model set.
The semantics of first-order logic (with incomplete information) is defined as follows.
\begin{comment}
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}\models^+ Rx_1...x_k\
&\text{ iff }\ (f(x_1),...,f(x_k))\in R^{\mathfrak{M}}\text{ for all }
(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ (\varphi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^+ \varphi
\text{ and }\mathcal{M}\models^+ \psi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ \neg\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^-\varphi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ \exists x \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^+ \varphi
\text{ for some choice}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{function for }\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ Cx \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^+ \varphi
\text{ for some constant}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{choice function for }\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- Rx_1...x_k\
&\text{ iff }\ (f(x_1),...,f(x_k))\not\in R^{\mathfrak{M}}\text{ for all }
(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- (\varphi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M'}\models^- \varphi
\text{ and }\mathcal{M}\models^- \psi
\ \ \ \text{ for some }\\
&\text{ }\ \ \ \ \, \mathcal{M',M''}\text{ s.t. }\mathcal{M'}
\cup\mathcal{M'} = \mathcal{M}.\\
\mathcal{M''}\models^- \neg\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- \exists x \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^- \varphi
\text{ for every choice}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{function for }\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- Cx \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^- \varphi
\text{ for every constant}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{choice function for }\mathcal{M}
\end{array}
\]
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models^+ Rx_1...x_k\
&\text{ iff }\ (f(x_1),...,f(x_k)\in R^{\mathfrak{M}}\\
(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models (\varphi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models \varphi
\text{ and }(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models \psi\\
(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models \neg\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\not\models \varphi\\
(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models \exists x \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathcal{M}[F/x],\mathfrak{M},f[F(\mathfrak{M},f)/x])\models \varphi
\text{ for some choice}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{function for }\mathcal{M}\\
(\mathcal{M},\mathfrak{M},f)\models Cx \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathcal{M}[F/x],\mathfrak{M},f[F(\mathfrak{M},f)/x])\models \varphi
\text{ for some constant}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{choice function for }\mathcal{M}\\
\end{array}
\]
\end{comment}
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}\models^+ Rx_1...x_k\
&\text{ iff }\ (f(x_1),...,f(x_k))\in R^{\mathfrak{M}}\text{ for all }
(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ (\varphi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^+ \varphi
\text{ and }\mathcal{M}\models^+ \psi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ \neg\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^-\varphi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^+ \exists x \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^+ \varphi
\text{ for some choice}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{function for }\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- Rx_1...x_k\
&\text{ iff }\ (f(x_1),...,f(x_k))\not\in R^{\mathfrak{M}}\text{ for all }
(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- (\varphi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M'}\models^- \varphi
\text{ and }\mathcal{M''}\models^- \psi
\ \ \ \text{ for some }\\
&\text{ }\ \ \ \ \, \mathcal{M',M''}\text{ s.t. }\mathcal{M'}
\cup\mathcal{M''} = \mathcal{M}.\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- \neg\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi\\
\mathcal{M}\models^- \exists x \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[\top/x]\models^- \varphi\\
\end{array}
\]
Technically this logic (first-order logic
with incomplete information) adds very little to standard
first-order logic: the semantics has simply been
lifted to the level of \emph{sets} of models (or
sets of pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$), as
the following Proposition shows.
However, conceptually the
difference with standard first-order logic
approach is clear, and further meaningful divergence
can be expected to arise in the study of
extensions of this base formalism.
The following proposition is easy to prove.
\begin{proposition}\label{fok}
Let $\varphi$ be an $\mathrm{FO}$-formula.
Then we have
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$
for all $(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}$,
\item
$\mathcal{M}\models^-\varphi$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\not\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$ for
all $(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor}
Let $\varphi$ be an $\mathrm{FO}$-formula.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\{(\mathfrak{M},f)\}\models^+\varphi$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$,
\item
$\{(\mathfrak{M},f)\}\models^-\varphi$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\not\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
We then extend the above
defined syntax for first-order logic by a
formula construction rule $\varphi \mapsto Cx\varphi$.
We call the resulting language $L_C^*$.
We let $L_C$ be the fragment of $L_C^*$
where $Cx$ is not allowed in the scope of
negation operators.
We extend the semantics based on model sets as follows,
where by a constant choice function we mean a
choice function that sends all inputs to the same (existing) element.
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}\models^+ Cx \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[F/x]\models^+ \varphi
\text{ for some constant}\\
&$ $\ \ \ \ \ \text{choice function $F$ for }\mathcal{M}
\end{array}
\]
The reading of the operator $Cx$ could be something in the
lines of there existing a \emph{common $x$}, or perhaps a \emph{shared} or
\emph{constant} $x$, or even \emph{known} or
\emph{constructible} $x$.
The above suffices for $L_C$.
To define a (possible) semantics for $L_C^*$, we give
the following clause, where $M$ denotes the
common domain of $\mathcal{M}$.
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{M}\models^- Cx \varphi
&\text{ iff }\ \mathcal{M}[M/x]\models^- \varphi
\end{array}
\]
We shall discuss $L_C^*$ somewhat little as it is
somewhat harder to interpret intuitively than $L_C$.
Let us say that two
formulae $\varphi,\varphi'\in L_C^*$ are \emph{existential variants} if $\varphi$
can be obtained from $\varphi'$ by replacing some (possibly none) of the
quantifiers $\exists x$ by $Cx$
and some (possibly none) of the quantifiers $Cx$ by $\exists x$.
The following is easy to prove (cf. Corollary \ref{cor}).
\begin{proposition}\label{okman}
Let $\varphi$ be an $\mathrm{FO}$-formula
and assume $\varphi'\in L_C^*$ is an existential variant of $\varphi$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\{(\mathfrak{M},f)\}\models^+\varphi'$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$,
\item
$\{(\mathfrak{M},f)\}\models^-\varphi'$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\not\models_{\mathrm{FO}}\varphi$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
It would be interesting and
relatively easy to extend in a natural way \emph{the first-order
part}\footnote{The part without operators $Cx$.} of the above framework to involve
generalized quantifiers (following \cite{double}).
Another option would be to
consider operators that give a Turing-complete
formalism (following \cite{tc} or even \cite{rub}\footnote{\emph{One} of the
main reasons for defining the
Turing complete logic $\mathcal{L}$ in \cite{tc} is to enable the study of standard
logic problems in that framework. Indeed, studying complexities of finite
satisfiability and finite validity problems makes a lot of
sense in the framework of $\mathcal{L}$, while first-order logic FO is not the
right framework for related studies; studying fragments of $\mathcal{L}$
makes more sense than studying only fragments of FO. First-order logic is
too weak to capture standard computational logics with recursion mechanisms, while $\mathcal{L}$ contains
such logics as direct fragments almost. Also, doing descriptive
complexity in the framework of $\mathcal{L}$ makes sense, as $\mathcal{L}$
captures RE and thus all standard complexity classes correspond to fragments of
the umbrella logic $\mathcal{L}$. Using an umbrella logic enables one to directly identify
how logical constructors lead to increases in expressivity. Also $\mathcal{L}_{RE}$ of \cite{rub}
can be used as a basis for different kinds of studies in a similar way as $\mathcal{L}$ and
due to analogous reasons.
Capturing complexity classes with $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{RE}$ is
quite easy. One can for example modify the semantics of $\mathcal{L}$ by putting
limits to the number of times a loop can be entered.
For example, one can dictate that each loop can
be used only a polynomial (in the model domain
size) number of times, or exponential, or whatever. This is involves using
clocked loops in the same way as in
\cite{mucalc}, but with more adjusted limits.
One can also limit the amount by how many points domains can be expanded in
both logics $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{RE}$. Capturing, e.g., ExpSpace and PSpace is
rather easy. And even many of the higher
classes are also easy to capture nicely due to the domain expansion capacity.
Lack of recursion is not the only weakness of FO. It is quite striking (and says something
about the state of logic as a field) that none of the paradigmantic computational logics has, e.g.,
majority quantifiers `for most $x$' in them. This is
striking because \emph{similarity} relations are \emph{central} for
real-life reasoning, and most similarity relations are defined in terms of majority statements and
the like. (Probabilistic logics are of course relatively widely studied, however, so things are not all that bad.)
The logic $\mathcal{L}$ can simulate typical majority statements and whatnot, so $\mathcal{L}$
banishes most related problems. The expressivity of $\mathcal{L}$ is, indeed, of a
\emph{fundamental} nature. The
same holds not for FO, despite Lindstr\"{o}m's theorems. Of course $\mathcal{L}$ is
fundamental mainly in relation to finite models, but still.
Classifying fragments of FO is, nevertheless, interesting and reasonably relevant. A proper
classification scheme for fragments can be easily based on an algebraic approach. Indeed,
cylindric algebras and Codd's theorem offer obvious clues how we get access to fragments in a
proper way. While prefix classes of FO offer a nice starting point for classifications, it is a too crude
approach. Even the Guarded Fragment and $\mathrm{FO}^2$ fall outside prefix classes, not to
mention logics with more intricate limitations, such as limited uses of $\neg$ and whatnot. A lot
remains to be said about this issue, but this is getting too irrelevant to the main text.
Wittgenstein's Tractatus is nice, but similarly, probably some eighty percent of the text is irrelevant to
the main argument there.
}),
possibly following a direct game-theoretic approach
rather than the team semantics flavoured one given above. This would lead to
formalisms for parallelism and distributed computation
when used with model sets as opposed to models.
However, while these generalizations can be done such
that the resulting formalisms are easily seen natural,
the formalism here that uses $Cx$ is
harder to interpret especially if we allow for $Cx$ in
the scope of negations.
If we use the semantics in formulae with $Cx$ occurrences,
then disjunction together with $Cx$ can become peculiar.\footnote{Note
that $\varphi\vee\psi$ simply means $\neg(\neg\varphi\wedge\neg\psi)$ here.}
Indeed, consided the model set $\mathcal{M}$ with two disjoint
models and nothing else. Now $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies\footnote{See \cite{det} for similar considerations.} $Cx(x=x)\vee C(x=x)$
while not satisfying $Cx(x=x)$. Thus the reading of $\vee$ indeed is
should be ``\emph{there are two cases such that $\varphi$ and $\psi$}" or
even ``\emph{the possibilities split into two cases
such that in the first case $\varphi$ and in the second case $\psi$}."
(Note that dependence logic
requires a similar reading of $\vee$ to be natural.)
Obviously, implications (e.g., $P(x)\rightarrow \varphi$
which stands for $\neg P(x)\vee \varphi$) can of course be
read ``\emph{if $P(x)$, then $\varphi$}" but
also ``\emph{in the \emph{case} $P(x)$, we have $\varphi$}."
These are natural readings especially if one is attempting to unify
semantics and proofs,
thereby relating $\vee$ with the proof by cases protocol.
Adopting the perspective that a model set is (intuitively) a
single fixed but unknown object (for example any
group from a collection of groups that extend a particular single group\footnote{Groups
have a relational representation here since we
are considering relational signatures.}) is
very natural and in such a framework it is natural to
make statements about splitting into cases. ("The
(unknown) group $G$ has property $P$
or $G$ has property $Q$...")\footnote{Similar
statements are omnipresent. Further operators arise for related
statements, such as "It is possible that $G$ has property $P$," etcetera.
This modality statement obviously seems to say (more or less) that
the subset (of the current model set) where $G$
has $P$ is nonempty.} This is true
especially because proofs are often (or
almost always) made for a \emph{fixed
but unknown object} or objects. Thus the above semantics works for
formalising that kind of thinking. Category theory of course can also be thought to operate
this way but here we have a very simple logic that can
also directly speak about the internal structure of objects.
It is obviously easy to expand the above framework, but we
shall leave that for later.
\section{Satisfiability and applications}
We say that a sentence $\varphi\in L_C$ is \emph{satisfiable} if
there is some nonempty model set $\mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi$.
The satisfiability problem for a fragment $F$ of $L_C$ takes a sentence of $F$ as an input and asks
whether some nonempty model set satisfies $\varphi$, i.e., whether $\mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi$
for some nonemtpy model set $\mathcal{M}$.
The two-variable fragment of $L_C$ is the set of formulae
that use instances of only the two variables $x$ and $y$.
We next show a complexity result concerning the two-variable fragment of $L_C$,
although it is easy to see that the related argument rather flexibly
generalizes to suitable other fragments as well.
We discuss two-variable logic for convenience and also as it
and its variants (even in the team semantics context) have
received a lot of attention in recent years, see, e.g.,
\cite{worrell, boja, onedimensional, onedimsecond, infcomp, double, zeume}.
\begin{proposition}
The satisfiability problem of the two-variable
fragment of $L_C$ is $\mathrm{NEXPTIME}$-complete.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Define the following translation $T$ from $L_C$ into $\mathrm{FO}$,
where $D$ is a fresh unary relation symbol (intuitively representing
the common domain of a model set).
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
T(Rx_1...x_k) &=\ \ Rx_1...x_k\\
T(x=y) &=\ \ x=y\\
T(\neg\varphi) &=\ \ \neg T(\varphi)\\
T((\varphi\wedge\psi)) &=\ \ (T(\varphi)\wedge T(\psi))\\
T(\exists x \varphi) &=\ \ \exists x T(\varphi)\\
T(C x \varphi) &=\ \ \exists x (D x\wedge T(\varphi))\\
\end{array}
\]
We will prove below (in a couple of steps) that a
formula $\varphi$ of $L_C$ is satisfied by
some nonempty model set iff $T(\varphi)$ is satisfied by some model (in
the classical sense).
This will conclude the proof of the current proposition as it is
well known that the satisfiability problem of two-variable
first order logic is $\mathrm{NEXPTIME}$-complete.
We first note that if $T(\varphi)$ is satisfiable by some
model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$, then we have $\{(\mathfrak{M},f)\}\models^+T(\varphi)$ by
Corollary \ref{cor}. From here it is very easy to show that $\varphi$ is
satisfiable by the same model set by evaluating formulae step by step from outside in
(and recalling the syntactic restrictions of $L_C$.)
Thus it now suffices to show
that if some nonempty model set satisfies $\varphi$,
then $T(\varphi)$ is satisfied by some model.
To prove this, we begin by
making the following auxiliary definition.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a model set
and let $\mathcal{M}_D$ denote the model set
obtained from $\mathcal{M}$ by adding a unary
predicate $D$ to each model that covers exactly the common domain of $\mathcal{M}$.
Recall that we have already fixed $\varphi$.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Claim.} $\mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi$ implies $\mathcal{M}_D\models^+T(\varphi)$.
\medskip
\noindent
The claim is easy to prove by evaluating formulae from
outside in using the semantics for model sets.
\begin{comment}
The claim is proved by first establishing that
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{N}\models^+\psi\Leftrightarrow {\mathcal{N}}_D\models^+T(\psi)
\text{ and }(\mathcal{N}\models^-\psi
\Leftrightarrow \mathcal{N}_D\models^-T(\psi))
\end{equation*}
by induction on the structure of subformulae $\psi$ of $\varphi$
that do not contain operators $Cx$; here $D$ is fixed to
be a predicate denoting the common
domain of $\mathcal{M}$ and the model sets $\mathcal{N}_D$
are arbitrary model sets
taking a suitably collection of models $\mathfrak{M}$ from $\mathcal{M}$
and adding arbitrary assignments $f$ on top of that.
Then we carry out a second similar induction (which only
involves the turnstile $\models^+$ and conjunctions
together with operators $\exists x$ and $Cx$ and
proves the simpler statement
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{M}\models^+\psi\Leftrightarrow {\mathcal{M}}_D\models^+T(\psi)
\text{ and }(\mathcal{M}\models^-\psi
\Leftrightarrow \mathcal{M}_D\models^-T(\psi))
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{M}$ is the fixed model set from above; the second induction uses
the first as a basis.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
The nontrivial part in the first induction is dealing with formulae $\psi\wedge\psi'$
and the turnstile $\models^-$, which goes as follows.
Assume first that $\mathcal{N}\models^- \psi\wedge\psi'$.
Thus $\mathcal{N}'\models^- \psi$
and $\mathcal{N}''\models^- \psi'$ for some $\mathcal{N}',\mathcal{N}''$
such that $\mathcal{N}'\cup\mathcal{N}'' = \mathcal{N}$.
Thus, by the induction hypothesis, we have
$\mathcal{N}_D'\models^- T(\psi)$
and $\mathcal{N}_D''\models^- T(\psi')$. (Note here
that the common domains of $\mathcal{N}_D'$ and $\mathcal{N}_D''$
may have little to do with each other or the common domain of $\mathcal{N}$,
but $D$ is fixed to be the common domain of $\mathcal{M}$.)
Therefore, as clearly $\mathcal{N}_D'\cup\mathcal{N}_D'' = \mathcal{N}_D$, we
have that $\mathcal{N}_D\models^- T(\psi)\wedge T(\psi')$.
The converse is almost identical, but we
discuss it for the sake of completeneess.
Assume that $\mathcal{N}_D\models^- T(\psi)\wedge T(\psi')$.
Thus $\mathcal{N}_D'\models^- \psi$
and $\mathcal{N}_D''\models^- \psi'$ for some $\mathcal{N}_D',\mathcal{N}_D''$
such that $\mathcal{N}_D'\cup\mathcal{N}_D'' = \mathcal{N}_D$.
Thus, by the induction hypothesis, we have
$\mathcal{N}'\models^- \psi$
and $\mathcal{N}''\models^- \psi'$.
Therefore, as clearly $\mathcal{N}'\cup\mathcal{N}'' = \mathcal{N}$, we
have that $\mathcal{N}\models^- \psi\wedge \psi'$.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
The nontrivial part is dealing with formulae $\psi\wedge\psi'$
and the turnstile $\models^-$, which goes as follows.
\begin{comment}
Assume first that $\mathcal{M}\models^- \psi\wedge\psi'$.
Thus $\mathcal{M}[C/x]\models^-\psi$.
whence we have
$({\mathcal{M}}[C/x])^* = {\mathcal{M}}^*[C/x]\models^-T(\psi)$
by the induction hypothesis.
On the other hand, we trivially have ${\mathcal{M}}^*[\bar{C}/x]\models^- Dx$.
Therefore, as $\mathcal{M}^*[\top/x] = {\mathcal{M}}^*[{C}/x]\cup
{\mathcal{M}}^*[\bar{C}/x]$, we
conclude that $\mathcal{M}\models^-\exists x(Dx\wedge T(\psi))$.
To prove the converse,
assume that $\mathcal{N}^*\models^-\exists x(Dx\wedge T(\psi))$.
Thus $\mathcal{N}^*[\top/x] \models^- Dx\wedge T(\psi)$,
whence $\mathcal{N}_0^*\models^- Dx$ and $\mathcal{N}_1^*\models^-T(\psi)$
for some $\mathcal{N}_0^*,\mathcal{N}_1^*$
such that $\mathcal{N}_0^*\cup\mathcal{N}_1^*=\mathcal{N}^*[\top/x]$.
By the induction hypothesis, we have $\mathcal{N}_1\models^-\psi$,
where $\mathcal{N}_1$ is the same as $\mathcal{N}_1^*$ but
without the symbol $D$ interpreted by the models in $\mathcal{N}_1$.
We need to show that $\mathcal{N}[C/x]\models^-\psi$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is
obtained from $\mathcal{N}^*$ by not interpreting $D$. Thus it
suffices to argue that for
each $(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{N}_0^*$, the element $f(x)$ is not in
the common domain of $\mathcal{N}$.
This is indeed so as $\mathcal{N}_0^*\models^- Dx$.
\end{comment}
Assume that $\mathcal{M}\models^+\varphi$ for some nonempty
model set $\mathcal{M}$. Thus $\mathcal{M}_D\models^+ T(\varphi)$ by
the claim. Thus $(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{
\mathrm{FO}} T(\varphi)$ for all $(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}_D$ by Proposition \ref{fok}.
Therefore (since $\mathfrak{M}_D$ is nonempty) we have $(\mathfrak{M},f)
\models_{\mathrm{FO}} T(\varphi)$ for some $(\mathfrak{M},f)\in\mathcal{M}_D$.
This concludes the very easy proof.
\end{proof}
Going from perfect to imperfect information is in
general extremely easy to justify in several
ways, so let us look at more concrete and even
rather specific and particular possible applications of model sets.
Ontology-based data access and related querying
frameworks obviously offer a natural application for
model sets. The work there is rather active, see, e.g., \cite{obda, icdt17}
and the references therein. Another obvious and quite
different application is distributed computing.
One (of many) ways to model a computer network via logic would be to
combine the approaches of \cite{kucsl13} (which
accounts for communication) with \cite{tc} (which
accounts for the local (Turing-complete) computation).
The nodes of \cite{kucsl13} would become first-order models, so
the domains considered would be model sets (with relations that
connect models to other models). See also \cite{kuu14gan} for
some (simple) adaptations of the framework in \cite{kucsl13}.
For yet another example, let $\varphi$ and $\psi$ denote your favourite
theorems. One can now ask:
``Does $\psi$ \emph{follow from} $\varphi$?''
The first answer could be: ``Yes, since $\varphi$ is a
true theorem, it in fact already follows from an empty set of
assumptions.'' The next answer could be a bit more
interesting: for example, if $\varphi$ and $\psi$ were
theorems of arithmetic, one could try to
investigate if $\psi$ follows from $\varphi$ as a logical
consequence, i.e., even without the axioms of arithmetic.
Different approaches to \emph{relevance} have been
widely studied, and the example below is not unrelated to that.
Let $D$ be a deduction system (or some conceptually similar algorithm). Now, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\rightarrow_n^D$ denote the connective defined such that $\varphi\rightarrow_n^D\psi$ holds if $\psi$ can be deduced from the premiss $\varphi$ in $n$ deduction steps (applications of deduction rules) in $D$. Here `$\varphi\rightarrow_n^D\psi$ holds' is a metalogical statement; we could consider closing the underlying logic under $\rightarrow_n^D$ and the other connectives, but we shall not do that now. We note that also statements $(\varphi_1,...,\varphi_k)\rightarrow_n^D\psi$, containing several premises, can be introduced.
Statements $\varphi\rightarrow_n^D\psi$ capture aspects of relevance. The idea here is that whether $\psi$ follows
from $\varphi$, depends on the particular background
knowledge and abilities as well as the computational capacity (of an agent, for example). With this interpretation, it is indeed highly \emph{contingent} whether something follows in $n$ steps from something else. It here depends on the particularities of $D$. Also, how immediately something follows from something else, is a matter of degree. This is the role of the subindex $n$.
This kind of a framework is one example (of many) that can be elaborated in a possibly more interesting way by using an approach to proofs that is directly (indeed, directly) linked to semantics, with connectives corresponding to proof steps. Model sets offer such possibilities in a natural way. It is worth noting that also refutation calculi (rather than proof calculi), and generalizations thereof, fit into the framework well. The related approaches can be based on the dual
systems of \cite{double}. That framework obviously offers quite natural possibilities for generalizations of model sets as well.
Another natural and related approach is to consider extensions of ATL\footnote{ATL stands for alternating time temporal logic.} with individual states replaced by relational structures. The players then modify the relational structure in every step, leading essentially to a computation tree with nodes corresponding to relational structures.\footnote{It can be quite natural to let strategies be determined by the relational structure only, which means that positional strategies are used. Trivially, incomplete information can be modeled---with some success---with model sets (instead of individual structures) as states. (Of course these can simply be considered \emph{sets} of states, if desired.)}
This is a very general approach. In the particular case of modeling proofs or evolving information states, the relational structures can simply be (or encode) sets of formulae for example. Note that even paraconsistent states are quite easy to handle here, as they are simply inconsistent sets of formulae.
More on this in section \ref{generalsystems} below.
It is especially interesting to consider systems where the individual players take actions,
and those actions plus the action of nature then
computably (or in a semi-decidable way) produce the new relational model.
The moves are determined by the previous relational structure and
the actions. Even distributed computing
systems and beyond are natural in the framework. Note that even infinite structures make
immediate sense here if there exists a \emph{perception function} that returns a
finite structure from each infinite structure, and that finite structure is then used by at
least the agents' strategies. Note that different agents' strategies can even
depend on different (but probably overlapping) relation symbol sets. In any case, it is
natural to make the strategies to depend solely on the current relational structure; any memory
ought to be encoded in that structure (and can be visible to only a single agent since
the agents can see different relation symbol sets). This is a nice way to model the interaction of
minds together with the material world.
Multiperspective thought provides another
example of immediate applications of model sets. Such thought
seems to be considered controversial by
many. Yet, it is mostly very simple, and it is indeed
surprizing that it is so often
considered problematic.
The difficulties in understanding related
statements are often due to the assumption of
bivalence and the assumption that
concepts have fully fixed meanings in
contexts where such assumptions are na\"{i}ve.\footnote{Indeed,
many---if not most---philosophical problems stem from
underdeterminacy of concepts. Here `underdetermined' could mean
`not fully defined' and determined `fully defined.' Alternatively,
`underdetermined' could here stand for
`not specified up to a sufficient extent' and determined
for `specified up to a sufficient extent.' Philosophical confusion quite typically arises from considering
underdetermined concepts determined.
A related and highly relevant demarcation
problem is to \emph{try} to determine which questions can be
naturally turned into `determined' questions and which not. Here a prima facie idea would be that in
favourable cases, a question turns into a set of determined questions, one
for each natural interpretation, with each
determined question being associated with definitions that force determinacy.
The issue is then to consider how natural and
appropriate those differing sets of definitions are (and also to
solve the---unambiguous but open---determined questions). In less favourable
cases, the question simply escapes all attempts to banish ambiguities, due to intrinsic
ambiguities and
finite resources for the classification process. A sometimes sufficient `metasolution'
here could perhaps be that no solution can be obtained.}
Let us consider a very simple formal framework that captures---and
thus elucidates---at
least some aspects of multiperspective thought.
Consider a model set $\mathcal{U}$ which we shall call the \emph{universe}.
A \emph{property} is a subset $\mathcal{P}\subseteq\mathcal{U}$. (Properties
need not be closed under isomorphism.) A \emph{weight function} is a
mapping $w:\mathit{Pow}(\mathcal{U})\rightarrow S$, where $S$ is some
non-empty set and $\mathit{Pow}$
the power set operator; the set $S$ could be, for example, the set of
real numbers $\mathbb{R}$. We call the set $S$ the \emph{set of weights}
and the elements $s\in S$ are obviously called \emph{weights}.
Let $S_m$ denote the set of multisets over $S$, i.e., collections of
elements of $S$ that also enable different multiplicities of elements to occur.\footnote{We
allow for infinite multipilicities, but limit the largest possible multiplicity with
some sufficiently large cardinal, for example something greater than
the power set of $\mathcal{U}$.}
A function $E:S_m\rightarrow V$ is called an \emph{evaluation function},
where the set $V$ is an arbitrary set of \emph{values} $v\in V$. For example,
for finite $\mathcal{U}$ and with $S = \mathbb{R}$, the
function $E$ could be the operator that gives the
sum of any collection of inputs.
Now, let $s$ be a one-to-one function
from $\mathit{Pow}(\mathcal{U})$ into a set of \emph{statements}, so
each property $\mathcal{P}$ is associated with a statement $s(\mathcal{P})$.
The weight of the statement $s(\mathcal{P})$ is $w(\mathcal{P})$
and the value of a set $K$ of statements is $E(\{ w(\mathcal{P})\ |\ s(\mathcal{P})\in K\})$,
where the argument set is a multiset of weights of statements.
So, we (or a group of people) can know that different properties hold, i.e., we know the
actual model is inside different sets $\mathcal{P}\subseteq\mathcal{U}$. Each
property $\mathcal{P}$ contributes a weight. We can possibly combine the
weights and get different values, depending on which properties
are involved. For example, some true
properties can contribute a negative number (as a weight) and others a
positive one. The \emph{full value} is the value obtained by
considering the multiset of weights of all properties. (For example, the
full value could be the sum of all weights.)
Now, the full value then, in the end, can be
associated with a truth value, if desired. Note that it often natural to take
the intersection of all known properties first and then associate that one
property with a weight.
For example, I can
state that John is rich as he has a million dollars on his
bank account, and Jill can state that John is not rich as he has a
debt of two million dollars. Obviously these observations of
partial knowledge (i.e., John has money and debt) are simply contributions towards an ultimate
picture, and the possible seeming syntactic contrariness of the related partial statements
(John is rich and John is not rich) amounts to
nothing much at all.
The next section shortly discusses a fresh link between logic and combinatorics.
The connection to model sets is kind of trivial but nice. Every combinatorial
property $P$ and input structure domain size $n$ will give rise to a model set $P_n$ which
contains the models with property $P$ and the domain size $n$. The domain of
the models can naturally be considered to be $\{0,\dots , n-1\}$. The size of $P_n$ is
related to the counting enumeration function for $P_n$.
\subsection{The interplay of logic and combinatorics}
What is enumerative combinatorics? This is, of course, a
philosophical question. The business of enumerative combinatorics
often follows the following pattern:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Input: a property.
\item
Output: the enumeration function for the property.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
Perhaps a more accurate picture would be the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Input: a property.
\item
Output: a formula for the enumeration function for the property.
\end{enumerate}
For example, we could be asked how many symmetric binary
relations there are on an $n$-element set.
There are $2^{\binom{n}{2} + n}$ symmetric binary relations on an $n$-element
set, so here the input would be the property of being a symmetric binary relation,
and the output would be the formula $2^{\binom{n}{2} + n}$. Another example
could be the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Input: being an anti-involutive\footnote{Here we define a
function to be anti-involutive if $f(f(x))\not=x$ for all inputs $x$.} function $f:n\rightarrow n$.
\item
Output: a formula for the enumeration function for the property.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
The enumeration function is given by
$${\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{i = \lfloor n/2\rfloor}(-1)^i(n-1)^{n-2i}
\binom{n}{2i}\frac{(2i)!}{2^i\cdot i!}}$$
which follows, for example, as a special case of Proposition 3.1 of \cite{kuusilutz}.
Now, an interesting and relevant idea would be to formalize both the input and
output in our general scheme for enumerative combinatorics.
There is a lot of freedom in the way this can be done. For example, the input
properties could be formalized in first-order logic or even (fragments of) some stronger logic
such as the Turing-complete logic from \cite{tc}.\footnote{Also the Turing-complete
logic $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{RE}}$ from \cite{rub} would be interesting here.} On the
output side, also many
different formalisms could be interesting. Arithmetic formulae could be
constructed from $+,\cdot,\sum,\prod$ etcetera, starting from a variable $n$ (or even
several variables). Different kinds of results would be obtained for different sets of
functions and operators. Subtraction, division, exponentiation, factorials, and
operators for all kinds of basic operations\footnote{In addition to $\sum,\prod$, a whole
range of operations comes to mind, even ones for constructing recurrence relations etcetera.
The sky is the limit.}
could be used in various different combinations. Our above example would become
formulated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Input: ${\forall x \forall y
\neg(Rxy\wedge Ryx) \wedge\forall x\exists^{=1}y\, Rxy}$.
\item
Output: ${\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{i = \lfloor n/2\rfloor}(-1)^i(n-1)^{n-2i}
\binom{n}{2i}\frac{(2i)!}{2^i\, \cdot\, i!}}$.
\end{enumerate}
There exists no theory based on this exact idea, so it must be built. There is indeed a
lot of freedom here.
The idea of the suggested research programme is to
understand the interplay of logical operators and
arithmetic functions (and operators). How do arithmetic expressions arise from the
logic-based specifications combinatorial properties, and vice versa? What can we learn
from those connections?
However, something is known of course. For example, already \cite{kuusilutz} gives
the answer to the above input ${\forall x \forall y
\neg(Rxy\wedge Ryx) \wedge\forall x\exists^{=1}y\, Rxy}$ in an algorithmic way.
Indeed, from \cite{kuusilutz}, an algorithm can be extracted that takes as inputs formulae of
two-variable logic with a functionality axiom and outputs formulae for the related
enumeration functions. If we care only about the complexity of the enumeration
function instead of arithmetic formulae describing it, then of course results in
model counting are immediately interesting as well. For example, all properties expressible in
two-variable logic have PTIME-computable
enumeration functions even when a
functionality axiom is used \cite{kuusilutz}.\footnote{The input here is
given in unary, conceptually being associated
with a structure domain rather than simply domain size.}
\subsection{Some general notions of a system}\label{generalsystems}
In this section we define some general notions of an \emph{evolving system}. No
restrictions based on computability will be imposed at first. We begin
with formal definitions and give concrete examples after that.
Let $\sigma$ denote a (possibly infinite) vocabulary.
Let $A$ be an arbitrary set and $I$ an ordered set. Intuitively, $A$ is a set of
\emph{actions} and $I$ a set of indices or agent names.
\begin{comment}
We shall define three different notions of a \emph{system} and then
discuss the merits of each definition as well as the notion of a system in general.
When necessary, systems according to Definition \ref{firstsystem} (respectively,
\ref{secondsystem}, \ref{thirdsystem}) can be referred to as \emph{systems of
type} I (respectively, II, III).
\end{comment}
\begin{definition}\label{firstsystem}
\normalfont
A \emph{system frame base} (or simply a base) over $(\sigma,A,I)$ is a structure $(\mathcal{S},F)$
defined as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\mathcal{S}$ is a set of $\sigma$-models.
The set $\mathcal{S}$ and any of the models can be infinite.\footnote{If desired, the
set $\mathcal{S}$ can even be a set of
pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$, where $\mathfrak{M}$ is a $\sigma$-model and $f$ an
assignment mapping variables to the domain of $\mathfrak{M}$.}
\item
$F$ is a function $F:\ \mathcal{S}\times A^I\ \ \rightarrow\ \ \
\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$. We require that $F$ returns a non-empty set. (This is
neither crucial nor elegant but is \emph{here} done to simplify things. An empty output can
be modelled by special features on output models.)
\end{enumerate}
A \emph{system frame} over $(\sigma,A,I)$ is structure $(\mathcal{S},F,G)$
defined as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$(\mathcal{S},F)$ is a system frame base as defined above.
\item
Let $T$ be the set of sequences $\bigl((\mathfrak{M}_i,\mathbf{a}_i)\bigr)_{0\leq i\leq k}$
such that the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$k\in\mathbb{N}$.
\item
$\mathfrak{M}_i\in \mathcal{S}$ and $\mathbf{a}_i\in A^I$ for each $i$.
\item
$\mathfrak{M}_{i+1}\in F(\mathfrak{M}_i,\mathbf{a}_i )$ for all $i\in\{0,\dots , k-1\}$.
\end{enumerate}
The set $T$ is called the set of \emph{finite proper evolutions of $(\mathcal{S},F)$.}
We define $G$ to be a function $G:T\ \ \rightarrow\ \ \mathcal{S}$ such that $G(t)
\in F(\mathfrak{M}_k,\mathbf{a}_k)$ for all $t\in T$, where $(\mathfrak{M}_k,\mathbf{a}_k)$ is
the last member of the sequence $t\in T$.
\end{enumerate}
A \emph{system} over $(\sigma,A,I)$ is a structure $(\mathcal{S},F,G,(f_i)_{i\in I})$
defined as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$(\mathcal{S},F,G)$ is a system frame as defined above.
\item
Each $f_i$ is a function $f_i:\ \mathcal{S}
\ \ \rightarrow\ \ \ A$.
\end{enumerate}
The set $\mathcal{S}$ is the \emph{domain} of $(\mathcal{S},F)$, $(\mathcal{S},F,G)$
and $(\mathcal{S},F,G,(f_i)_{i\in I})$. \ \ \ \qedsymbol
\end{definition}
\begin{comment}
\begin{definition}\label{secondsystem}
\normalfont
A \emph{system} over $(\sigma,A)$ is a structure $(\mathcal{S},(f_i)_{i\in I},F)$
defined as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\mathcal{S}$ is a set of $\sigma$-models.
The set $\mathcal{S}$ and any of the models can be infinite.
\item
Each $f_i$ is a function $f_i:\ \mathcal{S}
\ \ \rightarrow\ \ \ A$.
\item
$F$ is a function $F:\ \mathcal{S}\times A^I\ \ \rightarrow\ \ \
\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\end{comment}
We often talk about \emph{frame bases} (or \emph{bases}) and \emph{frames} instead of
\emph{system frame bases} and \emph{system frames}.
Intuitively, the frame base of a system can be considered the
\emph{material} or \emph{physical} part of the system, while $G$ and the functions $f_i$ are
the \emph{non-physical} or \emph{non-material} part.
The functions $f_i$ can be associated with individual \emph{agents}\footnote{More
accurately, the functions $f_i$ are agent behaviour strategies and indices in $I$
correspond to agents or agent place holders.},
while $G$ can be considered a higher force that
ultimately determines the final evolutive
behaviour of the system.\footnote{$G$ can be interpreted in
many ways. It could simply be considered \emph{change} or
\emph{luck}, to give one example. One of the main features of $G$ is that it removes
non-determinism from systems.} The agents choose
actions from $A$ based on the current model, and a
new model is then produced according to the function $G$ based on the chosen actions.
Let $M = (\mathcal{S},F,G,(f_i)_{i\in I})$ be a system over $(\sigma,A,I)$ with domain $\mathcal{S}$.
A pair $(M,\mathfrak{M})$, where $\mathfrak{M}\in\mathcal{S}$, is called an \emph{instance}.
We may also call $(M,\mathfrak{M})$ a \emph{pointed system}, in analogy with modal logic.
The set of finite \emph{evolutions} of the frame base $(\mathcal{S},F)$ is the set that
containins all finite proper evolutions of $(\mathcal{S},F)$ and
all models $\mathfrak{M}\in\mathcal{S}$. The models can be thought of as
zero-step evolutions of $(\mathcal{S},F)$.
The set of finite evolutions of the system $M$ is the
set that contains all $\mathfrak{M}\in\mathcal{S}$ and all pairs $(t,\mathfrak{M}_{k+1})$
such that the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$t = (\mathfrak{M}_i,\mathbf{a}_i)_{i\leq k}$ for some $k\geq 0$, all
models and action tuples being from $M$.
\item
$\mathbf{a}_i = (f_i(\mathfrak{M}_i))_{i\in I}$ for each $i\leq k$.
\item
$\mathfrak{M}_{i+1} = G\bigl((\mathfrak{M}_j,\mathbf{a}_j)_{j\leq i}\bigr)$
for all $i\leq k$.
\end{enumerate}
An infinite evolution is defined similarly, in the obvious way, but
without the final model $\mathfrak{M}_{k+1}$. Note that the agents' choices are
determined by the current model rather than the
sequence including also all the previous models and actions leading to
the current model. The interpretation of this is that histories are to be
encoded in the current model, i.e., the current material world. It is also
natural to consider memory, somehow encoded, rather than some full history.
While this framework is an intuitive way of thinking about systems,
there are other natural choices. We
shall look at an alternative way of defining systems such that
the non-physical part can (ultimately) be eliminated, more or less, from the picture.
This new way is, for most purposes, \emph{essentially} equivalent to the old definition above.
Consider a system frame $S := (\mathcal{S},F,G)$. We describe a
way to eliminate the function $G$.
For each $E = \mathfrak{M}_0,\mathbf{a}_0,\dots ,\mathfrak{M}_{k+1}$ that is a
finite evolution of the frame base $(\mathcal{S},F)$,
we create a new model $\mathfrak{M}_E$ which has $\mathfrak{M}_{k+1}$ as a \emph{basic part}
and some encoding of the evolution sequence $E$ as a disjoint part, with elements labelled by
some fresh predicate in order to be able to tell which part of the
new model encodes $E$; also other fresh relation symbols can of course be used, for
example to encode the order in which the models occur, and the actions that lead from
one model to another, etcetera. We then create a new
domain $\mathcal{S}'$ that includes $\mathcal{S}$ and all the new models, that is,
the new domain includes (encodings of) all finite evolution
sequences $E$ of $(\mathcal{S},F)$.
The zero-step evolutions can be thought of as \emph{starting point models} in
the new system frame base we are about to create. We define a new index set $I'$
by adding a new index $J$ to the beginning of $I$ in order to be able to
accommodate a new function $g_J$ that simulates functions $G$.\footnote{Formally, $I'$ is an
ordered set that begins with $J$ after which come the elements of $I$.}
We modify $F$ to a new
function $F': I'\rightarrow A'$, where $A'$ extends $A$, in the way described next.
We \emph{first} define a new
function $F_G'$ that informally speaking always outputs the set of models (now extended with the
history) that the function $G$ would also have given. More formally,
let $\mathfrak{M}$ be a model in the new domain, and let $\mathbf{a}\in {A}^{I}$.
Let $E = ((\mathfrak{M}_i,\mathbf{a}_i)_{i\leq k},\mathfrak{N})$ denote
the evolution (containing models from the old domain) that is
encoded in the structure of $\mathfrak{M}$.
Thus $\mathfrak{N}$ is the model in the old
domain that $\mathfrak{M}$ corresponds to, i.e., $\mathfrak{N}$ is the current model
that $\mathfrak{M}$ encodes. We define $F_G'(\mathfrak{M},\mathbf{a})$ to be the
model whose current part is $\mathfrak{M}' = G(E\cdot (\mathfrak{N},\mathbf{a}))$ and which
encodes the evolution $E\cdot \mathbf{a}\cdot \mathfrak{M}'$.
Notice that $F_G'$ is now deterministic. The frame base $(\mathcal{S}',F_G')$
simulates $(\mathcal{S},F,G)$ in the obvious way.
Note that $F_G'$ covers only one particular function $G$.
We can modify the framework by defining a deterministic function $F'$ which
takes into account different possible functions $G$. Indeed, we can define $F'$ so that the
novel index $J$ can accommodate different functions\footnote{Note that these
functions are simply strategies of an
agent.} $g_{J}$ that simulate
functions $G$. We include in $A'\supseteq A$ a single choice for each possible
behaviour pattern that give an outcome model based on the
moves of the old agents $f_i$ with $i\in I$. Then
the function $F'$ can easily be modified to deterministically provide the
outcome that $G$ would force. We can make $A'$ small is
all features in our framework are suitably regular.
It is possible to require that the functions $G$ and $f_i$ (and even $F$) of different
systems are somehow part of (or encoded in) the models. This is easy to accomplish by
suitable encodings. For example, we can easily encode Turing machines into the
models in system domains.
It is possible even to modify these machines on the fly and dictate that if no output is given, or if
there is even a syntax error in the encoding, then some default action is taken.
These kinds of systems can be called \emph{fully material}. The requirement is that $F$, $G$
and each $f_i$ behave as their material counterparts (encoded in the models) would
dictate. Now systems become
essentially equivalent to system domains, but of course fixed background
definitions are needed if we somehow try to specify systems only by giving
the domains (in one way or another), as otherwise we cannot necessarily
determine the intended evolutionary behaviour of the systems.
While the functions $f_i$ can depend on all of the current model, which is
natural when modelling perfect information games, it is also natural to define
\emph{perception functions} and make functions $f_i$ depend upon \emph{perceived
models}. We can let an individual perception function be a
map $\varphi:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathcal{S}'$, where $\mathcal{S}'$ contains
models whose signature may be different from those in $\mathcal{S}$. Now, even if
the input model to $\varphi$ is infinite, the output model can be finite and depend only on
some small part of the input model. We can now dictate that $f_i(x) = f(\varphi(x))$
for each input $x$, where $f$ gives an action in $A$. For a concrete example, $\varphi$
could be a first-order reduction, more or less in the sense of descriptive complexity, that gives a
very crude, finite approximation of the original model. Note that agents'
epistemic states can be somehow part of the original models, so agents can
take these into account up to one extent or another.
It is also natural and easy to tie the functions $f$ to \emph{material bodies}. These
can be modelled by, e.g., specially reserved predicate symbols or some more
general constructions. The perception functions can be relativised to depend on
only the substructures that the bodies of agents (almost) cover. Note that there is no
problem in letting the bodies of different agents overlap. It is natural (but by no means
necessary) to let the encodings of the machines that govern functions $f_i$ to be
part of the bodies of the related agents.
While cellular automata are an ok starting point for digital physics, the above described
approach (and its numerous trivial variants) offer a much richer modelling framework for
related formal approaches to physics.\footnote{Of course one of the first ideas is to keep
more or less all functions computable or semi-computable. Partial
functions can be suitably accommodated into the system of course.}
The metaphysical setting of such formal frameworks
offers a lot of explanatory power for the deeper level nature of physical (and other) phenomena.
The interplay of the supposedly mental constructs ($G$ and each $f_i$) with the material
parts is obviously highly interesting. The fully formal nature of the systems will simply \emph{force}
new concepts and insights to emerge as the result of concrete modelling attempts.
Importantly, it is not at all necessary to always keep everything computable or recursively
enumerable, even though such limitations are an obviously
interesting and important case. Nor is there any reason to force entities (agents) to be
somehow \emph{local} in models.
As suggested in \cite{antti15kuu}, extensions of the Turing-complete logic can be
naturally used as logics to guide such systems (when using semi-computable functions).
\subsection{Hierarchical approaches}
Here we look at ways of dealing with modalities.
There are various \emph{prima facie reasonable} ways to
proceed. Let us begin with one.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a set of pointed Kripke models. (By fixing some variable, say $x$,
sets of Kripke models can be associated with model sets: a pointed model $(\mathfrak{M},w)$ is
identified with $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ where $f(x) = w$.)
Let $(P_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+}$ be a
sequence such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$P_1 \subseteq \mathcal{M}$.
\item
$P_{\alpha+1} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(P_{\alpha})$.
\footnote{Here $\mathcal{P}$ is
the power set operator, so $\mathcal{P}(S_{\alpha})$ is the power set of $S_{\alpha}$.}
\end{enumerate}
We call $P_{\alpha}$ a
\emph{perspective} of rank $\alpha$. It makes sense to
not allow the empty set to belong to perspectives. We
thus do so here.
Consider the language of modal logic,
$$\varphi\ ::=\ P\ |\ (\varphi\wedge\varphi)\ |\ \neg\varphi\ |\ \Diamond\varphi\ $$
where $P$ is any unary predicate (i.e., a proposition symbol) in the signature of
the models of $\mathcal{M}$.
Define the \emph{rank} $r(\varphi)$ of a formula $\varphi$ in
the natural way as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$r(\chi) = 0$ for each atomic formula $\chi$.
\item
$r(\neg\chi) = r(\chi)$.
\item
$r(\chi\wedge\psi) = \mathit{max}\{r(\chi),r(\psi)\}$.
\item
$r(\Diamond\varphi) = r(\varphi) + 1$.
\end{enumerate}
A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ of rank $\alpha$ can interpret
formulae of rank $\alpha$ or less with
the following semantics.
\begin{comment}
Assume first that $\alpha = 0$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{0}\models^+ P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
P_{0}\models^- P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\not\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
\end{array}
\]
where $\models$ is the standard semantic turnstile of Kripke semantics.
\end{comment}
Assume first that $r(\varphi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models \varphi \text{ for all }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Note that if $\alpha = 1$, then $P_{\alpha - 1}$ is a
pointed model in $P_{\alpha}$. Then the above
holds with the natural definition that
$P_{\alpha - 1} = (\mathfrak{M},w) \models \varphi$
iff we have $(\mathfrak{M},w)\models_K \varphi$
where $\models_K$ is the standard semantic
turnstile of Kripke semantics.
Assume then that $r(\neg \psi) = r(\chi\wedge \psi) = r(\Diamond \varphi) = \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\not\models \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models \varphi\text{ for some }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}
\\
\end{array}
\]
\subsubsection{First-order modal logic and beyond}\label{fossst}
We then consider first-order modal logic and beyond. The approach is very similar to
the one above, but we
spell it out anyway, because we can.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a model set, i.e., a set of pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$
where $f$ is some assignment for $\mathfrak{M}$, interpreting
first-order variables.
Let $(P_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+}$ be a
sequence such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$P_1 \subseteq \mathcal{M}$.
\item
$P_{\alpha+1} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(P_{\alpha})$,
where $\mathcal{P}$ is again
the power set operator.
\end{enumerate}
We call $P_{\alpha}$ a
\emph{perspective} of rank $\alpha$. Again it often makes sense to
not allow the empty set to belong to or be a perspective. Also, it is
relatively natural to require the \emph{domain} of all the models in the
model set $\mathcal{M}$ to be the same. A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ is
called \emph{regular} if it is built from a model set where all models
have the same domain. It is \emph{strongly regular} if we also have $P_{\alpha'}\not=\emptyset$
for all perspectives $P_{\alpha'}$ that are part of $P_{\alpha}$ on the
different rank levels of $P_{\alpha}$ (with
the perspective $P_{\alpha}$ itself also nonempty).
Below we study strongly regular perspectives only.
Consider the language of first-order modal logic,
$$\varphi\ ::=\ Rx_1\dots x_k\ |\ (\varphi\wedge\varphi)\ |\ \neg\varphi\ |\
\exists x \varphi\ |\ \Diamond\varphi\ $$
where $Rx_1\dots x_k$ is any atom.
Define the \emph{rank} $r(\varphi)$ of a formula $\varphi$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$r(\chi) = 0$ for each atomic formula $\chi$.
\item
$r(\neg\chi) = r(\chi)$.
\item
$r(\chi\wedge\psi) = \mathit{max}\{r(\chi),r(\psi)\}$.
\item
$r(\exists x \varphi) = r(\varphi)$.
\item
$r(\Diamond\varphi) = r(\varphi) + 1$.
\end{enumerate}
A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ of rank $\alpha$ can interpret
formulae of depth $\alpha$ or less with
the following semantics.
\begin{comment}
Assume first that $\alpha = 0$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{0}\models^+ P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
P_{0}\models^- P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\not\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
\end{array}
\]
where $\models$ is the standard semantic turnstile of Kripke semantics.
\end{comment}
Assume first that $r(\varphi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models \varphi \text{ for all }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Note that if $\alpha = 1$, then $P_{\alpha - 1}$ is a
model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ in $P_{\alpha}$. Then the above
holds with the natural additional definition that
$(\mathfrak{M},f) \models \varphi$
iff $(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{\mathrm{FO}} \varphi$
where $\models_{\mathrm{FO}}$ is the
standard semantic turnstile of $\mathrm{FO}$.
Assume then that $r(\neg\psi)
= r(\chi\wedge \psi) = r(\Diamond\varphi) = \alpha\geq 1$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\not\models \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models\varphi\text{ for some } P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
\begin{comment}
An interesting alternative is to put
$P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \wedge \psi)
\text{ iff }\ Q\models^+ \chi
\text{ and }Q'\models^+ \psi\text{ for all }Q,Q'\subseteq P_{\alpha}
\text{ such that } Q\cup Q' = P_{\alpha}$. It is strange for
diamonds though.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
To define a semantics for $\exists x$, we first give some auxiliary definitions.
The \emph{common domain} of an individual model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ is
simply the domain of $\mathfrak{M}$. The \emph{common domain} of a
perspective $P_{\alpha}$ is the intersection of the common domains of
all $P \in P_{\alpha}$. Here we assume $P_{\alpha}\not=\emptyset$.
\end{comment}
If $P$ is a perspective,
we let $P[a / x]$ denote the perspective where each model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$
existing on the rank $0$ level of $P$ is replaced by $(\mathfrak{M},f[a/x])$.
By the \emph{model domain} of $P$ we
refer to the domain of the models the (regular) perpective $P$ is built with.
\begin{comment}
First, a \emph{choice function} of rank $\alpha > 1$ for a
perspective $\mathcal{P}$ of rank $\alpha$ is a
function $F: \mathcal{P}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is
the set of choice functions of rank $\alpha - 1$.
A choice function of rank $1$ is simply a choice
function as defined in the previous sections. Thus a choice function of rank $1$
has model sets as domains. A choice function $F$ of rank $\alpha > 1$ has a
perspective $\mathcal{P}$ of rank $\alpha$ as a domain and it outputs
elements in the domains of the models that can be found from level $0$ of
the input perspective.
If $F$ is a choice function of rank $\alpha > 1$ and with domain $\mathcal{P}$,
we let $\mathcal{P}[F/x]$ denote
the perspective obtained from $\mathcal{P}$ by
replacing each $\mathcal{P'}\in\mathcal{P}$ by $\mathcal{P}'[F'/x]$,
where $F'$ is a choice function with domain $\mathcal{P}'$ mapping
each input to $F(\mathcal{P}')$.
This ultimately gets down to the definition given for model sets. To be
properly defined, the
\end{comment}
Assume $\exists x\varphi$ and $P$ have the same rank.
We define
\begin{multline*}P\models \exists x \varphi\text{ iff }\
{P}[a/x]
\models\varphi\
\text{for some $a$ in the model domain of $P$.}
\end{multline*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{multline*}P\models^- \exists x \varphi\text{ iff }
\{{P'}[F({P}')/x]\ |\ {P'}\in {P}\\ \text{ and }F
\text{ is some function with}
\text{ domain }{P} \text{ and which
maps}\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{each }{P'\in P}\text{ to some element in the common }\\
\text{domain of }P'
\}\models^-\varphi.
\end{multline*}
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Propositional modal logic, a new take}\label{prop2}
Here we look at further ways of dealing with modalities.
Perspectives are as above for propositional modal logic.
(Thus we can flexibly talk about both pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ and
pairs $(\mathfrak{M},w)$ in the discussions.)
Consider the following language of modal logic:
$$\varphi\ ::=\ P\ |\ (\varphi\wedge\varphi)\ |\
\ (\varphi\vee\varphi)\ |\ \neg\varphi\ |\ \Diamond\varphi\ $$
where $P$ is any unary predicate (i.e., a proposition symbol) in the signature of
the models of $\mathcal{M}$. This time we are \emph{not} going to
consider $\vee$ to be defined in terms of $\wedge$ in the usual way.
Define the rank of formulae as before, with $r(\chi\vee\psi)$
being defined the same as $r(\chi\wedge\psi)$.
A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ of rank $\alpha$ can again interpret
formulae of depth $\alpha$ or less with
the following semantics.
\begin{comment}
Assume first that $\alpha = 0$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{0}\models^+ P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
P_{0}\models^- P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\not\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
\end{array}
\]
where $\models$ is the standard semantic turnstile of Kripke semantics.
\end{comment}
Assume first that $r(\varphi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models^+ \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^+ \varphi \text{ for all }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^{-} \varphi \text{ for all }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Note that if $\alpha = 1$, then $P_{\alpha - 1}$ is a
pointed model in $P_{\alpha}$. Then the above
holds with the natural definition that
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
(\mathfrak{M},w) \models^+ \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\models \varphi\\
(\mathfrak{M},w) \models^- \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\not\models \varphi\\
\end{array}
\]
where $\models$ is the basic turnstile of Kripke semantics.
We then make the following auxiliary definition. Assume $\chi$ is of
some rank $\alpha_{\chi} < \alpha$. Consider a perspective $P_{\alpha}$.
We define $P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\chi$ to be
the perspective (or rank $\alpha$) that
can be obtained from $P_{\alpha}$
by removing each perspective $Q_{\alpha_{\chi}}$ from the rank $\alpha_{\chi}$
level such that $Q_{\alpha_{\chi}}\not\models^+\chi$. More formally, we
define $P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\chi$ as follows.
Recall that $P_{\alpha}$ is defined inductively with the condition that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$P_1 \subseteq \mathcal{M}$,
\item
$P_{\beta+1}\subseteq \mathcal{P}(P_{\beta})$.
\end{enumerate}
Define a new sequence $(Q_{\beta})_{1\leq\beta\leq\alpha}$
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $\alpha_{\chi} = 0$, then $Q_1 = \{\, (\mathfrak{M},f)\in P_1\, |\,
(\mathfrak{M},f)\models \chi\ \}$. Otherwise $Q_1 = P_1$.
\item
Suppose we have
defined $Q_{\beta}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $\alpha_{\chi} > \beta$,
then $Q_{\beta + 1} = P_{\beta + 1}$.
\item
If $\alpha_{\chi} = \beta$,
then $Q_{\beta + 1} = \{\, R_{\beta}\in P_{\beta + 1}\, |\,
R_{\beta}\models^+ \chi\ \}$.
\item
If $\alpha_{\chi} < \beta$,
then $Q_{\beta + 1} = \{\, R_{\beta}\upharpoonright\chi\, |\,
R_{\beta}\in P_{\beta+1},\ R_{\beta}\upharpoonright\chi\not=\emptyset\, \}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
We define $P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\chi = Q_{\alpha}$.
We also define $P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi}$ to
be equal to $P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright {\sim\chi}$ where $\sim$
denotes classical negation, i.e., if $\chi$ is of rank $0$,
then $(\mathfrak{M},f)\models {\sim\chi}$ iff
$(\mathfrak{M},f)\not\models \chi$, and if $\chi$ of rank $\beta$,
then $P_{\beta}\models^+ \sim\chi$ iff $P_{\beta}\not\models^+ \chi$.
Assume then that $r(\Diamond\varphi) = r(\psi)
= \alpha$ and $r(\chi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\psi\wedge\chi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^+ \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ or }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ =\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\psi\vee\chi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^+ \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ or }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ =\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^+\varphi\text{ for some }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}
\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\psi \wedge \chi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^- \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ and }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ \not=\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\psi\vee\chi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^- \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ and }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ \not=\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^-\varphi\text{ for all } P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Assume then that $r(\chi) = r(\psi) = \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ or } P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi\vee\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ and } P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
\end{array}
\]
Now add an implication $\rightarrow$ to then language,
with $r(\varphi\rightarrow\psi)=r(\varphi\vee\psi)$. The semantics of $\chi\rightarrow\psi$ in
relation to $P_{\alpha}$ is defined as for other connectives when $r(\varphi\vee\psi) < \alpha$.
For the case where $r(\chi) < \alpha = r(\psi)$, it is quite natural to define
that $P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \rightarrow \psi)$
iff $(P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright{\chi})
\models^+ \psi$ or $(P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright{\chi})\ =\ \emptyset$.
The negative clause would be $P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \rightarrow \psi)$
iff $(P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright{\chi})
\models^- \psi$ and $(P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright{\chi})\ \not=\ \emptyset$.
For the case $r(\chi) = \alpha$, we put $P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \rightarrow \psi)$
iff $P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi$ or
$P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi$ and also $P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \rightarrow \psi)$
iff $P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi$ and
$P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi$. It is not entirely unnatural to define some kind of a
diamond (i.e., $\diamond\varphi$) by the formula $\neg(\varphi \rightarrow \bot)$.
Here $\bot$ is $p\wedge\neg p$.
\subsubsection{First-order modal logic and beyond, a new take}\label{fossst2}
We then consider first-order modal logic and beyond. The approach is very similar to
the one for propositional modal logic above, but we
spell it out anyway, because we can.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a model set, i.e., a set of pairs $(\mathfrak{M},f)$
where $f$ is some assignment for $\mathfrak{M}$, interpreting
first-order variables.
Let $(P_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+}$ be a
sequence such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$P_1 \subseteq \mathcal{M}$.
\item
$P_{\alpha+1} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(P_{\alpha})$,
where $\mathcal{P}$ is again
the power set operator.
\end{enumerate}
We call $P_{\alpha}$ a
\emph{perspective} of rank $\alpha$. Again it often makes sense to
not allow the empty set to belong to or be a perspective. Also, it is
relatively natural to require the \emph{domain} of all the models in the
model set $\mathcal{M}$ to be the same. A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ is
called \emph{regular} if it is built from a model set where all models
have the same domain. It is \emph{strongly regular} if we also have $P_{\alpha'}\not=\emptyset$
for all perspectives $P_{\alpha'}$ that are part of $P_{\alpha}$ on the
different rank levels of $P_{\alpha}$ (with
the perspective $P_{\alpha}$ itself also nonempty).
Below we study strongly regular perspectives only.
Consider the language of first-order modal logic,
$$\varphi\ ::=\ Rx_1\dots x_k\ |\ (\varphi\wedge\varphi)\
|\ \ (\varphi\vee\varphi)\ |\ \neg\varphi\ |\
\exists x \varphi\ |\ \Diamond\varphi\ $$
where $Rx_1\dots x_k$ is any atom.
Define the \emph{rank} $r(\varphi)$ of a formula $\varphi$ as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$r(\chi) = 0$ for each atomic formula $\chi$.
\item
$r(\neg\chi) = r(\chi)$.
\item
$r(\chi\wedge\psi) = \mathit{max}\{r(\chi),r(\psi)\}$.
\item
$r(\chi\vee\psi) = \mathit{max}\{r(\chi),r(\psi)\}$.
\item
$r(\exists x \varphi) = r(\varphi)$.
\item
$r(\Diamond\varphi) = r(\varphi) + 1$.
\end{enumerate}
A perspective $P_{\alpha}$ of rank $\alpha$ can interpret
formulae of depth $\alpha$ or less with
the following semantics.
\begin{comment}
Assume first that $\alpha = 0$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{0}\models^+ P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
P_{0}\models^- P\
&\text{ iff }\ (\mathfrak{M},w)\not\models P \text{ holds for all }
(\mathfrak{M},w)\in P_0\\
\end{array}
\]
where $\models$ is the standard semantic turnstile of Kripke semantics.
\end{comment}
Assume first that $r(\varphi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models \varphi\
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models \varphi \text{ for all }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Note that if $\alpha = 1$, then $P_{\alpha - 1}$ is a
model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ in $P_{\alpha}$. Then the above
holds with the natural additional definition that
$(\mathfrak{M},f) \models \varphi$
iff $(\mathfrak{M},f)\models_{\mathrm{FO}} \varphi$
where $\models_{\mathrm{FO}}$ is the
standard semantic turnstile of $\mathrm{FO}$.
Now, we define $(P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})$ analogously to
the definition given in Section \ref{prop2}. (In fact, the definition there can \emph{as it
stands} be read as a definition for model sets in predicate logic as well as
propositional modal logic.)
Assume then that $r(\Diamond\varphi) = r(\psi)
= \alpha$ and $r(\chi) < \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\psi\wedge\chi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^+ \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ or }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ =\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\psi\vee\chi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^+ \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ or }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ =\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^+\varphi\text{ for some }
P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}
\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\psi \wedge \chi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^- \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ and }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ \not=\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\psi\vee\chi)
&\text{ iff }\
\bigl(\ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})
\models^- \psi\
\ \ \ \text{ and }\ \ \ (P_{\alpha}\upharpoonright\overline{\chi})\ \not=\ \emptyset\ \bigr)\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- \neg\psi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- \Diamond\varphi
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha - 1}\models^-\varphi\text{ for all } P_{\alpha - 1}\in P_{\alpha}\\
\end{array}
\]
Assume then that $r(\chi) = r(\psi) = \alpha$. Then
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \wedge \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ and }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi\wedge\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ or } P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^+ (\chi \vee \psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^+ \chi
\text{ or }P_{\alpha}\models^+ \psi\\
P_{\alpha}\models^- (\chi\vee\psi)
&\text{ iff }\ P_{\alpha}\models^- \chi
\text{ and } P_{\alpha}\models^- \psi\\
\end{array}
\]
\begin{comment}
To define a semantics for $\exists x$, we first give some auxiliary definitions.
The \emph{common domain} of an individual model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$ is
simply the domain of $\mathfrak{M}$. The \emph{common domain} of a
perspective $P_{\alpha}$ is the intersection of the common domains of
all $P \in P_{\alpha}$. Here we assume $P_{\alpha}\not=\emptyset$.
\end{comment}
If $P$ is a perspective,
we let $P[a / x]$ denote the perspective where each model $(\mathfrak{M},f)$
existing on the rank $0$ level of $P$ is replaced by $(\mathfrak{M},f[a/x])$.
By the \emph{model domain} of $P$ we
refer to the domain of the models the (regular) perpective $P$ is built with.
\begin{comment}
First, a \emph{choice function} of rank $\alpha > 1$ for a
perspective $\mathcal{P}$ of rank $\alpha$ is a
function $F: \mathcal{P}\rightarrow \mathcal{F}$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is
the set of choice functions of rank $\alpha - 1$.
A choice function of rank $1$ is simply a choice
function as defined in the previous sections. Thus a choice function of rank $1$
has model sets as domains. A choice function $F$ of rank $\alpha > 1$ has a
perspective $\mathcal{P}$ of rank $\alpha$ as a domain and it outputs
elements in the domains of the models that can be found from level $0$ of
the input perspective.
If $F$ is a choice function of rank $\alpha > 1$ and with domain $\mathcal{P}$,
we let $\mathcal{P}[F/x]$ denote
the perspective obtained from $\mathcal{P}$ by
replacing each $\mathcal{P'}\in\mathcal{P}$ by $\mathcal{P}'[F'/x]$,
where $F'$ is a choice function with domain $\mathcal{P}'$ mapping
each input to $F(\mathcal{P}')$.
This ultimately gets down to the definition given for model sets. To be
properly defined, the
\end{comment}
Assume $\exists x\varphi$ and $P$ have the same rank.
We define
\begin{multline*}P\models^+ \exists x \varphi\text{ iff }\
{P}[a/x]
\models^+\varphi\
\text{for some $a$ in the model domain of $P$.}
\end{multline*}
and
\begin{multline*}P\models^- \exists x \varphi\text{ iff }\
{P}[a/x]
\models^-\varphi\
\text{for all $a$ in the model domain of $P$.}
\end{multline*}
The implication can of course be added to the picture with the same semantics as
given above for propositional modal logic.
Now consider the more general language
$$\varphi\ ::=\ Rx_1\dots x_k\ |\ (\varphi\vee\varphi)\ |\ (\varphi\wedge\varphi)\ |\ \neg\varphi\ |\
Q x\varphi\ |\ \langle Q \rangle\varphi\ $$
where each $Q$ belongs to some symbol set $\mathcal{Q}$.
Both $Qx$ and $\langle Q\rangle$ will be associated
with generalized quantifiers, so the language
corresponding to $\mathcal{Q}$ will contain a
generalized quantifier\footnote{Or a
\emph{minor quantifier} \cite{double}, to be exact.} $Qx$ and a
generalized modality $\langle Q \rangle$
for each symbol $Q\in \mathcal{Q}$. The rank of a formula is measured in
terms of the possibly different operators $\langle Q\rangle$,
each application adding to the rank.
\begin{comment}
Let $(i,\dots , i_n)$ be a tuple of positive
integers. Recall that a generalized quantifier of type $(i_1,\dots , i_n)$ is a
class $Q$ of structures $(A, B_1,\dots , B_n)$ such that
the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$A\not=\emptyset$
\item
For each $k\in\{1,\dots , n\}$, we have $B_k\subseteq A^{i_k}$
\item
$Q$ is closed under isomorphism, that it, if $f:A\rightarrow A'$ is
an isomorphism from $(A, B_1,\dots , B_n)\in Q$ to $(A', B_1',\dots , B_n')$,
then $(A', B_1',\dots , B_n')\in\mathcal{C}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
Recall here the definition of a unary generalized quantifier
(see \cite{double} for the (standard) definition we shall use).
Let $U$ be a unary generalized quantifier. We
let $\overline{U}$ denote $\{ (A,S)\, |\, (A,S)\not\in U\, \}$.
Let $U$ be a unary generalized quantifier.
Consider a class $\mathcal{C}$ of
structures $(A, B^+,B^-)$ such that
the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$A\not=\emptyset$
\item
$B^+,B^-\subseteq A$
\item
$B^+\cap B^-\ = \emptyset$
\item
$\mathcal{C}$ is closed under isomorphism, that is, if $f:A\rightarrow A'$ is
an isomorphism from $(A, B^+,B^-)\in \mathcal{C}$ to $(A, C^+,C^-)$
then $(A, C^+,C^-)\in \mathcal{C}$.
\item
For each $(A, B^+,B^-)\in \mathcal{C}$, there is a pair $(A,H)\in U$
such that $B^+\subseteq H$ and $B^-\subseteq A\setminus H$.
\item
For each $(A, B^+,B^-)\in \mathcal{C}$, there does \emph{not}
exists a pair $(A,H)\in \overline{U}$
such that $B^+\subseteq H$ and $B^-\subseteq A\setminus H$.
\item
For each $(A,H)\in U$, there exists a pair $(A,B^+,B^-)\in \mathcal{C}$
such that $B^+\subseteq H$ and $B^-\subseteq A\setminus H$.
\end{enumerate}
Then we say that $\mathcal{C}$ \emph{witnesses} $U$.
A \emph{minor quantifier} based on $U$ is a pair $Q = (\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D})$ such
that $\mathcal{C}$ witnesses $U$ and $\mathcal{D}$ witnesses $\overline{U}$.
We denote $\mathcal{C}$ by $Q_+$ and $\mathcal{D}$ by $Q_-$.
We fix the lastly defined semantics for modal predicate logic given above (in this
Section), with only the
clauses for $Q x$ and $\langle Q\rangle$ redifined.
Recall that the semantics for predicate logic with quantifiers $Q x$ on ordinary
first-order models is defined, e.g., in \cite{double}.
Suppose $\langle Q\rangle\varphi$ and $P$ have the same rank. We define that
$$P_{\alpha}\models^+\langle Q\rangle\varphi
\text{ iff } (P_{\alpha},P^+,P^-)\in Q_+$$
where $P^+\subseteq P_{\alpha}$ is some
set of perspectives $P_{\alpha-1}\in P_{\alpha}$
such that $P_{\alpha-1}\models^+\varphi$
and $P^-\subseteq P_{\alpha}$ is some set of
perspectives $Q_{\alpha-1}\in P_{\alpha}$
such that $Q_{\alpha-1}\models^-\varphi$.
Similarly,
$$P_{\alpha}\models^-\langle Q\rangle\varphi
\text{ iff } (P_{\alpha},P^+,P^-)\in Q_-$$
where again $P^+\subseteq P_{\alpha}$ is some
set of perspectives $P_{\alpha-1}\in P_{\alpha}$
such that $P_{\alpha-1}\models^+\varphi$
and $P^-\subseteq P_{\alpha}$ some set of
perspectives $Q_{\alpha-1}\in P_{\alpha}$
such that $Q_{\alpha-1}\models^-\varphi$.
Now let $M$ denote the model domain of $P$. We define
\begin{multline*}P\models^+ Qx \varphi\text{ iff }
\text{for some $(M,S,T)\in Q_+$, we have}\\
{P}[a/x]
\models^+\varphi\text{ for all }a\in S\text{ and}\\
{P}[a/x]
\models^-\varphi\text{ for all }a\in T.\\
\end{multline*}
Also,
\begin{multline*}P\models^- Qx \varphi\text{ iff }
\text{for some $(M,S,T)\in Q_-$, we have}\\
{P}[a/x]
\models^+\varphi\text{ for all }a\in S\text{ and}\\
{P}[a/x]
\models^-\varphi\text{ for all }a\in T.\\
\end{multline*}
It is easy to see how to generalize all this to formulae with more
general generalized (minor) quantifiers. For example, $\langle Q\rangle(\varphi,\psi)$
with $Q$ indicating that more elements of the
perspective satisfy $\varphi$ than $\psi$, is interesting.
\subsection{More on perspectives}
It is natural to define an implication equivalent to $\Box(\neg \varphi\vee \psi)$,
where $\Box$ is $\neg\Diamond\neg$. Also, it is possible to
consider the approach $P\models\varphi\Rightarrow \psi$ iff
$P'\models \psi$, where $P'\subseteq P$ contains those $Q\in P$
such that $Q\models\varphi$. Note that $\Rightarrow$ will not
alter the rank but the implication with $\Box(\neg \varphi\vee \psi)$ will.
It is also very natural to go
multimodal. This is easy by replacing perspectives by pairs with a
perspective and a label. The label denotes the agent (or whatever). The
perspective itself can contain sets with different labels, but the notion of
rank of course has to be adjusted. It is not difficult to model these
approaches in Kripke semantics (by creating sets, i.e., perspectives, with
the help of $\Box$).
Suppose $x$ has some value in $\mathbb{N}$.
Consider the following reasoning scenario. If $x$ is even, then it is not
possible that $x$ is odd. Thus, if $x$ is even, it is not the
case that it is possible that $x$ is odd and it is possible that $x$ is even.
Writing this in symbols (without any particular semantics fixed), we get
``$x\text{ is even}\rightarrow\neg(\Diamond(x\text{ is odd})\wedge \Diamond(x\text{ is even}))$''. We symmetrically conclude that
``$x\text{ is odd}\rightarrow\neg(\Diamond(x\text{ is odd})\wedge \Diamond(x\text{ is even}))$''.
Let us abbreviate these statements by $\varphi_{even}\rightarrow \neg \chi$ and
$\varphi_{odd}\rightarrow \neg \chi$. Now, supposing we
can deduce $C$ from $A\vee B$, $A\rightarrow C$, $B\rightarrow C$, we
deduce $\neg \chi$ from $\varphi_{even}\vee\varphi_{odd}$.
That is, we deduce $\neg(\Diamond(x\text{ is odd})\wedge \Diamond(x\text{ is even}))$ because
surely $x$ is even or odd.
However, it is clear that $(\Diamond(x\text{ is odd})\wedge \Diamond(x\text{ is even}))$ holds.
One way to reject the faulty
reasoning is to assert that epistemic and metaphysical modalities are mixed up.
Indeed, we can reject ``$x\text{ is even}\rightarrow\neg(\Diamond(x\text{ is odd}))$''
if we read $\Diamond$ as ``it appears to be possible that.'' But if we
only wish to consider possible scenarios without there being an
actual world (which would be unknown but would give $x$
some value), we can reject the
deduction rule ``$C$ from $A\vee B$, $A\rightarrow C$, $B\rightarrow C$,'' as
the above ssemantics does if $\rightarrow$ is
given the interpretation of $\Rightarrow$ we defined
above. This is because $A\vee B$ does not
mean that $A$ is surely true or $B$ is surely true, simply that the space of
scenarios splits so that $A$ is the case in the
first and $B$ in the second scenario.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:Intro}
The
breakthroughs~\cite{Pretorius:2005gq,Campanelli:2005dd,Baker:2005vv}
in numerical relativity allowed numerical relativists to make
detailed predictions for the gravitational waves from the latest
inspiral, plunge, merger and ringdown of black hole binary systems
(BHB). Numerical relativity predictions were confirmed by the first
direct detection \cite{TheLIGOScientific:2016wfe} of gravitational
waves from such binary systems
\cite{Abbott:2016blz,Abbott:2016nmj,TheLIGOScientific:2016pea}
and by its comparison to targeted runs
\cite{Abbott:2016apu,Lovelace:2016uwp}. Those observations are
consistent with general relativity as the correct theory for gravity
as discussed in
\cite{TheLIGOScientific:2016src,TheLIGOScientific:2016pea}.
The RIT group has been using
numerical relativity techniques to explore the late
dynamics of spinning black-hole binaries, beyond the post-Newtonian
regime for many years.
This includes
simulations of the first generic, long-term
precessing binary black hole evolution without any symmetry were
performed in Ref.~\cite{Campanelli:2008nk}, where a detailed comparison with
post-Newtonian $\ell=2,3$ waveforms was made, as well as
studies of the {\it hangup}, i.e. the role individual black hole
spins play to delay or accelerate their merger \cite{Campanelli:2006uy},
the determination of the magnitude and direction
of the {\it recoil} velocity of the final merged black hole
\cite{Campanelli:2007ew,Campanelli:2007cga,Lousto:2011kp},
and the {\it flip-flop} of individual spins during the orbital phase
\cite{Lousto:2014ida,Lousto:2015uwa,Lousto:2016nlp}.
Other numerical simulations have also explored the corners of parameter space,
such as mass ratios $q=1/100$ in Ref.~\cite{Lousto:2010ut}, and
larger initial separations $R=100M$ in \cite{Lousto:2013oza}.
And also near extremal $\chi=0.994$ spinning black hole binaries in
\cite{Lovelace:2014twa} by the SXS collaboration.
There have been several significant efforts to coordinate numerical
relativity simulations to support gravitational wave observations.
These include the numerical injection analysis (NINJA) project
\cite{Aylott:2009ya,Aylott:2009tn,Ajith:2012az,Aasi:2014tra}, the
numerical relativity and analytical relativity (NRAR) collaboration
\cite{Hinder:2013oqa}, and the waveform catalogs released by the
simulating extreme spacetimes (SXS) collaboration~\cite{Mroue:2013xna}
and Georgia Tech.~\cite{Jani:2016wkt}.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:FN}
describe the methods and criteria for producing the numerical
simulations.
We next describe in Sec.~\ref{sec:Catalog} the use and content
of the data in the public catalog.
We conclude with a discussion in
Sec.~\ref{sec:Discussion} of the use and potential extensions
to this work to precessing binaries.
\section{Full Numerical Evolutions}\label{sec:FN}
The runs in the RIT Catalog were evolved using the {\sc
LazEv}~\cite{Zlochower:2005bj} implementation of the moving puncture
approach~\cite{Campanelli:2005dd} with the conformal
function $W=\sqrt{\chi}=\exp(-2\phi)$ suggested by
Ref.~\cite{Marronetti:2007wz}. In all cases we use the BSSNOK
(Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura-Oohara-Kojima) family
of evolutions systems~\cite{Nakamura87, Shibata95, Baumgarte99}.
For the runs in the catalog, we used a variety of finite-difference
orders, Kreiss-Oliger dissipation orders, and Courant factors~\cite{Lousto:2007rj,
Zlochower:2012fk, Healy:2016lce}. Note that we do not upwind the advection terms.
All of these are
given in the metadata included in the catalog and the references associated
with each run.
The {\sc LazEv} code uses the {\sc EinsteinToolkit}~\cite{Loffler:2011ay,
einsteintoolkit} / {\sc Cactus}~\cite{cactus_web} /
{\sc Carpet}~\cite{Schnetter-etal-03b}
infrastructure. The {\sc
Carpet} mesh refinement driver provides a
``moving boxes'' style of mesh refinement. In this approach, refined
grids of fixed size are arranged about the coordinate centers of both
holes. The {\sc Carpet} code then moves these fine grids about the
computational domain by following the trajectories of the two BHs.
We use {\sc AHFinderDirect}~\cite{Thornburg2003:AH-finding} to locate
apparent horizons. We measure the magnitude of the horizon spin using
the {\it isolated horizon} (IH) algorithm detailed in
Ref.~\cite{Dreyer02a} and as implemented in Ref.~\cite{Campanelli:2006fy}.
Note that once we have the horizon spin, we can calculate the horizon
mass via the Christodoulou formula
${m_H} = \sqrt{m_{\rm irr}^2 + S_H^2/(4 m_{\rm irr}^2)}\,,$
where $m_{\rm irr} = \sqrt{A/(16 \pi)}$, $A$ is the surface area of
the horizon, and $S_H$ is the spin angular momentum of the BH (in
units of $M^2$). In the tables below, we use the variation in the
measured horizon irreducible mass and spin during the simulation as a
measure of the error in computing these quantities, since the levels
of gravitational wave energy and momentum absorbed by the holes is orders
of magnitude smaller.
We measure radiated energy,
linear momentum, and angular momentum, in terms of the radiative Weyl
Scalar $\psi_4$, using the formulas provided in
Refs.~\cite{Campanelli:1998jv, Lousto:2007mh}. However, rather than
using the full $\psi_4$, we decompose it into $\ell$ and $m$ modes and
solve for the radiated linear momentum, dropping terms with $\ell >
6$. The formulas in Refs.~\cite{Campanelli:1998jv, Lousto:2007mh} are
valid at $r=\infty$. We extract the radiated energy-momentum at
finite radius and extrapolate to $r=\infty$. We find that the new
perturbative extrapolation described in Ref.~\cite{Nakano:2015pta} provides the
most accurate waveforms. While the difference of fitting both linear and
quadratic extrapolations provides an independent measure of the error.
Studies of the finite difference errors, and
verification that the waveforms provided in this catalog are computed
at a numerical resolution in the convergence regime can be found in
the appendices of Refs.~\cite{Healy:2014yta} and ~\cite{Healy:2016lce}.
Although higher multipoles modes [beyond $(\ell,m)=(2,\pm2)$] are
not provided in the catalog for the sake of simplicity, they are used
(typically up to $\ell=4$ or $\ell=6$)
in the computation of radiative quantities such as the energy and
linear and angular momenta.
To compute the initial low eccentricity orbital parameters
we use the post-Newtonian techniques described in~\cite{Healy:2017zqj}.
To compute the numerical initial data, we use the puncture
approach~\cite{Brandt97b} along with the {\sc
TwoPunctures}~\cite{Ansorg:2004ds} thorn.
We measure the distance between the two BHs using the {\it simple
proper distance} or SPD. The SPD is the proper distance, on a given
spatial slice,
between the
two BH apparent horizons as measured along the coordinate line
joining the two centers. As
such, it is gauge dependent, but still gives reasonable results
(see Ref.~\cite{Lousto:2013oza} for more details).
\section{Catalog}\label{sec:Catalog}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{ID3d.pdf}
\caption{Initial parameters in the $(q,\chi_1,\chi_2)$ space
for the 120 nonprecessing binaries. Each mass ratio is given a different
color: blue triangles($q=1.00$), pink plus ($q=0.82$), red crosses ($q=3/4$),
green stars ($q=1/2$),
purple squares ($q=1/3$), light green full squares ($q=1/4$), orange circles($q=1/5$), and
brown full circles ($q=1/6$). Nonspinning runs are black full circles.
\label{fig:ID3d}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth]{aligned_multi.pdf}
\caption{Initial parameters in the $(q,\chi_1,\chi_2)$ plane
for the 120 nonprecessing binaries. Note that here $q=m_1/m_2<1$.
\label{fig:ID2d}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=1.95\columnwidth]{manywaveform.pdf}
\caption{Visual display of the different lengths of the (2,2) waveforms
in this first delivery of 126 simulations in the RIT Catalog. Each row
of waveforms spans ${\sim}22700 M$ of simulation time from edge to edge,
with each tic mark denoting $500 M$.
\label{fig:waveforms}}
\end{figure*}
The RIT Catalog can be found at \url{http://ccrg.rit.edu/~RITCatalog}.
Figure~\ref{fig:ID3d} shows the distribution of non-precessing runs in the catalog in
terms of $\chi_{12}$ and $q$ ($\chi$ here is the $z$-component of
the dimensionless spin).
The information currently in the catalog consists of the metadata
describing the runs and $(\ell=2, m=\pm2)$ modes of $r \psi_4$.
The extrapolations of $r\psi_4$ to $r=\infty$ are performed using the perturbative approach
of~\cite{Nakano:2015pta}. The associated metadata include the
initial orbital frequencies, ADM masses, initial waveform frequencies, black hole masses, momenta, spins, separations,
and eccentricities, as well the black-hole masses and spins once the
initial burst of radiation has left the region around the binary.
These {\it relaxed} quantities are more accurate for modeling purposes
than the initial masses and spins. In addition, we also include the
final remnant masses and spins.
The catalog is organized using an interactive table that includes an
identification number, resolution, type of run (nonspinning, aligned spins,
precessing), the initial simple proper distance between the two black
holes, the coordinate separation, the mass ratio of the two black
holes, the components of the dimensionless spins of the two black
holes, the starting waveform frequency, time to merger, number of
gravitational wave cycles, remnant mass, remnant spin, recoil
velocity, and peak luminosity. The final column gives the appropriate
bibtex keys for the relevant publications where the waveforms were
first presented. The table can be sorted (ascending or descending) by
any of these columns.
The initial waveform frequency, denoted by $M f_{22, {\rm start}}$ in
the table gives the starting frequency in units of
$2.03\times10^5 \left(\frac{M_\odot}{M}\right) {\rm Hz},$ where $M$ is the mass
of the binary and $M_\odot$ is one solar mass (e.g., $M f_{22, {\rm
start}} = 0.01$ corresponds to 34 Hz for a 60 $M_\odot$ binary). Note
that $2 \pi f_{22} = \omega_{22}$. The runs in the catalog span
initial frequencies from 0.003 to 0.012, with a corresponding initial
proper separations of 10.59M to 25.18M. Times from the start of the
simulation to merger range from 556M to 19 219M, and the number of
inspiral
cycles in the $(\ell=2, m=2)$ mode of $\psi_4$ range from 8.3 to 89.9.
Resolutions are given in terms of the gridspacing of the refinement
level where the waveform is extracted (which is typically two
refinement levels below the coarsest grid) with $R_{obs}\sim100M$.
We use the notation
nXYY, where the gridspacing in the wavezone is given by M/X.YY, e.g.,
n120 corresponds to $h=M/1.2$.
For each simulation in the catalog there are two files: one contains
the metadata information in ASCII format, the other is a tar.gz file
containing ASCII files with the $(\ell=2, m=\pm2)$ modes of $r\psi_4$ (extrapolated to
$r=\infty$).
Note that our catalog provides the Weyl scalar $r \psi_4$ extrapolated
to infinity rather than the strain $\hat{h}$. We leave to the user to
convert $r\psi_4$ to strain (e.g., along the lines of the method
delineated in the NRAR collaboration ~\cite{Hinder:2013oqa}, for instance).
Figure~\ref{fig:ID2d} shows the distribution of the 120 non-precessing runs in the catalog in
terms of $\chi_{1,2}$ and $q$ ($\chi$ here is the
$L$ or $z$-component of
the dimensionless spin).
\section{Conclusions and Discussion}\label{sec:Discussion}
The breakthroughs~\cite{Pretorius:2005gq, Campanelli:2005dd, Baker:2005vv}
in numerical relativity were instrumental in identifying the first detection of
gravitational waves \cite{TheLIGOScientific:2016wfe} with the merger
of two black holes. The direct comparison of numerical waveforms
with observations also allows one to determine the parameters of such
binary~\cite{Abbott:2016apu}. The current catalog of waveforms as
displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:waveforms} can be used to
perform independent analysis by the wider gravitational wave community
and serves as a platform to deliver new sets of simulations as they
become available.
Aside the interest in producing waveforms for direct comparison
with observation, the simulations of orbiting black hole binaries produce
information about the final remnant of the merger of the two holes.
This was already the subject of early studies using the Lazarus approach
\cite{Baker:2003ds, Campanelli:2004zw}. With the advent of the breakthroughs
that allowed for longer accurate computations,
numerous empirical formulas relating the initial parameters
$(q,\vec\chi_1,\vec\chi_2)$
(individual masses and spins) of the binary to those of the final
remnant $(m_f,\vec\chi_f,\vec{V}_f)$
have been proposed. These include formulas for the final
mass, spin, and recoil velocity
\cite{Barausse:2012qz,Rezzolla:2007rz,Hofmann:2016yih,Jimenez-Forteza:2016oae,Lousto:2009mf,Lousto:2013wta,Healy:2014yta,Zlochower:2015wga},
as well as algebraic properties of the final metric
\cite{Campanelli:2008dv,Owen:2010vw}. Recently,
the computation of the peak luminosity has also been the
subject of interest in relation to the observation of gravitational waves
\cite{TheLIGOScientific:2016wfe,TheLIGOScientific:2016pea,Healy:2016lce,Keitel:2016krm}.
The data in RIT catalog, along with the SXS~\cite{Mroue:2013xna} and
Georgia Tech.~\cite{Jani:2016wkt}, can be used by other groups to develop and
improve new empirical formulas for the remnant properties
and approximate/phenomenological waveform models
\cite{Babak:2016tgq,Khan:2015jqa}.
\acknowledgments The authors thank N.K.J-McDaniel, H. Nakano, and R.
O'Shaughnessy for discussions on this work. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the NSF for financial support from NSF Grants No.
PHY-1607520, No. ACI-1550436, No. AST-1516150, No. ACI-1516125, No.
PHY-1305730, No. PHY-1212426, No. PHY-1229173, No. AST-1028087, No.
PHY-0969855, No. OCI-0832606, and No. DRL-1136221. Computational
resources were provided by XSEDE allocation TG-PHY060027N, and by
NewHorizons and BlueSky Clusters at Rochester Institute of Technology,
which were supported by NSF grants No. PHY-0722703, No. DMS-0820923,
No. AST-1028087, and No. PHY-1229173.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{nternet} of things (IoT)~\cite{fangyg} is an integral part in today's development of smart city. People could remotely access and interact with a wide range of devices integrated with sensors, from home appliances, wearable electronics to environmental monitors. Many new applications of smart city rely on the deployment of Internet of things, such as home automation, remote healthcare, intelligent transportation, smart grid and so on. The high level view of Internet of things is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-smartcity}, which includes IoT core network for data sensing and transmission, distributed cloud storage~\cite{info14} for storing the data generated by the core network, cloud computing~\cite{cloudcomp} for processing the data. Upon these components are various applications such as e-transportation, e-heath, smart home and so on. Communication networks such as 4G and 5G networks~\cite{fiveg} interconnect these major components.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{smartcity}
\caption{High level view of Internet of things}
\label{fig:nc-smartcity}
\end{figure}
The IoT core network is responsible for generating the data for Internet of things. Smart devices sense various data and send out the data through the networks constituted by these devices~\cite{zigbee,sixlowpan}. Since the communication of the IoT core network is largely through wireless, the packet loss may be high due to fadings and interferences. Thanks to the emerging of software defined wireless networking~\cite{sdwn}, we can apply sophisticated algorithms to improve the communication quality of the IoT core network.
During the operation of Internet of things, data collected from a vast number of sensors in the IoT core network could explode. The distributed cloud storage is the best candidate to safely and reliably store these data. The distributed data storage architecture model distributes the database to multiple servers in many locations across the participating network in the storage cloud. Each location is directly and independently plugged into the Internet. If something unexpected happens to the data in one location, generally only a small amount of backed up data is impacted and the original data could be recovered using the data stored in rest of the locations. In addition, since the data stored is distributed to many locations, users can access the data simultaneously from several locations to efficiently make use of the bandwidth.
Network coding provides a trade-off between communication capacity and computational complexity in network environment by enabling the intermediate relay nodes to encode the incoming packets before forwarding them. The throughput and robustness of the network can be improved through network coding. In this paper, we study two applications of the classic network coding theory in Internet of things. The main contribution of this paper is:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose an adaptive network coding scheme (ANC scheme) for the IoT core network and demonstrate that the scheme can improve the transmission efficiency and the performance is better than existing schemes.
\item For the distributed cloud storage utilizing network coding that stores the data generated by the IoT core network, we introduce the optimal storage allocation problem and propose an optimal storage allocation (OSA) scheme. Simulation results show that the storage reliability can be greatly improved.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows: in Section~\ref{sec:relatedwork} we briefly review the IoT core network and the distributed cloud storage. The concept of network coding and its advantages in communication and storage are also introduced in Section~\ref{sec:relatedwork}. Next we propose and analyze our adaptive network coding scheme for the IoT core network in Section~\ref{sec:anc}. After that we study the optimal storage allocation problem in the distributed cloud storage utilizing network coding in Section~\ref{sec:osa}. At last is the Conclusion.
\section{Preliminaries and Related Work}\label{sec:relatedwork}
\subsection{Internet of Things}
The objective of Internet of things is to equip everything related to human beings with smart chips integrating sensors, actuators and transceivers. Anything equipped with the smart chip can be called a smart device. Smart devices within a certain range can communicate with each other and form networks with different purposes, such as smart home appliance networks, smart surveillance camera networks, etc. These networks can be further connected to the Internet through proper interconnecting. The benefit of the deployment of Internet of things is obvious. Below are some of the application cases: home owners could remotely monitor and control their home appliance; city residents could check current air pollution levels of any streets; transportation department could make quick actions according to real-time traffic monitoring. Internet of things is the fundamental building block of smart city.
In this paper, we will mainly focus on the IoT core network and the distributed cloud storage which stores the data generated by the IoT core network as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-smartcity}.
\subsubsection{IoT Core Network}
IoT core network consists of the smart devices mentioned above and the networks among these devices. Several challenges of the IoT core network exists.
\begin{itemize}
\item The first challenge is that it lacks of a unified infrastructure and protocol stack. Different academical research groups, industrial R$\&$D teams and standard organizations have proposed different solutions to integrate the smart devices. As a result, smart devices from different vendors cannot communicate with each other, or can communicate only after some complicated bridging work. This has created an obstacle for the realization of Internet of things. As an example, Zigbee~\cite{zigbee} and 6LoWPAN~\cite{sixlowpan} are two popular protocol stacks based on 802.15.4 physical layer and both have been widely adopted in the IoT core network, but they are not compatible with each other.
\item The second challenge is that the monitor and control of the network lacks of flexibility. It is difficult for the network operator to update network management policies.
\item The third challenge is that the functionality of the network cannot be changed without reprogramming the smart devices when the application environment changes.
\end{itemize}
To overcome these shortcomings, software defined wireless networking (SDWN)~\cite{sdwn} was proposed based on the paradigm of software defined networking (SDN)~\cite{sdn}. The major difference between SDN and SDWN is that in the context of SDWN, the network elements in the data plane are smart devices instead of switches. The smart devices act as both end users and switches. The data flow is separated from the control flow. We can easily change the network behaviors through exchange of the control flow among smart devices. Take the wireless sensor networks in the IoT core network as an example, the layers above the 802.15.4 MAC layer will be defined through software and can be changed instantly to meet the new requirements. To update the network management policies or to change network functionality will be as easy as installing a new software application.
Thanks to the advantages of SDWN, it is much easier to implement algorithms which can improve network performance into IoT core network. In~\cite{sbmedard} the authors propose to combine network coding and software defined networking, where the code rate of the network coding is fixed. Although this approach can improve the communication throughput, the strategy is not flexible to cope with the changing channel qualities in wireless environments. In this paper, we will show that the transmission efficiency of the IoT core network can be greatly improved through our adaptive network coding scheme, where the code rate of the network coding can be dynamically adjusted in a centralized manner with the global view of the whole network.
\subsubsection{Distributed Cloud Storage}
According to the estimation of UNECE, in 2015 the amount of all global data is about 7 zettabytes ($7 \times 10^{21}$). The volume of data will be boosted dramatically with the developing of Internet of things, where there will be hundreds of thousands of sensors deployed to create more and more data, including the air pollution levels of every street of the smart city, health condition of every elder in the smart city, videos captured by surveillance cameras at every corner of the smart city, etc. To the year 2020, the amount of data would grow to 40 zettabytes. How to properly store the data has become a major challenge in Internet of things. The data center will be the backbone for Internet of things and must fulfill the following requirements:
\begin{itemize}
\item The file stored in the data center must be reliable. If the file become unavailable because of hardware failures, the data center should be able to recover the file as soon as possible.
\item The data storage efficiency should be high. This means that the data center could store more data with the same storage devices. This requirement is essential because of the astonishing high volume of the data produced by the IoT core network.
\item The data center should be able to provide confidentiality for the files stored. Some of the files such as medical profiles are related to personal privacy and should not be accessed by unauthorized individuals.
\item The data storage capacity must be scalable. If the data to be stored has exceed the system limit, the data center should be easily updatable to meet the new requirement.
\end{itemize}
Traditional centralized data center is not suitable for the context of Internet of things. If something unexpected happens such as power outage or military actions, the precious data stored in the data center could be lost and unrecoverable. To ensure a high reliability of the data storage, a typical solution is to store the data across multiple servers in the distributed cloud storage. The main idea is that instead of storing the entire data in one server, we can split the data into $n$ data components and store the components separately. The original data can be recovered only when the required (threshold) number of components, say $k$, are collected. The storage efficiency is much higher than simply replicating the data over multiple servers. The original data is information theoretically secure for anyone who can access either an individual component or multiple components when the number of components combined is less than the threshold $k$. In this case, when the individual components are stored distributively across multiple cloud storage servers, each cloud storage server only needs to assure data integrity and data availability.
The requirement for costly data encryption and secure key management might be eased.
The distributed cloud storage can also increase data availability while reducing network congestion, thus leading to increased resiliency. A popular approach is to employ an $(n, k)$ maximum distance separable (MDS) code, such as the Reed-Solomon (RS) code in the Total Recall system~\cite{Total}.
From the analysis above we can see that the distributed cloud storage is essential in the development of Internet of things since it meets all the requirements of the data center in Internet of things. In later sections, we will show that by applying network coding in the distributed cloud storage we can further improve the performance of data storage.
\subsection{Network Coding}
In this section, we will briefly introduce the concept of network coding and its advantages in improving the communication throughput and the distributed cloud storage performance. Network coding has shown its benefits in traditional communication/storage networks and can be further applied in Internet of things. Network coding was first introduced in the seminal paper by Ahlswede \emph{et al.} in~\cite{Ahlswede}. By allowing the intermediate relay nodes to encode the incoming packets, the network could achieve the maximum multicast capacity.
A network is equivalent to a directed graph $G=(V,E)$, where $V$ represents the set of vertices corresponding to the network nodes and $E$ represents all the directed edges between vertices corresponding to the communication link. The start vertex $v$ of an edge $e$ is called the tail of $e$ and written as $v=tail(e)$, while the end vertex $u$ of an edge $e$ is called the head of of $e$ and written as $u= head(e)$. For a source node $u$, there is a set of symbols $\mathcal{X}(u) = (x_1,\dots,x_k)$ to be sent. Each of the symbol is from the finite field $GF(2^m)$, where $m$ is a positive integer. For a link $e$ between intermediate nodes $r_1$ and $r_2$, written as $e=(r_1,r_2)$, the symbol $y_e$ transmitted on it is the function of all the $y_{e'}$ such that $head(e')=r_1$. And $y_e$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
y_e = \sum_{e':head(e')=r_1}\beta_{e',e} \cdot y_{e'},
\end{equation}
in which the encoding coefficients $\beta_{e',e}\in GF(2^m)$. For a sink node $v$, there is a set of incoming symbols $y_{e'}~(e':tail(e')=v)$ to be decoded.
\subsubsection{Network Coding in Communication}
The main idea of network coding can be illustrated through Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-example}. Assume the capacity of all the edges is $C$, the capacity of this network is $2C$ according to the max-flow min-cut theorem. Only by encoding the incoming packet symbols $x_1,x_2$ at node R3, this network can achieve the maximum capacity.
In~\cite{Koetter,Ho} the authors have shown that linear codes with random selected coefficients are sufficient to achieve the multicast capacity by coding on a large enough field. Sink nodes that have received more linear independent encoded symbols than the original symbol generated by the source nodes can easily decode the original symbols by solving a set of linear equations. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that network coding can improve the communication throughput. As an example, the authors in~\cite{Gkantsidis} have applied the principles of random network coding to the context of peer-to-peer (P2P) content distribution, and have shown that file downloading times can be reduced. Thus in this paper we propose to apply adaptive random linear network coding in the IoT core network to improve the network transmission efficiency.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{nc-example}
\caption{A simple example of network coding}
\label{fig:nc-example}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Distributed Cloud Storage Utilizing Network Coding}
When a storage node in the distributed cloud storage network that employing $(n, k)$ RS code (such as Total Recall~\cite{Total}) fails, the replacement node connects to $k$ nodes and downloads the data of the same amount as the whole file first to decode the original file. Then the replacement node encodes the original file using the same $(n, k)$ code to recover the encoded part of the file stored in the failed node. This approach is a waste of bandwidth because the whole file has to be downloaded to recover a fraction of it.
To overcome this drawback, Dimakis \emph{et al.}~\cite{Dimakis} introduced the conception of $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta,B)$ regenerating code based on the network coding. In the context of regenerating code, the contents stored in a failed node can be regenerated by the replacement node through downloading $\beta$ help symbols from each of $d$ helper nodes. This regeneration is identical to the encoding process of the intermediate nodes in network coding. The bandwidth consumption for the failed node regeneration could be far less than the whole file. A data collector (DC) can reconstruct the original file stored in the network by downloading $\alpha$ symbols from each of the $k$ storage nodes. In~\cite{Dimakis}, the following theoretical bound was derived based on network coding theory:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:min_cut}
B \leq \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\min \{ \alpha, (d-i)\beta \}.
\end{equation}
From equation~(\ref{eq:min_cut}), a tradeoff between the regeneration bandwidth $\gamma = d\beta$ and the storage requirement $\alpha$ was derived. $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ cannot be decreased at the same time. There are two special cases: minimum storage regeneration (MSR) point in which the storage parameter $\alpha$ is minimized:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MSR_tradeoff}
(\alpha_{MSR},\gamma_{MSR})= \left(\frac Bk, \frac{Bd}{k(d-k+1)}\right),
\end{equation}
and minimum bandwidth regeneration (MBR) point in which the bandwidth $\gamma$ is minimized:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MBR_tradeoff}
(\alpha_{MBR},\gamma_{MBR})= \left(\frac{2Bd}{2kd-k^2 + k},\frac{2Bd}{2kd-k^2 + k} \right).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{nc-cloud}
\caption{network coding based distributed cloud storage}
\label{fig:nc-cloud}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-cloud} is an illustrative example of regenerating code with parameters $n=4,k=2,d=3,\alpha=2,\beta=1,B=4$. $4$ symbols $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4$ are stored in $4$ storage nodes, and can be retrieved from any $2$ of the storage nodes. A failed node can be regenerated by downloading $1$ symbol each from the $3$ remaining nodes. Here we suppose node 3 fails. For the storage systems simply employing RS code, $4$ symbols have to be downloaded first to decode the original symbols. Then we have to encode the $4$ decoded symbols again to regenerate the symbols in the failed node 3. So the bandwidth needed for repairing the failed node 3 is $4$. For the regenerating code solution in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-cloud}, by linearly combing the $3$ downloaded symbols $u_1+3u_2+u_3+3u_4$, $2u_1+u_2+2u_3+u_4$ and $u_1+4u_2+u_3+4u_4$ into $2$ symbols $3u_1+4u_2+3u_3+4u_4$ and $2u_1+7u_2+2u_3+7u_4$, we can regenerate a new node 3 that has the same function as the failed node 3. In the repairing process, only $3$ symbols need to be downloaded. Thus the repair bandwidth is saved by $25\%$. In the later section, we will introduce a storage allocation problem for regenerating code in the distributed cloud storage and propose an optimal storage allocation scheme that can achieve the highest possible reliability.
\section{Adaptive Network Coding in the IoT core network}\label{sec:anc}
In this section, we will show our adaptive network coding (ANC) scheme in the IoT core network. The size of the data to be transmitted in the IoT core network may be larger than the size limit of a single packet, such as new firmwares to update the smart devices on-air. So the data needs to be divided into data fragments first then transmitted in multiple packets with one data fragment per packet. A node has to correctly receive enough linearly independent packets to reassemble the original data.
\subsection{Limitations of existing works}
Since the communication between smart devices are through wireless channel and there may be various fadings and interferences in the channel, some of the nodes may experience packets loss in the communication. When network coding is not utilized, retransmission is a common method to mitigate the packets loss. In some cases, certain packets may get lost most of the time so these packets have to be retransmitted many times until they are correctly received. Thus the overall transmission efficiency will be low. {\it{Here the transmission efficiency is defined as the ratio between the minimum number of the packets needed to reassemble the original data and the number of total packets transmitted from the source node and the intermediate nodes}}. When network coding is utilized, a node can retrieve the original data as long as the node can correctly receive enough number of packets. The entire transmission of the data will not be affected by lacking of certain particular packets. So the overall transmission efficiency will be higher.
However, there are still limitations for simply applying the network coding in the IoT core network,
where the number of encoded packets to be generated and sent in the intermediate nodes is predetermined~\cite{sbmedard}. If too few packets are generated, the sink node may not even be able to collect enough packets to decode the original data. If too many packets are generated, the transmission efficiency will be low. Moreover, the fact that the quality of wireless channel is changing over time makes the situation even worse. As an example, when the channel quality becomes better and the packet loss rate goes lower, some of the encoded packets will be useless and the transmission efficiency could be higher. The encoding strategy should be able to dynamically adjusted according to the transmission conditions.
\subsection{ANC Scheme for the IoT core network}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{nc-sdwn}
\caption{ANC Scheme for the IoT core network}
\label{fig:nc-sdwn}
\end{figure}
To overcome the limitations mentioned above, we propose an adaptive network coding (ANC) scheme to further improve the transmission efficiency of the IoT core network with SDWN, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-sdwn}. In this example, end users could communicate with the IoT core network with SDWN through Internet for monitoring/control purposes. The data transmission inside the IoT core network could benefit from our ANC scheme. In the figure, the IoT core network formed by the smart devices could be the smart appliance network at home, the surveillance camera network on streets or the emission detecting network in factories, etc. Here we only include the data plane and control plane of the SWDN to show the main idea of the ANC scheme.
For the data plane, the source node will send out linear combinations of the original packets. Each intermediate node will perform random linear network coding. The incoming packets will be linearly combined using random coefficients then sent out to succeeding nodes. \emph{The code rate $r$ of the network coding is defined as the ratio of the number of encoded packets to the number of incoming packets.} And the code rates of the network coding will be automatically adjusted by the SWDN controller mentioned below. The sink nodes will decode the original packets after receiving enough number of linearly independent packets.
Meanwhile, for the control plane, the smart devices will report packets receiving statistics to the SDWN controller periodically through the control path. Based on the information reported, the SDWN controller will dynamically adjust the network coding strategies to eliminate unnecessary transmissions. If the packet loss becomes higher around some node, more encoded packets will be generated in the corresponding intermediate nodes. If the packet loss becomes lower, the number of encoded packets will be decreased. Since the SDWN controller has the global information of the network, this centralized control will be more effective.
\subsubsection{Source Node Algorithm of the ANC scheme}
In the source node, the data to be transmitted will be fragmented into data packets with equal length. Every $n$ data packets will form a coding group, in which random linear network coding will be performed. For the purpose of clarity, in the paper we assume that there is only one coding group. For each packet $\h_i$ in the coding group, there will be an encoding vector ${\dDelta_i} = [\delta_{i,1}, \delta_{i,2}, \dots, \delta_{i,n}]$ ($\delta_{i,j} \in GF(2^m), 1 \leq i,j \leq n$) attached in front to indicate which packets participate in the encoding of $\h_i$.
$GF(2^m)$ denotes the finite field with $2^m$ elements where $m \in \{8,16,32,64,\dots\}$ is determined by the symbol size. For an uncoded packet $\h_i$, the elements in the encoding vector will be all-zero except $\delta_{i,i}=1$. The packet format is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:pacfor}. The source node will perform Algorithm~\ref{alg:source} to send out the encoded packets $\g_i$ ($1 \leq i \leq \lceil rn \rceil$) where $r$ is the code rate determined by the SWDN controller and $\lceil rn \rceil$ is the ceiling operation to get the smallest integer that is larger than or equal to $rn$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\columnwidth]{packetformat_s}
\caption{ANC packet format}
\label{fig:pacfor}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State \Comment the network coding code rate $r$ is determined/updated by the SWDN controller
\For{$i=1 \to \lceil rn \rceil$}
\If {$i \leq n$}
\Repeat{$\:\:\:$ generate a random encoding vector $\dDelta_i=$ \\ \hskip65pt $[\delta_{i,1}, \delta_{i,2}, \dots, \delta_{i,n}]$ }
\Until{$\:\:\:$ $\dDelta_i$ is linearly independent from all the $\dDelta_j,$ \\ \hskip60pt $1 \leq j < i$ (except for $i=1$)}
\Else
\State generate a random encoding vector $\dDelta_i =[\delta_{i,1}, \delta_{i,2}, $ \\ \hskip30pt $\dots, \delta_{i,n}]$
\EndIf
\State \Comment multiply each symbol of packet data $\h_j$ by $\delta_{i,j}$ $\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:$
\State $\g_i \Leftarrow \sum_{j=1}^{n}\delta_{i,j}\h_j\:\:\:$
\State send out $\left [\dDelta_i || \g_i \right ]$, where``$||$'' is the concatenation oper-\\ \hskip15pt ation
\EndFor
\State report the number of sent out packets to the SWDN controller
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{ANC scheme - source node}
\label{alg:source}
\end{algorithm}
In algorithm~\ref{alg:source}, the source node generates $\lceil rn \rceil$ $n$-dimensional encoding vectors $\dDelta_i$ (first $n$ encoding vectors are linearly independent) and uses the vector elements $\delta_{i,1}, \delta_{i,2}, \dots, \delta_{i,n}$ as coefficients to generate and send out encoded packets from the uncoded packets $\h_1,\dots,\h_n$.
\subsubsection{Intermediate Node Algorithm of the ANC scheme}
For each coding group, the intermediate node will open a receiving buffer to store the incoming fresh packets from the nodes designated by the SDWN controller for encoding. The intermediate node will also record all the encoding vectors received in the incoming packets. \emph{A packet is called a fresh packet if its encoding vector is linearly independent from all of the previously received packets'.} In order to get a trade-off between the packet diversity and communication delay, the intermediate node will encode the incoming fresh packets received during a preset interval $\tau$ which is measured by a timer then clear the receiving buffer and wait for the next incoming fresh packet to restart the timer and the buffering. At the end of each time interval, the encoding of the fresh packets in the receiving buffer is performed. For better illustration, we can split each of the $n_{\tau}$ fresh packets in the receiving buffer into the encoding vector $\dDelta_i$ and data $\g_i$ ($1 \leq i \leq n_{\tau}$). $n_{\tau}$ is the number of fresh packets in the receiving buffer. The intermediate node will send out $\lceil rn_{\tau} \rceil$ encoded packets using Algorithm~\ref{alg:int}, where $r$ is the code rate determined by the SWDN controller. At the same time, the intermediate node will report the receiving and the sending of the packets to the SWDN controller.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State \Comment the network coding code rate $r$ is determined/updated by the SWDN controller
\For{$i=1 \to \lceil rn_{\tau} \rceil$}
\If {$i \leq n_{\tau}$}
\Repeat{$\:\:\:$ generate a random vector $\R_i=[r_{i,1}, r_{i,2},$ \\ \hskip65pt $ \dots, r_{i,n_{\tau}}]$}
\Until{$\:\:\:$ $\R_i$ is linearly independent from all the $\R_j,$ \\ \hskip62pt $1 \leq j < i$ (except for $i=1$)}
\Else
\State generate a random vector $\R_i=[r_{i,1}, r_{i,2}, \dots, r_{i,n_{\tau}}]$
\EndIf
\State \Comment multiply each symbol of $\dDelta_j$ by $r_{i,j}$ $\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:$
\State $\dDelta'_i \Leftarrow \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\tau}}r_{i,j} \dDelta_j \:\:\:$
\vskip5pt
\State \Comment multiply each symbol of $\g_j$ by $r_{i,j}$ $\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:$
\State $\g'_i \Leftarrow \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\tau}}r_{i,j} \g_j \:\:\:$
\vskip5pt
\State send out $\left [\dDelta'_i || \g'_i\right ]$, where``$||$'' is the concatenation oper- \\ \hskip15pt ation
\EndFor
\State report the number of received packets from each of the other nodes/the number of sent out packets to the SWDN controller
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{ANC scheme - intermediate node}
\label{alg:int}
\end{algorithm}
In algorithm~\ref{alg:int}, the intermediate node generates $\lceil rn_{\tau} \rceil$ $n_{\tau}$-dimensional vectors $\R_i$ (first $n_{\tau}$ vectors are linearly independent) and uses the vector elements $r_{i,1}, r_{i,2}, \dots, r_{i,n_{\tau}}$ as coefficients to generate and send out recoded packets from the received packets $\g_1,\dots,\g_{n_{\tau}}$. The corresponding encoding vectors are processed the same way.
\subsubsection{Sink Node Algorithm of the ANC scheme}
Once the sink node receives $n$ linearly independent packets, it can solve the following equation to decode the original packets data $\h_1, \h_2, \dots, \h_n$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:encoding_msr_h}
\begin{bmatrix}
\dDelta_1 \\
\dDelta_2\\
\vdots \\
\dDelta_n
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\h_1 \\
\h_2\\
\vdots \\
\h_n
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\g_1 \\
\g_2\\
\vdots \\
\g_n
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Then $\h_1, \h_2, \dots, \h_n$ can be concatenated to restore the original data. The sink node will also periodically report the packets receiving status to the SWDN controller.
\subsubsection{SDWN Controller Algorithm of the ANC scheme}
Since the SDWN controller receives the packets sending/receiving status from each of the nodes in the IoT core network periodically , it can adjust the code rate of the network coding for each of the nodes accordingly. Suppose $\eta_i$ is the number of packets sent by node $i$, $\mathbb{N}_i$ is the set of succeeding nodes receiving the packets from node $i$, and $\eta_j^{(i)}$ is the number of packets received by node $j \in \mathbb{N}_i$. The code rate $r_i$ of node $i$ can be determined by
\begin{equation}
r_i = \frac{\eta_i}{\max_{j \in \mathbb{N}_i}(\eta_j^{(i)})},
\end{equation}
where $\max()$ is the operation to select the maximum element. Besides the code rate, since the SDWN controller has all of the topology information, for each node $i$, it can specify the succeeding relay nodes to receive the packets sent from node $i$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}
\For {each of the source node or intermediate node $i$}
\State calculate $r_i$ according to the packet sending/receiving \\ \hskip15pt status of node $i$ and $\mathbb{N}_i$
\State send $r_i$ to update the code rate of node $i$ through the \\ \hskip15pt control path
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{ANC scheme - SDWN controller}
\label{alg:sdwn}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Performance Evaluation of the ANC scheme}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth]{simncnew}
\caption{Performance of the ANC scheme}
\label{fig:nc-simulation}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-simulation} are the simulation results of the ANC scheme. The simulation is carried out in the NS-2 platform. In the simulation, the leftmost node in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-sdwn} tries to send data to the rightmost two nodes. The qualities of the channels between the intermediate nodes are chosen randomly. We calculate the transmission efficiencies under different numbers of total original data packets (can be viewed as one coding group for network coding). For performance comparison, we also simulate the cases for no network coding (pure retransmission) and network coding with predetermined code rates as in~\cite{sbmedard}.
To make the comparison more clear, we normalize the transmission efficiencies for the cases with fixed network coding and the ANC scheme by the transmission efficiency for the case without network coding. From the simulation results, we can see that the transmission efficiency for the case with network coding becomes higher than the case without network coding with the increasing of the number of original data packets. And the ANC performs best among all the cases. It can also be seen that the performance gain of the ANC scheme will increase when the number of total original data packets becomes larger.
\section{Optimal Storage Allocation in the Distributed Cloud Storage Utilizing Network Coding}\label{sec:osa}
In this section we first introduce a storage allocation problem for the distributed cloud storage utilizing network coding. Then we propose the optimal storage allocation (OSA) scheme. We also show the performance of the optimal storage allocation scheme.
\subsection{Storage Allocation Problem}
In the storage allocation problem $\mathbb{S}$, the data is encoded with an $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta,B)$ regenerating code, so there will be $n$ encoded parts. There are $N$ ($N<n$) data centers in total to store these parts, each with a failure probability of $p$. If a data center fails, all the data stored in the data center will be lost. If the total number of encoded parts in the remaining data centers is less than $k$, the original data cannot be recovered any more. Since there are more encoded parts than the data centers, there will be different allocation strategies of the encoded parts with different storage reliabilities. For the problem $\mathbb{S}$, we try to find out the allocation strategy with the lowest failure probability among all the possible allocation strategies.
\begin{defi}
A set $S$ with $N$ elements $n_1,n_2,\dots,n_N$ ($n_i>0, 1 \leq i \leq N$) is a valid allocation
if $\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i=n$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}
For an allocation strategy $S$, the failure probability $P$ is defined as the probability that the original data cannot be recovered given the failure probabilities of individual data centers.
\end{defi}
The problem $\mathbb{S}$ can be formulated as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:optP}
\begin{split}
\mbox{find}~~~ & \mbox{the allocation $S$ among all the valid allocations},\\
\mbox{such that}~~~ & \sum_{\forall S_j \subseteq S }P\left(\sum_{n_i\in S_j}n_i \ge n-k\right) \mbox{is minimal}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
As an example, for the regenerating code in Fig.~\ref{fig:nc-cloud}, $n=4$ encoded parts are stored in $N=2$ data centers. Suppose the failure probability of each data center is $p=0.01$. Two storage allocation strategies are shown in the figure. For the first allocation strategy $S=\{3,1\}$ (blue data centers with dash lines), $3$ encoded parts are stored in data center 1 and $1$ encode part is stored in data center 2. It is easy to calculate the failure probability of this allocation strategy is $0.01$. For the second allocation strategy $S=\{2,2\}$ (orange data centers with solid lines), $2$ encoded parts are stored in each of the two data centers. The failure probability of this allocation strategy is $0.0001$, which is much lower than that of the first strategy.
\subsection{Optimal Storage Allocation Scheme}
In this section, we will show our optimal storage allocation (OSA) scheme to solve the storage allocation problem. The OSA scheme includes two stages: the first stage is to find out all the possible valid allocations $S$ and the second stage is to calculate the failure probability $P$ for each $S$. Then we can output the allocation with the lowest failure probability through comparison.
\subsubsection{Stage I: Find out All the Possible Valid allocations $S$}
The naive approach to find out all the possible valid $S$ is to search all the possible combinations of $n_1,n_2,\dots,n_N$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i=n$. However, this approach will take exponential time thus is not practical. In our OSA scheme, we first change this problem into an integer partition problem~\cite{comb}: to allocate $n$ encoded parts into $N$ storage centers is the same as to partition an integer $n$ into $N$ parts. Take $n=7,N=3$ as an example, there are $4$ ways to partition $7$ into $3$ parts: $\{1,1,5\}$, $\{1,2,4\}$, $\{1,3,3\}$ and $\{2,2,3\}$, which also consist all the possible valid allocations. Then we can solve the integer partition problem using dynamic programming based on the following recurrence equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:part}
\mathbb{P}(n,N) = \mathbb{P}(n-1,N-1) + \mathbb{P}(n-N,N),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}(i,j)$ is the total number of ways of partitioning integer $i$ into $j$ parts. The first part of equation~(\ref{eq:part}) is the subproblem where at least one $1$ exists in the partition and the second part of the equation is the subproblem where no $1$ exists in the partition. Thus the solution to the original problem perfectly incorporates these two subproblems, which make it feasible to solve using dynamic programming. We propose Algorithm~\ref{alg:part} to find out all the possible valid allocations $S$. In the algorithm, we use $S(i,j,k)$ to represent the $k^{th}$ valid allocation out of the $\mathbb{P}(i,j)$ allocations for $i$ encoded parts and $j$ storage centers. $\cup$ is the union operation between two sets. The addition between a set $S$ and a number $x$ is defined as the additions between every element of the set and the number:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:setplus}
S+x := \{n_i + x | n_i \in S \:\:\mbox{for}\:\: 1 \leq i \leq N\}.
\end{equation}
After the execution of the algorithm, we can get all the possible valid allocations $S(n,N,k)$ $(1 \leq k \leq \mathbb{P}(n,N))$. It is easy to see that the algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require the number of encoded parts $n$ and the number of storage centers $N$
\Ensure all the valid allocations $S(n,N,l)$, $(1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(n,N))$
\Function{FindAllAllocations}{$n,N$}
\For{$i=1 \to n$}
\State $\mathbb{P}(i,1) \Leftarrow 1$
\State $S(i,1,1) \Leftarrow i$
\For{$j=2 \to N$}
\If{$i \geq j$}
\If{$i-j < j$}
\State $\mathbb{P}(i,j) \Leftarrow \mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1)$
\State $S(i,j,l) \Leftarrow S(i-1,j-1,l) \cup \{1\}$, for \Statex \hskip72pt $1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(i,j)$
\Else
\State $\mathbb{P}(i,j) \Leftarrow \mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1) + \mathbb{P}(i-j,j)$
\State $S(i,j,l) \Leftarrow S(i-1,j-1,l) \cup \{1\}$, for \Statex \hskip72pt all $\:\:1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1)$
\State $S(i,j,\mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1) + l) \Leftarrow S(i-j,j,l) +$ \Statex \hskip72pt $1$, for all $\:\:1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(i-j,j)$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndFor
\EndFor
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{OSA scheme - stage I}
\label{alg:part}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{thm}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:part} can output all the valid allocations $S(n,N,l)$ for $1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(n,N)$, where $S(n,N,l)$ represents the $l^{th}$ valid allocation out of the $\mathbb{P}(n,N)$ allocations for $n$ encoded parts and $N$ storage centers.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:part} calculates $S(i,j,l)$ $(1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(i,j))$ for $1 \leq j \leq N$ from $i=1$ to $i=n$ through a bottom-up manner and we can get $S(n,N,l)$ $(1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(n,N))$ for $i=n,j=N$. For each $i$, line 3 to line 4 first calculate $\mathbb{P}(i,1)=1$ and $S(i,1,1)={i}$, corresponding to the case of allocating $i$ encoded data parts into one data center. Then for each $j=2,\dots,N$, there will be two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item Line 8 to line 9 correspond to the case with $i-j < j$, where at least one storage node will be allocated only 1 encoded data part. The second part of equation~(\ref{eq:part}) does not exist. So the number of ways of allocating $i$ encoded data parts into $j$ storage nodes will be equal to that of allocating $i-1$ encoded data parts into $j-1$ storage nodes: $\mathbb{P}(i,j) = \mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1)$. And each of the valid allocations $S(i,j,l)$ will be the union of each already calculated allocations $S(i-1,j-1,l)$ with the set $\{1\}$.
\item Line 11 to line 13 correspond to the case with $i-j \geq j$, where $\mathbb{P}(i,j)$ is the summation of two previously calculated parts as shown in equation~(\ref{eq:part}). The computation of the first part and the corresponding valid allocations is the same as in line 8 to line 9. The second part is the number of ways of allocating $i-j$ encoded data parts into $j$ storage nodes $\mathbb{P}(i-j,j)$, where each of the storage node will be allocated at least $2$ encoded data parts. Thus each of the valid allocations $S(i,j, \mathbb{P}(i-1,j-1) + l)$ will be each of the already calculated allocations $S(i-j,j,l)$ plus $1$ as defined in equation~(\ref{eq:setplus}).
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
Fig.~\ref{fig:partexample} illustrates the algorithm for $n=7$ encoded data parts and $N=3$ data centers. Each $(i,j)$ pair represent the calculation of $\mathbb{P}(i,j)$ and $S(i,j,l)$. The pairs without shades are calculated using line 8 to line 9 (the first case) while the pairs in shades are calculated using line 11 to line 13 (the second case). The solid lines correspond to the first part of equation~(\ref{eq:part}) and the dashed lines correspond to the second part. From the figure we can clearly see that $(7,3)$ can be efficiently calculated using the results of $(6,2)$ and $(4,3)$, which have already been calculated the same way as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:partexample}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{partexample}
\caption{The calculation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:part} for $n=7$, $N=3$}
\label{fig:partexample}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Stage II: Calculate the Failure Probability $P$ for Each Valid Allocation $S$}
After we get all the possible valid allocations $S$, we can calculate the failure probability $P_S$ for each of them. The goal function of equation~(\ref{eq:optP}) can be further written as:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:optPf}
\begin{split}
P_S & = \sum_{\forall S_j \subseteq S }P\left(\sum_{n_i\in S_j}n_i > n-k\right) \\
& =\sum_{\forall S_j \subseteq S,\:\: s.t.\sum_{n_i\in S_j}n_i > n-k}p^{\left | S_j\right |} (1-p)^{N - \left | S_j\right |},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $p$ is the failure probability of each storage center, $\left | S_j \right |$ is the number of elements in subset $S_j$. If we try to directly calculate $P_S$ for every subset $S_j \in S$, the order of the number of subsets to be calculated will be approximate to $\sum_{\left | S_j \right |=1}^{N}\begin{pmatrix}N\\\left | S_j \right |\end{pmatrix}\approx 2^{N}$, where $\begin{pmatrix}N\\ \left | S_j \right |\end{pmatrix}$ denotes the number of $\left | S_j \right |$-combinations of the set $S$, thus making it infeasible to calculate in practice.
In the second stage of the OSA scheme (Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc}), we propose to change the exhaust search problem into a number counting problem. More specifically, for each $i$ ($1 \leq i \leq N$), we count the total number of subsets $ S_j^{(i)}$ such that $ S_j^{(i)}$ denotes the subsets with exactly $i$ elements and the summation of every element in $ S_j^{(i)}$ is larger than $n-k$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ps}
P_S = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left | \left \{ S_j^{(i)}\:\: | \sum_{n_i\in S_j^{(i)}}n_i > n-k \right \} \right | p^{ i} (1-p)^{N - i }.
\end{equation}
In Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc}, we first calculate the summations of every subset, which can be viewed as a variant of the subset-sum problem~\cite{IA}. For each $i$ ($1 \leq i \leq N$), we merge the same-value summation results of the subsets $S_j^{(i)}$ and count the total number of $S_j^{(i)}$ which have that summation value. Then for the subsets that have summation results larger than $n-k$, we can calculate the corresponding failure probability according to equation~(\ref{eq:ps}). In the algorithm, $T,L,R$ represent three auxiliary lists for subset summation. For a auxiliary list $X$, we use $X.\mathsf{length}$ to denote the number of elements of the list, $X.\mathsf{index}$ to denote the current index number of the list, $V_X(j)$ to denote the value of $j^{th}$ element in $X$, and $C_X(i,j)$ to denote the total number of subsets that have the same element number $i$ and the same summation value $V_X(j)$. Although the total number of subsets is $2^N$, Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc} is a polynomial time algorithm:
\begin{thm}
The complexity of Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc} is $\mathcal{O}(nN)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since the summation of a valid allocation $S$ itself is the largest in all the summations of the subsets of $S$, the element number $T.\mathsf{length}$ in $T$ cannot exceed $n$. Through the merge of subsets with the same summation values, each of the $N$ for-loops has the complexity $\mathcal{O}(n)$. So the total complexity is $\mathcal{O}(nN)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require a valid allocation $S(n,N,l)$, $(1 \leq l \leq \mathbb{P}(n,N))$
\Ensure the failure probability $P_S$ of the allocation
\Function{CalculateProbability}{$S(n,N,l)$}
\State $\{n_1,n_2,\dots,n_N\} \Leftarrow$ sort the allocation $S(n,N,l)$ in \Statex \hskip15pt non-descending order
\State $L \Leftarrow \{0\}$
\State \Comment calculate summations of every subset $\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:$
\For{$i=1 \to N$}
\State $T \Leftarrow \phi $
\State $R \Leftarrow L + n_i$, $C_R(1,1) \Leftarrow 1$
\State $C_R(l,j) \Leftarrow C_L(l-1,j)$, for all nonzero $C_L(l,j)$, \Statex \hskip30pt $2 \leq j \leq L.\mathsf{length}, 2 \leq l \leq i$, $i \ge 2$
\State $L.\mathsf{index},R.\mathsf{index} \Leftarrow 1$
\While{$L.\mathsf{index} \leq L.\mathsf{length}$}
\If {$V_L(L.\mathsf{index}) == V_R(R.\mathsf{index})$}
\State $T \Leftarrow T \cup {V_R(R.\mathsf{index})}$
\State {for all $1 \leq l \leq i$, $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length}) \Leftarrow $\Statex \hskip58pt $C_L(l,L.\mathsf{index}) + C_R(l,R.\mathsf{index})$}
\State increase $L.\mathsf{index}, R.\mathsf{index}$ by 1
\Else
\If {$V_L(L.\mathsf{index}) < V_R(R.\mathsf{index})$}
\State $T \Leftarrow T \cup {V_L(L.\mathsf{index})}$
\State $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length}) \Leftarrow C_L(l,L.\mathsf{index})$, for \Statex \hskip72pt all $1 \leq l \leq i$
\State increase $L.\mathsf{index}$ by 1
\Else
\State $T \Leftarrow T \cup {V_R(R.\mathsf{index})}$
\State $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length}) \Leftarrow C_R(l,R.\mathsf{index})$, for \Statex \hskip72pt all $1 \leq l \leq i$
\State increase $R.\mathsf{index}$ by 1
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\State $oldLn \Leftarrow T.\mathsf{length}$
\State $T \Leftarrow T \cup \{V_R(R.\mathsf{index}), V_R(R.\mathsf{index} + 1),\dots, $ \Statex \hskip30pt $ V_R(R.\mathsf{length})\}$
\State $\{C_T(l,oldLn+1), \dots,C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length})\} \Leftarrow $ \Statex \hskip30pt $ \{C_R(l,R.\mathsf{index}),\dots,C_R(l,R.\mathsf{length})\}$, $1 \leq l \leq i$
\State $L \Leftarrow T$
\EndFor
\State $P_S \Leftarrow 0$
\State \Comment count the number of subsets with the summation $\:\:$\Statex \hskip15pt results larger than $n-k$
\For{$i=1 \to N$}
\State $sum \Leftarrow 0$
\For {$j=1 \to T.\mathsf{length}$}
\If {$V_T(j)>n-k$}
\State $sum \Leftarrow sum + C_T(i,j)$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $P_S \Leftarrow P_S + sum \times p^i(1-p)^{N-i}$
\EndFor
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{OSA scheme - stage II}
\label{alg:calc}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{thm}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc} can output the failure probability $P_S$ for the input allocation.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In line 3 we initialize the auxiliary list $L$ with an empty element $'0'$, representing the summation result of $0$ element of the input allocation $S$. Line 4 to line 31 calculate the summations of every subset of the input allocation. At the beginning of each round $i$ of the for loop $i=1,\dots,n$, the auxiliary list $L$ is the list containing the summation results of every subset of the first $l$ ($0 \leq l < i$) elements of the input allocation $S$. Line 7 to line 8 calculate the auxiliary list $R$ by adding the new element $n_i$ to $L$: $R = L + n_i$. Since the first element in $L$ is the empty $'0'$, $C_R(1,1)$ will be $1$, indicating that the total number of subsets that have $1$ element and summation value $n_i$ is $1$. Then the rest value of $C_R(l,j)$ will be $C_L(l-1,j)$ for $2 \leq j \leq L.\mathsf{length}$ because of the addition of $n_i$ to $L$. The elements of allocation $S$ are sorted in non-descending order, thus the elements in both $L$ and $R$ are also in non-descending order. From line 10 to line 29, we merge the elements of the auxiliary lists $L$ and $R$ into a temporary auxiliary list $T$ one by one, following the rules below:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the value of the current element $V_L(L.\mathsf{index})$ in $L$ is equal to the current element $V_R(R.\mathsf{index})$ in $R$, add the value into $T$. The corresponding counter $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length})$ is equal to the sum of the two counters: $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length}) = C_L(l,L.\mathsf{index}) + C_R(l,R.\mathsf{index})$ for $1 \leq l \leq i$.
\item If the value of the current element $V_L(L.\mathsf{index})$ in $L$ is smaller than the current element in $R$, add the element $V_L(L.\mathsf{index})$ into $T$. Set the counter $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length})$ to $C_L(l, L.\mathsf{index})$ for $1 \leq l \leq i$.
\item If the value of the current element $V_R(R.\mathsf{index})$ in $R$ is smaller than the current element in $L$, add the element $V_R(R.\mathsf{index})$ into $T$. Set the counter $C_T(l,T.\mathsf{length})$ to $C_R(l, R.\mathsf{index})$ for $1 \leq l \leq i$.
\item Since the last element in $L$ is smaller than some elements in $R$, after merging $L$ into $T$, we can directly merge the remaining elements of $R$ into $T$ through line 28 to line 29.
\end{itemize}
At the end of each for loop, the merged list $T$ is assigned back to $L$ for the next round of calculation. After $N^{th}$ round, list $T$ has the summation results of all the subsets in $S$.
Then the failure probability of $S$ can be easily calculated from line 34 to line 42 by counting the number of subsets with the summation results larger than $n-k$.
\end{proof}
Fig.~\ref{fig:sumsubset} illustrates the summations for all the subsets of $S=\{1,2,2\}$. For $i=1$, $L = \{0\}$, $C_L(1,1)=0$, $R=\{1\}$, $C_R(1,1)=1$. The merged list $T=\{0,1\}$, $C_T =\{0,1\}$. For the second round, $L,C_L$ are assigned the values of $T,C_T$. According to line 7 and line 8 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc}, $R=L+n_2=\{2,3\}$ and $C_R(2,2) = C_L(1,2) = 1$. At the end of the third round, we can get the summation results $T = \{1,2,3,4,5\}$ and the counter matrix $C_T$, which correctly record the number of subsets that have the same summation value. As an example, $C_T(2,3) = 2$, indicating that there are two 2-element subsets ($\{n_1=1,n_2=2\}, \{n_1=1,n_3=2\}$) that have the same summation value $V_T(3) = 3$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{sumsubset}
\caption{The calculation of Algorithm~\ref{alg:calc} for $S=\{1,2,2\}$}
\label{fig:sumsubset}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{OSA Scheme}
Based on the algorithms of the two stages, we can achieve the optimal storage allocation through Algorithm~\ref{alg:osa}. And it is straightforward to see:
\begin{thm}
The OSA scheme is a polynomial time algorithm.
\end{thm}
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require the number of encoded parts $n$ and the number of storage centers $N$
\Ensure the allocation with the lowest failure probability
\Function{OSA}{$n,N$}
\State $S(n,N,l) \Leftarrow$ \Call{FindAllAllocations}{$n,N$} $(1 \leq l \leq$ \\ \hskip15pt $\mathbb{P}(n,N))$
\For{$l=1 \to \mathbb{P}(n,N)$}
\State $P_S \Leftarrow$ \Call{CalculateProbability}{$S(n,N,l)$}
\EndFor
\State output the allocation with the lowest $P_S$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{spacing}
\caption{OSA scheme}
\label{alg:osa}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Simulation Results for the OSA Scheme}
In this section we will show the performance of the OSA scheme for the given regenerating code with parameters $(n,k,d,\alpha,\beta,B)$ and number of data centers $N$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:simk} are the simulation results for $n=45$, $k=\{16,21,26,31\}$, $N=9$ and $p=0.1$. For performance comparison, we also plot the results for the even allocation as defined in equation~(\ref{eq:even}), where $\lfloor n/N \rfloor$ is the floor operation to get the largest integer that is less or equal to $n/N$, $mod(n,N)$ is the modulo operation to find the remainder of the division of $n$ by $N$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:even}
n_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\lfloor n/N \rfloor + 1, & 1 \leq i \leq mod(n,N) \\
\lfloor n/N \rfloor, & mod(n,N) < i < N
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
The even allocation is a natural allocation scheme to store equal number of data blocks into each storage center. From the figure we can see that the failure probability of the OSA scheme is about half order of magnitude lower than the even allocation. Both of the probabilities will become higher when $k$ increases since there is less redundancy in the distributed cloud storage to recover the failed storage centers.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{simk}
\caption{Performance of the optimal storage allocation for different k}
\label{fig:simk}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:simN} are the simulation results for $n=45$, $k=21$, $p=0.1$. In this simulation, we change the number of storage centers $N$ to study its impact to the failure probability. From the figure we can see that the failure probability will become lower when the number of storage centers increases. And the performance gap of the even allocation and the OSA scheme will diminish with the increasing of the number of storage centers.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{simN}
\caption{Performance of the optimal storage allocation for different number of storage centers}
\label{fig:simN}
\end{figure}
\section{conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we
analyze the important applications of network coding in the IoT core network and the distributed cloud storage that stores the data generated by the IoT core network. We propose an adaptive network coding (ANC) scheme in the IoT core network with software defined wireless network (SDWN). Simulation results have demonstrated that the ANC scheme can achieve higher transmission efficiency than existing schemes. Then we introduce the optimal storage allocation problem for the distributed cloud storage that utilizes network coding. we propose an optimal storage allocation (OSA) scheme to solve the problem in polynomial time. We also conduct simulations to show that the OSA scheme can greatly improve the storage reliability. Impressed by the simplicity and efficacy of network coding in both communication and storage, we believe that more and more potential applications of network coding would be found and studied during the development of
Internet of things to accelerate the whole deployment process.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Indian Buffet Process (IBP) \cite{ghahramani2005infinite} has proven to be a popular Bayesian non-parametric model for discovering underlying features within a data set. More explicitly, the IBP places a probability distribution over a binary matrix which indicates the presence of a particular feature $k$ for observation $n$. The non-parametric nature of the IBP means that we assume, \textit{a priori}, an infinite number of features, though only a finite number of those will be present \textit{a posteriori}.
The non-parametric nature of the IBP for feature discovery is very attractive in situations where the number of latent objects is unknown. However, more and more applications of Bayesian machine learning are focused towards ``big data'' settings, where the number of observations is extremely large. If we consider an extremely large data set then the uncollapsed and collapsed samplers detailed in \cite{ghahramani2005infinite} will be ineffective--the uncollapsed sampler will mix poorly as the the dimensionality of the data increases, and the computational complexity of the collapsed sampler grows quadratically. \cite{doshi2009accelerated} presents an accelerated sampler for the IBP that exhibits the mixing quality of a collapsed sampler with the speed of an uncollapsed sampler.
If we were in a ``big data'' situation in which we cannot even hold our data on one machine, we then would need to perform parallel inference for the IBP. Comparatively fewer research exists on parallel inference for the IBP than for other popular Bayesian non-parametric models, like the Dirichlet Process mixture model \cite{ge2015distributed, williamson2013parallel}. \cite{broderick2012mad} and \cite{teh2007stick} offer \textit{parallelizable} solutions. But heretofore, only \cite{doshi2009large} has developed a parallel inference algorithm, and unlike the hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper, that algorithm is not asymptotically exact.
Our method is a hybrid Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that, asymptotically, will sample from the true posterior distribution. We exploit conditional independencies between features so that we may distribute inference for the binary matrix $Z$ across processors. Like the accelerated sampler of \cite{doshi2009accelerated}, our algorithm takes advantage of the speed of the uncollapsed algorithm along with the efficient mixing of the collapsed algorithm.
\section{Latent feature modeling using the Indian Buffet Process}\label{sec:IBP}
The IBP is a distribution over binary matrices $Z$ with infinitely many columns and exchangeable rows. This matrix can be used to select finite subsets of an unbounded set of latent features. For example, we can combine the IBP-distributed matrix $Z$ with a set $A=(A_k)$ of normally distributed features, $A_k \sim \mbox{Normal}(0, \sigma_A^2I)$, to get a latent feature model appropriate for real-valued images:
\begin{equation}
X = ZA+\epsilon \qquad \qquad \mbox{where }\epsilon \sim \mbox{Normal}(0, \sigma_X^2I). \label{eqn:gaussianllk}
\end{equation}
We can think of the IBP as arising out of the infinite limit, as $K\rightarrow \infty$, of an $N\times K$ matrix with entries generated according to
\begin{align}
\pi_k | \alpha \sim \text{Beta}\left( \frac{\alpha}{K}, 1 \right), \quad \quad \quad
Z_{nk} | \pi_k \sim \text{Bernoulli}\left( \pi_k \right).\label{eqn:betabern}
\end{align}
Note that under this construction, the columns of $Z$ are independent. If we take $K\rightarrow \infty$ and marginalize out the beta random variables, we obtain a distribution over exchangeable matrices. We can describe the predictive distribution of this sequence using the following restaurant analogy: Customers enter a buffet restaurant with infinitely many dishes (representing columns). The first customer selects a $\mbox{Poisson}(\alpha)$ number of dishes (non-zero entries). The $n$th customer selects each previously-sampled dish $k$ with probability $m_k/n$, where $m_k $ is the number of customers who have already taken the $k$th dish. The $n$th customer then selects a $\mbox{Poisson}(\alpha/n)$ number of new dishes.
Both the beta-Bernoulli and the restaurant analogies suggest inference schemes. We can instantiate the $\pi_k$, either using a finite-dimensional approximation as in Equation~\ref{eqn:betabern}, or by using a truncation of the full infinite sequence as described by \cite{teh2007stick}. This approach is inherently parallelizable, since the rows of $Z$ are conditionally independent given the $\pi_k$. However, previously unseen features must be globally instantiated. As the dimensionality of our data grows, the chance of sampling a ``good'' previously unseen feature decreases, leading to slow mixing (as observed by \cite{doshi2009accelerated}).
Alternatively, we can integrate out the features and work in the collapsed restaurant representation. But this is difficult to parallelize, since the probability of selecting a feature depends on the global number of observations exhibiting that feature. Furthermore, each time a new feature is instantiated, that new feature must be communicated to all processors. The only existing parallel inference algorithm for the IBP uses approximations to avoid constantly updating the feature counts.
\section{The hybrid algorithm for parallel MCMC}
As we saw in Section~\ref{sec:IBP}, there are disadvantages to using both the collapsed and the uncollapsed representation, particularly in a distributed setting. We choose a third path, combining collapsed and uncollapsed methods in a hybrid approach. We note that the uncollapsed algorithm will generally perform well when working with popular features, where we are able to make use of information across processors about that feature's location. However, it will perform poorly when it comes to instantiating new features. Conversely, the collapsed algorithm performs well at introducing new features, but cannot be exactly parallelized without significant overhead.
We note that, as implied by Equation~\ref{eqn:betabern}, we can split $Z$ into two conditionally independent sub-matrices, one containing the first $K^{+}$ features, and the other containing the remaining features. We partition our features so that the currently instantiated features are in the first finite-dimensional matrix, and the infinite uninstantiated tail is in the second matrix. We perform uncollapsed sampling on the $K^{+}$ instantiated features, and collapsed sampling to propose and sample the new $K^{\ast}$ features. We divide the $X$ and $Z$ matrices along the observation axis across $P$ processors and at each iteration, one processor, $p^{\prime}$, will be able to generate new features on the collapsed infinite tail, while all other processors perform uncollapsed inference restricted to using only the first $K^+$ features. Periodically, we will transfer newly instantiated features to the finite-dimensional subset of instantiated features, ensuring global consistency of the algorithm--in effect, the processor $p^{\prime}$ acts to propose new features to be added to the uncollapsed, finite-dimensional representation.
A single iteration of the hybrid algorithm proceeds as follows:
\For{L sub-iterations}{
\For{$p$ in $p=1,\ldots,P$}{
\For{$n$ in $n=1,\ldots,N_p$}{
\For{$k$ in $k=1,\ldots, K^+$}{
Sample $Z_{nk}$ according to
$$P(Z_{nk} = 1 | ...) \propto \pi_k P(X|Z, A)$$
}
\If{$p = p^{\prime}$}{
\For{ $k$ in $K^++1,\dots, K^{\ast}_{p}$}{
Sample $Z_{nk}$ according to
$$P(Z_{nk} = 1 | ...) \propto \frac{m_k - Z_{nk}}{N} \int \! P(X|Z,A^{+}, A^{\ast})P(A^{\ast}) \, \mathrm{d}A^{\ast}$$
Draw $K_{new} \sim \text{Poisson}\left( \alpha / N \right)$\\
Propose $K_{new}$ features from $P(K_{new}) \propto P(X | Z_{new})$, using a Metropolis-Hastings step\\
}
}
}
}
}
\If{master processor}{
Receive summary statistics from all other processors\\
Update global counts of features, $m_k$ \\
Sample posterior values for parameters $A$, $\sigma^2_X$, $\sigma^2_A$, $\pi_k$ and hyperparameter $\alpha$\\
$K^{+} \leftarrow K^{+} + \sum_{p=1}^{P}K^{\ast}_p$\\
$K \leftarrow K^{+}$\\
$K^{\ast}_{p} \leftarrow 0$\\
Broadcast new parameters to all other processors\\
Select $p^\prime\sim \mbox{Uniform}\{1,\dots,P\}$
}
Note that
here we assume the linear Gaussian likelihood described in Equation \ref{eqn:gaussianllk}, but the hybrid algorithm can easily be adapted to use other likelihoods.
\section{Results}
To evaluate our algorithm, we calculate the joint log likelihood of $P(X,Z)$ on a held-out evaluation set of data and monitor the joint likelihood over log time against the collapsed sampler for the IBP. The data used for our evaluation is the $1000 \times 36$ dimension canonical ``Cambridge'' synthetic data set seen in \cite{griffiths2011indian}. We ran the hybrid algorithm on 1, 3, and 5 processors for 1000 iterations and 5 sub-iterations per global step on code written in Python. The data and the MCMC inference were distributed across processors through Message Passing Interface using \texttt{mpi4py}. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:lik}, we can see that adding additional processors gives significant speedup, without a big difference in estimate quality. Interestingly, even with one processor, our algorithm converges faster than a purely collapsed sampler. The resulting posterior features are seen in Figure~\ref{fig:features}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\caption{$\log P(X,Z)$ over log time on held out test set}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{likelihood_plot_5.pdf}
\label{fig:lik}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\caption{True features (top) and posterior features generated from the ``Cambridge" data set from the collapsed sampler (middle) and from the hybrid algorithm with 5 processors (bottom)}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{true_features.png}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{post_features.png}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{post_features_5.png}
\label{fig:features}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We presented in this paper an asymptotically exact parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for inference in an Indian Buffet Process feature model. Our parallelization technique exploits the independence between observations for the uncollapsed sampling of the feature indicators while using a partially collapsed sampler to infer values of $Z$ for new features. However, we still may face significant overhead in sending summary statistics to the master processor and broadcasting the new posterior draws for the parameters to the other processors. Directions for future research may point towards developing clever techniques to reduce this possible computational bottleneck. Regardless, our novel algorithm pushes the IBP closer towards high scalability. In comparison, previous research in parallel inference algorithms for IBP models is limited to \cite{doshi2009large}, who present an exact Metropolis-Hastings sampler but, in practice, use an approximate sampler.
Parallelization is important in settings where we may have a huge number of observations. Direct implementation of the IBP with earlier inference algorithms in a ``big data'' scenario on a single machine will undoubtedly lead to poor results or inefficient computing. The algorithm in this paper avoids these problems and is guaranteed to produce results exact to the non-parallel inference method. ``Big data'' is an increasingly important concern for machine learning tasks because the nature of the data available now has grown to such a massive size that the scalability of an algorithm needs to be a primary concern in developing machine learning tools. Inference in the IBP has generally been difficult but we have developed an inference algorithm that has made the IBP amenable to larger data sets.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{Introduction}
The Indian Buffet Process (IBP) \cite{ghahramani2005infinite} has proven to be a popular Bayesian non-parametric model for discovering underlying features within a data set. More explicitly, the IBP places a probability distribution over a binary matrix which indicates the presence of a particular feature $k$ for observation $n$. The non-parametric nature of the IBP means that we assume, \textit{a priori}, an infinite number of features, though only a finite number of those will be present \textit{a posteriori}.
The non-parametric nature of the IBP for feature discovery is very attractive in situations where the number of latent objects is unknown. However, more and more applications of Bayesian machine learning are focused towards ``big data'' settings, where the number of observations is extremely large. If we consider an extremely large data set then the uncollapsed and collapsed samplers detailed in \cite{ghahramani2005infinite} will be ineffective--the uncollapsed sampler will mix poorly as the the dimensionality of the data increases, and the computational complexity of the collapsed sampler grows quadratically. \cite{doshi2009accelerated} presents an accelerated sampler for the IBP that exhibits the mixing quality of a collapsed sampler with the speed of an uncollapsed sampler.
If we were in a ``big data'' situation in which we cannot even hold our data on one machine, we then would need to perform parallel inference for the IBP. Comparatively fewer research exists on parallel inference for the IBP than for other popular Bayesian non-parametric models, like the Dirichlet Process mixture model \cite{ge2015distributed, williamson2013parallel}. \cite{broderick2012mad} and \cite{teh2007stick} offer \textit{parallelizable} solutions. But heretofore, only \cite{doshi2009large} has developed a parallel inference algorithm, and unlike the hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper, that algorithm is not asymptotically exact.
Our method is a hybrid Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that, asymptotically, will sample from the true posterior distribution. We exploit conditional independencies between features so that we may distribute inference for the binary matrix $Z$ across processors. Like the accelerated sampler of \cite{doshi2009accelerated}, our algorithm takes advantage of the speed of the uncollapsed algorithm along with the efficient mixing of the collapsed algorithm.
\section{Latent feature modeling using the Indian Buffet Process}\label{sec:IBP}
The IBP is a distribution over binary matrices $Z$ with infinitely many columns and exchangeable rows. This matrix can be used to select finite subsets of an unbounded set of latent features. For example, we can combine the IBP-distributed matrix $Z$ with a set $A=(A_k)$ of normally distributed features, $A_k \sim \mbox{Normal}(0, \sigma_A^2I)$, to get a latent feature model appropriate for real-valued images:
\begin{equation}
X = ZA+\epsilon \qquad \qquad \mbox{where }\epsilon \sim \mbox{Normal}(0, \sigma_X^2I). \label{eqn:gaussianllk}
\end{equation}
We can think of the IBP as arising out of the infinite limit, as $K\rightarrow \infty$, of an $N\times K$ matrix with entries generated according to
\begin{align}
\pi_k | \alpha \sim \text{Beta}\left( \frac{\alpha}{K}, 1 \right), \quad \quad \quad
Z_{nk} | \pi_k \sim \text{Bernoulli}\left( \pi_k \right).\label{eqn:betabern}
\end{align}
Note that under this construction, the columns of $Z$ are independent. If we take $K\rightarrow \infty$ and marginalize out the beta random variables, we obtain a distribution over exchangeable matrices. We can describe the predictive distribution of this sequence using the following restaurant analogy: Customers enter a buffet restaurant with infinitely many dishes (representing columns). The first customer selects a $\mbox{Poisson}(\alpha)$ number of dishes (non-zero entries). The $n$th customer selects each previously-sampled dish $k$ with probability $m_k/n$, where $m_k $ is the number of customers who have already taken the $k$th dish. The $n$th customer then selects a $\mbox{Poisson}(\alpha/n)$ number of new dishes.
Both the beta-Bernoulli and the restaurant analogies suggest inference schemes. We can instantiate the $\pi_k$, either using a finite-dimensional approximation as in Equation~\ref{eqn:betabern}, or by using a truncation of the full infinite sequence as described by \cite{teh2007stick}. This approach is inherently parallelizable, since the rows of $Z$ are conditionally independent given the $\pi_k$. However, previously unseen features must be globally instantiated. As the dimensionality of our data grows, the chance of sampling a ``good'' previously unseen feature decreases, leading to slow mixing (as observed by \cite{doshi2009accelerated}).
Alternatively, we can integrate out the features and work in the collapsed restaurant representation. But this is difficult to parallelize, since the probability of selecting a feature depends on the global number of observations exhibiting that feature. Furthermore, each time a new feature is instantiated, that new feature must be communicated to all processors. The only existing parallel inference algorithm for the IBP uses approximations to avoid constantly updating the feature counts.
\section{The hybrid algorithm for parallel MCMC}
As we saw in Section~\ref{sec:IBP}, there are disadvantages to using both the collapsed and the uncollapsed representation, particularly in a distributed setting. We choose a third path, combining collapsed and uncollapsed methods in a hybrid approach. We note that the uncollapsed algorithm will generally perform well when working with popular features, where we are able to make use of information across processors about that feature's location. However, it will perform poorly when it comes to instantiating new features. Conversely, the collapsed algorithm performs well at introducing new features, but cannot be exactly parallelized without significant overhead.
We note that, as implied by Equation~\ref{eqn:betabern}, we can split $Z$ into two conditionally independent sub-matrices, one containing the first $K^{+}$ features, and the other containing the remaining features. We partition our features so that the currently instantiated features are in the first finite-dimensional matrix, and the infinite uninstantiated tail is in the second matrix. We perform uncollapsed sampling on the $K^{+}$ instantiated features, and collapsed sampling to propose and sample the new $K^{\ast}$ features. We divide the $X$ and $Z$ matrices along the observation axis across $P$ processors and at each iteration, one processor, $p^{\prime}$, will be able to generate new features on the collapsed infinite tail, while all other processors perform uncollapsed inference restricted to using only the first $K^+$ features. Periodically, we will transfer newly instantiated features to the finite-dimensional subset of instantiated features, ensuring global consistency of the algorithm--in effect, the processor $p^{\prime}$ acts to propose new features to be added to the uncollapsed, finite-dimensional representation.
A single iteration of the hybrid algorithm proceeds as follows:
\For{L sub-iterations}{
\For{$p$ in $p=1,\ldots,P$}{
\For{$n$ in $n=1,\ldots,N_p$}{
\For{$k$ in $k=1,\ldots, K^+$}{
Sample $Z_{nk}$ according to
$$P(Z_{nk} = 1 | ...) \propto \pi_k P(X|Z, A)$$
}
\If{$p = p^{\prime}$}{
\For{ $k$ in $K^++1,\dots, K^{\ast}_{p}$}{
Sample $Z_{nk}$ according to
$$P(Z_{nk} = 1 | ...) \propto \frac{m_k - Z_{nk}}{N} \int \! P(X|Z,A^{+}, A^{\ast})P(A^{\ast}) \, \mathrm{d}A^{\ast}$$
Draw $K_{new} \sim \text{Poisson}\left( \alpha / N \right)$\\
Propose $K_{new}$ features from $P(K_{new}) \propto P(X | Z_{new})$, using a Metropolis-Hastings step\\
}
}
}
}
}
\If{master processor}{
Receive summary statistics from all other processors\\
Update global counts of features, $m_k$ \\
Sample posterior values for parameters $A$, $\sigma^2_X$, $\sigma^2_A$, $\pi_k$ and hyperparameter $\alpha$\\
$K^{+} \leftarrow K^{+} + \sum_{p=1}^{P}K^{\ast}_p$\\
$K \leftarrow K^{+}$\\
$K^{\ast}_{p} \leftarrow 0$\\
Broadcast new parameters to all other processors\\
Select $p^\prime\sim \mbox{Uniform}\{1,\dots,P\}$
}
Note that
here we assume the linear Gaussian likelihood described in Equation \ref{eqn:gaussianllk}, but the hybrid algorithm can easily be adapted to use other likelihoods.
\section{Results}
To evaluate our algorithm, we calculate the joint log likelihood of $P(X,Z)$ on a held-out evaluation set of data and monitor the joint likelihood over log time against the collapsed sampler for the IBP. The data used for our evaluation is the $1000 \times 36$ dimension canonical ``Cambridge'' synthetic data set seen in \cite{griffiths2011indian}. We ran the hybrid algorithm on 1, 3, and 5 processors for 1000 iterations and 5 sub-iterations per global step on code written in Python. The data and the MCMC inference were distributed across processors through Message Passing Interface using \texttt{mpi4py}. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:lik}, we can see that adding additional processors gives significant speedup, without a big difference in estimate quality. Interestingly, even with one processor, our algorithm converges faster than a purely collapsed sampler. The resulting posterior features are seen in Figure~\ref{fig:features}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\caption{$\log P(X,Z)$ over log time on held out test set}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{likelihood_plot_5.pdf}
\label{fig:lik}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\caption{True features (top) and posterior features generated from the ``Cambridge" data set from the collapsed sampler (middle) and from the hybrid algorithm with 5 processors (bottom)}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{true_features.png}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{post_features.png}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{post_features_5.png}
\label{fig:features}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We presented in this paper an asymptotically exact parallel Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for inference in an Indian Buffet Process feature model. Our parallelization technique exploits the independence between observations for the uncollapsed sampling of the feature indicators while using a partially collapsed sampler to infer values of $Z$ for new features. However, we still may face significant overhead in sending summary statistics to the master processor and broadcasting the new posterior draws for the parameters to the other processors. Directions for future research may point towards developing clever techniques to reduce this possible computational bottleneck. Regardless, our novel algorithm pushes the IBP closer towards high scalability. In comparison, previous research in parallel inference algorithms for IBP models is limited to \cite{doshi2009large}, who present an exact Metropolis-Hastings sampler but, in practice, use an approximate sampler.
Parallelization is important in settings where we may have a huge number of observations. Direct implementation of the IBP with earlier inference algorithms in a ``big data'' scenario on a single machine will undoubtedly lead to poor results or inefficient computing. The algorithm in this paper avoids these problems and is guaranteed to produce results exact to the non-parallel inference method. ``Big data'' is an increasingly important concern for machine learning tasks because the nature of the data available now has grown to such a massive size that the scalability of an algorithm needs to be a primary concern in developing machine learning tools. Inference in the IBP has generally been difficult but we have developed an inference algorithm that has made the IBP amenable to larger data sets.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The rotating black-hole (Kerr) solution of the Einstein equations in
vacuum and axisymmetric spacetimes is a fundamental block in relativistic
astrophysics and has been studied in an enormously vast literature for
its mathematical and astrophysical properties. On the other hand, the
rotating and electrically charged black hole (Kerr-Newman, KN hereafter)
solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in axisymmetric spacetimes,
while equally well studied for its mathematical properties, is also
normally disregarded as astrophysically relevant. The rationale being
that if such an object was indeed created in an astrophysical scenario,
then the abundant free charges that accompany astrophysical plasmas would
neutralise it very rapidly, yielding therefore a standard Kerr solution.
Yet, KN black holes continue to be considered within astrophysical
scenarios to explain, for instance, potential electromagnetic
counterparts to merging stellar-mass binary black-hole systems
\citep{Zhang2016, Liebling2016, Liu2016}. We here take a different view
and do not explore the phenomenology of KN black holes when these are
taken to be long-lived astrophysical solutions. Rather, we are interested
to determine how such black holes are produced in the first place as, for
instance, in the collapse of rotating and magnetised stars. We note that
even if these solutions are short-lived astrophysically
\citep{Contopoulos2014, Punsly2016}, the study of their genesis can
provide useful information and shed light on some of the most puzzling
astronomical phenomena of the last decade: fast radio bursts [FRBs;
\citet{Lorimer2007,Thornton2013}]. FRBs are bright, highly dispersed
millisecond radio single pulses that do not normally repeat and are not
associated with a known pulsar or gamma-ray burst. Their high dispersion
suggests they are produced by sources at cosmological distances and thus
with an extremely high radio luminosity, far larger than the power of
single pulses from a pulsar. The event rate is also estimated to be very
high and of a few percent that of supernovae explosions, making them very
common. Several theoretical models have been proposed over the last few
years, but the \textit{``blitzar''} model \citep{Falcke2013}, is
particularly relevant for our exploration of the formation of KN black
holes.
We recall that if a neutron star exceeds a certain limit in mass and
angular momentum, it will reach a state in which it cannot support itself
against gravitational collapse to a black hole. It is also widely
accepted that rotating magnetised neutron stars emitting pulsed radio
emission, i.e.,~ pulsars, spin down because of electromagnetic energy losses
and could therefore reach the stability line against collapse to a black
hole. During the collapse of such a pulsar, an apparent horizon is formed
which will cover all the stellar matter, while the magnetic-field lines
will snap violently launching an intense electromagnetic wave moving at
the speed of light. Free electrons will be accelerated by the travelling
magnetic shock, thus dissipating a significant fraction of the
magnetosphere energy into coherent electromagnetic emission and hence
produce a massive radio burst that could be observable out to
cosmological distances \citep{Falcke2013}.
One aspect of this scenario that has not yet been fully clarified is the
following: does the gravitational collapse of a rotating magnetised
neutron star lead to a KN black hole? The purpose of this paper is to
provide an answer to this question and to determine, through
numerical-relativity simulations, the conditions under which a collapsing
pulsar will lead to the formation of a Kerr or a Kerr-Newman black
hole. In particular, we show that when using self-consistent initial data
representing an unstable rotating and magnetised neutron star in general
relativity, the consequent collapse yields a black hole that has all the
features expected from a KN black hole. In particular, the spacetime
undergoes a transition from being magnetically dominated before the
collapse, to being electrically dominated after black-hole formation,
which is indeed a key feature of a KN black hole. We further provide
evidence by carefully analysing the Weyl scalar $\psi_2$ and by showing
that the black-hole spacetime possesses a net electric charge and a
behaviour which is the one expected for a KN black hole. These results
will be contrasted with those coming from the gravitational collapse of a
nonrotating magnetised neutron star, where the outcome is an uncharged
nonrotating (Schwarzschild) black hole.
The plan of the paper is the following one. In Sec. \ref{sec:nsaid} we
briefly review the numerical setup and how the initial data is computed,
leaving the analysis of the numerical results in
Sec. \ref{sec:nraa}. Finally, the discussion of the astrophysical impact
of the results and our conclusions are presented in Sec. \ref{sec:conc}
\section{Numerical setup and Initial data}
\label{sec:nsaid}
All simulations presented here have been performed employing the
general-relativistic resistive magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) code
\texttt{WhiskyRMHD} \citep{Dionysopoulou:2012pp,Dionysopoulou2015}, which
uses high-resolution shock capturing methods like the Harten-Lax-van
Leer-Einfeldt (HLLE) approximate Riemann solver coupled with effectively
second order piece-wise parabolic (PPM) reconstruction. Differently from
the implementation reported in Refs. \citep{Dionysopoulou:2012pp,
Dionysopoulou2015}, we reconstruct our primitive variables at the cell
interfaces using the enhanced piecewise parabolic reconstruction (ePPM)
\citep{Colella2008, Reisswig2012b}, which does not reduce to first order
at local maxima. Also, we opt for reconstructing the quantity $Wv^i$,
where $W$ is the Lorentz factor, instead of the 3-velocity $v^i$; this
choice enforces subluminal velocities at the cell interface. Regarding
the electric-field evolution, we choose not to evolve the electrical
charge $q$ directly through an evolution equation, and instead compute
$q= \nabla_i E^i$ at every timestep, as it has been done by
\citet{Dionysopoulou:2012pp} and \citet{Bucciantini2012a}. The
\texttt{WhiskyRMHD} code exploits the Einstein Toolkit, with the
evolution of the spacetime obtained using the \texttt{McLachlan} code
\citep{loeffler_2011_et}, while the adaptive mesh refinement is provided
by \texttt{Carpet} \citep{Schnetter-etal-03b}.
The use of a resistive-MHD framework has the important advantage that it
allows us to model the exterior of the neutron star as an electrovacuum,
where the electrical conductivity is set to be negligibly small, so that
electromagnetic fields essentially evolve according to the Maxwell
equations in vacuum. These are the physical conditions that are expected
for a pulsar that has passed its ``death line'', that is, one for which
either the slow rotation or a comparatively weak magnetic field are such
that it is not possible to trigger pair creation and its magnetosphere
can be well approximated as an electrovacuum \citep{Chen1993}\footnote{We
recall that the voltage drop $\Delta V$ along magnetic field lines
needed for the creation of pairs scales with the magnetic field $B$ and
rotation frequency $\Omega$ simply as $\Delta V \sim B\, \Omega$
\citep{Ruderman1975}.}. At the same time, the resistive framework also
enables us to model the interior of the star as highly conducting fluid,
so that our equations recover the ideal-MHD limit (i.e.,~ infinite
conductivity) in such regions. \texttt{WhiskyRMHD} achieves this by
including a current that is valid both in the electrovacuum and in the
ideal-MHD limit, where it becomes stiff, however. To accurately treat
such a current, the code uses an implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta time
stepping (RKIMEX) \citep{pareschi_2005_ier}. For more details on the
numerical setup we refer the interested reader to
\citet{Dionysopoulou:2012pp} and \citet{Dionysopoulou2015}.
Our initial data is produced using the \texttt{Magstar} code of the
\texttt{LORENE} library, which can compute self-consistent solutions of
the Einstein-Maxwell equations relative to uniformly rotating stars with
either purely poloidal \citep{Bocquet1995} or toroidal magnetic fields
\citep{Frieben2012}; hereafter we will consider only poloidal magnetic
fields of dipolar type. We have considered a number of different possible
configurations for the electric field with the aim of minimising the
amount of external electric charges. In practice, the smallest external
charge has been achieved when prescribing a corotating interior electric
field matched to a divergence-free electric field produced by a rotating
magnetised sphere. More precisely, we set the electric field in the
stellar interior using the ideal-MHD condition, i.e.,~
$E^i=-\sqrt{\gamma}\epsilon^{ijk} v_{j,{\rm cor}} B_k$ where $v_{j,{\rm
cor}}$ is the corotation velocity, $\gamma$ the 3-metric determinant
and $\epsilon^{ijk}$ the totally antisymmetric permutation symbol. This
field is then matched to an exterior electrovacuum solution for a
magnetised and rotating uncharged sphere in general-relativity
\citep{Rezzolla2001, Rezzolla2001_err}. Note that because the analytic
solution is obtained in the slow-rotation approximation, which assumes a
spherical star, a small mismatch in the electric field is present near
the pole. Furthermore, monopolar and a quadrupolar terms are added to the
solution so as to match the charge produced by the corotating interior
electric field following \citet{Ruffini73}.
Also, as customary in this type of simulations, the stellar exterior is
filled with a very low-density fluid, or ``atmosphere'', whose velocity
is set to be zero \citep{Dionysopoulou:2012pp}; at the same time, and
from an electrodynamical point of view, we treat such a region as an
electrovacuum, so that the electrical conductivity is set to zero. This
has the important consequence that the magnetic fields are no longer
frozen in the atmosphere and are therefore free to rotate following the
stellar rotation if one is present.
Our reference rotating model is represented by a neutron star with
gravitational mass of $M=2.104\,M_{\odot}$, a period of $P=1.25\,{\rm
ms}$ (or $800\,{\rm Hz}$), and a central (and maximum) magnetic field
of $10^{15}\,{\rm G}$; for such a model, the light cylinder is at about
$60\,{\rm km}$ from the origin. The corresponding reference nonrotating
model has instead a gravitational mass of $M=2.100\,M_{\odot}$ and the
same magnetic field of $10^{15}\,{\rm G}$. Finally, we will also consider
a model with the same properties as the rotating one, but with zero
magnetic field. All models are constructed from a single polytrope $p=K
\rho^{\Gamma}$ with $\Gamma=2$. The polytropic constant $K=164.708$ has
been adjusted so that the maximum mass of a nonrotating star is limited
to about $2.1\,M_\odot$. The evolution is however performed using an
ideal-fluid equation of state $p=\rho\epsilon(\Gamma-1)$, where
$\epsilon$ is the specific internal energy. In spite of using a very
simplified equation of state, we do not expect this to have any effect on
the results of this paper since we are merely interested in a prompt
collapse to a black hole.
An important issue to discuss at this point is whether or not the star
possesses initially a net electrical charge. As it happens, the standard
solution provided by \texttt{Magstar} does have a net charge, although we
decided not to use such a solution as it is not the one leading to the
smallest external charge. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect
that the strong electromagnetic fields in a pulsar will not only generate
a charge separation, but they will also lead naturally to a net
charge. Assuming, that the rotating neutron star is endowed with a
dipolar magnetic field aligned with the rotation axis and that it is
surrounded by a ionised medium, it will induce a radial electric field
\citep{Cohen1975, Michel1999}.
\begin{equation}
E^r=B^\theta\frac{\Omega R\sin\theta}{c}
\approx B \frac{\Omega R}{c}\sin^2\theta\,,
\label{Er}
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the equatorial value of the dipole magnetic field as
measured by a nonrotating observer, while $\Omega$ and $R$ are the
angular velocity and the radius of the star, respectively. As a result,
the net electric charge can be computed as
\begin{equation}
Q=\int_0^{\pi}2\pi R^2 \sin\theta E^r d\theta
\approx\frac{8\pi}{3c}R^3 \Omega B\,.
\label{Q}
\end{equation}
In the stellar interior this charge is distributed so as to satisfy the
infinite-conductivity condition $\boldsymbol{E}\cdot \boldsymbol{B}=0$
everywhere. Stated differently, having a net charge is not necessarily
unrealistic, at least in this simplified model [see also
\citet{Petri2012} and \cite{Petri2016}]; for our choice of initial
stellar model, Eq. \eqref{Q} would yield $Q \approx 2.6 \times 10^{17}
C$.
We should also remark that the values we have chosen above for the
magnetic field and spin frequency are untypically high for a pulsar past
the death line. However, they are chosen to maximise the initial charge
in order to stabilise the numerical evolution and aid the final
determination of the charge from numerical noise. It is also simple to
check that a neutron star with such magnetic field and rapid rotation is
far from electrovacuum in its magnetosphere. However, we, believe that
this does not affect the general outcome of our simulations, which should
be viewed as a proof of concept. Finally, our numerical grid consists of
seven refinement levels extending to about $1075\,{\rm km}$, with a
finest resolution of $147\,{\rm m}$. Additional runs with resolutions of
$184, 220\,{\rm m}$, have been performed to test the consistency of the
results, but we here discuss only the results of the high-resolution
runs.
\section{Numerical results and Analysis}
\label{sec:nraa}
Overall, the gravitational collapse of our stellar models follows the
dynamics already discussed in detail by \citet{Dionysopoulou:2012pp} [see
also \citet{Baumgarte02b2} and \citet{Lehner2011} for different but
similar approaches], and the corresponding electromagnetic emission
under a variety of conditions will be presented by \citet{Most2017}. We
here focus our attention on comparing and contrasting the collapse of the
magnetised rotating and nonrotating models. Both stars are magnetised,
but only the rotating model possesses also an electric field induced by
the rotation; as a consequence of the presence/absence of this initial
electric field, the rotating/nonrotating star is initially
charged/uncharged.
Since the dynamics is rather similar in the two cases (the magnetic
fields and rotation speeds are still a small portion of the binding
energy), the differences between the two collapses is best tracked by the
electromagnetic energy invariant
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:B2_m_E2}
F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}= 2(\boldsymbol{B}^2-\boldsymbol{E}^2)\,,
\end{equation}
where $F^{\mu\nu}$ is the Faraday tensor, while $\boldsymbol{B}$ and
$\boldsymbol{E}$ are respectively the magnetic and electric field
three-vectors measured by a normal observer. Being an invariant, the
quantity \eqref{eq:B2_m_E2} is coordinate independent and can provide a
sharp signature of the properties of the resulting black hole. We recall
that \eqref{eq:B2_m_E2} is identically zero for a Schwarzschild or a Kerr
black hole, while it is negative in the case of a KN black hole
\citep{Misner73}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{KNM_B2_E2_000Hz_v2-crop.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{KNM_B2_E2_800Hz_v2-crop.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the electromagnetic invariant
$F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$; also shown are the stellar surface (solid
and dashed white lines), the apparent horizon (solid red line),
and the magnetic-field lines. The top and bottom rows refer to the
nonrotating and rotating models, respectively; in either case the
initial maximum magnetic field is $10^{15}\,{\rm G}$. Note that
both models are magnetically dominated initially
($F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}>0$) but that the nonrotating one yields a
Schwarzschild black hole ($F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\simeq 0$), while
the rotating model an electrically dominated KN black hole
($F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}<0$).
\label{fig:ULGRB2} }
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:ULGRB2} summarises the dynamics and outcome of the
gravitational collapse by showing as colorcode the values of the energy
invariant $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ at three representative times (the
initial one, the final one and an intermediate stage). The top row, in
particular, refers to the nonrotating (but magnetised) stellar model,
while the bottom row shows the evolution in the case of the model
rotating at $800\,{\rm Hz}$; also shown are the magnetic field lines.
What is simple to recognise in Fig. \ref{fig:ULGRB2} is that the rotating
and nonrotating stars both start being magnetically dominated, i.e.,~ with
$F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}> 0$ (top and bottom left panels). However, while
the collapse of the magnetised nonrotating star leads to a Schwarzschild
black hole for which $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \simeq 0$ (top right panel),
the collapse of the magnetised rotating star yields an electrically
dominated black hole, i.e.,~ with $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} < 0$ (bottom right
panel). Furthermore, while electrically dominated regions are produced in
both collapses, these are radiated away in the case of a nonrotating star
[see also \citet{Dionysopoulou:2012pp}], in contrast with what happens
for the rotating star (cf.,~ blue regions in Fig. \ref{fig:ULGRB2}). Also
worth remarking in Fig. \ref{fig:ULGRB2} is that the magnetic field at
the end of the simulation becomes essentially uniform and extremely weak
[not shown, but see \citet{Most2017}] in the case of the nonrotating
model, while it asymptotes to a dipolar magnetic-field configuration in
the rotating case. Note that this field does not seem to have a neutral
point. This is consistent with the magnetic-field geometry of a KN black
hole \citep{Pekeris87}, where it can be imagined that the dipolar field
is generated by a ring-like current at the location of the ring
singularity of the corresponding Kerr black hole; our time and spatial
gauges prevent the appearance of such singularity and push it to the
origin of the coordinates.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{qdens_GR-crop.pdf}
\caption{Charge density at the initial time (left panel) and after
the collape (right panel); shown are also the stellar surface
(solid/dashed white lines), the apparent horizon (red line), and
the magnetic-field lines (cyan lines). Note the presence of a
mesh-refinement boundary at $x\sim 70\,{\rm
km}$.\label{fig:Qdens}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As discussed in the previous section, the initial data contains a charge
density also in the stellar exterior, so that the overall charge in the
computational domain is given by the sum of the stellar charge and of the
exterior one; hereafter we refer to this charge as to $Q_{\rm
tot}$. Shown in the two panels of Fig. \ref{fig:Qdens} is the
electrical charge distribution at the initial time (left panel) and at
the end of the simulation (right panel), together with the magnetic-field
lines, the location of the stellar surface (white solid and dashed lines
in the left and right panels, respectively) and of the apparent horizon
(red solid line in the right panel). Note that the initial charge density
falls off very rapidly with distance from the stellar surface and that
after a black hole has been formed, the charge is mostly dominated by
very small values with alternating signs; this behaviour is very similar
to the one observed when collapsing a nonrotating (uncharged) star and
hence indicates that the charge distribution in the right panel
is very close to the discretization error.
The presence of an external charge complicates the calculation of the
charge of the final black hole. In fact, when computing the total
electric charge as a surface integral of the normal electric field, we
inevitably include the contribution from the external charges. At the
same time, close to the horizon the calculation of the surface integral
is affected by numerical fluctuations, which deteriorate the accuracy of
the charge estimate. Hence, we measure the ``internal'' charge, $Q_{\rm
in}$ by computing the integrals on successive 2-spheres of radius
$r_{_{\rm E}}$ and exploit the corresponding smooth behaviour to
extrapolate the value of the charge at the horizon. This is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:Qtot}, where we report the evolution of the interior charge
$Q_{\rm in}$ as a function of the time from the formation of an apparent
horizon $t-t_c$, together with the total charge $Q_{\rm tot}$ computed
over the whole domain. Note that the latter is essentially constant over
time, thus indicating a good conservation of the total charge of the
system. Also, soon after the apparent horizon has formed a large portion
of the external charges, most of which are the result of the initial
mismatch in the electric field near the pole, is accreted onto the black
hole, leading to the rapid decrease of $Q_{\rm in}$ in
Fig. \ref{fig:Qtot} (red solid line).
Using the values of the interior charges from surfaces with a coordinate
radius $r_{_{\rm E}}=41.2\,{\rm km}$ down to $r_{_{\rm E}}=5.9\,{\rm
km}$, we obtain an extrapolated value of the charge at the horizon
$Q_{_{\rm BH}}$ as the limit of $Q_{\rm in}(r_{_{\rm E}})$ for $r_{_{\rm
E}} \to r_{_{\rm AH}}=3.26\,{\rm km}$. A simple quartic fit then
yields $Q_{_{\rm BH}} \simeq 1.6 \times 10^{-4}\, M_{\odot} \sim 1.87
\times 10^{16}\,{\rm C}$. This is a very large electrical charge, which
is the result of our initial data and probably not what should be
expected from a pulsar that has passed its death line. However,
determining such a charge under realistic conditions also requires an
accurate magnetospheric model, which still represents an open problem
despite the recent progress.
At this point it is not difficult to estimate the ``external'' charge
$Q_{\rm out}$ by subtracting the electrical charge trapped inside the
event horizon from the total one, i.e.,~ $Q_{\rm out}:=Q_{\rm tot}-Q_{\rm
BH}\simeq -0.46 \times 10^{-4}\,M_{\odot} \sim -5.31 \times
10^{15}\,{\rm C}$. Note that $Q_{\rm out}$ is smaller than $Q_{\rm in}$,
but not much smaller and while $Q_{\rm in}$ is mostly positive, $Q_{\rm
out}$ is mostly negative and present across the computational domain.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\columnwidth]{charge_inout_GR_v3-crop.pdf}
\caption{Evolution from the time of the formation of the apparent
horizon, $t - t_c$, of the electric charge inside 2-spheres of radius
$r_{_{\rm E}}$, $Q_{\rm in}$. Near the horizon the charge varies
rapidly, reaching a constant value matched by larger 2-spheres. The
black line refers to the the total charge in the domain, $Q_{\rm
tot}$, which is well conserved. \label{fig:Qtot}}
\end{figure}
While the precise value we obtain for $Q_{_{\rm BH}}$ depends sensitively
on the initial electric field, the overall order of magnitude of the
charge is robust, as we discuss below. We can in fact validate that the
spacetime produced by the collapse of the rotating and magnetised star is
indeed a KN spacetime by considering a completely different
gauge-invariant quantity that is not directly related to electromagnetic
fields, but is instead a pure measure of curvature. More specifically,
for a KN black hole of mass $M_{_{\rm BH}}$, the only nonvanishing Weyl
scalar $\psi_2(r,\theta)$ is given by \citep{Adamo2014}
\begin{equation}
\psi_2 = - \frac{M_{_{\rm BH}}}{\left(r -i a \cos
\theta\right)^3} + \frac{Q^2_{_{\rm BH}}}{\left( r + i a \cos\theta
\right)\left( r- i a \cos \theta \right)^3}\,. \label{eqn:psi2}
\end{equation}
This expression simplifies considerably on the equatorial plane (i.e.,~ for
$\theta=0$), where it becomes purely real and is
\begin{equation}
r^4 \psi_2 = -r\,M_{_{\rm BH}} + Q^2_{_{\rm BH}} \,.
\label{eqn:psi2_equatorial}
\end{equation}
Because expression \eqref{eqn:psi2} holds true only in a pure KN
spacetime, which is not our case since our spacetime also contains a
small but nonnegligible external charge, we expect
\eqref{eqn:psi2_equatorial} to be more a consistency check than an
accurate measurement.
In practice, to distinguish the contribution in $\psi_2$ due to the mass
term from one due to the black-hole charge we compare the Weyl scalar
\eqref{eqn:psi2_equatorial} in two black holes produced respectively by a
rotating magnetised star and by a rotating non-magnetised star. Bearing
in mind that the magnetic field provides only a small contribution to the
energy budget, so that $\left. M_{_{\rm BH}} \right|_{B \neq 0} \simeq
\left. M_{_{\rm BH}}\right|_{B=0}$ to a very good precision, we then obtain
\begin{align}
Q^2_{_{\rm BH}} = r^4\left(\left. \psi_2 \right|_{B \neq 0} -
\left. \psi_2\right|_{B=0} \right)\,.
\label{eq:QfromPsi2}
\end{align}
In principle, this quantity should be a constant in a pure KN solution,
despite $\psi_2$ being a function of position. In practice, in our
calculations this quantity has an oscillatory behavior around a constant
value in a region with $20 \lesssim r \lesssim 90\,{\rm km}$, while
higher deviations appear near the apparent horizon [where the spatial
gauge conditions are very different from those considered by
\citet{Adamo2014}] and at very large distances (where the imperfect
Sommerfeld boundary conditions spoil the solution locally). Averaging
around the constant value we read-off an estimate of the spacetime charge
from \eqref{eq:QfromPsi2} which is $Q_{_{\rm BH}} \approx 10^{-4}
M_{\odot}$. Given the uncertainties in the measurement, this estimate is
to be taken mostly as an order-of-magnitude validation of the charge of
the black hole $Q_{_{\rm BH}}$ measured as a surface integral. We expect
the precision of the geometrical measurement of the black-hole charge to
improve when increasing the resolution for the outer regions of the
computational domain and considerig longer evolutions that would lead to
a more stationary solution. In summary, by using a rather different
measurement based on curvature rather than on electromagnetic fields, we
converge on the conclusion that the collapse of the rotating magnetised
star leads to a KN black hole with a charge that is of a few parts in
$10^{4}$ of its mass for the initial data considered here.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
We have carried out a systematic analysis of the gravitational collapse
of rotating and nonrotating magnetised neutron stars as a way to model
the fate of pulsars that have passed their death line but that are too
massive to be in stable equilibrium. The initial magnetised models are
the self-consistent solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations and when a
rotation is present, they possess a magnetosphere and an
initial electrical net charge, as expected in the case of ordinary
pulsars. By using a resistive-MHD framework we can model the exterior of
the neutron star as an electrovacuum, so that electromagnetic fields
essentially evolve according to the Maxwell equations in vacuum. This is
not a fully consistent description of the magnetosphere, but it has the
advantage of simplicity and we expect it to be reasonable if the charge
is sufficiently small as for a pulsar that has crossed the death line.
The gravitational collapse, which is smoothly triggered by a progressive
reduction of the pressure, will lead to a burst of electromagnetic
radiation as explored in a number of works \citep{Baumgarte02b2,
Lehner2011, Dionysopoulou:2012pp} and could serve as the basic
mechanism to explain the phenomenology of fast radio bursts
\citep{Falcke2013}. The end product of the collapse is either a
Schwarzschild black hole, if no rotation is present, or a KN black hole
if the star is initially rotating. For this latter case, we have provided
multiple evidence that the solution found is of KN type by considering
either electromagnetic and curvature invariants, or by measuring the
charge contained inside the apparent horizon. Hence, we conclude that the
production of a KN black hole from the collapse of a rotating and
magnetised neutron star is a robust process unless the star has zero
initial charge.
At the same time, a number of caveats should be made about our approach.
Our simulations have a simplistic treatment of the stellar exterior and
no microphysical description is attempted. It is expected, however, that
a distribution of electrons and positrons could be produced during the
collapse through pair production, leading to a different evolution
\citep{Lyutikov:2011b}. These charges could reduce the charge of the
black hole and even discharge it completely, possibly leading to a radio
signal that could be associated with fast radio bursts \citep{Punsly2016,
Liu2016}. Furthermore, in the case of a force-free magnetosphere filled
with charges, the outcome of the collapse will likely be different,
although still yielding a KN black hole. Also, if present magnetic
reconnection in the exterior could change the evolution of the
electromagnetic fields and have an impact on the evolution of the charge
density. As a final remark we note that the dynamical production of a KN
black hole should not be taken as evidence for the astrophysical
existence of such objects. We still hold the expectation that stray
charges will rapidly neutralise the black-hole charge, so that a KN
solution should only be regarded as an intermediate and temporary stage
between the collapse of a rotating and magnetised star, e.g.,~ a pulsar that
has crossed the death line, and the final Kerr solution.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank the referee, I. Contopoulos, for his constructive criticism that
has improved the presentation and the content of this paper. It is a
pleasure to thank K. Dionysopoulou and B. Mundim for help with the
\texttt{WhiskyRMHD} code, and B. Ahmedov and O. Porth for useful
discussions. Partial support comes from the ERC Synergy Grant
``BlackHoleCam'' (Grant 610058), from ``NewCompStar'', COST Action
MP1304, from the LOEWE-Program in HIC for FAIR, from the European Union's
Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant 671698) (call
FETHPC-1-2014, project ExaHyPE). AN is supported by an Alexander von
Humboldt Fellowship. The simulations were performed on SuperMUC at
LRZ-Munich, on LOEWE at CSC-Frankfurt and on Hazelhen at HLRS in
Stuttgart.
\section*{}
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section*{Author Contributions}
\section*{Significance Statement}
Reprogramming the human genome toward any desirable state is within reach; application of select transcription factors drives cell types toward different lineages in many settings. We introduce the concept of data-guided control in building a universal algorithm for directly reprogramming any human cell type into any other type. Our algorithm is based on time series genome transcription and architecture data and known regulatory activities of transcription factors, with natural dimension reduction using genome architectural features. Our algorithm predicts known reprogramming factors, top candidates for new settings, and ideal timing for application of transcription factors. This framework can be used to develop strategies for tissue regeneration, cancer cell reprogramming, and control of dynamical systems beyond cell biology.
\section*{Introduction}
In 1989, pioneering work by Weintraub \emph{et al.} successfully reprogrammed human fibroblast cells to muscle cells via over-expression of transcription factor (TF) MYOD1, becoming the first to demonstrate that the natural course of cell development could be altered \cite{Weintraub1989}. In 2007, Yamanaka \emph{et al.} changed the paradigm further by successfully reprogramming human fibroblast cells to an embryonic-stem-cell-like state (induced pluripotent stem cells; iPSCs) using four TFs: POU5F1, SOX2, KLF4, MYC. This showed that a differentiated cell state could be reverted to a more pluripotent state \cite{Yamanaka-2007}.
These remarkable findings demonstrated that the genome is a system capable of being controlled via an external input of TFs. In this context, determining how to push the cell from one state to another is, at least conceptually, a classical problem of control theory \cite{Brockett}. The difficulty arises in the fact that the dynamics -- and even proper representations of the cell state and inputs -- are not well-defined in the context of cellular reprogramming. Nevertheless, it seems natural to treat reprogramming as a problem in control theory, with the final state being the desired reprogrammed cell. In this paper, we provide a control theoretic framework based on empirical data and demonstrate the potential of this framework to provide novel insights into cellular reprogramming \cite{Rajapakse-2011,doublehelix}.
Our goal is to mathematically identify TFs that can directly reprogram human fibroblasts to a desired target cell type. As part of our methodology, we create a model for the natural dynamics of proliferating human fibroblasts. We couple data from bioinformatics with methods of mathematical control theory--a framework which we dub \emph{data-guided control} (DGC). Using time series data and a natural dimension reduction through topologically associating domains (TADs), we capture the natural dynamics of the cell, including the cell cycle.
We use this model to determine a principled way to identify the best TFs for efficient reprogramming of a given cell type toward a desired target cell type. Previously, selection of TFs for reprogramming has been based largely on trial and error, typically relying on TF differential expression between cell types for initial predictions. Recently, Rackham \emph{et al.} devised a predictive method based on differential expression as well as gene and protein network data \cite{rackham-2016}. Our approach is fundamentally different in that we take a dynamical systems point of view, opening avenues for investigating efficiency (probability of conversion), timing (when to introduce TFs), and optimality (minimizing the number of TFs and amount of input).
Using genomic transcription and architecture data, our method identifies TFs previously found to reprogram human fibroblasts into embryonic stem cell-like cells and reprogram fibroblasts into muscle cells. Our method also predicts TFs for conversion between human fibroblasts and many additional target cell types.
In addition, we show the efficacy of using TADs for genome dimension reduction. Our analysis predicts the points in the cell cycle at which the insertion of TFs can most efficiently affect a desired change of cell state. Implicit in this approach is the notion of distance between cell types, which is measured in terms of the amount of transcriptional
\textcolor{black}{change}
required to transform one cell type into another. In this way, we are able to provide a comprehensive quantitative view of human cell types based on the respective distances between cell types.
Our framework separates into three parts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Define the state.} Use structure and function observations of the initial and target cell types' genomes to define a comprehensive state representation.
\item \textbf{Model the dynamics.} Apply model identification methods to approximate the natural dynamics of the genome, from time series data.
\item \textbf{Define and evaluate the inputs.} Infer from bioinformatics (TF binding location and function) where TFs can influence the genome, then quantify controllability properties with respect to the target cell type.
\end{enumerate}
The actual dynamics of the genome are undoubtedly very complicated, but as is often done in mathematical modeling studies, we use measurements to identify a linear approximation. This will take the form of a difference equation that is widely studied in the control systems literature, \cite{astrom2010feedback}
\begin{equation}
x_{k+1}=A_k x_k+Bu_k. \label{eqn-linear}
\end{equation}
\noindent In this case, the three items listed above correspond respectively to the value of the state $x_k$ at time $k$, the time dependent state transition matrix $A_k$, and the input matrix $B$ (along with the input function $u_k$).
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{Genome State Representation and Dimension Reduction: $\mathbf x_k$}
The state representation $x$ in Eq. \ref{eqn-linear} is the foundation for any control system and is critical for controllability analysis. To fully represent the state of a cell, a high number of measurements would need to be taken, including gene expression, protein level, chromatin conformation, and epigenetic measurements. As an initial simplification, we assume that the gene expression profile is a sufficient representation of the cell state.
Gene expression for a given cell is dependent on a number of factors, including (but not limited to): cell type, cell cycle stage, circadian rhythm stage, and growth conditions. In order to best capture the natural fibroblast dynamics from population-level data, time series RNA-seq was performed on cells that were cell cycle and circadian rhythm synchronized in normal growth medium conditions (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}). Prior to data collection, all cells were temporarily held in the first stage of the cell cycle,
\textcolor{black}{\texorpdfstring{G\textsubscript{0}}{G0}/\texorpdfstring{G\textsubscript{1}}{G1}},
via serum starvation. Upon release into the cell cycle, the population was observed every $\Delta t=8$ hours (h) for 56 h, yielding 8 time points (at 0, 8, 16, $\dots$, 56 h). Let $g_{i,k}$ be the measured activity of gene $i=1 ,\dots, N$ at measurement time $k = 1,\dots, 8$, where $N$ is the total number of human genes observed (22,083). Analysis of cell-cycle marker genes indicated that the synchronized fibroblasts took between 32-40 h to complete one cell cycle post growth medium introduction, after which cells became largely unsynchronized (Fig. \ref{fig-cellcycle}). Because of this, we define $K=5$ to be the total number of time points used for this model.
An obstacle to using $g$ to represent $x$ in a dynamical systems approach is the computational feasibility of studying a system with over 20,000 variables, necessitating a dimension reduction. Na\"{i}ve dimension reductions such as partitioning the genome into 1 mega-base pair (Mb) bins ignores inherent structural organization of the genome and obscures important intricacies of finer resolutions. A comprehensive genome state representation should include aspects of both structure and function, and simultaneously have low enough dimension to be computationally reasonable. Along these lines, we propose a biologically inspired dimension reduction based on topologically associated domains (TADs).
The advent of genome-wide chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) allowed for the studying of higher order chromatin structure and the subsequent discovery of TADs \cite{dixon2012topological}. TADs are inherent structural units of chromosomes: contiguous segments of the 1-D genome for which empirical physical interactions can be observed \cite{chen2015functional}. Moreover, genes within a TAD tend to exhibit similar activity, and TAD boundaries have been found to be largely cell-type invariant \cite{chen2015functional,tads-ciabrelli-2015,dixon2016chromatin}. TADs group structurally and functionally similar genes, serving as a natural dimension reduction that preserves important genomic properties. Fig. \ref{TAD_cartoon} depicts
\textcolor{black}{an overview of this concept. }
\textcolor{black}{We computed TAD boundaries from Hi-C data via an algorithm that uses Fielder vector partitioning, described in Chen \emph{et al.} (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}) \cite{Jie}.}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = .49\textwidth]{TAD_dim_reduc_v3}
\caption{\label{TAD_cartoon} Overview of TAD dimension reduction.
(\textit{A}) Partitioning the Hi-C matrix based on the Fiedler vector.
(\textit{B}) Cartoon depiction of TAD genomic structure.
(\textit{C}) TAD dimension reduction summary.
}
\end{figure}
Let $tad(i):=j$ if gene $i$ is contained within TAD $j$. We define each state variable $x_{j,k}$ to be the expression level of TAD $j=1 ,\dots,\tilde{N}$ at time $k$, where $\tilde{N} = 2,245$ is the total number of TADs that contain genes. Specifically, $x_{j,k}$ is defined as the sum of the expression levels of all genes within the TAD, measured in reads per kilobase of transcript per million (RPKM), i.e.
\begin{equation}
x_{j,k} := \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{i \text{ s.t.}\\ tad(i)=j}}} g_{i,k}. \label{TAD-state}
\end{equation}
\noindent The vector of all TAD activities at measurement $k$ is denoted with a single subscript $x_k\in\mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N} \times 1}, k=1,\dots, K$.
\subsection*{State Transition Matrix: $\mathbf A_k$}
Given the data we have, perhaps the most direct way to model the evolution of TAD activity level would be to assume a model of the form $x_{k+1}=x_k + y$, where $x_k$ and $x_{k+1}$ come from data, and $y$ is the vector difference of $x_{k+1}$ and $x_k$. However, the data could also be viewed in a different way. Taken over a full cycle, the average value of the expression level of the 2,245 TADs is known, within experimental error. Assuming that there is a function $f$ which maps $x_k$ to $x_{k+1}$, we can subtract the steady state average, $\bar{x}$, and focus on measuring the deviation from average as the cycle evolves. With this in mind, we have $f(x) =\bar{x} + A(x-\bar{x})$ where $A$ is allowed to depend on $x$'s location in the cell cycle. That is, we build a model for the variation of the cell cycle about $\bar{x}$. For the model to match data and capture variability over the cell cycle, we will need to have a different $A$ for each time step. Using the principle that $A$ should differ as little from the identity as possible, we let $A_k$ be the identity plus a rank one matrix chosen to match the data, for each time step $k$. In this case we have $x_{k+1} -\bar{x} = A_k(x_k-\bar{x})$.
We define a time dependent state transition matrix $A_k$.
\begin{align}
A_k &:= I_{\tilde{N}} + \frac{(x_{k+1}-x_k)x_k^\intercal}{x_k^\intercal x_k} \in\mathbb{R}^{\tilde{N}\times \tilde{N}}, ~ ~ ~ ~ k=1,2,3,4,5
\end{align}
\noindent where $I_{\tilde{N}}$ is the $\tilde{N}\times \tilde{N}$ identity matrix.
\subsection*{Input Matrix and Input Signal: $\mathbf B, \mathbf u_k$}
With the natural TAD-level dynamics established in the context of our control Eq. \ref{eqn-linear}, we turn our attention to quantifying methods for control.
A TF is a protein that can regulate a gene positively or negatively by binding to a specific DNA sequence near a gene and encouraging or discouraging transcription. This is accomplished, for example, by altering local chromatin conformation or by recruiting RNA polymerase II and other transcriptional machinery \cite{Latchman-1997}. The degree to which a TF activates or represses a gene depends on the specific TF-gene interaction and most likely on a variety of nuclear subtleties and intricacies that are difficult to quantify. Let $w_{i,m}$ be the theoretical \emph{regulation weight} of TF $m$ on gene $i$, where $w_{i,m}>0$ ($w_{i,m}<0$) if TF $m$ activates (represses) gene $i$, and $m = 1,\dots, M$, where $M$ is the total number of well-characterized TFs. Weights that are bigger in absolute value, $|w_{i,m}|\gg 0$, indicate stronger transcriptional influence, and weights equal to zero, $w_{i,m}=0$, indicate no influence.
Extensive TF perturbation experiments would be needed to determine $w_{i,m}$ for each TF $m$ on each gene $i$. Instead, we propose an alternative (simplified) method to approximate $w_{i,m}$ from existing, publicly available data for TF binding sites, gene accessibility, and average activator/repressor activity.
\textcolor{black}{To determine the number of possible binding sites a TF $m$ recognizes near gene $i$, we scanned the reference genome for the locations of potential TF binding sites (TFBSs) (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}).}
Position frequency matrices (PFMs), which give information on TF-DNA binding probability, were obtained for 547 TFs from a number of publicly available sources ($\therefore M = 547$). Let $c_{i,m}$ be the number of TF $m$ TFBSs found within $\pm5$kb of the transcriptional start site (TSS) of gene $i$ (Fig. \ref{fig-consensus}). In our model, the magnitude of $w_{i,m}$ is proportional to $c_{i,m}$. False negatives would include distal TFBSs outside of the $\pm5$kb window, while false positives would be erroneous TFBS matches.
Although many TFs can do both in the right circumstances, most TFs have tendency toward either activator or repressor activity \cite{Latchman-1997}. That is, if TF $m$ is known to activate (repress) most genes, we can say with some confidence that TF $m$ is an activator (repressor), so $w_{i,m}\geq 0$ ($w_{i,m}\leq 0$) for all $i$. To determine a TF's function, we performed a literature search for all 547 TFs and labeled 299 as activators and 124 as repressors (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}). The remaining TFs were labeled unknown for lack of conclusive evidence for activator or repressor function. In the case of inconclusive evidence, the TF was evaluated as both an activator and a repressor in separate calculations. Here, we define $a_m$ as the activity of TF $m$, with 1 and -1 denoting activator and repressor, respectively, and the sign of $w_{i,m}$ will be determined by $a_m$.
\textcolor{black}{TFBSs} are cell-type invariant since they are based strictly on the linear genome. However, it is known that for a given cell type, certain areas of the genome may be opened or closed depending on epigenetic aspects. To capture cell type specific regulatory information, we obtained gene accessibility data through DNase-seq. DNase-seq extracts cell type specific chromatin accessibility information genome-wide by testing the genome's sensitivity to the endonuclease DNase I, and sequencing the non-digested genome fragments. This data is used for our initial cell type to determine which genes are available to be controlled by TFs \textcolor{black}{\cite{thurman2012accessible}}. Here, we define $s_i$ be the DNase I sensitivity information (accessibility; open/close) of gene $i$ in the initial state, with 1 and 0 denoting accessible and inaccessible, respectively (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}).
We approximate $w_{i,m}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq: w_def}
w_{i,m} := a_m s_i c_{i,m},
\end{equation}
\noindent so that the magnitude of influence is equal to the number of observed consensus motifs $c_{i,m}$, except when the gene is inaccessible ($s_i$ = 0) in which case $w_{i,m}=0$.
Since we are working off a TAD-dimensional model, our input matrix $B$ must match this dimension. Let $b_m$ be a 2,245-dimensional vector, where
the $j^{th}$ component is
\begin{equation}\label{eq: b_gene2TAD}
b_{j,m} := \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{i \text{ s.t.}\\ tad(i)=j}}} w_{i,m}
\end{equation}
and define a matrix $B= \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} b_1\; b_2\; \cdots b_M\end{array}\right]$.
The amount of control input is captured in $u_{k}$, which is a $\mathbb{R}^{M \times 1}$ vector representing the quantity of the external TFs we are inputting to the system (cell) at time $k$. This can be controlled by the researcher experimentally through manipulation of the \textcolor{black}{TF concentration} \cite{Brewster-2014}. In this light, we restrict our analysis to $u_{k}\geq 0$ for all $k$, as TFs cannot be subtracted from the cell. $u_{m,k}$ is defined as the amount of TF $m$ to be added at time point $k$.
With all variables of our control Eq. \ref{eqn-linear} defined, we can now attempt to predict which TFs will most efficiently achieve cellular reprogramming from some $x_I$ (initial state; fibroblast in our setting) to $x_T$ (target state; any human cell type for which compatible RNA-seq data is available) through manipulation of $u_{k}$. An overview of our DGC framework is given in Fig. \ref{fig-tad-network}.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{DGC_all_v12}
\caption{\label{fig-tad-network} Data-guided control overview.
(\textit{A}) Summary of control equation variables.
(\textit{B}) Each TAD is a node in a dynamic network. The blue connections represent the edges of the network and are determined from time series fibroblast RNA-seq data. The miniature green plots represent the expression of each TAD changing over time. The red arrows indicate additional regulation imposed by exogenous transcription factors.
(\textit{C}) A conceptual illustration of the problem: can we determine transcription factors to push the cell state from one basin to another?}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{Selection of TFs}
We consider different scenarios for the type of input regime. The first is assuming the input signal is constant $u_1=u_k=\bar{u}$, intended to mimic empirical regimes where TFs are given at a single time point. We will show that this method is theoretically inferior to inputting different TFs at different points in the cell cycle in a later section.
Eq. \ref{eqn-linear} has an explicit solution that is easily computed.
\begin{align*}
x_2 &= A_1x_1 + Bu_1 \\
x_3 &= A_2A_1x_1 + A_2Bu_1 + Bu_2 \\
x_4 &= A_3A_2A_1x_1 + A_3A_2Bu_1 + A_3Bu_2 + Bu_3 \\
&\vdots
\end{align*}
\noindent Notice the expression for $x_4$ depends the input matrix $B$ and the input signal $u_k$.
If $x_T$ is a target condition, then the Euclidean distance $\|\cdot\|$ can be used to measure how close a state is to the target state, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
d = \| x_T - x_6(u_k) \|,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the notation $x_6(u_k)$ is used to emphasize the dependence of $x_6$ on $u_k$. Considering all possible input signals, one can compute the optimal control that finds the minimum distance for a given initial and target cell type.
\textcolor{black}{Let $u_{*k}$ denote the optimal $u_{k}$ used to minimize $d$, and $d_*$ denotes this minimum distance value.}
We note here that when determining which TFs can be used to reach $x_T$, it is often desirable and more experimentally feasible to minimize the number of distinct TFs given to the cells. Transfection of cells with multiple different TFs can lead to cell stress and death, and a lower efficiency of transfection overall. Moreover, many experimentally confirmed direct reprogramming regimes use $\leq$4 TFs to achieve reprogramming. For these reasons, we set all indices of $u_k$ equal to zero, except for indices corresponding to TFs that we choose.
We define $\hat p$ to be a set of positive integers that refer to the indices of $u_k$ (read: TFs) that are allowed to be non-zero (e.g. $\hat p = \{1,4,7\}$ refers to TFs 1, 4, and 7). Let $p$ be the number of elements in $\hat p$. Given a set of TFs ($\hat p$), we determine the quantity and timing of TF input ($u_{*k}$)
that minimizes
the difference ($d_*$) between the initial ($x_I$) and target ($x_T$) cell state. Mathematically, this can be written as
\color{black}
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \minimize_{u_k} & \| x_T-x_6(u_k) \| \\
\stj & \begin{cases}
u_{m,k} \geq 0,& \text{if } m\in \hat p\\
u_{m,k} = 0,& \text{if } m\not\in \hat p
\end{cases}
\end{array}
\label{eq: prob_u_}
\end{align}
\color{black}
\noindent We use MATLAB's \textit{lsqnonneg} function to solve Eq. \ref{eq: prob_u_}, which gives $u_{*k}$ and $d_*$.
Let $d_0 := \|x_T - x_I \|$, be the distance between initial and target states with no external influence. We define the score $\mu := d_0 - d_*$, which can be interpreted as the \emph{distance progressed towards target}. $\mu$ can be calculated for each $\hat p$ and sorted (high to low) to determine which TF or TF combination is the best candidate for direct reprogramming between $x_I$ and $x_T$.
\vspace{10pt}
\noindent \textbf{Remark:} Subsets of TFs were chosen for each calculation based on the following criteria: $\geq$10-fold expression increase in target state compared to initial state, and $\geq$4 RPKM in target state. These criteria are used to select differentially expressed TFs and TFs that are sufficiently active in the target state.
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Quantitative Measure Between Cell Types}
In order to best utilize our algorithm to predict TFs for reprogramming, compatible data on target cell types must be collected. For this, we explore a number of publicly available databases where RNA-seq has been collected, along with RNA-seq data collected in our lab. The ENCODE Consortium has provided data on myotubes and embryonic stem cells (ESCs) (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}) \cite{encode2012integrated}. The GTEx portal provides RNA-seq data on a large variety of different human tissue types \cite{lonsdale2013genotype}. Although each GTEx experiment is performed on tissue samples, thus containing multiple different cell types, we use these data as more general cell state targets.
To give a numerical structure to cell type differences, conceptually similar to Waddington's epigenetic landscape, we calculate $d_0$ between all cell types collected. Fig. \ref{dist_mat}\textit{A} shows $d_0$ values for 32 tissue samples collected from the GTEx portal, along with ESC, myotube, and our fibroblast data (additional cell type $d_0$ values shown in \hyperref[supp]{SI}). Warmer colors (red) denote further distances between cell types. GTEx RNA-seq data is
scaled
to keep total RPKM difference between time series fibroblast and GTEx fibroblast RNA-seq minimal (\hyperref[supp]{See SI}).
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{DGC_distmat_results_esc_regime_v9}
\caption{Quantitative measure between cell types and transcription factor scores.
(\textit{A}) $d_0$ values between GTEx tissue types and ESC, myotube, and fibroblast. Tissue types and cell types with black arrows have predicted transcription factors for reprogramming from fibroblasts shown in \ref{dist_mat}B.
(\textit{B}) Table of predicted transcription factors for a subset of cell and tissue types. Top 5 transcription factors for combinations of 1-3 shown. Green labeled transcription factors are either highly associated with the differentiation process of the target cell type and/or validated for reprogramming. These transcription factors are discussed in the main text.
(\textit{C}) Time-dependent scores for selected combinations of 3 transcription factors for fibroblast to ESC and fibroblast to ``Heart - Left ventricle". x-axis refers to time of transcription factor addition, y-axis refers to $\mu$.
} \label{dist_mat}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{TF Scores}
To assess our method's predictive power, a subset of target cell types are presented here that have either validated TF reprogramming methods or TFs highly associated with the target cell type. Additional predicted TFs for reprogramming are included in \hyperref[supp]{SI}.
We note that though experimentally validated TFs provide the best current standard for comparison, we believe experimental validation with our predicted TFs may provide more efficient reprogramming results. For all reprogramming regimes presented in this section, fibroblast is used as the initial cell type due to the availability of synchronized time series data, and all TFs are introduced at $k=1$ \cite{chen2015functional}.
For conversion of fibroblast to myotubes, the top predicted single input TFs are MYOG and MYOD1, both of which are known to be crucial for myogenesis. While MYOD1 is the classic master regulator reprogramming TF for myotube conversion, activation of downstream factor MYOG is necessary for full conversion \cite{weintraub1993myod}. For fibroblast to ESC conversion, a number of TFs known to be necessary for pluripotency are predicted, including MYCN, ZFP42, NANOG, and SOX2 \cite{takahashi2007induction}. With the knowledge that no single TF has been shown to fully reprogram a fibroblast to an embryonic state, combinations of TFs are more informative for this analysis. The top scoring combination of 3 TFs is MYCN, NANOG, and POU5F1--three well-known markers for pluripotency \cite{takahashi2007induction}. Interestingly, POU5F1 scores poorly when input individually, but is within the top set of 3 TFs when used in combination with MYCN and NANOG. Left ventricle reprogramming includes TFs that are known to be necessary for natural differentiation in the top score for all 1-3 combinations. These include GATA4 (a known TF in fibroblast to cardiomyocyte reprogramming), HEY2, and IRX4 \cite{ieda2010direct,fischer2004notch,nelson2014irx4}.
\subsection*{Time-dependent TF Addition}
Fibroblast to ESC conversion was of particular interest in our analysis as this is a well-studied regime with a number of validated TFs (with a variety of reported efficiencies), and this conversion is promising for its regenerative medicine application. High scoring TFs yield many that are known markers for pluripotency, but the top combination of 3, MYCN, NANOG, and POU5F1, has not been used specifically together, to our knowledge.
Since our method incorporates dynamical RNA-seq data, analysis can be extended to determine the best time to input control for a given set of TFs. In our model, there are five possible input times: 0, 8, $\dots$, 32 h. We assume a TF continues to influence the system at a constant value once input until the final time (40 h). We restrict our analysis here to combinations of 3 TFs. This gives $5^3=125$ possible \emph{Time-dependent regimes} to input the TFs; e.g. \emph{TF1, TF2, TF3} are input, respectively, at times 0,0,0, or 0,0,8, or 0,0,16, or $\dots$ or 32,32,24 or 32,32,32. Inputting a TF at time $k^*$ can be viewed mathematically as requiring $u_{m,k}=0$ for all $k<k^*$.
Time-dependent analysis of the top scoring ESC TFs reveals that scores vary widely depending on the time of input. MYCN and NANOG show a strong preference for input at the beginning of the cell cycle, while POU5F1 shows a slight preference for input towards the end of the cell cycle, with the highest score achieved when MYCN and NANOG are input at 0 h and POU5F1 is input at 32 h. Analysis on how the time of input control affects $\mu$ is shown in Fig. \ref{dist_mat}\textit{C}. Time-dependent analysis was also conducted for the top combination of 3 TFs for fibroblast to left ventricle. This set includes GATA4, HEY2, and IRX4, all factors highly associated with the cardiac phenotype \cite{ieda2010direct,fischer2004notch,nelson2014irx4}. This analysis predicted that the best reprogramming results would occur if GATA4 is given immediately (0 h), with IRX4 and HEY2 given later (24 and 32 h, respectively).
\section*{Discussion}
The results from this algorithm show promise in their prediction of known reprogramming TFs, and demonstrate the importance of including time series data for gene network dynamics.
Time of input control has shown to have an impact on the end cell state, in line with what has been shown in natural differentiation \cite{loh2016mapping}.
While we believe that this is the best model currently available for predicting TFs for reprogramming, we are aware of its limitations and assumptions.
TAD-based dimension reduction is based on the observation that genes within them correlate in expression over time, though we lack definitive proof of regulation by shared transcriptional machinery \cite{chen2015functional}. This assumption was deemed necessary for dimension reduction in the context of deriving transition matrix $A_k$. With finer time steps in RNA-seq data, the assumption may not be necessary for TF prediction, at the cost of increased computation time. Additionally, a 5kb window flanking the TSS of each gene was used to ensure that all potential regulators are found, at the cost of potential inclusion of false positive motifs.
GTEx data proved to be an invaluable resource for testing our algorithm, providing many target states for TF prediction. It is important to note that these data are collected from cadaver tissue samples; therefore the RNA-seq data is coming from a heterogeneous cell-type population and may be enriched for stress factors known to be elevated after death (e.g. HSF4). Ideally, RNA-seq data for target cells would be derived from a homogeneous population, with minimal experiment collection variables. Future work includes the extension of this DGC approach to other target cell types.
Although this program can score TFs relative to other TFs in a given reprogramming regime, it is difficult to predict a $\mu$ threshold that would guarantee conversion. Additionally, rigorous experimental testing will be required to validate these findings and determine how our $u$ vector translates to TF concentration. This is a product of the large number of assumptions that must be made to develop the initial framework for a reprogramming algorithm. With finer resolution in the time series gene expression, more subtle aspects of the genomic network may be observed, allowing for better prediction.
Our proposed data-guided control framework successfully identified known TFs for fibroblast to ESC and fibroblast to muscle cell reprogramming regimes. The framework rates individual TFs as well as sets of TFs. We employ a biologically-inspired dimension reduction via TADs, a natural partitioning of the genome. This comprehensive state representation was the foundation of our framework, and the success of our methods motivates further investigation of the importance of TADs as functional units to control the genome.
A dynamical systems view of the genome allows for analysis of timing, efficiency, and optimality in the context of reprogramming. Our framework is the first step toward this view. The successful implementation of time-varying reprogramming regimes would open new avenues for direct reprogramming. Experimental verification of predicted regimes and development of methods to identify optimal sets of TFs are planned for the near future. This template can be used to develop regimes for changing any cell into any other cell, for applications that include reprogramming cancer cells and controlling the immune system. Our DGC framework is well equipped for designing personalized cellular reprogramming regimes. Finally, this framework can serve as a general technique for investigating the controllability of networks strictly from data.
\section*{Methods and Materials}
Hi-C and RNA-seq data were collected from cell cycle and circadian rhythm-synchronized proliferating human fibroblasts of normal karyotype. Data were collected every 8 h, spanning 56 h. Publicly available data was used for target cell types. Detailed materials and methods are provided in Chen \emph{et al.} and in \hyperref[supp]{SI} \cite{chen2015functional}.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We thank Robert Oakes, Emily Crossette, and Sijia Liu for their critical reading of the manuscript and helpful discussions. We extend special thanks to James Gimlett and Srikanta Kumar at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for support and encouragement. This work is supported, in part, by the DARPA Biochronicity Program and the DARPA Deep-Purple and FunCC Program.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Dirac delta potentials or point interactions, or sometimes called contact potentials are one of the exactly solvable classes of idealized potentials, and are used as a pedagogical tool to illustrate various physically important phenomena, where the de Broglie wavelength of the particle is much larger than the range of the interaction. They have various applications in almost all areas of physics, see e. g., \cite{Demkov} and \cite{Belloni Robinett}, and references therein. For instance, mutually non-interacting electrons moving in a fixed crystal can be modeled by periodic Dirac delta potentials, known as the Kronig-Penney model \cite{KPmodel}. Another application is given by the model consisting of two attractive Dirac delta potentials in one dimension. This is used as a very elementary model of the chemical bond for a diatomic ion ($H_{2}^{+}$, for example) and has been discussed in \cite{CohenT, L1}.
The interest for Dirac delta potentials and other
one dimensional point potentials provides us with solvable (or
quasi-solvable) models in quantum mechanics that give insight
for a better understanding of the basic features of the quantum theory.
This makes them suitable for the purpose of teaching the
discipline. In a recent pedagogical review \cite{Belloni Robinett}, several interesting features of one-dimensional Dirac delta potentials have been illustrated and the multiple $\delta$-function potential has been studied in the Fourier space. Moreover, the bound state problem has been formulated in terms of a matrix eigenvalue problem.
In this paper, we first give a brief review of the bound state spectrum of the $N$ Dirac delta potentials in one dimension by converting the time independent Schr\"{o}dinger equation $H \psi = E \psi$ for the bound states to the eigenvalue problem for an $N \times N$ Hermitian matrix.
This method is rather useful especially when we deal with a large number of centers since the procedure that uses the matching conditions for the wave function at the location of the delta centers become cumbersome for large values of $N$. Once we formulate the problem as a finite dimensional eigenvalue problem, we show that there are at most $N$ bound states for $N$ centers, using the Feynman-Hellmann theorem (see page 288 in \cite{Griffiths}). One of the main purposes of this paper is to show that this simple one-dimensional toy problem for more than three centers allows us to give an analytical example of the breakdown of the well-known non-degeneracy theorem for one-dimensional bound state problems\cite{LL}.
This shows that we should not take the non-degeneracy theorem for granted particularly for singular interactions. This was first realized for the so-called one-dimensional Hydrogen atom \cite{Loudon}, where the non-degeneracy theorem breaks down and has been studied for other one-dimensional singular potentials since then \cite{KJSQT, Cohen, Bhattacharyya, Kar, Vincenzo, Dutt}.
In contrast to the degeneracies that appear in bound states, we give elementary proof that the ground state is non-degenerate and the ground state wave function can be always chosen as real-valued and strictly positive. In addition, we also show that all the bound state energies for $N$ attractive Dirac delta potentials increase if we remove one center from the system.
All these results become more transparent using some basic theorems from linear algebra, namely the Perron-Frobenius theorem, the Cauchy interlacing theorem \cite{Meyer}. Simple proof for these theorems is given in the appendices so as not to interrupt the flow of the presentation. Our presentation is kept simple so that it is also accessible to a wide audience and it has been shown in appendix A that it is consistent with the rigorous approach to the point interactions \cite{Albeverio}.
\section{Bound States for $N$ Dirac Delta Potentials}
\label{Bound States for N Dirac Delta Potentials}
We consider a particle moving in one dimension and interacting with the attractive $N$ Dirac delta potentials located at $a_i$ with strengths $\lambda_i>0$, where $i=1,2, \cdots, N$. The time independent Schr\"{o}dinger equation is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
-{\hbar^2 \over 2m} {d^2 \psi \over d x^2} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i \delta(x-a_i) \psi (x) = E \psi(x) \;. \label{Schrodinger}
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation is actually a formal expression and its exact meaning can only be given by self-adjoint extension theory \cite{Albeverio, BFV, ACP}. Here we follow a more traditional and heuristic approach used in most quantum mechanics textbooks since the results that we obtain is completely consistent with the rigorous approach. As is well-known, the above equation can also be written as
\begin{eqnarray} H \psi =E \psi \label{hpsi}\end{eqnarray}
in the operator form, where $H={P^2 \over 2m} + V$ and the potential energy operator $V$ for the above particular case in the bra-ket formalism is
\begin{equation}\label{5}
V=- \sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i|a_i\rangle\langle a_i| \,.
\end{equation}
Here $|a_i\rangle$ is the position eigenket. In the coordinate representation, the action of $V$ on the state vector $|\psi \rangle$ is
\begin{eqnarray} (V \psi) (x) =
\langle x | V | \psi \rangle =\sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i \delta(x-a_i) \psi(a_i) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i \delta(x-a_i) \psi(x) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact $\delta(x-a_i) \psi(a_i)=\delta(x-a_i) \psi(x)$. This justifies the above formal potential operator (\ref{5}) which corresponds to the Schr\"{o}dinger equation (\ref{Schrodinger}) with multiple Dirac delta potentials.
Let us absorb the strengths $\lambda_i$'s into bras and kets, i.e., $\sqrt{\lambda_i} |a_i \rangle=|f_i \rangle$ and similarly for bras. In terms of the rescaled bras and kets, the potential operator becomes $V=\sum_{i=1}^{N}|f_i \rangle \langle f_i|$. Substituting this into (\ref{hpsi}) in the coordinate representation, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{6}
\langle x | {P^2 \over 2m} |\psi \rangle - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \langle x |f_i\rangle\langle f_i| \psi \rangle = E \langle x | \psi \rangle \;,
\end{equation}
The rescaling is introduced to formulate the bound state problem in terms of an eigenvalue problem of a symmetric matrix, as we will see. Inserting the
completeness relation $\int {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar} |p \rangle
\langle p|=1$ in front of $|\psi\rangle$ and $|f_i\rangle$, we
obtain the following integral equation, which is actually the
Fourier transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{7}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar}\; e^{{i \over
\hbar} p x} \; \tilde{\psi}(p) \left( {p^2 \over 2m} - E \right) =
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \; \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p
\over 2 \pi \hbar}\; e^{{i\over \hbar} p (x-a_i)} \; \phi(a_i) \;
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle x |p \rangle = e^{{i\over \hbar} p x}$, $\langle p
| \psi \rangle =\tilde{\psi}(p)$, and $\phi(a_i)=\langle f_i | \psi \rangle = \sqrt{\lambda_i}
\psi(a_i)$. Since two functions with the same Fourier transforms
are equal, equation (\ref{7}) implies that:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\psi}(p)= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \; { e^{-{i\over \hbar} p a_i} \over {p^2 \over 2m}-E}\; \phi(a_i) \;.\label{psi(p)}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting to remark that this solution depends on the
unknown coordinate wave function at $a_i$ and the energy $E$. If
we use the relation between the coordinate and momentum space wave
function through the Fourier transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(x)= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar}\; e^{{i\over \hbar} p x} \; \tilde{\psi}(p) \;, \label{Fourier}
\end{eqnarray}
and insert (\ref{psi(p)}) into the above for $x=a_i$, we obtain the following consistency relation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{10}
\psi(a_i)= \sum_{j=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_j} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar}\; { e^{{i \over \hbar} p (a_i-a_j)} \over {p^2 \over 2m}-E} \; \phi(a_j) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying both sides of (\ref{10}) by $\sqrt{\lambda_i}$ and separating the $(j=i)$-th term, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[1- \lambda_i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{1}{\frac{p^2}{2m}- E} \right] \phi(a_i) -\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar} \; \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\
j \neq i}}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \left[\frac{e^{{i\over \hbar} p(a_{i}-a_{j})}
}{\frac{p^2}{2m}-E} \; \right]\phi(a_j)=0 \;. \label{ai aj equation in one}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation can be written as a homogeneous system of linear
equations in matrix form:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{12}
\sum_{j=1}^{N} \Phi_{ij}(E) \phi(a_j)=0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{ij}(E)=
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
1 - \lambda_i \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{1}{\frac{p^2}{2m}-E}
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i = j$}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
- \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{e^{{i\over \hbar} p(a_{i}-a_{j})}}{\frac{p^2}{2m}- E}
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i \neq j$}\;. \label{principle matrix in one}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
As usual, the matrix elements
are denoted by $\Phi_{ij}(E)$ and the matrix itself by $\Phi$, so
that $\Phi=\{\Phi_{ij}(E)\}$.
Let us first assume that $E<0$, i.e., $E=-|E|$, so that
there is no real pole in the denominators of the integrands. Let us now
consider the integral in the off-diagonal part.
The function under the
integral sign has simple poles located at the points ($p=\pm i
\sqrt{2m|E|}$) in the complex $p$-plane. In order to calculate this integral by the residue
method, we have to take into account separately the situations $a_i<a_j$ and
$a_i>a_j$.
We note that only the pole with sign plus (minus) lies inside the
contour of integration for $a_i>a_j$ ($a_j>a_i$). Due to the exponential function, the integral
over the semicircle vanishes as its radius goes to infinite
\cite{ASH}. Then, the value of the integral is obtained
multiplying by $2\pi i$ the residue at that point:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{14}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{e^{{i
\over \hbar}p(a_{i}-a_{j})}}{\frac{p^2}{2m}- E} =
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
{m \over \hbar
\sqrt{2m|E|}} \exp \left(-\sqrt{2m |E|} (a_i-a_j)/\hbar \right)\;,
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $a_i >a_ j$}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
{m \over \hbar
\sqrt{2m|E|}} \exp \left(-\sqrt{2m |E|} (a_j-a_i)/\hbar \right)\;,
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $a_i <a_j$}\;.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
The diagonal part of the matrix $\Phi$ can be evaluated similarly, so equation (\ref{principle matrix in one}) becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{15}
\Phi_{ij}(E)=
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
1 - {m \lambda_i \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}}
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i = j$}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
-{m \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}} \; \exp
\left(-\sqrt{2m |E|} |a_i-a_j|/\hbar \right)
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i \neq j$}\;.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{12}) has only non-trivial solutions if $\det
\Phi (E)=0$. Therefore, the bound state problem is solved once we
find the solution to the transcendental equation $\det \Phi
(E)=0$. After that, we can find the bound state wave
functions in the coordinate representation
through (\ref{Fourier}).
Suppose that the bound state energy, say $E_B$, is the root of $\det \Phi
(E)=0$, and we find $\phi_B(a_j)=\sqrt{\lambda_j} \psi_B(a_j)$ from Eq.(\ref{12}) associated with $E_B$. Then, the bound state wave function at $a_i$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_B(a_i)= {1 \over \sqrt{\lambda_i}} \; \phi_B(a_i) \;. \label{bswavefunctionatpoint}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking into account the above considerations, we use (\ref{bswavefunctionatpoint}) into the bound state wave function in momentum space (\ref{psi(p)}) so as to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\psi}_B(p)=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \; { e^{-{i\over \hbar} p a_i} \over {p^2 \over 2m}-E_B}\; \phi_B(a_i) \;. \label{bswavefunctioninmomentumspace}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the bound state wave function in the coordinate space can be found by just taking the inverse Fourier transform of the above momentum space wave function
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_B(x)= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \lambda_i \; \phi_B(a_i)\; \sqrt{m/2} \; \; {e^{-{\sqrt{2m |E_B|} \over \hbar} |x-a_i|} \over \hbar \sqrt{|E_B|}} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi_B(a_i)$ is defined by $\sum_{j=1}^{N} \Phi_{ij}(-|E_B|) \; \phi_B(a_j)=0$.
Suppose now that $E>0$. In this case, we have to find the wave function and contour integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar} {e^{{i \over \hbar} p(a_i-a_j)} \over {p^2 \over 2m}-E} \;,
\end{equation}
whose poles are now located at $p=\pm \sqrt{2m E}$ on the real axis, and there are four different choices of contours, each of which gives different result \cite{DenneryKrzywicki}.
It is easy to see that the wave function
becomes now the linear combination of the complex exponentials
\begin{equation}
e^{\pm i \sqrt{2 m E/\hbar}|x-a_i|} \;.
\end{equation}
Such a function cannot be square integrable unless it is identically zero . Therefore, there is no bound state for $E>0$. A similar analysis can be done for $E=0$, where the wave function becomes divergent over the whole real axis. Therefore, we conclude that $E$ must be negative for bound states. From the physical point of view, the bound state energies are expected to be less than the values of the potential at asymptotes. For this reason, the bound state energies for finitely many Dirac delta potentials are negative.
For a single center located at $x=0$ with coupling constant $\lambda$, the matrix $\Phi$ is just a $1 \times 1$ matrix, i.e., a single function: $\Phi(E)=1 - {m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}}$. Now, the condition $\det \Phi(E)=0$ means that $\Phi(E)=0$, so that the bound state energy is $E_B= -{m \lambda^2 \over 2 \hbar^2}$ for a single center \cite{Griffiths}. After having found the bound state energy, we can find the bound state wave function. For $N=1$, $\phi_B(a_i)$ is some constant, say $C$. Then, the bound state wave function in momentum space becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\psi}_B(p)=\sqrt{\lambda} \; {1 \over {p^2 \over 2m}-E_B} \; C \;. \label{bswavefunctioninmomentumspaceN1}
\end{eqnarray}
The constant $C$ can be determined from the normalization constant:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda \; |C|^2 (2m)^2 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar} {1 \over (p^2+{m^2 \lambda^2 \over \hbar^2})^2} =1 \;. \label{normalizationcond}
\end{eqnarray}
The integral in Eq. \eqref{normalizationcond} can also be evaluated using the residue theorem. However, in this case the residues are at $p=\pm i {m \lambda \over \hbar}$ and of order two. Taking the integral, we find $C={\sqrt{m \lambda} \over \hbar}$.
Now we can find the wave function associated with this bound state in the coordinate space by taking its Fourier transform. We perform the integration exactly as we did in (\ref{14}), and obtain \cite{Griffiths}
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_B(x) = {\sqrt{m \lambda} \over \hbar} \; e^{-{m \lambda \over \hbar^2} |x|} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us first consider the special case of two centers, namely twin attractive ($\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=\lambda$) Dirac $\delta$ potentials located at $a_{1}=0$ and
$a_{2}=a$. Then, the expression $\det \Phi (E)=0$ yields to the
following transcendental equation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{16}
e^{-\frac{a\sqrt{2m|E|}}{\hbar}}=
\pm\left( {\hbar \sqrt{2 m |E|} \over m \lambda}-1\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
For convenience, we define $\kappa \equiv {\sqrt{2m|E|} \over \hbar}$. Suppose that $\kappa_+(\kappa_-)$ corresponds to the solution of Eq. (\ref{16}) with the positive (negative) sign
in front of the parenthesis, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{17}
e^{-a\kappa_{+}} &=& \frac{\hbar^{2}\kappa_{+}}{m\lambda}-1 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
or
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-a\kappa_{-}} &=& 1-\frac{\hbar^{2}\kappa_{-}}{m\lambda} \,.
\label{18}
\end{eqnarray}
The bound state energies correspond to non-zero solutions for $\kappa_\pm$ of the above equations (\ref{17}) and (\ref{18}). The first transcendental equation (\ref{17}) always has
one real root, which implies the presence of at least one bound state. This is clear from the following considerations:
the left hand side of (\ref{17}) is a monotonically
decreasing function, which goes to zero asymptotically, while the
right hand side is a monotonically increasing function without any
asymptote.
However, the second transcendental equation (\ref{18}) may or may
not have a real positive solution.
One real root of Eq. (\ref{18}) is expected for
$\kappa_- =0$. However, this cannot correspond to a bound state. In order to obtain a non trivial root, we must impose the
condition that the slope of the right hand side of (\ref{18}) must
be smaller than the slope of the left hand side in absolute value.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{19}
\bigg|{d \over d \kappa} \left(1-{\hbar^2 \kappa \over m \lambda}\right)
\bigg|_{\kappa=0} \bigg| & < & \bigg|{d \over d \kappa} \left(e^{-\kappa a}\right)
\bigg|_{\kappa=0} \bigg|\,.
\end{eqnarray}
This means that the distance between the centers must be greater than some critical value for two bound states:
\begin{equation} \label{19a}
a> {\hbar^2 \over m \lambda} \;.
\end{equation}
Hence, we conclude that there are at most two bound states for
attractive twin Dirac delta potentials. The first one
appears unconditionally so that it corresponds to the ground
state. On the other hand, the second bound state
appears only if $a$ is sufficiently large ($ {\hbar^2 \over m a \lambda} < 1$). This
corresponds to the excited state of the system.
Actually, the explicit solutions to Eq.(\ref{17}) and Eq.(\ref{18}) can be easily found and then the bound state energies are
\begin{eqnarray}
E_+ & = & - \left( {\lambda \over 2} + {1 \over a} \; W \left[{a \lambda \over 2} e^{-{a \lambda \over 2}}\right] \right)^2 \;, \cr
E_- & = & - \left( {\lambda \over 2} + {1 \over a} \; W \left[-{a \lambda \over 2} e^{-{a \lambda \over 2}}\right] \right)^2 \;. \label{lambertW}
\end{eqnarray}
where $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function \cite{Corless}, defined as the solution of the transcendental equation $y \; e^y =z$, i.e., $y=W[z]$. The above explicit solutions given in terms of Lambert $W$ function have been known in the literature, see for instance \cite{SecilTunali}
and the recent work \cite{Sacchetti}, where the non-linear generalization of the problem has been discussed.
\section{Bound States as a Finite Dimensional Eigenvalue Problem}
In order to study location and properties of bound states more systematically, we consider the equation (\ref{12}) as the particular case of an eigenvalue problem for the matrix $\Phi$:
\begin{equation} \label{23}
\Phi(E) \, A(E) = \omega(E)\, A(E) \;,
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is any of the eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi$. Then, the zeros of the eigenvalues of $\Phi$ are just the bound state energies. In other words, the roots of the equation
\begin{equation}
\omega(E)=0 \label{zeroeigenvalue}
\end{equation}
give the bound state energies. Hence, the eigenvalues of the {\it linear}
differential equation $H\psi(x)=E\psi(x)$ are obtained through a
{\it non-linear} transcendental algebraic problem, $\omega(E)=0$.
Let us consider the $N=2$ case. For twin centers, located at $a_1=0, a_2=a$, the eigenvalues can be explicitly calculated:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eigenvaluesformulaN2}
\omega_1 & = & 1+ {m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}} \left( -1-e^{-{1 \over \hbar} \sqrt{2m |E|}a} \right)\cr \omega_2 & =& 1+ {m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}} \left( -1+e^{-{1 \over \hbar} \sqrt{2m |E|}a} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{eigenvaluesN2_L2_a08}
\end{minipage}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\begin{minipage}{5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{eigenvaluesN2_L2_a1}
\end{minipage} \\
\begin{minipage}{5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{eigenvaluesN2_L2_a2}
\end{minipage}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\begin{minipage}{5cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{eigenvaluesN2_L2_a4}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The flow of the eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi$ as a function of $|E|$ for different values of $a$. Here $\lambda=2$ and $\hbar=2m=1$.} \label{eigenvaluesN2}
\end{figure}
As shown in above Fig. \ref{eigenvaluesN2}, there are always two eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi$. However, for $\lambda=2$ with $\hbar=2m=1$, there are two bound states only if the distance between the centers is greater than the critical value $a=1$. Otherwise there is only one bound state, which is consistent with the result given in the previous part.
When the centers are sufficiently close to each other, one of the bound states seems to disappear, since the zeros of the first eigenvalue seems to move to the negative real axis.
We also observe from Fig. \ref{eigenvaluesN2} that the bound state energies come closer and closer as the distance between them increases. This is not surprising since the eigenvalues (\ref{eigenvaluesformulaN2}) converge to $1- {m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}} $ as $a \rightarrow \infty$ so that zeros of these degenerate eigenvalues lead to degenerate bound states in the limiting case.
Now, we shall show why our method is much easier to investigate the bound state spectrum as we
increase the number of Dirac delta potentials. The number of bound
states is an important characteristic of any system. There are
several ways to determine it for some regular potentials
\cite{Manoukian}. It is noteworthy that we can determine the maximum
number of bound states of this system from
the behavior of the eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi(E)$ through the Feynman-Hellmann theorem \cite{feynman, hellmann}.
To find the behavior of the eigenvalues as a function of $E$, let us first take the derivative of $\Phi_{ij}(E)$ with
respect to $E$. We may interchange this derivative and the
integral sign in (\ref{15}), since all the matrix elements
$\Phi_{ij}$ are analytic functions on the half plane $\Re{(E)}<0$. Hence, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{24}
{d \Phi_{ij} \over d E} = - \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar }
\; \frac{e^{{i\over \hbar} p(a_{i}-a_{j})}}{(\frac{p^2}{2m}- E)^2} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, let us make use of the Feynman-Hellmann theorem, which states that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{25}
{d \omega(E)\over d E} = \langle A^k | {d \Phi_{ij} \over d E} | A^k \rangle \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $A^k$ is a given normalized eigenvector for $\omega(E)$. In other words, the Feynman-Hellmann theorem states that
the derivative
of the eigenvalue of a parameter dependent Hermitian matrix
is equal to the expectation value of the derivative of
the matrix with respect to its normalized eigenvector.
The Feynman-Hellmann theorem can be generalized for the degenerate states \cite{Vatsya} but it does not change our conclusion that we will draw. Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{26}
{d \omega(E) \over d E} &=& - \sqrt{\lambda_i \lambda_j} \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} (A^{k}_{i})^{*} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{e^{{i\over \hbar} p(a_{i}-a_{j})}}{(\frac{p^2}{2m}- E)^2} \; A^{k}_{j} \cr & = & - \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar } \; \frac{1}{(\frac{p^2}{2m}- E)^2} \; \left| \sum_{i=1}^{N} e^{-{i \over \hbar} p a_{i}} \; \sqrt{\lambda_i} \; A^{k}_{i} \right|^2 < 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For $E=-|E|$, ${d \omega(E) \over d |E|} >0$.
Since there are at most $N$ distinct eigenvalues of the $N \times N$ matrix $\Phi$ and these eigenvalues are
monotonically increasing functions of $|E|$, there must be at most
$N$ bound states. This conclusion would have been rather difficult to arrive
just by following the standard method, in which the properties of
the bound states are just determined by matching conditions at the
locations of the delta centers.
\section{Degeneracies in the Bound States for Periodically Distributed Centers}
Let us consider $N$ Dirac delta potentials located equidistantly, i.e., $a_0=0, a_1=a, a_2=2a, \ldots, a_N=(N-1) a$ and $\lambda_1=\ldots=\lambda_N=\lambda$. Then, the matrix $\Phi$ given in Eq. (\ref{15}) takes the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
c_0 & c_1 & \cdots & c_{N-2} & c_{N-1} \\
c_{N-1} & c_0 & c_1 & \cdots & c_{N-2} \\
c_{N-2} & c_{N-1} & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & c_1 \\
c_1 & c_2 & \cdots & c_{N-1} & c_0
\end{array}
\right)_{N\times N} \label{circulantmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_0=1 - {m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}}$ and
\begin{eqnarray} c_j=c_{N-j}=-{m \lambda \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E|}} \; \exp
\left(-\sqrt{2m |E|} j a/\hbar \right) \end{eqnarray}
for all $j=1,\ldots, N-1$. The form of the matrix above (\ref{circulantmatrix}) is usually known as the circulant matrix. By using the Fourier matrix, it can be diagonalized and its eigenvalues can be found easily \cite{Meyer}. However, showing this is the beyond the scope of the main aim of this paper. Nevertheless, it is a simple exercise to show that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
c_0 & c_1 & \cdots & c_{N-2} & c_{N-1} \\
c_{N-1} & c_0 & c_1 & \cdots & c_{N-2} \\
c_{N-2} & c_{N-1} & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & c_1 \\
c_1 & c_2 & \cdots & c_{N-1} & c_0
\end{array}
\right) \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \zeta^l \\ \zeta^{2l} \\ \vdots \\ \zeta^{(N-1)l} \end{array}\right) = \lambda_l \; \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \zeta^l \\ \zeta^{2l} \\ \vdots \\ \zeta^{(N-1)l} \end{array}\right) \;, \label{eigenvaluesofcirculantPhimatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta$ is the $N$ th root of the unity, i.e., $\zeta=e^{2 \pi i/N}$ and $j=0,1, \ldots, N-1$ and $\lambda_l$'s are the eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi$, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_j =\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} c_k \; \zeta^{j k} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the above formula is reduced to (\ref{eigenvaluesformulaN2}) for $N=2$. We realize that for $N \geq 3$, the eigenvalues are degenerate
\begin{equation}
\omega_j=\omega_{N-j}
\end{equation}
for all $j=1,\ldots, N-1$ since
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_j = c_0 + \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} c_k \; \zeta^{j k} = c_0 + \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} c_{N-k} \; \zeta^{j k} = c_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{N-1} c_{l} \; \zeta^{j (N-l)}=c_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{N-1} c_{l} \; \zeta^{(N-j)l} =\omega_{N-j} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $\zeta^N=1$ and $j(N-l)=(N-j)l \mod N$ \cite{DJW}. Note that $\omega_0$ and $\omega_N$ cannot be degenerate. Since the matrix $\Phi$ is Hermitian, its algebraic multiplicity is equal to its geometric multiplicity \footnote{The algebraic multiplicity of an eigenvalue $\lambda$ is the number times it is repeated as a root of the characteristic polynomial, whereas the geometric multiplicity of $\lambda$ is the maximal number of linearly independent eigenvectors associated with $\lambda$.}, the eigenvectors $A_j$ associated with the degenerate eigenvalues $\omega_j$ span the degenerate space. The functions $\omega_j(E)$ are monotonic functions of $|E|$, so there exists a one-to-one relation between $\omega_j(E)$ and its zeros. From the monotonic behavior of the eigenvalues $\omega_j(E)$ and the explicit relation between the bound state wave function and the eigenvectors $A_j$, we conclude that the bound state energies are degenerate and the dimension of the degeneracy subspace of $\Phi$ is equal to the dimension of the degeneracy subspace of the bound state wave functions.
This is contrary to the common belief that there is no degeneracy in one-dimensional bound state problems \cite{LL}.
In order to understand why the non-degeneracy theorem breaks down, we first recall the standard proof of the non-degeneracy theorem for one-dimensional bound state problem of a generic potential $V$. Suppose that there are two bound states $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ associated with the same energy $E$. Then, it is easy to show \cite{LL} that the Wronskian of these solutions must be equal to a constant $C$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
W=\psi_2 { d \psi_1 \over d x} - \psi_1 { d \psi_2 \over d x} = C \;,
\end{equation}
for all $x$. For bound states, we expect that $\psi \rightarrow 0$ as $x \rightarrow \pm \infty$. As a consequence of this, one can conclude that $C=0$ as long as there is no blow up in the derivatives (this is one argument, where the nondegeneracy theorem breaks down for potentials, see \cite{Kar} ). This implies that
\begin{equation}
\psi_2 { d \psi_1 \over d x} = \psi_1 { d \psi_2 \over d x} \;.
\end{equation}
At points, where $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are nonzero, the division to $\psi_1 \psi_2$ is possible so that we have a separable differential equation
\begin{equation}
{\psi_{1}' \over \psi_1} ={\psi_{2}' \over \psi_2} \;.
\end{equation}
Hence, the solution to this is given by
$$\psi_1=c \; \psi_2 \;.$$
This contradicts with the initial assumption, which proves that there can not be degeneracy in the bound states of one-dimensional systems. This is the well-known standard proof of the nondegeneracy theorem. However, the above solution is not necessarily true at the points where $\psi_1 \psi_2 =0$. Hence, the above solution is valid only between the adjacent zeros of the $\psi_1 \psi_2$. As a result, $c$ is constant in each region where $\psi_1 \psi_2 \neq 0$ but this does not guarantee that the values of $c$ are the same for all regions. We could have multiple constant $c's$, jumping to each other at the location of zeros of $\psi_1 \psi_2$. As Loudon \cite{Loudon} pointed out that a discontinuous $c$ implies that $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ cannot both have a continuous, finite derivative at their zeros. Since $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy the Schr\"{o}dinger equation with the same eigenvalue, one can heuristically expect that the potential $V$ must have a singularity at the zeros of $\psi_1 \psi_2$. Therefore, the nondegeneracy theorem does not have to be valid for potentials having singularities and there exist one-dimensional singular potentials (e.g., one dimensional Hydrogen atom \cite{Loudon}), where degeneracies may occur.
Let us now explicitly show that the above argument is indeed the case for our problem. The explicit form of the wave function associated with bound state energy $E_B=-|E_B|$ can easily be computed by substituting the solution Eq.(\ref{bswavefunctioninmomentumspace}) for $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\cdots=\lambda_N=\lambda$ and the centers of delta potentials are located equidistantly into Eq.(\ref{Fourier}) in the manuscript, so that we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_B(x) & = & \lambda \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar} e^{{i \over \hbar} p x} \sum_{i=1}^{N} {e^{-{i \over \hbar} p a_i} \over {p^2 \over 2m} + |E_B|} \; \phi_B(a_i) \cr & = & \lambda \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_B(a_i) \sqrt{m/2} \;\; {e^{-{\sqrt{2m |E_B|} \over \hbar} |x-a_i|} \over \hbar \sqrt{|E_B|}} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to notice that $\phi_B$ is the eigenvector of the matrix $\Phi(E)$ associated with its zero eigenvalues (see Eqs. (\ref{23}), (\ref{zeroeigenvalue}), and Eq. (\ref{12})). As explicitly shown in Eq. (\ref{eigenvaluesofcirculantPhimatrix}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_B= \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \zeta^l \\ \zeta^{2l} \\ \vdots \\ \zeta^{(N-1)l} \end{array}\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta$ is the $N$th root of unity and $j=0,1,\cdots, N-1$. As a consequence of this, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_B(a_i) &=& { \lambda \sqrt{m/2} \over \hbar \sqrt{|E_B|}} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_B(a_i) \cr &=& { \lambda \sqrt{m/2} \over \hbar \sqrt{|E_B|}} \; (1+ \zeta +\zeta^2 + \cdots + \zeta^{(N-1)}) \cr & = & 0 \;,
\end{eqnarray}
due to the fact that $(1+ \zeta +\zeta^2 + \cdots + \zeta^{(N-1)})=0$ \cite{BrownChurchill}. This shows that the bound state wave function vanishes at the location where the potential has a singularity, namely at the location of the Dirac delta centers. This is exactly the situation where the non-degeneracy theorem may break down as discussed above.
Hence, we explicitly show the reason why non-degeneracy theorem breaks down for our problem when the Dirac delta centers are located equidistantly.
Actually, it has been demonstrated recently that the one-dimensional Hydrogen atom model may not be indeed a counter example of the non-degeneracy theorem when it is investigated by a more rigorous approach, namely the self-adjoint extension theory \cite{PalmaRaff}.
Although the method we have used in this paper is heuristic rather than a rigorous analysis using the self-adjoint extension theory, where one has to deal with the technicalities of the domain of the unbounded operators, it is completely consistent with the self-adjoint extension treatment of the Dirac delta potentials given in \cite{Albeverio}, as shown in appendix A.
\section{Non-degeneracy of the Ground State}
For a generic distribution of centers, it is not obvious whether the ground state is non-degenerate or not. Here, we shall show that this is indeed the case by using the Perron-Frobenius theorem (see page 661 in \cite{Meyer}) for symmetric matrices. Actually, the proof of the non-degeneracy of the ground states for some class of potentials has been discussed in \cite{reedsimonv4} and the non-degeneracy of the ground state for point interactions has been proved using the positivity preserving semi-groups generated by $\Phi$ and Beurling-Deny conditions in \cite{Albeverio}. Here we give a more elementary proof, which was also used in the two and three dimensional version of the model in \cite{ErmanTurgut}.
Let us first recall the Perron-Frobenius theorem:
Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be an $N\times N$ symmetric matrix with elements $a_{ij}>0$ and let $\lambda$ be the largest eigenvalue. There follows that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lambda>0$.
\item There exists a corresponding eigenvector $(x_{j})$ with every component $x_{j}>0$.
\item $\lambda$ is non-degenerate.
\item If $\mu$ is any other eigenvalue, $\lambda>|\mu|$.
\end{enumerate}
In order to make our presentation self-contained, an elementary proof (just using the basic knowledge of linear algebra) of this theorem is given in appendix B \cite{Ninio}.
Since the matrix $\Phi$ given in (\ref{15}) is symmetric but not positive, we cannot directly apply the Perron-Frobenius theorem. Nevertheless, we can make $\Phi$ positive in such a way that the spectrum of the problem is invariant. One simple way to achieve this is to subtract from $\Phi$ a diagonal matrix whose elements coincide with the maximum of the diagonal elements of $\Phi$ and, then, reversing the
overall sign:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi'(E) := -\left[\Phi(E)- (1+ \varepsilon)
\max_{E_{gr} \leq E < \infty} \; \diag \left( \Phi_{11} (E), \ldots, \Phi_{NN} (E) \right) \right] > 0
\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\varepsilon$ is arbitrarily small positive number. Let $E_{gr}$ be the ground state energy. Since $\Phi_{ii}(E)$ is a decreasing function of $E$, $\max_E \; \Phi_{ii}(E) = \Phi_{ii}(E_{gr})$. Let us simplify this further by replacing $\Phi_{ii}(E_{gr})$ with $\max_{i} \Phi_{ii}(E_{gr})=:\Phi(E_{gr}, \lambda_{min})$, where $\lambda_{min} :=\min_i \lambda_i$. Here, we have used the fact that $\Phi_{ii}$ is a decreasing function of $\lambda_i$. Then, we define
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi''(E):= -\left[\Phi(E)- (1+ \varepsilon)
\; I \; \Phi (E_{gr},\lambda_{min}) \right]
\;, \end{eqnarray}
where $I$ is the identity matrix. Adding a diagonal matrix to $\Phi$ does not change its eigenvectors whereas its eigenvalues are shifted by a constant amount. However, this is equivalent to an overall translation in the bound state spectrum, which is physically unobservable.
Hence, the transformed positive matrix $\Phi''$ and $\Phi$ have common eigenvectors and this guarantees that there exist a strictly positive
eigenvector $A$ for $\Phi''$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi''(E) A(E)= - \left[ \omega(E)- (1+ \varepsilon)
\; I \; \Phi(E_{gr}, \lambda_{min}) \right] \; A(E) = \omega''(E) \; A(E)
\;. \end{eqnarray}
The minimum eigenvalue of $\Phi$ corresponds to the maximum eigenvalue of $\Phi''$.
For a given $E$, there exists a strictly negative non-degenerate minimum eigenvalue of $\Phi$, say $\omega^{\min}(E)$ as a consequence of the Perron-Frobenius theorem. Since we are looking
for the zeros of the eigenvalues $\omega(E)$, $\omega^{min}$ goes to zero at the ground state energy $E_{gr}=-|E_{gr}|$, as can be easily seen in Fig. \ref{floweigenvaluesfig}. In other words, we must have
\begin{equation}
\omega^{min}(E_{gr})=0 \;.
\end{equation}
Then, from the remaining part of the Perron- Frobenius theorem, we conclude that there exists a corresponding positive
eigenvector $A_{i}(E_{gr})$ associated with the non-degenerate minimum eigenvalue $\omega^{min}(E_{gr})$. Using
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{gr} (x) & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {d p \over 2 \pi \hbar}\; \; \left( { e^{{i\over \hbar} p (x-a_i)} \over {p^2 \over 2m} +|E_{gr}|} \right) \; A_i(E_{gr}) \cr & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sqrt{\lambda_i} \; A_i(E_{gr}) \; \left( {m \over \hbar \sqrt{2m|E_{gr}|}} \; \exp
\left(-\sqrt{2m |E_{gr}|} |x-a_i|/\hbar \right) \right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
we also conclude that $\psi_{gr}(x)$ is positive so it has no node.
\begin{figure}[h!] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{deneme3}
\caption{Flow of the eigenvalues of $\Phi$} \label{floweigenvaluesfig}
\end{figure}
Another important result about the bound states is that the ground state energy increases when we remove one of the centers from the system. This can be seen from the Cauchy interlacing theorem and the monotonic behavior of the eigenvalues $\omega$ of the matrix $\Phi$. The Cauchy interlacing theorem states the following (page 552 in \cite{Meyer}):
Let $A$ be a Hermitian matrix of order $N$ and let $B$ be a principal submatrix of $A$ of order $N-1$. Let us list the eigenvalues of $A$ in decreasing order as $\lambda_{N} \leq \lambda_{N-1} \leq \cdots \leq \lambda_{2} \leq \lambda_1 $ and the same with the eigenvalues of $B$ as $\mu_{N} \leq \mu_{N-1} \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{2} $. Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{N} \leq \mu_N \leq \lambda_{N-1} \leq \mu_{N-1} \leq \cdots \leq \lambda_{2} \leq \label{cauchyinterlacingtheorem}
\end{eqnarray}
A simple proof of this theorem using the intermediate value theorem in Calculus is given in appendix C. Suppose now that we have $N$ Dirac delta centers along with the associated $N \times N$ matrix $\Phi$. As we remove one single center, its spectrum is determined from the principal submatrix of $\Phi$ of order $N-1$. From the Cauchy interlacing theorem, the eigenvalues of the matrix $\Phi$, with order $N$, are interlaced with those of any principal submatrix of $\Phi$ of order $N-1$. This means that the minimum eigenvalue of the principal submatrix of $\Phi$ is greater than or equal to the minimum eigenvalue of $\Phi$. Since the eigenvalues are increasing functions of $|E|$, we conclude that new minimum eigenvalue goes to zero at a lower point in the $|E|$ axis. Hence, the ground state energy increases for the new system. Actually, this argument can be applied to all other bound states as well.
In other words, the bound state spectrum is shifted upwards as we remove one center from the system.
The analysis of the resonance phenomena of the simpler version of the above model with positive strengths of the delta potential has been recently discussed by \cite{Sacchetti1}. Our formulation here can be also useful for studying the resonances but we shall study the analysis of resonances for a future work
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The present work has been fully financed by TUBITAK from Turkey under the "2221 - Visiting Scientist Fellowship Programme". We are very grateful to TUBITAK for this support. We also acknowledge Osman Teoman Turgut for clarifying discussions and his interest in the present research. Finally, this work
was also sponsored by the Spanish MINECO (MTM2014-57129-C2-1-P) and Junta de Castilla y Le\'on Project
No. VA057U16. Finally, we thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved this manuscript.
\section*{Appendix-A: The relation Between Our Formalism and the Self-Adjoint Extension Treatment of the Problem}
\label{AppAnew}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{A-\arabic{equation}}
The resolvent formula associated with the finitely many point interactions is well known and given as theorem 2.1.1 in \cite{Albeverio}
\begin{eqnarray}
(-\Delta_{\alpha, Y} -k^2)^{-1}= G_k + \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} [ \Gamma_{\alpha, Y} (k)]^{-1}_{ij} (G_k(.,-a_j),.) G_k(.,-a_i) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_i \in Y$, $Y=\{ a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_N\}$, $\Delta_{\alpha, Y}$ is the self-adjoint extension of the free Hamiltonian defined in (2.1.5) in \cite{Albeverio}, $G_k=(-\Delta-k^2)^{-1}$, with $k^2$ is in the resolvent set of $-\Delta_{\alpha,Y}$, $\Im k>0$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
[\Gamma_{\alpha, Y}(k)]_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
-\left[\alpha_{i}^{-1} +{i \over 2 k} \right]
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i = j$}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
- {i \over 2 k} e^{i k |a_i-a_j|}
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i \neq j$}\;. \label{Albeverio1}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the free resolvent kernel is given by $G_k (x-y) = {i \over 2 k} e^{i k |x-y|}$.
Theorem 2.1.3 in \cite{Albeverio} states that the bound state spectrum of the problem (as can be seen from the above resolvent formula) can be found from the zeros of the $\det [\Gamma_{\alpha, Y}(k)]$. It is important to notice that $\hbar=2m=1$ in \cite{Albeverio}.
Let us explicitly show that our heuristic formulation of the point interactions is completely consistent with the one given above. If we choose $\alpha_i \rightarrow - \lambda_i$ and restrict the matrix $\Gamma$ onto the negative real $E$ axis, namely $k=i \sqrt{|E|}$ ($E=k^2$ and $\Im k >0$), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
[\Gamma_{\lambda, Y}(E)]_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
\left[\lambda_{i}^{-1} -{1 \over 2 \sqrt{|E|}} \right]
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i = j$}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
- {1 \over 2 \sqrt{|E|}} e^{-\sqrt{|E|} |a_i-a_j|}
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i \neq j$}\;. \label{Albeverio2}
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to show that our matrix $\Phi$ given in Eq. (14) is related by $\Gamma(E)$ through the following similarity transformation
\begin{equation}
S \; \Gamma(E) \; S^T = \Phi(E) \;,
\end{equation}
where $S= \diag(\sqrt{\lambda_1}, \cdots, \sqrt{\lambda_N})$. Here we have removed the subscripts $\lambda$ and $Y$ of $\Gamma$. This shows that $\det \Gamma(E) = \det \Phi(E)$. Therefore, our formulation is equivalent to the one given in \cite{Albeverio}. The only difference is that we exclude the case, where $\lambda_i$'s are infinite and consider only the bound states.
\section*{Appendix-B: A Proof of the Perron-Frobenius Theorem}
\label{AppA}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{B-\arabic{equation}}
We give the simple proof of the Perron-Frobenius theorem for symmetric matrices given in \cite{Ninio}. Since the eigenvalues of $A$ are real and the sum of the eigenvalues are equal to the trace of $A$, we have $\tr A>0$. Then, $\lambda>0$.
Let $(u_{j})$ be any real normalized eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue $\lambda$. Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
A u_{i}=\lambda u_{i}=\sum_{j}a_{ij} \; u_{j} \;, \label{eigenvalue problem perron one}
\end{eqnarray}
for $i=1,\ldots,n$ . Setting $x_{j}=|u_{j}|$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
0<\lambda=\sum_{ij}a_{ij} \, u_{i} \, u_{j}=\Big|\sum_{ij} a_{ij} \, u_{i} \, u_{j}\Big| \;,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda\leq\sum_{ij}|a_{ij}| \, |u_{i}| \, |u_{j}|=\sum_{ij}a_{ij} \, x_{i} \, x_{j} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
By means of the variational theorem, the right hand side is less than or equal to $\lambda$ (it is equal if and only if $(x_j)$ is the eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue $\lambda$). Hence, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda \, x_{i}=\sum_{j}a_{ij} \, x_{j} \;, \label{eigenvalue problem perron two}
\end{eqnarray}
for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Therefore, if $x_{i}=0$ for some $i$, then because of $a_{ij}>0$ for all $j$, $x_{j}=0$ which cannot be true. Thus, $x_{j}>0$. This completes the first two part of the theorem.
For the third part, let us assume that $\lambda$ is degenerate. Hence, we can find two real orthonormal eigenvectors $(u_{j})$ and $(v_{j})$ associated with $\lambda$. Suppose that $u_{i}<0$ for some $i$. From the addition of Eq. (\ref{eigenvalue problem perron one}) and (\ref{eigenvalue problem perron two}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda(u_{i}+x_{i})=\sum_{j} a_{ij} \, (u_{j}+x_{j}) \Rightarrow \lambda \, (u_{i}+|u_{i}|)=\sum_{j}a_{ij} \, (u_{j}+|u_{j}|) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Then, $u_{j}=-|u_{j}|$ for every $j$. If we assume that $u_{i}>0$ for some $i$ and subtracting Eq. (\ref{eigenvalue problem perron two}) from (\ref{eigenvalue problem perron one}), we obtain $u_{j}=|u_{j}|$. That means $u_{j}=\pm|u_{j}|$ and by applying the same procedure, we also have $v_{j}=\pm|v_{j}|$. Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{j}v_{j} \, u_{j}=\pm \sum_{j}|v_{j} \, u_{j}| \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $|u_{j}|,|v_{j}|\neq0$ for all $j$, $|v_{j} \, u_{j}|\neq0$ which means that $u$ and $v$ cannot be orthogonal. Because of the contradiction with the first assumption, we conclude that $\lambda$ is non-degenerate.
As for the last part, let $(w_{j})$ be a normalized eigenvector associated with $\mu$ such that $\mu<\lambda$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{j}a_{ij} \, w_{j}=\mu \, w_{i} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
From the variational property and the non degeneracy of $\lambda$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda >\sum_{ij}a_{ij} \, |w_{i}| \, |w_{j}| \geq \Big| \sum_{ij}a_{ij} \, w_{i} \, w_{j} \Big|=|\mu| \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\section*{Appendix-C: A Proof of the Cauchy Interlacing Theorem}
\label{AppB}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{C-\arabic{equation}}
Here we give a simple proof of the Cauchy interlacing theorem using intermediate value theorem. This proof was originally given in \cite{cauchyinterlacing} and we give it here in order to be self-contained.
Without loss of generality, the submatrix $B$ occupies rows $2,3, \ldots, N$ and columns $2,3, \ldots, N$. Then, the matrix $A$ has the following form:
\begin{eqnarray} A=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & \mathbf{y}^{\dagger} \\
\mathbf{y} & B
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\dagger$ denotes the Hermitian conjugation. Since $B$ is also Hermitian, we can diagonalize it by a unitary transformation $U$:
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{\dagger} \, B \, U = D \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $D=\diag(\mu_2, \mu_3, \ldots, \mu_N)$. For simplicity, let us define a new vector $\mathbf{z}=(z_2, z_3, \ldots, z_N)^{T} := U^{\dagger} \, \mathbf{y}$, where $T$ denotes the transposition. Here we only give the proof for the special case, where $\mu_N < \mu_{N-1} < \cdots, < \mu_3 < \mu_2$ and $z_i \neq 0$ for all $i=2,3, \ldots, N$. The complete proof can be found in \cite{cauchyinterlacing}. Let
\begin{eqnarray} V=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \mathbf{0}^{T} \\
\mathbf{0} & U
\end{array}
\right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{0}$ is the zero vector. Since $U$ is unitary, $V$ is also unitary. It is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray} V^{\dagger} \, A \, V =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & z^{\dagger} \\
z & D
\end{array}
\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define the following function $f$:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x):= \det(x I -A)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $I$ denotes the identity matrix. Since the determinant is invariant under unitary transformations, we have $f(x)=\det(x I - V^{\dagger} \, A \, V)$, or explicitly
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x)=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
x-a & -z_2{}^* & -z_3{}^* & \cdots & -z_{N-1}{}^* & -z_N{}^* \\
-z_2 & x-\mu _2 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
-z_3 & 0 & x-\mu _3 & 0 & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & 0 \\
-z_{N-1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & x-\mu _{N-1} & 0 \\
-z_N & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x-\mu _N
\end{array}
\right) \;.
\end{eqnarray}
If we expand this determinant along the first row, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x)=(x-a)(x-\mu_2) \cdots (x-\mu_N) - \sum_{i=2}^{N} f_i(x) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_i(x)=|z_i|^2 (x-\mu_2) \cdots \widehat{(x-\mu_i)} \cdots (x-\mu_N)$ for $i=2,3, \ldots, N$. Here the factor with a hat is deleted. Note that $f_i(\mu_j)=0$ for $j \neq i$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i(\mu_i)
\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
>0
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i$ is even}\;, \\ \\
\begin{split}
<0
\end{split}
& \textrm{if $i$ is odd}\;.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $f(\mu_i)= -f_i(\mu_i)$, the sign of $f(\mu_i)$ is opposite to that of $f_i(\mu_i)$. It is easy to see that $f(x)$ is a polynomial of degree $N$ with positive leading coefficient. Using this and the fact $f(x)$ is the characteristic equation for the matrix $A$, and intermediate value theorem \cite{Calculus}, we conclude that there exist $N$ roots $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots, \lambda_N$ of the equation $f(x)=0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_N < \mu_{N} < \lambda_{N-1} < \mu_{N-1} < \cdots < \lambda_2 < \mu_2 < \lambda_1 \;.
\end{eqnarray}
This is the result we wanted to show.
|
\section{Introduction}
Laser-illuminated metal nanostructures provide versatile local heat engines \cite{Baf13}, with optofluidic
applications such as trapping of nanoobjects \cite{Bra13,Lin17}, manipulation of biological cells \cite{Lin17b},
microflows in capillaries \cite{Bre16}, and colloidal assembly \cite{Lin17a}. Similarly, thermally powered
artificial microswimmers rely on the conversion of absorbed heat to motion; experimental realisations include
metal-capped Janus particles that are driven by surface forces \cite{Jia10,But12,Bar13,Sim16}, and interface
floaters that are advected by their self-generated Marangoni flow \cite{Gir16,Wue14}.
Force-free localization and steering have been achieved by temporal \cite{Bre14}\ or spatial \cite{Loz16}
modulation of the laser power.
These experiments also revealed strong dependencies on material properties: Thus
a reversal of the swimming direction was observed upon rendering the particle's
active cap hydrophilic instead of hydrophobic \cite{But12}, or upon adding a non-ionic
surfactant to the solvent \cite{Jia10}. Similarly, copolymer coating of a
glass surface increased the thermo-osmotic velocity by one order of
magnitude \cite{Bre16}.
Most of the cited experiments give evidence for creep flow induced by a temperature gradient in the electric
double layer at the active surface. Very recently, a specific-ion effect was reported for silica colloids
carrying a gold cap: their swimming velocity in a 10 mM NaCl solution changed significantly when replacing
the cation with Lithium, or the anion with hydroxide \cite{Sim16}. These findings indicate that self-propulsion
depends on the electrolyte Seebeck field \cite{Wue10}, confirming previous observations on passive particles
in an external temperature gradient, which migrated to the cold in an NaCl solution and to the hot in
NaOH \cite{Put05,Vig10,Esl14}. Recently an enhanced Seebeck-induced flow was predicted in confined geometries \cite{Die16}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width= 9cm]{Fig1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Janus particle with a gold-coated upper hemisphere.
a) The electric double layer of a micron-size particle; the diffuse layer of thickness $\lambda\sim$ a few nm, contains
a charge $Q\sim 10^5e$. b) Upon heating the gold cap, the electrolyte Seebeck effect induces a thermocharge density
$\rho_T$ which adds to the diffuse layer. We show the case $\rho_T>0$; for an excess temperature of a few Kelvin,
the total thermocharge is $Q_T\sim 100e$ \protect\cite{Maj12}. The corresponding negative ions are at the boundary
of the experimental cell. The arrows indicate the thermoelectric field. c) Schematic view of the thermoelectric
field after subtraction of the monopole term $\propto Q_T/r^2$. The diffuse layer is not shown. The parallel
component $E_\parallel$ vanishes at the conducting gold surface; at larger distance one has the dipolar field $\propto r^{-3}$.}
\end{figure}
In this paper we study how the electrolyte Seebeck effect modifies the electric
double layer and drives a creep flow along a surface with non-uniform temperature.
The main features are illustrated in Fig. 1 at the example of a gold-capped Janus particle,
but are generally valid for metal nanostructures in contact with water \cite{Bra13,Lin17,Lin17b,Bre16,Lin17a}.
Upon heating the gold cap with a laser, the salt ions move along the temperature gradient,
and an excess charge $Q_T$ forms at the hot surface, as shown in the middle panel; the
corresponding negative ions are at the wall of the container. The resulting electric
field comprises, besides the radial monopole term $\propto Q_T/r^2$, a parallel component
along the particle surface; the latter exerts a force on the double layer and induces creep flow.
We address two main questions: First, how are the double layer and the Seebeck field
modified by the electrostatic boundary conditions at insulating and conducting surfaces?
Second, the equipotential condition at a conductor requires a zero parallel electric field,
as illustrated for the upper hemisphere in Fig. 1c. Does this imply that the thermoelectric
creep velocity is suppressed at the gold cap of Janus particles?
The outline of our paper is as follows. In Sect. II we briefly review the bulk electrolyte
Seebeck effect, where boundary effects are irrelevant. In Sect. III we evaluate the thermocharge
and the Seebeck near-field at a surface, which are sketched in Fig. 1 b and c. Starting from the
integral expression of Gauss' law, the thermoelectric properties and the modification of the
double-layer are derived both for insulating and conducting surfaces. Sect. V is devoted to the
thermodynamic forces resulting from the non-equilibrium state of the double layer, and to the
creep flow along the surface. Novel results arise from the parallel component of the thermoelectric
and polarization fields derived in Sect. IV. In the final sections we discuss and summarize our results.
\section{Electrolyte solution in a temperature gradient}
We briefly review the steady-state response of an electrolyte solution to a non-uniform
temperature \cite{Gro62}, the resulting Soret and Seebeck effects, and in particular the thermoelectric field.
\subsection{Thermodynamic forces}
Consider monovalent ions with concentrations $n_\pm$, enthalpy $H_\pm$, and chemical potential
$\mu_\pm=H_\pm + k_BT\ln n_\pm$. Then the ions are subject to the thermodynamic forces, which derive from
the Planck potential $\mu_\pm/T$ \cite{Gro62},
\begin{equation}
-T\mathbf{\nabla} \frac{\mu_\pm}{T} =
- k_BT\frac{ \mathbf{\nabla} n_{\pm }}{n_\pm} + H_{\pm }\frac{\mathbf{\nabla }T}{T} ,
\label{eq0}
\end{equation}
where the first term in (\ref{eq0}) accounts for gradient diffusion, and the second one for thermodiffusion
along the temperature gradient. The prefactor of the latter arises from the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation
$d(\mu_\pm/T)/dT=-H_\pm/T^2$. Note that this relation does not imply constant enthalpies; the quantities
$H_{\pm }$ may depend on temperature.
These thermodynamic forces give rise to ion currents $\mathbf{J}_{\pm }$. When including an electric
field $\mathbf{E}$ we find
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J}_{\pm }
= m_{\pm } \left( - k_B T \nabla n_{\pm } + n_\pm H_\pm \frac{\mathbf{\nabla }T}{T} \pm en_\pm \mathbf{E} \right) ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where we have assumed that the mobilities $m_{\pm }$ are the same for thermodynamic and electric forces,
and are related to the diffusion coefficients by $m_{\pm } = D_{\pm }/k_BT$. The steady state is, in general,
characterized by the condition of constant currents with zero divergency, $\rm{\nabla}\cdot\mathbf{J}_{\pm } = 0$.
In the case of a closed system with solid boundaries, and in the absence of external forces acting on the ions,
however, there is no source field and the currents vanish. In this preliminary section, we consider
non-interacting boundaries, and thus put $\mathbf{J}_{\pm } = 0$.
\subsection{Salt Soret effect}
It turns out convenient to consider the salinity $n=(n_++n_-)/2$ and the charge density
$\rho=e(n_+-n_-)$ rather than the ion concentrations $n_\pm$. Then the sum of $\mathbf{J}_\pm=0$
provides the ``Soret equilibrium'' for the salinity,
\begin{equation}
\nabla n + n S_T \mathbf{\nabla }T = 0 ,
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
with the salt Soret coefficient
\begin{equation}
S_T= \frac{H_{+} + H_{-}}{2k_BT^2}.
\label{}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq6}) implies a salinity gradient throughout the sample. Since the enthalpies $H_\pm$ are
of the order of $k_B T$, the relative salinity change is comparable to the relative excess temperature,
$\Delta n/n\sim\Delta T/T$. Soret data for various salts were first reported by Chipman in 1926 \cite{Chi26}.
\subsection{Electrolyte Seebeck effect and surface charges}
Now we consider the difference of the equations $\mathbf{J}_\pm=0$, which result in a relation for the
stationary charge density and electric field. Far from the boundaries, the charge density $\rho$ must
vanish because of the huge cost in electrostatic energy required by charge separation. Then we find that,
in order to satisfy the zero-current condition, the temperature gradient is accompanied by a constant
bulk electric field,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{E}_T = S\mathbf{\nabla }T,
\label{eq4}
\end{equation}
with the coefficient
\begin{equation}
S = - \frac{H_{+} - H_{-}}{2eT}.
\end{equation}
$\mathbf{E}_T$ is called the macroscopic thermoelectric field, in analogy to the Seebeck effect in metals
and semiconductors \cite{Put05}. In the latter, the Seebeck coefficient is determined by the temperature
dependence of electronic properties, whereas for an electrolyte solution, $S$ is given by the difference
of ion enthalpies. Depending on the $H_\pm$, the Seebeck coefficient may take either sign; typical values
are of the order of $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{V/K}$ \cite{Wue10}. In the literature one often finds the ``heat of
transport'' $Q_\pm = - H_\pm$ with the opposite sign; the most complete data so far are reported in
Ref.~\cite{Nak88}. The above derivation of the Seebeck field has first been given by Guthrie \cite{Gut49},
relying on the conditions of zero ion currents and zero charge.
Like any static electric field, $\mathbf{E}_T$ must originate from positive and negative charges. Starting
from $\mathbf{J}_\pm=0$ and allowing for finite $\rho$, we obtain a relation for the stationary charge
density and electric field,
\begin{equation}
\nabla \rho + \frac{\varepsilon}{\lambda^2} ( S\mathbf{\nabla }T - \mathbf{E} )= 0 ,
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
with the Debye length $\lambda^2=\varepsilon k_BT/2ne^2$. Adding Gauss' law
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot\varepsilon\mathbf{E}=\rho
\label{eq3}
\end{equation}
one finds that the only solution in the bulk corresponds to (\ref{eq4}) with $\rho=0$. At the hot and cold
boundaries, however, there are finite thermocharge densities $\rho_T$ of opposite sign. In physical terms,
the thermocharges originate from the unlike thermodiffusion of the cations and anions in (\ref{eq1}).
We briefly summarize the above derivation of the electrolyte Seebeck effect. It arises from the tendency of
salt ions to migrate along a temperature gradient. The underlying thermodynamic forces $H_\pm \nabla T/T$
follow from the entropy balance of the non-equilibrium electrolyte solution \cite{Gro62}. Regarding the
salt concentration $n=\frac{1}{2}(n_++n_-)$, the Soret equilibrium (\ref{eq6}) describes the stationary
salinity gradient; in physical terms it satisfies the steady-state condition, requesting that diffusion and
thermodiffusion currents of salt cancel each other.
The Seebeck effect presents a more intricate situation, since it stems from the difference of cation and anion
currents. An enthalpy difference $H_+\ne H_-$, tends to partly separate positive and negative ions. As an
important consequence, this results in surface charges and a macroscopic thermoelectric field. Thus one has
to satisfy Gauss' law, in addition to the steady-state condition.
For a negative Seebeck coefficient, the thermodiffusion currents result in positive and negative charges at
the hot and cold boundaries, respectively. In the case of a heated particle in a bulk electrolyte solution,
the hot boundary reduces to the particle surface, which accordingly is covered by a diffuse layer of mobile
cations, as illustrated in Fig. 1b. Then the particle carries a net thermocharge which is related by Gauss'
law to a monopole field that decays as $r^{-2}$ with the distance $r$ \cite{Maj12}; the field lines end
at the corresponding anions which are at the wall of the experimental cell. In the present paper we are
concerned with the dipolar contribution of the Seebeck field, which is sketched in Fig.~1c.
The linear equations (\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq3}) correspond to the Debye-H\"uckel approximation. Their solution is
generally valid at otherwise uncharged boundaries. Simple 1D and radially symmetric 3D geometries have been studied
previously in \cite{Maj11,Maj12}. The general case of an uncharged surface is treated in
Sect. \ref{subsect:uncharged surface} and in Appendix A. A more complex situation occurs at charged surfaces, since
the diffuse layer comprises the counterions and the thermocharge; in the following section this is treated in
non-linear Poisson-Boltzmann theory.
\section{Thermocharge and thermoelectric near-field}
Here we evaluate how the thermoelectric properties at the particle surface depend on the material
properties, and in particular on its surface charge and electrical conductivity. We first write the usual boundary
layer approximation in a form that is well adapted to the condition imposed by the Seebeck far-field.
Thus we calculate the thermocharge density $\rho_T$ and the thermoelectric field in the vicinity of the surface. In
order to clearly separate the charge effects induced by the temperature gradient from those of the electric double
layer, we first study an insulating particle that does not carry surface charges. The strong permittivity contrast
between water and typical materials such as polystyrene or silica, simplifies the electrostatic boundary conditions.
Then we consider charged surfaces and, moreover, distinguish insulating and conducting materials. The main difficulty
arises from the fact that the diffuse layer contains both the counterions of Fig. 1a and the thermocharge of Fig. 1b,
which have to be treated on an equal footing in terms of Poisson-Boltzmann theory.
\subsection{Boundary layer approximation}
Surface charges of colloidal particles are screened by a diffuse layer of counterions. An analytic mean-field
solution exists in one dimension only. It provides a controlled approximation at curved surfaces, as long as the
local curvature radius is much larger than the Debye screening length $\lambda$. Then there is a separation of
length scales: The properties of the electric double layer vary much more rapidly in perpendicular direction than
parallel to the surface.
The resulting approximation is best discussed in terms of Gauss' law (\ref{eq3}). The normal field component
varies on the scale of $\lambda$, whereas the permittivity and the parallel electric field vary on the scale
of the particle radius $a$. Thus to linear order in $\lambda/a$, Gauss' law simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE_{\perp}}{dz} = \frac{\rho}{\varepsilon} ,
\end{equation}
where $z$ is the distance from the surface. Here and in the following, $E_{\perp}$ points away from the surface; thus
for a spherical particle, $E_{\perp}$ is the radial component, and $z=r-a$.
For further use, we integrate from the surface to a distance $B$ that is much larger than the
screening length but much smaller than the particle radius, $\lambda\ll B\ll a$, and find
\begin{equation}
{E}_{\perp}(B) - {E}_{\perp}(0) = \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^B dz \rho(z)
\equiv \frac{\sigma}{\varepsilon} .
\label{eq7}
\end{equation}
The second identity defines the charge density per unit area of the diffuse layer. This parameter
also determines the double-layer potential $\varphi_\sigma$, as is obvious from the
Poisson-Boltzmann mean-field expression (\ref{B2}) for the diffuse layer.
In the case of an electric double layer at equilibrium, the electric field vanishes at large distance,
${E}_{\perp}(B)=0$, resulting at the particle surface in ${E}_{\perp}(0) = - \sigma/\varepsilon$.
Then $-\sigma$ corresponds to the charge per unit area of the surface, which exactly cancels
that of the diffuse layer.
On the contrary, the main results of the present paper are derived from Eq. (\ref{eq7}),
with the outer boundary condition determined by the thermoelectric far-field (\ref{eq4}).
This implies that $\sigma$ as defined in (\ref{eq7}) contains counterions and thermocharge, and thus
does no longer define the surface charge density.
\subsection{Uncharged insulating surface}\label{subsect:uncharged surface}
Because of the strong permittivity contrast of water and silica or polystyrene, the Seebeck field hardly
penetrates the surface. Then the electrostatic boundary conditions require that the normal electric field
vanishes at the surface, whereas at the outer boundary one has the bulk Seebeck field,
\begin{equation}
E_{\perp}(0)=0, \;\;\;\; E_{\perp}(B) = S\nabla_\perp T_S.
\end{equation}
In the outer boundary condition we have used that the temperature gradient at $B$ (with $B\ll a$) hardly differs
from its value at the surface. In other words, the temperature gradient $\nabla_\perp T$ may be taken as constant
well beyond the charged layer.
From Gauss' law (\ref{eq7}) one readily finds
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon S\nabla_\perp T_S= \int_0^B dz \rho_T(z) \equiv \sigma_T ,
\label{eq8}
\end{equation}
where the second equality defines the thermocharge per unit area. Since the temperature decreases with the
distance from the surface, the outward component of the gradient is negative, $\nabla_\perp T<0$. Thus a
negative Seebeck coefficient implies a positive surface charge at the hot boundary, $\sigma_T>0$, as illustrated in Fig. 1b.
In general, the temperature varies also along the particle surface, and so does $\sigma_T$, as illustrated in Fig. 1b.
As a consequence, the Seebeck field is not radially symmetric. In particular, the difference in thermocharge between
the upper and lower hemispheres is at the origin of the dipolar field component shown in Fig.~1c.
In physical terms, the thermocharge screens the Seebeck field as one
approaches the solid boundary. For a micron size particle at an excess temperature of 10 K, and a typical Seebeck parameter
$S=10^{-4}\,\mathrm{V/K}$, the surface charge density $\sigma_T$ takes a value of about $10e$ per
square micron and the electric field about 1 kV/m. Because of its small value, the thermocharge
is well described by Debye-H\"uckel theory with an exponential decay,
\begin{equation}
\rho_T(z)= e^{-z/\lambda}\sigma_T/\lambda.
\end{equation}
One readily finds that the normal component of the electric field is screened by the thermocharge
such that it vanishes at the surface
\begin{equation}
E_\perp^T =S\nabla_\perp T (1 - e^{-z/\lambda}).
\label{eq9}
\end{equation}
The parallel component, on the other hand, remains unchanged and is finite at the surface,
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel ^T =S\nabla_\parallel T_S.
\label{eq9a}
\end{equation}
These equations express thermocharge and Seebeck field through local quantities. In Appendix A we rederive these
quantities in terms of a multipole expansion for a spherical particle. The above $E_\perp^T$ has been obtained
previously \cite{Maj11,Maj12} for simple geometries where $E_\parallel ^T =0$ .
\subsection{Charged insulating surface}
Now we consider an insulating surface with an electric double layer. We assume a negative surface charge
density $-\sigma_0$, as is the case for most colloids. Then the electric field satisfies the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
E_{\perp}(0)=-\sigma_0/\varepsilon, \;\;\;\; E_{\perp}(B) = S\nabla_\perp T_S.
\end{equation}
From Gauss' law (\ref{eq7}) one readily finds
\begin{equation}
S\nabla_\perp T_S + \frac{\sigma_0}{\varepsilon}
= \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^B dz (\rho _{T}+\rho _{0})
= \frac{\sigma_I}{\varepsilon} ,
\label{eq30}
\end{equation}
with the charge density of mobile ions per unit area,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_I=\sigma_T+\sigma_0,
\label{eq31}
\end{equation}
consisting of the thermocharge and the particle's counterions.
The corresponding Poisson-Boltzmann potential $\varphi_{\sigma_I}$, which is defined through
$\rho _{T}+\rho _{0}=-\varepsilon \partial_z^2\varphi_{\sigma_I}$, has to be calculated with an effective
parameter ${\sigma_I}$, which is different from the actual surface charge $-\sigma_0$. Then we have the total potential
\begin{equation}
\varphi_I = \varphi_T+ \varphi_{\sigma_I}.
\label{eq32}
\end{equation}
The normal component of the electric field reads
\begin{equation}
E_{\perp}(z) = S\nabla _\perp T - \nabla_\perp\varphi_{\sigma_I}.
\end{equation}
The second term decays rapidly through the screening layer, where the first one is constant on the
scale of the Debye length. With the explicit result (\ref{B5}) for the second term, the near-field takes the simple form
\begin{equation}
E_\perp(z) = \frac{\sigma_T}{\varepsilon } -\frac{\sigma_0
+ \sigma_T}{\varepsilon }e^{-z/\lambda }\frac{1-g^{2}}{1- \hat{g}^{2}}, \;\;\;\;\; (z\ll a) ,
\end{equation}
with $\hat{g}=e^{-z/\lambda}g$ and the parameter $g$ as defined in (\ref{B3a}). One readily verifies that $E_{\perp}$ satisfies
the above boundary conditions.
The parallel component of the electric field,
\begin{equation}
E_{\parallel}(z)= S\nabla _{\parallel }T_S - \nabla _{\parallel }\varphi_{\sigma_I} ,
\label{eq33}
\end{equation}
does not vanish at the surface $z=0$. The explicit form of the second term $\nabla _{\parallel }\varphi_{\sigma_I}$ could be
readily calculated from the Poisson-Boltzmann potential (\ref{B3}); it turns out that it is small as compared to the bare Seebeck
field,
\begin{equation}
E_{\parallel}(z)= S\nabla _{\parallel }T_S (1+ O(\lambda/a)),
\label{eq:E_ins}
\end{equation}
and thus may be discarded.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Electric double-layer in a thermal gradient (temperature
increases from left to right). The left panel shows an insulating material. The surface charge
density $\protect\sigma _{0}$ is not affected by the Seebeck effect, whereas
the diffuse layer comprises the non-uniform thermocharge density $\protect\rho _{T}$.
Its absolute value $|\rho_T|$ is proportional to the excess surface temperature, and its sign depends on
the Seebeck coefficient; we show the case $S<0$. At a conducting surface (right panel), the
parallel component of the electric field vanishes. The condition (\ref{6}) requires a polarization charge
$\protect\sigma_{P}$ which induces a corresponding
displacement of counterions $\rho_{P}$. Thus the diffuse layer consists of the counterions of
$\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_P$, and of the thermocharge $\rho_T$. For typical parameters, these
contributions satisfy $|\rho_T|\ll |\rho_P| \ll |\rho_0|$. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Charged conducting surface}
Now we turn to conducting surfaces, such as the gold cap of the upper hemisphere in Fig. 1c.
The electrostatic boundary conditions impose a constant potential, or a vanishing
parallel electric field \cite{And06}, whereas at the outer boundary $z=B$, it is given by the
Seebeck far-field:
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel (0) = S\nabla_\parallel T_S - \nabla_\parallel \varphi_{\sigma_C}(0) = 0,
\;\;\;\;\; \mathbf{E} (B) = S\mathbf{\nabla} T.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
These conditions cannot be satisfied with the constant surface charge $-\sigma_0$ discussed so far.
To achieve (\ref{6}) the mobile electrons in the metal surface move until their polarization
charge density $\sigma _{P}$ results in a constant surface potential. The polarization charge is determined by inserting
$\varphi_\sigma$ with
\begin{equation}
{\sigma_C}(x) = \sigma_T(x)+\sigma_0+\sigma_P(x)
\label{eq34}
\end{equation}
in Eq. (\ref{6}) and solving for $\sigma_P$. Assuming that the total charge does not change, one
has for the surface integral $\left< \sigma_P \right>=S^{-1}\int dS\sigma_P=0$. Its derivation is given in Appendix C.
Its overall behavior is illustrated by the simpler expression (\ref{eq92}) obtained in Debye-H\"uckel approximation,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_P = \frac{\varepsilon S(T_S - \left< T_S \right> )}{\lambda} , \;\;\;\;\;\; (\mathrm{DHA}).
\label{eq35}
\end{equation}
The polarization charge varies along the surface and even changes sign. For a negative Seebeck coefficient,
one has $\sigma_P<0$ at the hot end of the metal surface, and $\sigma_P>0$ at the cold end, as shown in Fig.~2b.
Since the diffuse layer screens the local surface charge density, $\sigma_{P}$ induces a corresponding
change of the mobile charge density, $\rho_{P} $, and we have $\rho_C = \rho _T+\rho _{0}+\rho _P$.
We recall that the double-layer potential $\varphi_\sigma$ is calculated with the parameter $\sigma_C$
which accounts for the charge density of the diffuse layer, $\sigma_C=\int dz \rho_C(z)$, whereas the
surface charge density is given by $-(\sigma_0+\sigma_P)$. Accordingly, we have
\begin{equation}
E_{\bot }(0) =- \frac{\sigma_{0}+\sigma_{P}}{\varepsilon}
\label{26}
\end{equation}
at the particle surface.
The parallel field component of the electric field,
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel(z)
= S\mathbf{\nabla}_\parallel T_S - \mathbf{\nabla}_\parallel \varphi_{\sigma_C}(z),
\label{27}
\end{equation}
is zero at the particle surface. With increasing distance, the double-layer potential $\varphi_\sigma$
decays and vanishes well beyond the screening length, and the electric field is given by (\ref{eq4}). The overall
behavior is best displayed in Debye-H\"uckel approximation,
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel(z)
= S\mathbf{\nabla}_\parallel T_S \left( 1 - e^{-z/\lambda}\right) ,\;\;\;\; (\mathrm{DHA}).
\label{eq:E_cond}
\end{equation}
This expression satisfies both the surface and far-field boundary conditions (\ref{6}). The crossover occurs at
the scale of the Debye length and results from the polarization charge $\sigma_P$, whereas the far-field is related
to the thermocharge $\sigma_T$.
\section{Non-equilibrium double-layer and creep flow}
In the absence of interactions between the electrolyte solution and the boundaries, the stationary state is
characterized by a salt gradient, a Seebeck field, and thermocharges at the boundaries, but there is no flow
or electric current; compare the steady state obtained in Sect. II. Now we turn to interacting surfaces, more
precisely to charged boundaries with an electric double layer, and we derive the creep flow along the surface.
We linearize in the gradients of the non-equilibrium state; this implies that we do not consider the coupling
of the Seebeck field with the thermocharge.
\subsection{Thermodynamic forces and slip velocity}
Closely following Ref. \cite{Wue10}, we derive how the electric double layer of the surface interacts with the
temperature gradient and its companion fields. Novel results arise from the coupling of the diffuse layer with
the Seebeck field. We start from the well-known expression for the effective slip velocity \cite{Der41,And89},
\begin{equation}
v_s = \frac{1}{\eta} \int_0^\infty dz z f_\parallel ,
\label{eq40}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is the solvent viscosity and $f_\parallel$ the parallel component of the thermodynamic force density
arising from the non-equilibrium state.
The force acting on a unit volume of the electric double layer comprises the divergency of the Maxwell tensor
$\mathcal{T}$ and the gradient of the osmotic pressure $P$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f} = \mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathcal{T} - \mathbf{\nabla} P .
\label{eq41}
\end{equation}
The former accounts for the electric energy of the double layer; the resulting force
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathcal{T} = \rho \mathbf{E} - \frac{1}{2}E^2 \mathbf{\nabla}\varepsilon
= \rho (S\mathbf{\nabla} T - \mathbf{\nabla} \varphi_\sigma)
- \frac{1}{2}E^2 \mathbf{\nabla}\varepsilon,
\label{force}
\end{equation}
consists of the Coulomb force on the diffuse layer and the change in electric energy due to a permittivity
gradient \cite{Str41,Lan87,Fay08}. The second equality separates the double-layer and Seebeck contributions
to the Coulomb force.
The second term in (\ref{eq41}) stems from the osmotic pressure $P=\delta nk_BT$ exerted by the excess ion
concentration $\delta n$ in the double layer. Inserting (\ref{B8}) and evaluating the gradient, one needs
to account for the variation with temperature, salinity, and the potential $\varphi_\sigma$, resulting in
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\nabla} P = -\rho \mathbf{\nabla} \varphi_\sigma
+(\rho\varphi_{\sigma} + \delta nk_BT) \frac{\mathbf{\nabla} T}{T}
+ \delta n k_BT \frac{\mathbf{\nabla}n}{n}.
\end{equation}
In these relations for $\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathcal{T}$ and $ \mathbf{\nabla} P$, the potential $ \varphi_\sigma$
varies rapidly in normal direction, and slowly along the surface. The quantities $T$, $\varepsilon$, and $n$
vary slowly in all directions, on the scale of the particle parameter, whereas the charge density $\rho$ and the ion
density $\delta n$ vanish beyond the diffuse layer.
Gathering the different terms one obtains the force density
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f} = \rho S \mathbf{\nabla} T - (\rho\varphi_{\sigma} + \delta nk_BT) \frac{\mathbf{\nabla} T}{T}
- \delta n k_BT \frac{\mathbf{\nabla}n}{n}
- \frac{1}{2} E^2\mathbf{ \nabla} \varepsilon.
\label{eq46}
\end{equation}
In addition to the temperature gradient, $ \mathbf{f} $ depends on the gradients of salinity and permittivity,
induced by the Soret effect and the temperature dependence of $\varepsilon$. In linear-response approximation,
we replace the coefficients of the gradients in (\ref{eq46}) by the corresponding equilibrium quantities, and
the electric field in the last term by $-\nabla\varphi_{\sigma_0}$. The gradient fields in (\ref{eq46}) are
constant on the scale of the screening length, whereas the coefficients $\rho$, $\delta n$, and $E$ vanish well
beyond the diffuse layer.
As a remarkable feature, the parallel gradient $\nabla_\parallel \varphi_{\sigma}$ has disappeared from the
double-layer forces. While both the electrostatic force $\nabla\cdot\mathcal{T}$ and the pressure gradient $\nabla P$
depend on the precise form of the parameter $\sigma$, these terms cancel in (\ref{eq46}), and so do the polarization
contributions. With the Poisson-Boltzmann expressions for $\varphi_{\sigma}$ and its derivatives given in Appendix B,
the integrals in (\ref{eq40}) are readily performed \cite{Mor99,Wue08},
\begin{equation}
v_s = - \frac{\varepsilon\zeta} {\eta}S \nabla_\parallel T
+ \frac{\varepsilon(\zeta^2-3\zeta_T^2)}{2 \eta} \frac{ \nabla_\parallel T} {T}
- \frac{\varepsilon\zeta_T^2}{2 \eta}
\left(\frac{\nabla_\parallel \varepsilon} {\varepsilon} +\frac{\nabla_\parallel n} {n} \right),
\label{eq48}
\end{equation}
with the surface potential $\zeta=\varphi_{\sigma_0}(0)$ and the quantity $\zeta_T=(2k_BT/e)[\ln\cosh(e\zeta/4k_BT)^2]^{1/2}$.
Each term of the slip velocity consists of a gradient field characterizing the non-equilibrium state of the electrolyte solution,
and a coefficient that depends on the equilibrium properties of the solid surface and of the electrolyte solution.
With the bulk salinity gradient $\nabla n$ as defined in (\ref{eq6}) and the logarithmic permittivity derivative
$\tau=-d\ln \varepsilon/d\ln T$, one has
$$\frac{\nabla_\parallel n}{n} = - S_T{\nabla_\parallel T},
\;\;\;\;\; \frac{\nabla_\parallel \varepsilon}{\varepsilon} = - \tau \frac{\nabla_\parallel T}{T}, $$
where $\tau\approx 1.5$ at room temperature \cite{Cat03}. A temperature gradient of Kelvin per micron results in a velocity of
micron per second.
At a surface in a constant external temperature gradient $\nabla T$, the parallel component is simply given by its
projection on the surface; for a spherical particle one has $\nabla_\parallel T= \sin\theta \nabla T$, with the
polar angle $\theta$ and where we have discarded corrections due to the thermal conductivity contrast; see Eq. (\ref{eq74})
below. The self-generated temperature field of a laser-heated particle results in a more complex
expression, depending on its absorption coefficient and thermal conductivity \cite{Bic13}. The surface potential
$\zeta$ usually depends weakly on temperature; the variation of $v_s$ is rather irrelevant except for Janus
particles with different $\zeta$ on the two hemispheres; the surface potential could even take opposite signs
on the metal cap and on the insulating half.
The novel result concerns the thermoelectric contribution to (\ref{eq48}), that is, the first term proportional to
the electrolyte Seebeck coefficient $S$. The remaining term $\propto \nabla T$ and that $\propto \nabla \varepsilon$
are known as thermo-osmosis \cite{Der41,Bre16}, whereas the last one, $\propto \nabla n$, is similar to salt
osmosis \cite{Pri87,Abe09}. As a main finding of this work, we note that $v_s$ does not depend on the electrical
conductivity of the particle surface. The slip velocity is the same for insulating and conducting materials, although
the electric field at the surface shows quite a different behavior: Its parallel component is finite at an insulating
surface but vanishes at a conductor, as shown by Eqs. (\ref{eq:E_ins}) and (\ref{eq:E_cond}), respectively. A similar
effect was shown to occur for the electrophoretic mobility at a metal surface \cite{Squ04}, resulting in an electroosmotic
slip velocity that is the same at insulating and conducting surfaces.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Fig3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of the different contribution to the slip velocity (\ref{eq49}) for NaCl and NaOH solutions, as a
function of the $\zeta$-potential. We plot separately the Seebeck, Soret, and thermoosmotic contributions, as defined
in (\ref{eq49}). For NaCl and NaOH solutions, the Seebeck coefficient takes the values $S=-0.2\,\textrm{mV/K}$ and
$S=0.05\,\textrm{mV/K}$, respectively; for the Soret coefficent one has $S_T= 2.7\times 10^{-3}\,\textrm{K}^{-1}$ and
$1.4\times 10^{-2}\,\textrm{K}^{-1}$. We use the temperature gradient $\nabla_\parallel T=1\,\mathrm{K/\mu m}$, the
viscosity and permittivity of water, and ambient temperature.}
\label{Fig:vs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Relevance of ion-specific contributions}
In order to compare their relative importance, we plot in Fig. \ref{Fig:vs} the different contributions to the slip
velocity, for parameters describing NaCl and NaOH solutions. With a temperature gradient of 1K/$\mu$m, which is easily
achieved by heating gold microstructures, one finds velocities of the order of microns per second. We split the slip
velocity (\ref{eq48}) in three terms,
\begin{equation}
v_\mathrm{See}= - \frac{\varepsilon\zeta} {\eta}S \nabla_\parallel T, \;\;\;\;
v_\mathrm{Sor} = \frac{\varepsilon\zeta_T^2}{2 \eta} S_T{\nabla_\parallel T},\;\;\;\;
v_\mathrm{osm} = \frac{\varepsilon[\zeta^2-(3-\tau)\zeta_T^2]}{2 \eta} \frac{ \nabla_\parallel T} {T},
\label{eq49}
\end{equation}
where the first and second ones are proportional to the Seebeck and Soret coefficients, and the third one describes
the velocity induced by heat flow or ``thermoosmosis''. This thermoosmotic velocity $v_\mathrm{osm}$ is dominant
in the absence of salt \cite{Der41,Bre16}. In the presence of salt, however, the Seebeck and Soret velocities exceed
thermoosmosis; experiments on nanometric micelles \cite{Vig10} and micrometric polystyrene particles \cite{Esl14}
provide conclusive evidence for magnitude of the ion-specific Seebeck and Soret contributions. The data of
Ref. \cite{Esl14} indicate that both $S$ and $S_T$ strongly depend on temperature.
Note that the Seebeck term is linear in the surface potential $\zeta$ and thus takes opposite signs at positively
and negatively charged surfaces. All other contributions to $v_s$ are quadratic in $\zeta$. The self-propulsion
velocity $u$ of a Janus particle is given by the surface average of the slip velocity,
$\mathbf{u}=- \left<(1-\mathbf{n}\mathbf{n})\cdot\mathbf{v}_s\right>$, with the surface normal $\mathbf{n}$ \cite{And89}.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Electric field lines for insulating and conducting particles. a) Electric field due to an applied
external voltage. The field does not penetrate in a low-permittivity particle ($\varepsilon_P\ll \varepsilon_w$),
resulting in a characteristic deformation. b) Thermoelectric field in the vicinity of an insulating particle.
The field is not deformed by the permittivity contrast but follows the temperature gradient, $E=S\nabla T$.
(For the sake of simplicity we assume constant $\nabla T$, that is, similar thermal conductivities of particle
and solvent.) Within one Debye layer from the particle surface, its normal component $E_\perp$ is screened by
ion accumulation, that is, the thermocharge $\rho_T$, as shown in the left panel of Fig. 2; the parallel
component $E_\parallel$ does not vanish, and the particle surface is not at constant potential. c) Thermoelectric
field in the vicinity of a conducting particle. Polarization of the metal surface adjusts the surface charge
density such that the parallel component of the field vanishes, resulting in an isopotential surface; $\sigma$ is
illustrated in the right panel of Fig.~2. }
\label{fig:field}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
Here we discuss the main features of the thermocharge and the thermoelectric field, and their dependence on material
properties such as electric conductivity, surface roughness, and heat conductivity.
\subsection{Seebeck field in the vicinity of a spherical particle}
The Seebeck field does not result from an externally applied voltage but from thermocharges at the hot and
cold boundaries which, in turn, are due to the thermal forces (\ref{eq0}) on the ions, as shown schematically
in Fig. 1b for a Janus particle. At first sight one would expect that a thermoelectric field and an external
field show the same behavior in the vicinity of a colloidal sphere. After all, both are subject to the same
electrostatic boundary condition at the particle surface. It turns out, however, that their behavior is quite
different. In Fig. \ref{fig:field} we compare their field lines around a spherical particle. For the sake of
clarity we discuss the case of an external constant temperature gradient; the same physical effects occur for
the self-generated gradient of a heated Janus particle or for a hot metal nanostructure.
The left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:field} shows the well-known deformation of an external electric field $E_0$ in
the vicinity of a low-permittivity particle. The parallel field at the surface varies as
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel = \frac{3}{2}E_0\sin\theta
\label{eq72}
\end{equation}
with the polar angle $\theta$ \cite{And89}. With respect to the bulk field, it is enhanced by the permittivity
ratio of particle and solvent, $3\varepsilon_w/(2\varepsilon_w + \varepsilon_P)\approx\frac{3}{2}$.
The Seebeck field, on the contrary, results from surface charges; in
order to satisfy the electric boundary condition for its normal component, it accumulates
mobile ions with one screening length at the particle surface. The middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:field} shows
the thermoelectric field lines. They are not deformed and end at the thermocharge accumulated at the particle
surface. The parallel component reads as
\begin{equation}
E_\parallel = S\nabla_\parallel T\sin\theta.
\label{eq73}
\end{equation}
Contrary to an external field, the surface field is not enhanced by the permittivity contrast.
The right panel shows the deformation of the Seebeck field by a conducting particle, where the parallel component
of the surface field vanishes, $E_\parallel = 0$. From a comparison of the three situations shown, it is clear
that the behavior of the thermoelectric field at solid boundaries significantly differs from that of a voltage induced field.
The resulting electric field lines of a heated Janus particle are shown in Fig. 1b: The far-field corresponds to the
Seebeck field (\ref{eq4}), whereas the near-field depends on the surface properties, as illustrated in Fig. 1c for
the conducting and insulating hemispheres. The near-field corresponds to a superposition of the situations shown
in Figs. \ref{fig:field} b and c.
\subsection{Thermocharge}
The thermocharge arises from the thermal forces $H_\pm \nabla T/T$ which drive the ions towards the hot or cold
boundaries. When solving, in the simplest case, the zero-current condition (\ref{eq2}) and Gauss' law (\ref{eq3}),
one finds that the steady state is characterized by a thermoelectric field and surface charges. The thermocharge per
unit area $\sigma_T$, is independent of the material properties of the surface and of its surface charge $\sigma_0$.
The profile of the diffuse layer, however, does depend on $\sigma_0$: At an uncharged surface, $\sigma_0=0$, it
follows the exponential law $\rho_T=\sigma_Te^{-z/\lambda}$, whereas at a strongly charged surface, $\rho_T$ is
part of the diffuse layer of Poisson-Boltzmann theory given in Eq. (\ref{B2}).
According to Eq. (\ref{eq8}), the thermocharge is entirely determined by the normal component of the temperature
gradient at the solid surface and the Seebeck coefficient of the electrolyte,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T = \varepsilon S\nabla_\perp T_S.
\end{equation}
On a sphere, the gradient is given by the local excess temperature and the radius, $\nabla_\perp T_S=-(T_S-T_0)/a$. In
the case of a non-uniformly heated Janus particle, the temperature $T_S$ varies along the surface, and so does the
charge per unit area $\sigma_T$, as illustrated in Fig. 1b. A positive Seebeck coefficient, e.g., for aqueous solutions
of NaCl, results in a negative $\sigma_T$, whereas a positive surface charge occurs for $S<0$ as, e.g., in NaOH solution.
As an estimate of its order of magnitude, we calculate the thermocharge density per unit area, $\sigma_T$, for a
micron-size particle with an excess temperature of 30 K and the Seebeck coefficient of NaOH, $S=-200\,\mu\text{V/K}$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_T \sim10^{-5}\,e/\mathrm{nm}^{2}.
\end{equation}
For comparison, the bare charge of a colloidal particle is of the order $\sigma_0\sim e/\mathrm{nm}^{2}$.
\subsection{Polarization charge on a conducting surface}
The thermocharge discussed above, is the same on insulating and conducting surfaces. On the latter,
however, the isopotential condition of electrostatics imposes a polarization charge of the metal coating. Like
any surface charge of a solid boundary, the polarization charge is screened by its counterions. In other words,
the polarization of the electronic system induces a corresponding polarization of the diffuse layer, as illustrated
in right panel of Fig. 2. Thus the polarization effects concern only the immediate vicinity of the particle. Well
beyond the Debye length, the effect of the polarization charges vanishes. Accordingly, the field lines of insulating
and conducting particles in Fig. \ref{fig:field}b and c, differ within the screening length, but are identical at larger distances.
For an excess temperature of 30 K, the Seebeck coefficient $S=-200\,\mu\text{V/K}$, and $\lambda=2$ nm, the
weak-coupling expression (\ref{eq35}) gives the order-of-magnitude estimate
\begin{equation}
\sigma_P \sim10^{-2} e/\mathrm{nm}^2.
\end{equation}
When comparing with the thermocharge, one finds that $\sigma_P$ exceeds $\sigma_T$ by a factor $a/\lambda$ which, for
micron-size particles, is of the order of $a/\lambda\sim1000$. On the other hand, the polarization charge may attain
several percent of the colloidal surface charge $\sigma_0$.
As a related quantity we estimate the thermopotential $\varphi_T=-S(T_S -T_0)$. The above parameters
give $\varphi_T\sim6$ mV, which is almost comparable to the surface potential of moderately charged
colloids, $\zeta\sim30$ mV. One should note, however, that the variation of $\varphi_T$ is a more
relevant quantity than its absolute value. Still, for a typical temperature profile, one finds the
thermopotential at the two poles of a Janus particle differs by about half of its mean value.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic view of the thermoelectric field and polarization charges of gold grains at a low-permittivity
insulating surface, in contact with an electrolyte solution with positive Seebeck coefficient, $S>0$. The left
panel shows the case of single grain. The field is normal at the grain surface because of the electrostatic
boundary conditions, and parallel at the insulating solid, because of the strong permittivity contrast of its
material and water. Well beyond the screening length one recovers the constant Seebeck far-field. The right panel
shows a densely covered surface, where each grain forms an equipotential surface and carries opposite polarization
charges $\protect\sigma _{P}$ at its cold and hot sides.}
\label{Fig:grains}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Granular gold surface}
So far we considered a continuous gold surface, as shown in Fig. 1c.
Yet this does not always correspond to the actual experimental
situation. For example, the cap of the Janus particles used in Ref.\ \cite{Sim16}
consists of a dense coverage of nano-sized gold grains, visible in scanning
electron microscopy images \cite{Ned15}. Since the grains are not connected,
the active cap of these particles does not form an isopotential surface, contrary
to what we assumed so far.
Here we give a qualitative discussion of the resulting Seebeck field and slip velocity.
From our results for conducting surfaces, it is clear that the parallel component of the
thermoelectric field is screened within one screening length.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:grains} gives a schematic view of an insulating surface, partly covered
by gold grains and at a non-uniform temperature. According to the discussion in Sect. \ref{sect:temp}
below, we neglect the thermal conductivity contrast. On the other hand, gold nanostructures keep their
electric conductivity, though it is lower than that of bulk material; thus the grains are conducting and that
each of them forms an equipotential surface.
The left panel of Fig. \ref{Fig:grains} shows the thermoelectric properties of a single grain. The
parallel component of the Seebeck far-field induces polarization charges, such that isopotential condition
is satisfied at the surface. For a gold hemisphere
mounted on a low-permittiivity material, the resulting electric field and polarization charges are obtained from
Appendix A.3 by retaining the term $c_1$ only. Note that beyond a distance of one screening length,
one recovers the macroscopic thermoelectric field.
The right panel of Fig. \ref{Fig:grains} shows a densely covered surface, where the distance between grains does not
exceed the screening length. Then the overall
thermopotential is split in small jumps between nearby grains; their cold and hot boundaries carry
polarization charges which result in a strong electric field in the spacing. The field component parallel to
the surface vanishes at the grain surface but increases beyond and tends towards the far-field value beyond
double layer.
The slip velocity is essentially determined by the layer of thickness $\lambda$ above the gold grains, whereas
the narrow space between the grains is of little relevance. A different picture would arise if the gold grains covered
only a small fraction of the surface, and if their height was small as compared to their spacing. For a situation as
shown by Fig. \ref{Fig:grains} or by the electron micrograph in Ref. \cite{Ned15}, however, we conclude that the
picture developed for micron-size conducting surfaces remains at least qualitatively correct for a granular gold coating.
Because of the surface roughness one may expect a somewhat modified slip velocity, probably smaller than at a homogeneous cap.
\subsection{Comparison with experiment}
So far there are few direct measurements of the slip velocity with respect to a wall \cite{Der41,Bre16}; most
experiments report the motion of dispersed particles in an external temperature
gradient \cite{Bra13,Lin17,Lin17b,Put05,Vig10,Esl14} or of self-propelling microswimmers \cite{Jia10,Bar13,Sim16,But12},
where the velocity is given by the surface average of the slip velocity.
The slip velocity (\ref{eq48}) consists of various contributions, proportional to the temperature gradient and
its companion fields. All of them are of comparable magnitude. The slip velocity varies as a function of the
electrolyte strength and, through the Soret and Seebeck coefficients, depends on specific-ion properties. At
room temperature, the Soret coefficient $S_T$ is usually positive \cite{Nak88}. Then except for the Seebeck
contribution, all terms of the slip velocity are positive, and the boundary layer flows towards the hot. There
is, however, strong evidence that the Seebeck term is dominant for common salt and buffer solutions, such as
NaCl, NaOH, citric acid, and CAPS. Since their Seebeck coefficients take opposite signs, one observes, as a most
striking feature, a positive slip velocity for NaCl \cite{Esl14} and a negative one for NaOH \cite{Vig10,Esl14};
thus changing the anion reverses the direction of thermally driven motion. Similar effects were reported for
buffer solutions \cite{Put05}.
The main results of the present paper concern the slip velocity along metal surfaces. Though local heating of
gold structures is widely used for manipulating of particles and cells \cite{Bra13,Lin17,Lin17b,Lin17a} or
powering microswimmers \cite{Jia10,Bar13,Sim16,But12,Gir16}, there is at present no systematic study of the
creep flow along a conducting surface. Evidence for thermo-electric driving of hot silica particles with a
granular gold cap, was reported by one recent experiment \cite{Sim16}: Probing the particle's self-propulsion
velocity in 10 mM solutions of NaCl, LiCl and NaOH, revealed
a salt-specific effect, which agrees qualitatively with the Seebeck coefficients of these
electrolytes, $S_{\text{NaCl}}>S_{\text{LiCl}}>S_{\text{NaOH}}$. Since the thermophoretic
self-propulsion is superposed on motion due to radiation pressure and gravity, these data do not
provide an absolute measure of $v_s$, but only qualitative differences upon changing the
ions. In summary, the data of Ref. \cite{Sim16} confirm the existence of an electrolyte
Seebeck effect for active Janus particles, yet they do not provide clear evidence whether
the thermoelectric driving is the same on the silica and gold hemispheres, as suggested by
the present work, or whether the Seebeck effect vanishes on the metal surface.
\subsection{Temperature gradient at the particle surface}\label{sect:temp}
Throughout this paper we have assumed that the temperature gradient is not modified at the solid-water
interface, which is justified as long as the heat conductivities of liquid and particle, $\kappa_w$ and $\kappa_P$,
take similar values. For a sufficiently strong conductivity contrast, however, the particle deforms the temperature
field in its vicinity. For a sphere, a conductivity contrast modifies the parallel and perpendicular components
of the temperature gradient according to
\begin{equation}
\nabla_\parallel T_S\rightarrow \xi_\parallel\nabla_\parallel T_S, \;\;\;\;\;
\nabla_\perp T_S\rightarrow \xi_\perp\nabla_\perp T_S,
\label{eq74}
\end{equation}
with the well-known constants \cite{Wue10}
\begin{equation}
\xi_\parallel = \frac{3\kappa_w}{2\kappa_w + \kappa_P}, \;\;\;
\xi_\perp = \frac{3\kappa_P}{2\kappa_w + \kappa_P}.
\label{}
\end{equation}
In order to account for the conductivity contrast in the results of the preceding sections, one merely
has to introduce these factors. Typical insulating materials, like silica and polystyrene, show a somewhat
lower heat conductivity than water. The most important thermoelectric properties are proportional to
parallel gradient, with a correction factor $\xi_\parallel $ between 1 and $\frac{3}{2}$, which is
usually of little relevance.
A more complex situation occurs for thin metal coatings. Metals conduct heat much better
than water, $\kappa_m\gg \kappa_w$. A metal coating of thickness $d$ significantly deforms
the temperature profile of a sphere of radius $a$, if the conductivity contrast
satisfies $\kappa_m/\kappa_w>a/d$; in the thick-cap limit the metal surface becomes an
isothermal \cite{Bic13}. Noting that $\kappa_m$ decreases for films of less than $100\,\mathrm{nm}$, one
finds that for micron-size particles, the temperature is modified by coatings thicker than
several tens of nanometer.
Most recent experiments are done on Janus particles with thinner coatings, of less than $10\,\mathrm{nm}$,
where the cap contribution to heat conduction and the resulting deformation of the temperature field can
be neglected. On the other hand, such thin gold coatings still have significant electrical conductivity,
and thus develop polarization charges as discussed in this paper and shown in Figs. 2 and 4.
\subsection{Transient and memory effects.}
So far we have considered the
steady-state Seebeck effect. The transient behavior after switching on the
heat source is readily obtained from the advection-diffusion equation for
the ions with Gauss' law $\nabla \cdot E=\rho /\varepsilon $. Thus we find
\begin{equation}
\rho _{T}(t)=\rho _{T}(\infty )(1-e^{-t/\tau_\text{ion} }),
\end{equation}
where the characteristic time scale expresses the time of ion diffusion over
the screening length,
\begin{equation}
\tau _{\text{ion}}=\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{2D}.
\end{equation}%
With typical values $D\sim 10^{-9}$ m$^{2}$/s and $\lambda \sim 50$ nm, one
finds $\tau \sim \mu $s.
Thus building up the Seebeck field requires a few microseconds,
and the same time-dependence occurs for the slip velocity.
Indeed, the thermal and hydrodynamic time scales, $\tau _{\text{th}}=\lambda
^{2}/\alpha $ and $\tau _{\text{hy}}=\lambda ^{2}/\nu $, are by several
orders of magnitude shorter, since both heat diffusivity ($\alpha \sim
10^{-7}$ m$^{2}$/s) and kinematic viscosity ($\nu \sim 10^{-6}$ m$^{2}$/s),
by far exceed ion diffusivity. It should be noted that $\tau _{\text{hy}}$
is much shorter than the hydrodynamic memory of Brownian motion, $\tau _{%
\text{hy}}^{\prime }=a^{2}/\nu $ \cite{Fra11}; this is due to the fact that
in the latter case, the hydrodynamic stress decays over the particle size $a$%
, whereas for phoretic and active particles, the relevant stress is confined
within the interaction length $\lambda $ \cite{Fay08}.
As a consequence, we expect a rather intricate behavior of the particle
motion during the first milliseconds,
\begin{equation}
v_{s}(t)=v_{s}^{\text{el}}(1-e^{-t/\tau _{\text{ion}}})
+ v_{s}^{\text{osm}}(1-e^{-t/\tau _{\text{th}}}),
\label{eq60}
\end{equation}
where the thermo-electric slip velocity $v_{s}^{\text{el}}$ corresponds to the first
term of (\ref{eq48}), and the osmosis-driven one $v_{s}^{\text{osm}}$ to the remainder.
The latter sets in on the heat-diffusion time scale $\tau _{\text{th}}\sim 10$ nanoseconds.
The Seebeck effect requires ion diffusion which occurs on the time scale $\tau _{%
\text{ion}}$ that may attain a microsecond. Since in many instances, the
thermoelectric slip velocity $v_{s}^{\text{el}}$ is stronger and carries the
opposite sign \cite{Put05,Vig10,Esl14}, the onset of the Seebeck effect could even
result in a reversal of the direction of motion.
The above discussion applies to the double-layer at the conducting
hemisphere, where the local temperature gradient is determined by absorption
of laser light by the gold coating. At the insulating hemisphere,
building up the stationary temperature profile requires heat diffusion over
a distance comparable to the particle radius. Thus the thermal time scale,
$\tau _{\text{th}}^{\text{ins}}=a^{2}/\alpha $, is of the order of ten
microseconds, which is close to the ionic relaxation time $\tau_\text{ion}$.
Thus on an insulating surface, the time scales of the two terms in the slip velocity
(\ref{eq60}) are not very different.
\section{Summary}
We find that hot metal structure in contact with an electrolyte solution, show thermoelectric
properties at the nanoscale that depend both on surface material properties and ion-specific effects.
Here we briefly summarize our main results.
The diffuse layer comprises a thermocharge $\rho_T$ which is proportional to the
surface temperature $T_S$. On a Janus particle, $T_S$ increases from
the passive hemisphere to the heated cap, and so does the thermocharge, resulting
in a parallel component of the Seebeck field along the particle surface.
On a conducting surface, such as a gold cap, however, the parallel temperature
gradient induces a polarization charge on the metal structure, which modifies the
double layer such that the parallel component of the electric field vanishes at the
surface. Yet this does not affect the thermally induced slip velocity, which
turns out to be identical on insulating and conducting surfaces.
In previous work the Seebeck field had been considered like a field due to an external voltage.
We find that the near-field is rather different, as shown in Figs. 3 a and b. As a consequence, the
parallel field at a spherical particle (\ref{eq73}) does not carry a factor $\frac{3}{2}$, contrary to
an external field (\ref{eq72}) at a low-permittivity particles. The same difference occurs between the
thermoelectric contribution to the slip velocity (\ref{eq48}) and the electroosmotic velocity.
Regarding specific-ion effects, our findings agree qualitatively with a recent
experiment on gold-capped silica particles, showing a significant variation of the self-propulsion
velocity with the used salts NaOH, NaCl, LiCl \cite{Sim16}. The data do not provide
conclusive evidence for thermoelectric driving along the metal cap.
From our analysis of the onset of thermoosmotic and thermoelectric driving, we expect
striking transient effects. Because of the slow diffusion of ions, as compared to
diffusion of heat and momentum, the thermo-electric slip velocity sets in on
a microsecond timescale. The much faster onset of thermoosmosis, should result in a
two-step transient behavior upon switching on the heating.
AL and AW acknowledge support by the French National reasearch agency through
contract ANR-13-IS04-0003. AW thanks Frank Cichos and Martin Fr\"anzl for stimulating
discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Currently, any in-depth discussion on molecular data requirements with
astronomers working on cool stars or hot Jupiter exoplanets highlights one
molecule: TiO \citep{15HoDeSn.TiO,16FoRoDo.exo,jt631}. TiO is the major near-infrared (IR) and visible absorber in M-type stars
\citep{00AlHaS1.TiO,02Loxxxx.TiO} and, potentially, hot Jupiter exoplanets
\citep{08DeVide.TiO}. Despite line lists from the late twentieth century generated by
\citet{75Collinsthesis.TiO}, \citet{76CoFaxx.TiO}, \citet{92Plxxxx.TiO},
\citet{94Joxxxx.TiO}, \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} and \citet{98Plxxxx.TiO}, and the recent VALD updates \citep{VALD3}, the new
very high resolution observations, e.g., of exoplanetary atmospheres, cannot
usually be modelled sufficiently accurately \citep{15HoDeSn.TiO}.
Exoplanets provide two major topical applications of high quality spectroscopic data for
TiO.
First, detecting potentially habitable Earth-sized exoplanets using transits is
expected to be easier around M-dwarf stars than other stellar hosts due to the
higher transit depth and faster transit times. However, characterising these
planets requires high accuracy modelling of M-dwarf stellar spectra, which is
significantly complicated by the strong molecular absorption of these cooler
stars \citep{jt143,00AlHaS1.TiO}. Compared to main-group closed-shell molecules like \ce{H2O} and \ce{CO}, the
spectra of transition metal diatomic species such as
TiO are significantly less well determined by either experimental or theoretical studies \citep{jt632}.
In particular, high accuracy spectral
modelling requires a thorough and accurate analysis of experimental data.
Second, TiO opacity is expected to be very important in modelling hot Jupiter
exoplanets without clouds \citep{08FoLoMa.TiO}.
However, due to the tidal interaction with their respective stars, there can be
large differences in the day and night temperatures in hot Jupiters, giving rise
to extreme conditions. This suggests that cloud cover is abundant on hot Jupiters,
a supposition supported by observations \citep{15NiSiBu.TiO,16SiFoNi.TiO}.
Thus far studies of the
presence of TiO in hot Jupiter exoplanets have given mixed results. Evidence for TiO on
WASP-121b was reported by \citet{16EvSiWa.TiO}. Likely absence of TiO on WASP-19b was reported
by \citet{13HuSiPo.TiO} and on WASP-12b by \citet{13SiLeFo.TiO}.
It is predicted that the presence of TiO/VO in the atmospheres of hot Jupiter
exoplanets is likely to cause a thermal inversion in the atmosphere
\citep{16EvSiWa.TiO}; \citet{15HaMaMa.TiO} present an HST (Hubble Space Telescope)
spectrum of WASP-33b consistent with emission from TiO. HST has been used to
perform almost all of these observations; the upcoming launch of JWST (James
Webb Space Telescope) will significantly increase the quality of the observed
spectra. It is imperative to ensure that the quality of the available TiO
line list is sufficiently high to allow these new spectra to be used optimally. Furthermore, the use of cross-correlation techniques
allows ground-based telescopes to detect molecules \citep{14deBiBr.TiO}. The inaccuracies in current
TiO line lists prevent the use of this technique for TiO
\citep{15HoDeSn.TiO}.
Historically, the detection of TiO in M-giants by \citet{1904Fowler.TiO} was
one of the earliest molecular detections in stellar astrophysics, predating modern
quantum mechanics. The very high experimental interest in this, from a chemical
perspective, unusual molecule over the last century, as documented thoroughly in
this manuscript \textbf{(\Cref{tab:datasources,tab:databandheads,tab:intensities,tab:otherrefs}, see below)}, is a
direct consequence of this early identification in stellar bodies. TiO,
together with \ce{C2} \citep{jt637}, has provided a major
motivating factor for the development of theory and methods in the field of
rovibronic spectroscopy.
The references collated in this paper tell a fascinating story of how scientists
tackled the complexity of transition metal diatomic spectra without
significant computational power and thus without accurate \emph{ab initio}\
predictions. Questions like whether the singlet or triplet state was the true
ground state did not have obvious answers. The triplet ground state was mis-identified twice \citep{29Lowater.TiO,51Phxxxx.TiO} before finally being assigned
correctly as X $^3\Delta${} by \citet{69Phxxxx.TiO}.The dominant electronic configuration of the X $^3\Delta${} ground electronic state can be written as $(core)(9\sigma)^1(1\delta)^1$, where $9\sigma$ and $1\delta$ are essentially the $4s$ and $3d$ orbitals of \ce{Ti^{2+}}, respectively. The singlet-triplet gap was estimated,
e.g., by \citet{52Phxxxx.TiO}, then eventually measured using formally spin-forbidden
transitions first by \citet{83KoKuGu.TiO} and then more accurately by
\citet{95KaMcHe.TiO}. This manuscript considers and collates all the available and
assigned TiO experimental spectroscopic frequency data. We then use the Measured Active
Rotational-Vibrational Energy Levels ({\sc Marvel})
algorithm \citep{jt412,07CsCzFu.marvel,12FuCsi.method}, described in detail below, to extract the highest accuracy collation
of TiO rovibronic energy levels ever produced. The experimentally-derived energy levels are all given
uncertainties. The procedure is active in that future experimental data can be added to the collation and used
to produce updated experimentally-derived energy levels in a straightforward
manner.
\section{Theory}
\subsection{{\sc Marvel}}
The {\sc Marvel}\ approach \citep{jt412,07CsCzFu.marvel,12FuCsi.method} is a sophisticated methodology that allows
extraction of experimental energy levels, and associated uncertainties, from a
(usually large) set of experimental transition frequencies.
The methodology is similar to traditional approaches based on the Ritz principle, such as
`combination differences', but is a more sophisticated, computational,
near-black-box approach. The {\sc Marvel}\ program takes as input formatted assigned
transitions. The program then constructs the experimental spectroscopic networks (SNs)
\citep{11CsFuxx.marvel,12FuCsxx.marvel,14FuArMe.marvel,16ArPeFu.marvel,16CzFuAr.marvel} which contains all inter-connected transitions. For each
SN, the assigned transition data is then inverted to find the
energy levels. The uncertainties of the transition frequencies weight this
inversion process using a robust reweighting procedure advocated by \citet{Watson03} allowing {\sc Marvel}\ to yield the uncertainty of each extracted
energy level.
For a detailed description of the approach, algorithm and program, we refer
readers to \citet{12FuCsi.method}. {\sc Marvel}\ was originally developed and
used by an IUPAC Task Group (TG) studying water spectra \citep{jt562} and
applied to various water isotopologues \citep{jt454,jt482,jt539,jt576}. The energy
levels these studies yielded will provide the major source of water transition
frequencies in the upcoming 2016 update of HITRAN \citep{HITRAN2016}.
The naming convention for data sources employed here follows the one proposed
by this IUPAC TG.
Other
molecules for which rovibrational energy levels have been determined using {\sc Marvel}\ include
H$_3^+$ \citep{13FuSzMa.marvel}, H$_2$$^{12}$C$^{12}$C$^{16}$O \citep{11FaMaFu.marvel}, H$_2$D$^+$ and D$_2$H$^+$ \citep{13FuSzFa.marvel} and $^{14}$NH$_3$ \citep{jt608}.
The only previous use of {\sc Marvel}\ for rovibronic spectra is the
recently published analysis of \ce{^{12}C2} \citep{jt637}.
The {\sc Marvel}\ software takes as input assigned, measured
transitions, with estimated uncertainties, and outputs assigned energy levels
together with recommended uncertainties. However, often there is no consistent
set of energy levels that produce the input transitions within the estimated
uncertainties. This can occur due to typographic or digitisation errors,
mis-assignments and under-estimated uncertainties for the transitions. For this reason, the master
list of {\sc Marvel}\ input transitions should be gradually increased with issues
resolved as new transitions are added to the master file. {\sc Marvel}\ produces new
recommended uncertainties. If these are less than twice the original
uncertainties, we generally adopt these recommended uncertainties.
If there is a
very large difference in the recommended uncertainty, we look for typographic
and digitisation errors; if none are found, we then assume mis-assignment and
put a negative in front of the transition frequency, thus retaining the data but
not utilising it in the {\sc Marvel}\ algorithm for future runs. Transitions
initially discarded in this way can be reconsidered later in the process. For
each band in each experimental source, we track the number of validated
transitions (i.e., transitions for which all extracted energies of the full data
set are consistent) against the number of total input transitions as well as the
minimum, average and maximum uncertainty of transition frequencies. The minimum
uncertainty is usually our initial input uncertainty based on the original
experimental paper (or our best educated guess) as the current {\sc Marvel}\ code can
automatically increase uncertainties, but not reduce them. Generally, if we find that the
average uncertainty is significantly higher than the minimum uncertainty, we
increase the minimum uncertainty of the whole data set, and rerun the {\sc Marvel}\
analysis.
It is important throughout and particularly at the final stage that the trends
and patterns in the energy levels are validated using available means.
In previous studies this has often been against energies calculated theoretically;
here we are more reliant on trends such as reasonably
systematic quadratic increase in energy with $J$, approximately
linear increase with vibrational quantum number and so forth.
Some of us are also part-way through constructing a spectroscopic model of TiO
using the {\sc Duo}{} software \citep{jt609}; this also allowed a preliminary validation
of energy levels against a realistic theoretical model.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:fig1} The band system of TiO showing the bands considered in this work. The long-dashed line represents an experimentally-observed intercombination band. The short-dashed lines represent experimentally observed transitions that have not been named. There are three fine-structure components for the triple $\Pi$, $\Delta$, and $\Phi$ states (for the ground electronic state X $^3\Delta$$_1$ is the lowest-energy component). }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Electronic structure and spectroscopy of TiO}
Like other transition-metal-containing diatomic species, TiO has a large number
of low-lying electronic states which contribute significantly to the level
density of the recorded spectra in the near-IR and in the visible. Those states
with excitation energies below 23,000 cm$^{-1}${}, and other well-characterised
experimental electronic states are shown in \Cref{fig:fig1}, which
also gives the observed bands linking these states. The triplet ground
state has allowed excitations to the E $^3\Pi${}, A $^3\Phi${}, B $^3\Pi${} and C $^3\Delta${} states. At the
temperatures of the planetary atmospheres where TiO is thought to be abundant (i.e. 1500
to 3000 K), significant absorption also occurs from thermal population of the
a $^1\Delta${} and d $^1\Sigma^+${} states to higher singlet states, b $^1\Pi${}, c $^1\Phi${}, f $^1\Delta${} and e $^1\Sigma^+${}.
\subsection{Quantum numbers and selection rules}
{\sc Marvel}\ uses quantum numbers solely as part of the labels used to uniquely
identify each rovibronic state and the corresponding energy level.
The three most obvious descriptors to use for the rovibronic states of
TiO are the electronic state, $state$, the total angular momentum quantum number,
$J$, and the vibrational quantum number, $v$.
We find these descriptors to be relatively unambiguous, despite the fact that the
vibrational quantum numbers are not good quantum numbers.
For the triplet energy levels, we further need to give
information about the coupling of the electronic angular momenta;
we choose to do this in the Hund's coupling case (a) formulation \citep{16Bernat.method}.
For Hund's coupling case (a) the $\Omega$ quantum number is the
sum of the quantum numbers describing the axial component of the
electron orbital angular momentum {\bf L}, $\Lambda$,
and that of the electron spin angular momentum {\bf S}, $\Sigma$,
{\it i.e.}, $\Omega=\Lambda+\Sigma$.
Coupling case (a) is a good representation whenever $A\Lambda$ is much greater than
$BJ$, where $A$ (which can be both positive and negative) is the spin-orbit coupling
constant and $B$ is the rotational constant.
For the X$^3\Delta$ ground electronic state of TiO $A=50.7$ cm$^{-1}$;
thus, of the three fine-structure
components $^3\Delta_{\Omega}$ the lowest state is $^3\Delta_{1}$.
Transitions within all three fine-structure states have been observed
experimentally (Table 6, \textit{vide infra}).
Note that Hund's coupling case (a) becomes less appropriate as $J$
increases (in this study energy levels with rather large $J$ values occur).
For singlet states, the component of the total electronic angular momentum along
the internuclear axis, described by the $\Omega$ quantum number,
is equal to $\Lambda$, as for singlet states $\Sigma=0$.
For some states the parity affects the final energy significantly enough
to be experimentally observable; usually these state are of $\Pi$ symmetry.
In these cases we will append the parity to the electronic state label.
The parity of the energy level can be specified as
(e/f) \citep{75Zare}.
For electronic dipole allowed transitions, the selection rules are
e$\leftrightarrow$e and f$\leftrightarrow$f for P and R branches ($\Delta J = \pm 1$)
and e$\leftrightarrow$f for Q branches ($\Delta J = 0$).
For $\Pi$ states with experimental evidence of the splitting of the states,
we distinguish between the $e$ and $f$ parity states.
For the B $^3\Pi${} and E $^3\Pi${} states the two parity states cannot be unambiguously assigned
as $e$ and $f$; therefore, following the recommendations of ~\citep{75Zare} we
retain the $a$ and $b$ designations \citep{55Mulliken} employed in the original manuscripts.
For the b $^1\Pi${} state, the b $^1\Pi${} -- d $^1\Sigma^+${} transitions occur from the d $^1\Sigma^+${} state
of well-defined parity $e$, which fixes
the parity of the observed levels of the associated b $^1\Pi${} state.
\begin{center}
\tiny
\begin{longtable}{p{1.2cm}p{1.8cm}crrrHclllll}
\caption{\label{tab:datasources}Data sources and their characteristics for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}, including the number of measured (A) and validated (V) transitions (Trans.). See \Cref{subsec:comments} for comments. }\\
\toprule
Tag & Ref & & & Range (cm$^{-1}${}) & J Range & Method & Trans. (A/V) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uncertainties (cm$^{-1}${})} & Comments\\
& & & & & & & & Min & Av & Max \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{5}{c}%
{{ \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\toprule
Tag & Ref & & & Range (cm$^{-1}${}) & J Range & Method & Trans. (A/V) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uncertainties (cm$^{-1}${})} & Comment \\
& & & & & & & & Min & Av & Max \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
50Phillips & \citet{50Phxxxx.TiO} & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 11106 - 11284 & 8 - \enspace94 &&376/373 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.46 & (1a) \\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 17761 - 17858 & 9 - \enspace92 &&149/149 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.42\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
50Phillips-ext & \citet{50Phxxxx.TiO}& c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 17596 - 17860 & 2 - 101 &&178/178 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2 & (1a), (1d)\\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 17485 - 17760 & 2 - 100 &&283/207 &0.2 & 0.24 & 0.55\\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 2 - 2 & 17419 - 17654 & 2 - 100 &&252/182 &0.2 & 0.25 & 0.55\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
51Phillips & \citet{51Phxxxx.TiO} & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 13662 - 14172 & 5 - 119 &&765/763 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.49 & (1a), (1b)\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 12779 - 13173 & 8 - \enspace95 &&642/632 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.48\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 14579 - 15031 & 6 - \enspace90 &&638/635 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.51\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
69Phillips & \citet{69Phxxxx.TiO} & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 16041 - 16233 & 2 - \enspace61 &&340/340 &0.1 & 0.11 & 0.39 & (1a), (1c)\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
71PhDa & \citet{71PhDaxx.TiO} & e $^1\Sigma^+$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 - 0 & 24098 - 24302 & 1 - \enspace50 &&80/78 &0.05 & 0.051 & 0.075 & (1a)\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
71Phillips & \citet{71Phxxx1.TiO} & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 16216 - 16259 & 0 - \enspace36 &&192/138 &0.1 & 0.24 & 0.53 & (1a)\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
72Linton & \citet{72Lixxx1.TiO} & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 18879 - 19076 & 2 - \enspace66 &&111/109 &0.05 & 0.074 & 0.19 & (1e)\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
72Lindgren & \citet{72Lixxxx.TiO} & e $^1\Sigma^+$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 1 - 0 & 24857 - 25147 & 8 - \enspace60 &&91/91 &0.05 & 0.053 & 0.11 & (1f)\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
73Phillips & \citet{73Phxxxx.TiO} & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 13365 - 14172 & 2 - 171 &&1353/1353 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.42 & (1a), (1d)\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 12340 - 13173 & 1 - 162 &&1276/1276 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.52\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 2 & 11696 - 12183 & 2 - 120 &&800/795 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.48\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 14140 - 15031 & 1 - 158 &&1263/1262 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.28\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 13177 - 14031 & 1 - 165 &&1308/1308 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.34\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 12456 - 13041 & 1 - 143 &&1099/1097 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.46\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 3 & 11527 - 12061 & 1 - 151 &&1000/984 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.55\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 0 & 14994 - 15882 & 1 - 164 &&1230/1227 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.51\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 13952 - 14882 & 1 - 149 &&1211/1207 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.5\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 3 & 12237 - 12911 & 1 - 148 &&1107/1103 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.54\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 4 & 11524 - 11940 & 1 - 125 &&838/795 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.51\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 1 & 14991 - 15725 & 1 - 147 &&1056/1053 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.4\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 2 & 13909 - 14735 & 1 - 151 &&1104/1099 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.36\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 4 & 12237 - 12782 & 1 - 131 &&908/891 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 5 & 11494 - 11820 & 1 - 125 &&868/833 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.34\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 2 & 14813 - 15570 & 1 - 136 &&1062/1049 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.42\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 3 & 13761 - 14589 & 1 - 149 &&1051/1038 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.5\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 5 & 12041 - 12655 & 1 - 134 &&991/973 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 5 - 3 & 14781 - 15417 & 2 - 136 &&1025/1016 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4\\*
\vspace{-0.5em}\\*
& & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 15560 - 16259 & 1 - 141 &&1735/1560 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.52\\*
\vspace{-0.5em}\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 18298 - 19349 & 1 - 159 &&879/879 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.27\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 17327 - 18349 & 1 - 157 &&864/864 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.48\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 2 & 16661 - 17359 & 1 - 143 &&689/686 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.48\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 3 & 15929 - 16378 & 2 - 100 &&438/411 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.53\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 18926 - 20178 & 1 - 156 &&848/842 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.27\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 17369 - 18188 & 1 - 126 &&706/698 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.47\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 3 & 16660 - 17206 & 1 - 118 &&629/586 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.53\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 0 & 20292 - 20998 & 1 - 107 &&609/608 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.35\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 19081 - 19998 & 1 - 126 &&637/637 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.38\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 3 & 17707 - 18026 & 1 - \enspace88 &&346/343 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.54\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 4 & 16427 - 17054 & 1 - 112 &&536/512 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.54\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 0 & 21191 - 21809 & 1 - 111 &&584/582 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.35\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 1 & 19976 - 20809 & 2 - 120 &&630/622 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.54\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 5 & 16444 - 16902 & 1 - 117 &&464/445 &0.2 & 0.21 & 0.51\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 0 & 22089 - 22610 & 1 - 101 &&456/444 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.38\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 1 & 20896 - 21611 & 1 - 105 &&509/497 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.25\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 2 & 20260 - 20620 & 2 - \enspace90 &&439/430 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.35\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 5 - 1 & 21898 - 22404 & 2 - \enspace83 &&361/358 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.51\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 5 - 2 & 20830 - 21414 & 2 - \enspace92 &&381/379 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.51\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 6 - 2 & 21794 - 22195 & 3 - \enspace73 &&321/319 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.33\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 6 - 3 & 20847 - 21214 & 4 - \enspace86 &&276/270 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.44\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 7 - 3 & 21654 - 21986 & 1 - \enspace67 &&293/293 &0.2 & 0.2 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
74LiSi & \citet{74LiSixx.TiO} & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 11198 - 11284 & 1 - \enspace43 &&158/158 &0.1 & 0.1 & 0.36\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
74Linton & \citet{74Lixxxx.TiO} & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 17715 - 17859 & 2 - \enspace74 &&189/189 &0.02 & 0.035 & 0.13 \\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 17634 - 17759 & 2 - \enspace72 &&177/169 &0.02 & 0.023 & 0.09\\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 2 - 2 & 17523 - 17658 & 2 - \enspace67 &&162/161 &0.02 & 0.023 & 0.1\\*
& & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 3 - 3 & 17443 - 17556 & 2 - \enspace69 &&152/152 &0.02 & 0.022 & 0.056\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
79HoGeMe & \citet{79HoGeMe.TiO} & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 15951 - 16259 & 1 - \enspace55 &&732/731 &0.008 & 0.013 & 0.087 & (1g) \\*
& & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 15002 - 15245 & 0 - \enspace50 &&586/586 &0.008 & 0.011 & 0.043\\*
& & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 16862 - 17122 & 1 - \enspace56 &&664/602 &0.008 & 0.0095 & 0.064\\*
& & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 15835 - 16107 & 1 - \enspace55 &&546/367 &0.008 & 0.014 & 0.093\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
79GaDe & \citet{79GaDexx.TiO} & X $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 975 - \enspace1022 & 2 - \enspace22 & & 40/40 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.3 & (1h) \\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
80GaBrDa & \citet{80GaBrDa.TiO} & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 - 0 & 8775 - \enspace9062 & 1 - \enspace93 &&240/240 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.074\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 - 1 & 7757 - \enspace8049 & 0 - \enspace86 &&210/210 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.041\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 - 2 & 6952 - \enspace7046 & 7 - \enspace49 &&49/49 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.014\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 1 - 0 & 9598 - \enspace9972 & 0 - \enspace86 &&233/233 &0.01 & 0.016 & 0.32\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 1 - 1 & 8773 - \enspace8960 & 0 - \enspace70 &&152/152 &0.01 & 0.012 & 0.078\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 1 - 2 & 7758 - \enspace7957 & 2 - \enspace77 &&174/174 &0.01 & 0.015 & 0.11\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 1 - 3 & 6826 - \enspace6964 & 1 - \enspace67 &&95/95 &0.01 & 0.013 & 0.084\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 2 - 0 & 10712 - 10874 & 1 - \enspace60 &&123/123 &0.01 & 0.017 & 0.34\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 2 - 1 & 9582 - \enspace9862 & 0 - \enspace72 &&171/171 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.05\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 2 - 3 & 7679 - \enspace7866 & 1 - \enspace75 &&117/117 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.028\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 3 - 1 & 10446 - 10755 & 0 - \enspace74 &&151/151 &0.01 & 0.015 & 0.096\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 3 - 2 & 9558 - \enspace9708 & 46 - \enspace70 &&34/34 &0.01 & 0.019 & 0.073\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 3 - 4 & 7646 - \enspace7776 & 0 - \enspace51 &&95/95 &0.01 & 0.014 & 0.17\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 3 - 5 & 6708 - \enspace6802 & 2 - \enspace55 &&43/43 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 4 - 2 & 10397 - 10636 & 0 - \enspace66 &&153/153 &0.01 & 0.015 & 0.094\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 4 - 3 & 9626 - \enspace9643 & 1 - \enspace32 &&32/32 &0.01 & 0.013 & 0.035\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
85BrGa & \citet{85BrGaxx.TiO} & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 18830 - 19077 & 2 - \enspace71 &&127/127 &0.044 & 0.044 & 0.056\\*
& & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 17841 - 18068 & 2 - \enspace69 &&116/116 &0.044 & 0.045 & 0.1\\*
& & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 19726 - 19945 & 2 - \enspace63 &&101/101 &0.044 & 0.044 & 0.057\\*
& & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 18744 - 18937 & 2 - \enspace60 &&93/93 &0.044 & 0.045 & 0.081\\*
& & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 17774 - 17937 & 3 - \enspace56 &&67/67 &0.044 & 0.046 & 0.13\\*
& & f $^1\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 19748 - 19800 & 4 - \enspace24 &&27/27 &0.044 & 0.044 & 0.044\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
90StShJuRu & \citet{90StShJu.TiO} & X $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 2 - \enspace\enspace\enspace\enspace3 & 1 - \enspace\enspace3 &&2/2 &10$^{-5}$ & 10$^{-5}$ & 10$^{-5}$ & (1i) \\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
91GuAmVe & \citet{91GuAmVe.TiO} & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 14848 - 15134 & 3 - \enspace48 &&171/170 &0.03 & 0.031 & 0.046 & (1j) \\*
& & B $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 3 & 13925 - 14129 & 6 - \enspace24 &&14/14 &0.03 & 0.031 & 0.05\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 19930 - 19995 & 5 - \enspace23 &&9/9 &0.03 & 0.036 & 0.061\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 2 & 18946 - 18992 & 15 - \enspace21 &&7/7 &0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 4 & 16965 - 17040 & 10 - \enspace31 &&23/23 &0.03 & 0.031 & 0.06\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 5 & 16031 - 16088 & 5 - \enspace22 &&24/24 &0.03 & 0.03 & 0.03\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
91SiHa & \citet{91SiHaxx.TiO} & E $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 11801 - 11852 & 0 - \enspace15 &&111/109 &0.1 & 0.13 & 0.47\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
95KaMcHe & \citet{95KaMcHe.TiO} & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 2 - 0 & 17675 - 17738 & 2 - \enspace34 &&84/84 &0.01 & 0.013 & 0.089\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 3 & 17969 - 18011 & 3 - \enspace26 &&42/42 &0.01 & 0.014 & 0.045\\*
& & C $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 4 & 16995 - 17040 & 3 - \enspace27 &&39/39 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.019\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
96AmChLu & \citet{96AmChLu.TiO} & c $^1\Phi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 17711 - 17860 & 3 - \enspace97 &&114/114 &0.005 & 0.0052 & 0.0091 & (1k) \\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
96BaMeMe & \citet{96BaMeMe.TiO} & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 14022 - 14172 & 1 - \enspace26 &&63/63 &0.0002 & 0.0003 & 0.00063\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
96RaBeWa & \citet{96RaBeWa.TiO} & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 10960 - 11284 & 1 - 108 &&405/404 &0.02 & 0.021 & 0.076\\*
& & b $^1\Pi$ \enspace-- a $^1\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 11009 - 11186 & 1 - \enspace82 &&231/231 &0.02 & 0.021 & 0.05\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
98NaSaRoSt & \citet{98NaSaRo.TiO} & X $^3\Delta$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 7 - \enspace\enspace\enspace12 & 6 - \enspace11 &&9/9 & 10$^{-7}$ & 10$^{-7}$ & 10$^{-7}$ & (1l) \\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
99RaBeDuWa & \citet{99RaBeDu.TiO} & & & & & & & & & & (1m) \\*
-Lab & & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 13863 - 14172 & 3 - \enspace89 &&291/285 &0.004 & 0.0044 & 0.02\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 12918 - 13173 & 3 - \enspace66 &&368/355 &0.004 & 0.0054 & 0.09\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 14725 - 15031 & 2 - \enspace72 &&243/239 &0.004 & 0.0047 & 0.023\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 13729 - 14031 & 3 - \enspace72 &&409/392 &0.004 & 0.0047 & 0.026\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 12809 - 13041 & 2 - \enspace68 &&382/377 &0.004 & 0.0049 & 0.031\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 14592 - 14882 & 5 - \enspace66 &&360/354 &0.004 & 0.0049 & 0.022\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 3 & 12680 - 12911 & 3 - \enspace54 &&268/267 &0.004 & 0.0046 & 0.017\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 2 & 14478 - 14733 & 4 - \enspace59 &&241/241 &0.004 & 0.0044 & 0.022\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 3 - 4 & 12588 - 12760 & 7 - \enspace52 &&138/137 &0.004 & 0.0042 & 0.012\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 4 - 3 & 14336 - 14589 & 8 - \enspace59 &&244/243 &0.004 & 0.0043 & 0.012\\*
\vspace{-0.5em}\\*
-Sunspots (SS) & & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 13601 - 14071 & 30 - 110 &&132/132 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 1 & 12830 - 13123 & 11 - \enspace98 &&102/102 &0.01 & 0.012 & 0.044\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 14673 - 14883 & 12 - \enspace83 &&57/57 &0.01 & 0.012 & 0.043\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 1 & 13606 - 13936 & 26 - 107 &&94/94 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.033\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 2 & 12703 - 12958 & 11 - \enspace98 &&149/149 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.046\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 1 & 14671 - 14722 & 7 - \enspace66 &&4/4 &0.01 & 0.019 & 0.038\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 2 & 13618 - 13817 & 16 - \enspace82 &&70/70 &0.01 & 0.012 & 0.042\\*
& & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 2 - 3 & 12660 - 12831 & 13 - \enspace83 &&77/76 &0.01 & 0.011 & 0.027\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
02KoHaMuSe & \citet{02KoHaMu.TiO} & A $^3\Phi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 2 & 12176 - 12182 & 3 - \enspace15 &&12/12 &0.01 & 0.016 & 0.025 & (1n) \\*
& & E $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 0 - 0 & 11796 - 11855 & 0 - \enspace35 &&348/347 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.036\\*
& & E $^3\Pi$ \enspace-- X $^3\Delta$ & 1 - 0 & 12739 - 12760 & 0 - \enspace13 &&57/56 &0.01 & 0.01 & 0.024\\
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\subsection{Collation of data sources}
The collated data sources used in the rotationally-resolved {\sc Marvel}\ analysis
are summarised in \Cref{tab:datasources}. In total, we use 24 data
sources, involving 11 electronic states with 49,679 transitions, 123 total
(non-unique) vibronic bands and 84 total unique vibronic bands. The full list of
compiled data converted to {\sc Marvel}\ format is in the Supplementary Information;
an extract is given in \Cref{tab:marvelinput}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:marvelinput
Extract from the 48Ti-16O.marvel.inp input file for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.
\footnotesize \tabcolsep=5pt
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{lllcclccrrrrr
\\
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{4} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{9} \\% & \multicolumn{1}{c}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{11} \\% \multicolumn{1}{c}{12} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{13} \\% & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15 & 16 & 17 & 18 & 19 & 20 & 21 & 22 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tilde{\nu}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Delta\tilde{\nu}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{State$^\prime$} & $J^\prime$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$v^\prime$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{State$^{\prime\prime}$} & $J^{\prime\prime}$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$v^{\prime\prime}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{ID} \\
\midrule
14463.63 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_3 & 122 & 1 & X3Delta\_2 & 122 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.18910 \\
14336.8 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_3 & 122 & 1 & X3Delta\_2 & 123 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.18914 \\
14634.87 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_4 & 122 & 1 & X3Delta\_3 & 121 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.18916 \\
14508.26 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_4 & 122 & 1 & X3Delta\_3 & 122 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.18918 \\
14380.56 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_4 & 122 & 1 & X3Delta\_3 & 123 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.18922 \\
14408.6 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_2 & 123 & 1 & X3Delta\_1 & 123 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.19008 \\
14281.54 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_2 & 123 & 1 & X3Delta\_1 & 124 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.19010 \\
14582.06 & 0.2 & A3Phi\_3 & 123 & 1 & X3Delta\_2 & 122 & 0 & 73Phillips\_AX.19012 \\
9635.433 & 0.01 & b1Pi & 3f & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 3 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.65 \\
9640.637 & 0.012 & b1Pi & 22e & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 21 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.662 \\
9637.572 & 0.015 & b1Pi & 26e & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 25 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.802 \\
9639.478 & 0.033 & b1Pi & 4e & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 3 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.85 \\
9635.617 & 0.01 & b1Pi & 28e & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 27 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.868 \\
9635.162 & 0.01 & b1Pi & 4f & 4 & d1Sigma+ & 4 & 3 & 80GaBrDa.97 \\
16229.687 & 0.127596 & B3Pi\_0 & 5b & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 4 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.1 \\
16231.492 & 0.213806 & B3Pi\_0 & 14b & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 13 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.10 \\
16197.913 & 0.1 & B3Pi\_0 & 46a & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 45 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.100 \\
16195.911 & 0.1 & B3Pi\_0 & 47a & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 46 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.101 \\
16193.918 & 0.1 & B3Pi\_0 & 48a & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 47 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.102 \\
16191.766 & 0.1 & B3Pi\_0 & 49a & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 48 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.103 \\
16189.615 & 0.1 & B3Pi\_0 & 50a & 0 & X3Delta\_1 & 49 & 0 & 69Phxxxx.104 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\\
Column & Notation & \\
\midrule
1 & $\tilde{\nu}$ & Transition frequency (in cm$^{-1}$) \\
2 & $\Delta\tilde{\nu}$ & Estimated uncertainty in transition frequency (in cm$^{-1}$) \\
3 & State$^\prime$ & Electronic state of upper energy level, including $\Omega$ for triplet states, where $\Omega=\Lambda+\Sigma$; \\
& & $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ are projections of the total angular momentum and the electron spin angular\\
& & momentum on the internuclear axis, respectively, of the upper level \\
4 & $J^\prime$ & Total angular momentum of upper level and rotationaless parity for $\Pi$ states \\
5 & $v^\prime$ & Vibrational quantum number of upper level \\
6 & State$^{\prime\prime}$ & Electronic state of lower energy level, including $\Omega$ for triplet states \\
7 & $J^{\prime\prime}$ & Total angular momentum of lower level and rotationaless parity for $\Pi$ states \\
8 & $v^{\prime\prime}$ & Vibrational quantum number of lower level \\
9 & ID & Unique ID for transition, with reference key for source (see \Cref{tab:datasources}) and counting number \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tab:databandheads} TiO references that contain experimental measurements of band positions (often bandheads). See \Cref{subsec:comments_bh} for comments. \# refers to the number of bandheads provided. }
\begin{tabular}{llHHlrc
\\
\\ \toprule
Tag & Ref & Used? & Comment & System & \# & Comment \\
\bottomrule
28Lowater & \citet{28Lowater.TiO} & & & various, some unassigned & 144 & (3a) \\
29Christya & \citet{29Chxxx1.TiO} & & & A-X, C-X & 62 & (3b) \\%Significant number of band-heads for C-X band \\
37WuMe & \citet{37WuMexx.TiO} & Got version, in German & & b-a, b-d & 7 & (3a) \\
57GaRoJu & \citet{57GaRoJu.TiO} & ? & Original data not found, however, 69LiNi provides assignment of band from this spectra. & b-a & 1 & (3a)\\
69LiNi & \citet{69LiNixx.TiO} & No & Bandheads only & c-a & 4 & (3a) \\
69Lockwood & \citet{69Loxxxx.TiO} & No & 7 bands identified (including some new) from Mira spectra. & b-d, b-a & 7 & \\
69Phillips & \citet{69Phxxxx.TiO} & No &Bandheads only & B-X & 32 \\% R-branch \\%(0-0, 1-1, 2-2, 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, 5-4 \\
72PhDa & \citet{72PhDaxx.TiO} &No & C-X bandheads only in paper; data used in this paper may be attributed to 73Phillips in Marvel TiO file (as the raw data is obtained from a tape processed by Kurucz in 1981). & C-X & 22 & (3c) \\
76ZyPa & \citet{76ZyPaxx.TiO} & No &Bandheads only & B-X & 20 \\%(0-0, 1-1, 2-2, 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, 5-4 \\
77LiBrb& \citet{77LiBrx1.TiO} &No& Bandheads only & E-X & 45 & (3c)\\
82DeVore & \citet{82DeVore.TiO} & No & Bandheads only & f-a & 8 & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tab:intensities} TiO references that contain measurements relevant to the verification of the dipole moments, e.g. lifetimes, transition intensities (relative or absolute) and dipole moment measurements.
\begin{tabular}{llHll
\\
\\ \toprule
Tag & Ref & Used? & Type & Bands/ States \\
\bottomrule
54Phillips & \citet{54Phxxxx.TiO} & No & Relative intensity & C-X \\
70LiNi & \citet{70LiNixx.TiO} & No & Relative intensity & C-X, c-a \\% & Yes, intensities \\
71PrSuPe & \citet{71PrSuPe.TiO} & No & Intensity & A-X, C-X \\% only, A-X, C-X transitions & Yes, intensities \\
72Dube & \citet{72Duxxxx.TiO} & No & Intensity & c-a \\% ?? (don't have copy of paper)\\
74PrSuPe & \citet{74PrSuPe.TiO} & No & Intensity & A-X, C-X \\
74FaWoBe & \citet{74FaWoBe.TiO} & No & Intensity & C-X \\
75Zyrnicki & \citet{75Zyxxxx.TiO} & No & Intensity & c-a \\%Yes \\
76FeBiDa & \citet{76FeBiDa.TiO} & No & Lifetime & c $^1\Phi${} ($v$=0) \\%Yes \\
77FeDa & \citet{77FeDaxx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & c $^1\Phi${} ($v$=0) \\%? \\
78FeDa & \citet{78FeDaxx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & C $^3\Delta$$_3$ ($v$=2, $J$=17,87) \\
78StLi & \citet{78StLixx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & C $^3\Delta${} ($v$=0, 1, 2)\\% & Yes \\
79RaRaRa & \citet{79RaRaRa.TiO} & No & Intensity & B-X \\
86DaLiPh & \citet{86DaLiPh.TiO} & No & Intensity & c-a, b-a, b-d, B-X, A-X and C-X \\%Analysis of lambda doubling in b-d transition (no assigned transition data) and
89StSh & \citet{89StShxx.TiO} & No & Dipole moment & X \\
92CaSc & \citet{92CaScxx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & B $^3\Pi$$_1$ ($v$=0) \\
92DoWe & \citet{92DoWexx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & A $^3\Phi$$_2$ ($v$=0), B $^3\Pi$$_0$ ($v$=0), C $^3\Delta$$_1$ (v=0) \\
95HeNaCo & \citet{95HeNaCo.TiO} & No & Lifetime & A, B, C, c, f and E \\
98Lundevall & \citet{98Luxxxx.TiO} & No & Lifetime & E $^3\Pi${} ($v$=0) \\
03StVi & \citet{03StVixx.TiO} & No & Dipole moment & X, E, A and B \\
03NaMiIt & \citet{03NaMiIt.TiO} & No & Intensity & C-X \\
04NaSaIt & \citet{04NaSaIt.TiO} & No & Intensity & C-X \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\clearpage
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{longtable}{llHp{10cm}H}
\caption{\label{tab:otherrefs} TiO references that are not used in the rotationally-resolved {\sc Marvel}\ or band-head analysis and do not focus on intensity determination. This list concentrates on sunspot observations analysed specifically for TiO, experimental studies or analysis of experimental studies.
\\
\\ \toprule
Tag & Ref & Used? & Comment & Other Use? \\%Physical conditions & Comments \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{5}{c}%
{{ \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\toprule
Tag & Ref & Used? & Comment & Other Use? \\%Physical conditions & Comments \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
1904Fowler & \citet{1904Fowler.TiO} & & No explicit assignment \\% (at the time, TiO not unambigiously identified as source) \\
26King & \citet{26King.TiO} & & No rotationally resolved data \\
27BiCh & \citet{27BiChxx.TiO} & & Paper not available online \\
28ChBi & \citet{28ChBixx.TiO} & & No rotationally resolved data\\
29Lowater & \citet{29Lowater.TiO} & & No absolute band position data \\
29Christyb & \citet{29Chxxxx.TiO} & & Summary of 29Christya \\
36Budo & \citet{36Buxxxx.TiO} & Got version, in German & Combination differences only \\
37Dobron & \citet{37Doxxxx.TiO} & & Source not available, but the measurements are unlikely to be accurate enough for use \\%, but title suggests focus on analysis rather than new data \\
52Phillips & \citet{52Phxxx2.TiO} & No & Identification of ground state symmetry, no new data \\
59Pettera & \citet{59Pettera.TiO} & No &Source not available, but the measurements are unlikely to be accurate enough for use in {\sc Marvel}\ & No\\
59Petterb & \citet{59Petterb.TiO} &No &Source not available, but the measurements are unlikely to be accurate enough for use in {\sc Marvel}\ & No\\
61PeLi & \citet{61PeLixx.TiO} &No &Figures only, no numerical data \\
62Petter & \citet{62Petterson.TiO} & No & Source not available, but the measurements are unlikely to be accurate enough to use in {\sc Marvel}; contains d-b data \\
68Makita & \citet{68Makita.TiO} & No & Sunspot data with 63 lines only \\
70PaPa & \citet{70PaPaxx.TiO} & No&Bandheads only, and very high energy bands considered \\
71McThWe & \citet{71McThWe.TiO} &No &Inert neon matrix used, bandheads only \\
72BaGuPiDe & \citet{72BaGuPi.TiO} & No & Dissociation energy only & Yes \\
72PaHs & \citet{72PaHsxx.TiO} & No &Bandheads only in UV \\
73Engvold & \citet{73Enxxxx.TiO} & No & Fitting to sunspot spectral, newer data available & \\
74Phillips & \citet{74Phxxxx.TiO} & No & Prediction of X $^3\Delta${} energy levels based on combination differences of other observed data \\
75BrBr & \citet{75BrBrxx.TiO} & No & Inert neon matrix used, bandheads only \\
75Collins & \citet{75Coxxxx.TiO} & No & Analysis only \\
76Hilden & \citet{76Hixxxx.TiO} & No & No spectroscopic data, only dissociation energy & ?? \\
77DuGo & \citet{77DuGoxx.TiO} &No & No rotationally resolved data; bandheads for highly excited state only \\
77LiBra & \citet{77LiBrxx.TiO} &No& Original measurement of C-a transition frequency, no tabulated rotationally resolved data \\
83KoKuGu & \citet{83KoKuGu.TiO} & Laura to look for & Measurement of singlet-triplet energy gap \\% \alert{No pdf, title "ENERGY OF THE TIO-MOLECULE ALPHA-1 DELTA-STATE" \& Russian (needs translation!) \& contains singlet-triplet gap measurement apparently}\\
84DyGrJoLe & \citet{84DyGrJo.TiO} & No & Limited data on bandheads that is available elsewhere \\%Data not rotationally resolved & Maybe (some vibrational structure may be available)\\
85CaCrDu & \citet{85CaCrDu.TiO} &No& No relevant data \\
93FlScJu & \citet{93FlScJu.TiO} & & Analysis of hyperfine structure in $^{47}$Ti$^{16}$O \\
94WiRoVa & \citet{94WiRoVa.TiO} & No & Transitions observed in inert argon matrix \\
95AmAzLu & \citet{95AmAzLu.TiO} & Yes & Original transition data unfortunately not found: B-X (1,0) band at high sub-Doppler resolution (0.002 cm$^{-1}${}) up to J=96 according to paper \\
97BaMeMe & \citet{97BaMeMe.TiO} & No (Check) & Contains bands from very high $^3\Pi$ electronic states that give evidence of D $^3\Sigma^-${} state at 12 284 cm$^{-1}${} above X $^3\Delta${}, with a vibrational frequency around 968 cm$^{-1}${} \\
97LudAAmVe & \citet{97LudAAm.TiO} & Yes & Reanalysis of data from 96AmChLu \\
98VeLuAm & \citet{98VeLuAm.TiO} & Yes & Reanalysis of data from 96AmChLu and 95AmAzLu \\
00CoSiGl & \citet{00CoSiGl.TiO} & No & Low-resolution data demonstrating detection only & \\
01HePeDu & \citet{01HePeDu.TiO} & No & Unassigned very high temperature spectra \\
02AmLuVe & \citet{02AmLuVe.TiO} &No& No data on the \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O} isotopologue & \\
03NaItDa & \citet{03NaItDa.TiO} & No & No new experimental data \\
05ViStBr & \citet{05ViStBr.TiO} & No & Zeeman splitting data only, B-X (0-0) and A-X (0-0) \\
12WoPaHo & \citet{12WoPaHo.TiO} & No & Unresolved spectra & \\%Measurement and analysis of titanium monoxide spectra in laser-induced plasma
13HuLuChLa & \citet{13HuLuCh.TiO} &No& TiO$^+$ spectra, some low-resolution TiO bands not considered here \\
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
There are a number of data sources, particularly from the early-mid twentieth century,
which provide data on positions of bands (usually band-heads, though sometimes
this is unspecified). Often these early studies went to significantly higher
vibrational levels than more modern experiments which have tended to focus on very high
accuracy rotationally resolved lines. These two types of data are often quite
complementary and together build a quite extensive understanding of the rovibronic energies
of the molecule. We have collated data sources with information on bands in
\Cref{tab:databandheads}.
Another important type of data is measurements of the intensity of bands and the
lifetimes of states. The sources of this data have been collated in
\Cref{tab:intensities}. These data are not used here but
will be used later to verify the dipole moment
curves for the Duo spectroscopic model of TiO.
There are a number of other studies of TiO spectra which we have not been used in this study for various
reasons. These data sources are collated in \Cref{tab:otherrefs} with comments.
\subsection{Comments on the rotationally-resolved data sources (Table 1)}
\label{subsec:comments}
Many papers give uncertainties that we adopt unaltered and found to be
reasonably consistent with all other TiO data (i.e. a relatively small number of
transitions needed adjusted uncertainties or could not be verified), specifically:
0.02 cm$^{-1}${} (for unblended lines, up to 0.07 cm$^{-1}${} for unblended lines) in
74Linton, 0.008 cm$^{-1}${} (unblended lines) for 79HoGeMe, 0.01 cm$^{-1}${} in 80GaBrDa,
0.044 cm$^{-1}${} in 85BrGa, 0.03 cm$^{-1}${} in 91GuAmVe, 0.1 cm$^{-1}${} in 91SiHaxx, 0.01
cm$^{-1}${} in 95KaMcHe, 0.002 cm$^{-1}${} in 96BaMeMe, 0.02 cm$^{-1}${} in 96RaBeWa. Other comments related to Table 1 are as follows.
\begin{description}
\item[(1a)] Data due to Phillips (50Phillips, 51Phillips, 69Phillips, 71PhDa,
71Phillips, 73Phillips-AX, 73Phillips-BX and 73Phillips-CX) are obtained from
photographic plates. Originally, we used 0.045 cm$^{-1}${} as the estimated
uncertainty for these data. However, we found significant inconsistencies with
this uncertainty and increased it to 0.1 cm$^{-1}${} for data published in these
papers and 0.2 cm$^{-1}${} for data found from external sources (though these data have been
analysed within the published papers).
\item[(1b)] 51Phillips incorrectly assigns that the $\gamma$ band to the a
$^3\Delta$--$^3\Pi$ band; it is actually a $^3\Phi$--$^3\Delta$ band (the lowest
state at that stage was believed to be X$^3\Pi$). We have modified the $state$
and $\Omega$ quantum numbers.
\item[(1c)] 69Phillips incorrectly identifies the band as the unphysical
B $^3\Pi$$_{1}${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_{0}$ in the data table only, rather than B $^3\Pi$$_{0}${} --
X $^3\Delta$$_{1}$ (as in the text).
\item[(1d)] 50Phillips-ext and 73Phillips data were obtained from tapes given by
Phillips to Kurucz in 1981 (these data are not in the original publication). It is not
clear if the c-a data from this tape data has been published; we have chosen
to link the data to the original Phillips c-a paper, i.e. 50Phillips-ext. The
bandhead details from the A-X, B-X and C-X data are given in 73Phillips; thus we
assign the tape data on these bands to this paper. The tape data has 174
transitions which have unphysical assignments, $J \le | \Omega-\Sigma|$; e.g. an
A $^3\Phi${} energy level with J$<$2. There are 55 C-X, 112 A-X and 7 c-a unphysical
transitions. There is some repetition between data in the 73Phillips compilation
and earlier data, e.g. the 71Phillips B-X data. However, the tape compilation of data
is significantly more extensive while the former has been published explicitly
assigned. Therefore, we use both. Note that the number of unverified transitions
from these data is significantly higher than other data sources; however, as the
resulting energies were reasonable, we chose not to exclude these data sets. We note
that these data have been used to inform some of the available TiO linelists, particularly
the recent update of the \citet{98Plxxxx.TiO} linelist for inclusion in the VALD database \citep{VALD3}.
\item[(1e)] 72Linton: obs-calc was given as 0.03 cm$^{-1}${}; however, we found
uncertainties of 0.05 cm$^{-1}${} were more consistent with other measurements.
\item[(1f)] 72Lindgren gives no uncertainties; we used 0.05 cm$^{-1}${} (based on
72Linton) which gave self-consistent results.
\item[(1g)] 79HoGeMe: a full set of data were obtained from Amiot (private communication, 2015). Only
the 0-0 data were provided in the original paper
\item[(1h)] 79GaDe provides rovibrational energy levels, but does not distinguish between the spectra of different spin components; we have used the median $S=0$, i.e. $\Omega=2$ for the associated energy levels.
\item[(1i)] 90StShJu: the stated uncertainty is 0.5 MHz, on the order of
$10^{-5}$ cm$^{-1}${}, which has been adopted.
\item[(1j)] 91GuAmVe data were obtained from Amiot (private communication, 2015).
\item[(1k)] 96AmChLu state that the width of the lines under their experimental
conditions was 0.005 cm$^{-1}${}; we adopted this as the estimated uncertainty of the
line position.
\item[(1l)] 98NaSaRo estimated uncertainty is
8 kHz, equivalent to $10^{-7}$ cm$^{-1}${}, which has been adopted.
\item[(1m)] 99RaBeDu laboratory and sunspots (SS) measurements: the need for
consistency with other measurements (and to maximise the number of validated
transitions and minimize the need for increased uncertainties of some lines)
meant that we doubled the uncertainties from the original paper from 0.02 and
0.005 cm$^{-1}${} for lab and sunspot data to 0.004 and 0.01 cm$^{-1}${}.
\item[(1n)] 02KoHaMc uncertainties estimates were given as 0.002 -- 0.005 cm$^{-1}${};
however, 0.01 cm$^{-1}${} seems to be a more reasonable estimate based on the overall
{\sc Marvel}\ model. This value was adopted.
\end{description}
\subsection{Comments on data sources for band-head information (Table 3)}
\label{subsec:comments_bh}
\begin{description}
\item[(3a)] 69LiNi suggests assignments for 2 bands in the 28Lowater data, 7 in
the 37WuMe data and 1 in the 57GaRoJu data.
\item[(3b)] 29Christya has rotationally-resolved data, but more recent higher
resolution data sources are available, so we only used the bandhead
information.
\item[(3c)] 72PhDa and 77LiBrb: it is assumed that the wavelengths are taken
in air at standard temperature and pressure; a refraction index of 1.00029 is
used to convert to frequency in vacuum.
\end{description}
\section{{\sc Marvel}\ energy levels}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{VibronicNetwork.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:vibronicSN}Vibronic structure of the \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}\ spectroscopic network.
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Spectroscopic Networks}
The vibronic structure of the spectroscopic network of the experimentally
assigned TiO transitions is shown in \Cref{fig:vibronicSN}. Probably the most
important observed transitions are the spin-forbidden C $^3\Delta${} -- a $^1\Delta${} transitions
from \citet{95KaMcHe.TiO} that allows the relative energy of the triplet and
singlet manifolds to be fixed.
The figure makes clear that the X $^3\Delta${}, A $^3\Phi${} and C $^3\Delta${} states, up to high
vibrational energies, are well characterised. There are a number of sources providing vibrational connections,
though further observations of the vibrationally excited C $^3\Delta${}{} -- X $^3\Delta${}
transitions with modern techniques would be beneficial.
No transitions involving the B $^3\Pi${} state higher than $v=1$ have been assigned in
rotationally-resolved spectra. The bond lengths of the A $^3\Phi${} and B $^3\Pi${} states are
comparable and significantly larger than the bond length of the X $^3\Delta${} state; we
thus expect that B $^3\Pi${}{} -- X $^3\Delta${} Franck Condon transitions with higher changes in
vibrational quantum number should be observable like the A $^3\Phi${}{} -- X $^3\Delta${}
transitions. Indeed, as discussed below, band-heads for these transitions have
been assigned.
The E $^3\Pi${} state is sparsely characterized and the key experiments by
\citet{02KoHaMu.TiO} were only performed after construction of the seminal TiO line lists
of \citet{94Joxxxx.TiO}, \citet{98Plxxxx.TiO}, and
\citet{98Scxxxx.TiO}. In particular, the observation of the $v=1$ band allow a
reasonable Morse oscillator fit to the E $^3\Pi${} state potential energy curve that
previously only was characterised by its ground vibrational level.
Taken together, the experimental observations of the singlet states produce an
almost completely connected network. For example, none of the c $^1\Phi${} -- a $^1\Delta${}
transitions from \citet{74Lixxxx.TiO} involve a change in the vibrational quantum
number due to the near parallel curves for the two states; by themselves these
give no absolute vibrational energies. However, the f $^1\Delta${} -- a $^1\Delta${} transitions do often
involve changes in the vibrational quantum number and allow the absolute vibrational
energies of the c $^1\Phi${} and a $^1\Delta${} states to be extracted. These sorts of arguments
are common in the singlet manifold; due to this there is only one band
unconnected to the large TiO spectroscopic network: the transitions between the
c $^1\Phi${} ($v$=3) and a $^1\Delta${} ($v$=3) states. This band is treated as a floating
component in this study. Unlike in the triplet manifold, however, most
transitions in the singlet manifold have only been measured once and often this
is pre-1990s. Modern re-measurements would allow higher accuracy results for the
singlet energy levels of TiO.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:results} Extract from the 48Ti-16O.energies output file for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}. Energies and uncertainties are given in cm$^{-1}${}. No indicates the number of transitions which contributed to the stated energy and uncertainty. }
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{lcclll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{State} & $J$ & $v$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\tilde{E}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Unc.} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{No} \\
\midrule
X3Delta\_1 & 1 & 0 & 0.0 & 0.00001 & 36 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 2 & 0 & 2.111897 & 0.000007 & 50 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 3 & 0 & 5.279694 & 0.00001 & 60 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 4 & 0 & 9.505353 & 0.000199 & 59 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 5 & 0 & 14.78605 & 0.000199 & 58 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 6 & 0 & 21.121889 & 0.000001 & 65 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 7 & 0 & 28.513037 & 0.000001 & 61 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 8 & 0 & 36.959873 & 0.000001 & 68 \\
X3Delta\_1 & 9 & 0 & 46.463111 & 0.000001 & 70 \\
b1Pi & 86f & 0 & 18511.91059 & 0.008909 & 3 \\
A3Phi\_3 & 43 & 4 & 18513.79788 & 0.003993 & 10 \\
A3Phi\_2 & 47 & 4 & 18514.59668 & 0.003993 & 10 \\
A3Phi\_3 & 14 & 5 & 18514.86149 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
b1Pi & 20e & 4 & 18518.44328 & 0.005774 & 3 \\
A3Phi\_3 & 83 & 1 & 18520.93357 & 0.005725 & 18 \\
A3Phi\_4 & 39 & 4 & 18522.97952 & 0.003672 & 10 \\
A3Phi\_3 & 15 & 5 & 18529.54712 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
A3Phi\_2 & 24 & 5 & 18532.63495 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
B3Pi\_0 & 68b & 0 & 18535.06106 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
B3Pi\_1 & 67b & 0 & 18535.90423 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
B3Pi\_0 & 68a & 0 & 18536.51772 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
B3Pi\_1 & 67a & 0 & 18536.5709 & 0.11547 & 3 \\
B3Pi\_2 & 66a & 0 & 18538.92466 & 0.141421 & 2 \\
B3Pi\_2 & 66b & 0 & 18538.92466 & 0.141421 & 2 \\
b1Pi & 21e & 4 & 18539.41806 & 0.005774 & 3 \\
b1Pi & 21f & 4 & 18539.49211 & 0.01 & 1 \\
A3Phi\_2 & 75 & 2 & 18540.01583 & 0.057735 & 12 \\
B3Pi\_0 & 54b & 1 & 18540.12798 & 0.008 & 1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{{\sc Marvel}\ energy levels}
The final energy levels from the {\sc Marvel}\ analysis are collated in the
Supplementary Information. An extract from this file, together with a
description of each column, is provided in \Cref{tab:results}.
The data of \Cref{tab:results} for the X $^3\Delta$$_1$, X $^3\Delta$$_2$, and X $^3\Delta$$_3$ states, where the subscript corresponds to the three possible $\Omega$ values, confirm that the three fine-structure states have very slightly different ``rotational'' levels and that transitions have been observed within all three fine-structure states. Note also that only a very small number of transitions within a fine-structure state have been measured, which calls for further experimental studies.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{SN1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:EnvsJ}Summary of characterized energy levels. Different lines indicate different spin-vibronic states.}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:EnvsJ} shows graphically the energy against the total angular momentum for all different spin-vibronic states in the main spectroscopic network. The triplets can be identified by near parallel closely spaced lines. The vibrational levels of each electronic state are separated by approximately 1000 cm$^{-1}${}. The fact that all curves are smooth quadratics provides confidence in the extracted {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels.
\clearpage
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{longtable}{lllclllllll}
\caption{\label{tab:E1}Summary of energy levels found through the {\sc Marvel}\ analysis.} \\
\toprule
& $v$ & $p$ & $J$ Range & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uncertainties (cm$^{-1}${})} \\
& & & & Min & Aver. & Max \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{5}{c}%
{{ \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\toprule
& $v$ & $p$ &$J$ Range & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Uncertainties (cm$^{-1}${})} \\
& & & & Min & Aver. & Max \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
X $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 0 & & 1 - 150 & 0.0002 & 0.021 & 0.12\\*
& 1 & & 1 - 150 & 0.0013 & 0.026 & 0.14\\*
& 2 & & 1 - 142 & 0.0016 & 0.034 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 1 - 133 & 0.0016 & 0.039 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 1 - 125 & 0.0028 & 0.068 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 1 - 134 & 0.02 & 0.086 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
X $^3\Delta$$_2$ & 0 & & 2 - 154 & 0.0002 & 0.022 & 0.1\\*
& 1 & & 2 - 153 & 0.0012 & 0.025 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 2 - 140 & 0.0016 & 0.029 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 2 - 150 & 0.0016 & 0.04 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 2 - 130 & 0.0028 & 0.062 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 2 - 124 & 0.028 & 0.1 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
X $^3\Delta$$_3$ & 0 & & 3 - 161 & 0.00048 & 0.029 & 0.14\\*
& 1 & & 3 - 162 & 0.0013 & 0.036 & 0.14\\*
& 2 & & 3 - 142 & 0.0018 & 0.036 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 3 - 148 & 0.0017 & 0.055 & 0.26\\*
& 4 & & 3 - 131 & 0.0035 & 0.097 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 3 - 130 & 0.02 & 0.086 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 0 & & 2 - 151 & 0.0002 & 0.031 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & & 2 - 150 & 0.0015 & 0.031 & 0.14\\*
& 2 & & 2 - 151 & 0.0016 & 0.048 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 2 - 141 & 0.0018 & 0.05 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 2 - 134 & 0.0023 & 0.047 & 0.14\\*
& 5 & & 2 - 133 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
A $^3\Phi$$_3$ & 0 & & 3 - 155 & 0.0002 & 0.029 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & & 3 - 154 & 0.0013 & 0.029 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 3 - 148 & 0.0016 & 0.038 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 3 - 147 & 0.0018 & 0.053 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 3 - 149 & 0.0023 & 0.071 & 0.42\\*
& 5 & & 3 - 136 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
A $^3\Phi$$_4$ & 0 & & 4 - 162 & 0.00048 & 0.041 & 0.14\\*
& 1 & & 4 - 163 & 0.0014 & 0.045 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 4 - 162 & 0.0017 & 0.061 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 4 - 143 & 0.0023 & 0.07 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 4 - 142 & 0.0023 & 0.063 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 4 - 136 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
B $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 0 & a & 0 - 141 & 0.0033 & 0.084 & 0.2\\*
& 0 & b & 1 - 137 & 0.004 & 0.075 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & a & 2 - 56 & 0.0033 & 0.0046 & 0.0081\\*
& 1 & b & 1 - 55 & 0.0035 & 0.0058 & 0.014\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
B $^3\Pi$$_1$ & 0 & a & 0 - 102 & 0.0032 & 0.046 & 0.2\\*
& 0 & b & 0 - 107 & 0.0039 & 0.063 & 0.18\\*
& 1 & a & 1 - 53 & 0.0023 & 0.0051 & 0.03\\*
& 1 & b & 2 - 55 & 0.0036 & 0.0072 & 0.03\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
B $^3\Pi$$_2$ & 0 & a & 2 - 140 & 0.0035 & 0.081 & 0.2\\*
& 0 & b & 3 - 140 & 0.004 & 0.082 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & a & 2 - 56 & 0.0033 & 0.0058 & 0.017\\*
& 1 & b & 3 - 54 & 0.004 & 0.006 & 0.0094\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 0 & & 1 - 151 & 0.071 & 0.082 & 0.14\\*
& 1 & & 1 - 139 & 0.082 & 0.092 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 1 - 125 & 0.017 & 0.092 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 1 - 114 & 0.082 & 0.11 & 0.36\\*
& 4 & & 1 - 73 & 0.082 & 0.088 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 2 - 48 & 0.1 & 0.11 & 0.2\\*
& 6 & & 13 - 51 & 0.1 & 0.11 & 0.2\\*
& 7 & & 2 - 66 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
C $^3\Delta$$_2$ & 0 & & 2 - 155 & 0.071 & 0.09 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & & 2 - 154 & 0.082 & 0.1 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 2 - 107 & 0.028 & 0.082 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 2 - 117 & 0.082 & 0.094 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 2 - 87 & 0.082 & 0.089 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 2 - 73 & 0.1 & 0.12 & 0.36\\*
& 6 & & 3 - 57 & 0.1 & 0.11 & 0.2\\*
& 7 & & 2 - 60 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
C $^3\Delta$$_3$ & 0 & & 3 - 158 & 0.071 & 0.089 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & & 3 - 143 & 0.082 & 0.097 & 0.2\\*
& 2 & & 3 - 118 & 0.0036 & 0.067 & 0.2\\*
& 3 & & 3 - 120 & 0.082 & 0.1 & 0.2\\*
& 4 & & 3 - 105 & 0.082 & 0.094 & 0.2\\*
& 5 & & 3 - 91 & 0.1 & 0.11 & 0.33\\*
& 6 & & 3 - 86 & 0.1 & 0.12 & 0.23\\*
& 7 & & 4 - 49 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.2\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
E $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 0 & a & 0 - 35 & 0.0057 & 0.0069 & 0.01\\*
& 0 & b & 0 - 32 & 0.0057 & 0.0068 & 0.01\\*
& 1 & a & 1 - 13 & 0.0058 & 0.0085 & 0.01\\*
& 1 & b & 0 - 12 & 0.0058 & 0.0076 & 0.011\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
E $^3\Pi$$_1$ & 0 & a & 1 - 25 & 0.0058 & 0.0066 & 0.01\\*
& 0 & b & 1 - 25 & 0.0058 & 0.0067 & 0.01\\*
& 1 & a & 2 - 6 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01\\*
& 1 & b & 2 - 6 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
E $^3\Pi$$_2$ & 0 & a & 2 - 23 & 0.0058 & 0.0065 & 0.0071\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
a $^1\Delta$ & 0 & & 2 - 100 & 0.0024 & 0.0073 & 0.14\\*
& 1 & & 2 - 92 & 0.0063 & 0.034 & 0.32\\*
& 2 & & 2 - 60 & 0.011 & 0.013 & 0.022\\*
& 3 & & 5 - 59 & 0.011 & 0.014 & 0.021\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
b $^1\Pi$ & 0 & e & 1 - 99 & 0.0038 & 0.0077 & 0.1\\*
& 0 & f & 1 - 99 & 0.0051 & 0.0086 & 0.028\\*
& 1 & e & 1 - 86 & 0.0034 & 0.0079 & 0.058\\*
& 1 & f & 1 - 82 & 0.0046 & 0.0063 & 0.013\\*
& 2 & e & 1 - 71 & 0.0041 & 0.0069 & 0.023\\*
& 2 & f & 2 - 70 & 0.0058 & 0.0077 & 0.035\\*
& 3 & e & 1 - 73 & 0.0045 & 0.0087 & 0.029\\*
& 3 & f & 1 - 70 & 0.0058 & 0.01 & 0.056\\*
& 4 & e & 1 - 66 & 0.0058 & 0.011 & 0.066\\*
& 4 & f & 3 - 56 & 0.0071 & 0.0096 & 0.019\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
c $^1\Phi$ & 0 & & 3 - 101 & 0.0028 & 0.016 & 0.2\\*
& 1 & & 3 - 93 & 0.011 & 0.052 & 0.49\\*
& 2 & & 3 - 60 & 0.011 & 0.013 & 0.02\\*
& 3 & & 6 - 59 & 0.011 & 0.014 & 0.021\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 & & 0 - 92 & 0.0033 & 0.0045 & 0.01\\*
& 1 & & 0 - 85 & 0.0029 & 0.0047 & 0.028\\*
& 2 & & 0 - 75 & 0.0033 & 0.0054 & 0.01\\*
& 3 & & 2 - 70 & 0.0038 & 0.0065 & 0.02\\*
& 4 & & 0 - 50 & 0.0058 & 0.0088 & 0.024\\*
& 5 & & 2 - 55 & 0.0071 & 0.0094 & 0.01\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
e $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 & & 1 - 49 & 0.035 & 0.041 & 0.053\\*
& 1 & & 8 - 59 & 0.035 & 0.04 & 0.078\\
\vspace{-0.5em}\\
f $^1\Delta$ & 0 & & 2 - 71 & 0.019 & 0.023 & 0.044\\*
& 1 & & 2 - 62 & 0.018 & 0.023 & 0.044\\*
& 2 & & 5 - 23 & 0.031 & 0.039 & 0.044\\
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
\Cref{tab:E1} tabulates the number of {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels that have been obtained for each spin-vibronic state, including the minimum, average and maximum uncertainty of the levels and the $J$ range covered.
In the X $^3\Delta${}, A $^3\Phi${} and C $^3\Delta${} states, quite high vibrational excitations have been observed, which should facilitate high accuracy in the spectroscopically-refined potential energy curves (PEC) for these states. However, in the E $^3\Pi${} and B $^3\Pi${} states, only the ground and first excited vibrational states have available data.
The a $^1\Delta${}, b $^1\Pi${}, c $^1\Phi${} and d $^1\Sigma^+${} singlet states have been well characterised to moderate vibrational excitations which will permit good refinement of the PECs. The e $^1\Sigma^+${} and f $^1\Delta${} states have two and three vibrational levels characterised, respectively; this will permit reasonable first-order approximations to the PECs. Note, however, that the number of perturbing states at higher excitation energies is very large and the potential energy curves of the more highly excited states (particularly the e $^1\Sigma^+${} state) are likely to be stongly affected.
\section{Discussion}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:tripletbandorigins}Triplet vibronic level origins from {\sc Marvel}\ data, and difference from \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} line list data, \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}; $J_\text{min}$ = $\Omega$ unless otherwise specified; all numners are given in cm${-1}$ . }
\center
\begin{tabular}{HlHHrrrrrrr}
\\ \toprule
&$v$ & & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{X $^3\Delta$$_1$} & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{X $^3\Delta$$_2$} & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{X $^3\Delta$$_3$} \\
\hline
X $^3\Delta$ & 0 & & 1 & 0.0000(2) & +0.0000 & 98.9039(2) & $-$0.036 & 203.7006(5) & $-$0.0229 \\
X $^3\Delta$ & 1 & & 1 & 1000.019(5) & +0.003 & 1098.922(6) & $-$0.030 & 1203.711(6) & $-$0.015\\
X $^3\Delta$ & 2 & & 1 & 1990.89(9) & $-$0.01 & 2089.790(4) & $-$0.036 & 2194.579(5) & $-$0.026 \\
X $^3\Delta$ & 3 & & 1 & 2972.55(9) & +0.02 & 3071.45(9) & $-$0.013 & 3176.235(7) & $-$0.004 \\
X $^3\Delta$ & 4 & & 1 & 3945.2(1)& $-$0.2 & 4044.1(1) & $-$0.181 & 4148.70(1) & +0.01 \\
X $^3\Delta$ & 5 & & 1 & 4908.3(1) & +0.0 & 5007.3(1) & $-$0.123 & 5112.0(1) & $-$0.0 \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
\\ \toprule
&$v$ & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_2$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_3$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_4$} \\
\hline
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 0 & & 2 & 14021.6986(2) & +0.0369 & 14197.6325(2) & +0.0302 & 14370.4654(5) & $-$0.0572 \\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 1 & & 2 & 14881.69(6)& $-$0.11 & 15057.388(3) & +0.026 & 15229.94(7) & +0.04 \\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 2 & & 2 & 15734.01(6) & +0.09 & 15909.39(6) & $-$0.00 & 16081.55(6) & +0.06 \\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 3 & & 2 & 16578.51(6) & +0.04 & 16753.58(6) & $-$0.06 & 16925.45(6) & +0.02 \\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 4 & & 2 & 17414.91(7) & $-$0.19 & 17589.85(7) & $-$0.12 & 17761.44(7) & $-$0.02\\
A $^3\Phi$$_2$ & 5 & & 2 & 18243.4(2) & +0.3 & 18418.0(1) & $-$0.0 & 18589.4(1) &-0.0 \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
\\ \toprule
&$v$ & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_0$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_1$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_2$} \\
\hline
B $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 0 & b & 1 & 16225.767(6)
& 1 & 16248.457(6)
& 2 & 16267.360(6) \\
B $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 1 & a
& 1 & 17089.313(8)$^{J=1}$
& 1 & 17112.64(3)
& 2 & 17131.681(8) \\%& 3 & 17134.874(8) \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
\\ \toprule
&$v$ & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_1$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_2$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_3$} \\
\hline
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 0 & & 1 & 19341.5(1) & $-$0.7 & 19442.3(1) & +1.0 & 19537.2(1) & +0.9 \\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 1 & & 1 & 20170.1(1) & $-$0.3 & 20271.3(1) & +0.9 & 20365.5(1) & +0.8\\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 2 & & 1 & 20990.6(1) & $-$0.8 & 21091.4(1) & +0.8 & 21181.262(4) & $-$0.051\\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 3 & & 1 & 21802.4(2) & $-$1.7 & 21902.8(1) & +0.3 & 21993.3(1) & +0.1 \\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 4 & & 1 & 22605.3(1) & $-$3.0 & 22704.6(1) & $-$0.2 & 22797.0(1) & +0.1\\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 5 & & 2 & 23401.9(2)$^{J=2}$ & & 23497.1(2) & $-$0.2 & 23591.9(2) & $-$0.3 \\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 6 & & 13 & 24252.0(1)$^{J=13}$ & & 24283.2(2)$^{J=3}$ & 3 & 24376.7(2) \\
C $^3\Delta$$_1$ & 7 & & 2 & 24952.4(2)$^{J=2}$ & & 25053.7(2) & 4 & 25155.5(2)$^{J=4}$ \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
\\ \toprule
&$v$ & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_0$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_1$} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_2$} \\
\hline
E $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 0 & a & 0 & 11838.204(5)
& 1 & 11924.082(5)
2 & 12013.724(5) \\
E $^3\Pi$$_0$ & 1 & a & 1 & 12752.166(4)
2 & 12838.667(5) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:singletbandorigins}Singlet vibronic level origins in cm$^{-1}${} for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}; $J_\text{min}$ = $\Lambda$ (= $\Omega$) unless otherwise specified.}
\center
\begin{tabular}{llHlrrrrr}
\\ \toprule
& $v$ & p & $J$ &{\sc Marvel}\ & \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} \\%BO(cm$^{-1}${}) \\%& Unc. & RL \\
\hline
a $^1\Delta$ & 0 & & 2 & 3446.481(8) & $-$0.044 \\
& 1 & & 2 & 4455.67(2) & $-$0.03\\
& 2 & & 2 & 5455.83(2) & +0.022\\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
b $^1\Pi$ & 0 & b & 1 & 14717.055(9) & +3.016 \\
& 1 & b & 1 & 15628.21(1) & +3.175\\
& 2 & a & 1 & 16530.741(6) & +3.176\\
& 3 & b & 1 & 17424.48(1) & +3.14\\
& 4 & a & 1 & 18309.459(7) & +2.995 \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
c $^1\Phi$ & 0 & & 3 & 21290.11(1) & +0.20 \\
& 1 & & 3 & 22199.59(2) & $-$0.145 \\
& 2 & & 3 & 23099.06(1) & $-$0.127 \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
d $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 & & 0 & 5661.92(1) & +0.03 \\% 5661.949 \\
& 1 & & 0 & 6675.304(7) & $-$0.08 \\% 6675.224 \\
& 2 & & 0 & 7678.78(1) & $-$0.04 \\%7678.742 \\
& 3 & & 2 & 8675.824(7)& $-$0.080\\%8672.51834 (J=0), \\
& 4 & & 0 & 9656.64(1) & $-$0.07\\
& 5 & & 5 & 10646.90(1) & $-$0.07 \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
e $^1\Sigma^+$ & 0 & & 1 & 29960.98(5)\\%$^{J=1}$ \\
& 1 & & 8 & 30839.17(5)\\%$^{J=8}$ \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
f $^1\Delta$ & 0 & & 2 & 22515.29(3) \\
& 1 & & 2 & 23384.44(4) \\
& 2 & & 5 & 24260.42(3)\\%$^{J=5}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Vibronic Band Origins
The triplet and singlet vibronic band origins from the {\sc Marvel}\ data are given
in \Cref{tab:tripletbandorigins} and \Cref{tab:singletbandorigins},
respectively. In most cases, the level given is the lowest possible $J$ for that
spin-vibronic state; however, there are some cases (e.g., high vibrational states
of the C $^3\Delta${} state) where this level was not observed. These {\sc Marvel}\ data will
soon be used with high level \emph{ab initio}\ data to construct a full spectroscopic
model of \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}; this can be used to predict the lowest $J$ energy levels for all
states, as well as higher vibrational levels not accessed by
rotationally-resolved \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}\ data.
The C $^3\Delta$$_{3}$ ($v$=2) origin and the c $^1\Phi${} ($v$=0) origin are separated by about
120 cm$^{-1}${} and are spin-orbit coupled; the resulting perturbations have been
extensively studied, see \citet{03NaItDa.TiO}.
The vibronic band origins are consistent with the spectroscopic parameters
(term energies, vibrational frequencies and spin-orbit couplings) extracted
previously from individual experiments using model Hamiltonians.
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tab:bh_AX} Triplet A $^3\Phi${} -- X $^3\Delta${} R-branch band-heads in cm$^{-1}${} for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\\ \toprule
$v$'-$v$" & \multicolumn{3}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_2$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_1$ (c)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_3$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_2$ (b)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{A $^3\Phi$$_4$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_3$ (a)} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule{5-7} \cmidrule(l){8-10}
& $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. \\
\hline
0-0 & 20 & 14030.258 & 14030.1 [1] & 18 & 14105.342 & 14104.7 [1] & 17 & 14171.984 & 14171.4 [1] & \\
0-1 & 23 & 13031.547 & & 20 & 13106.365 & & 19 & 13172.872 & & \\
0-2 & 26 & 12042.400 & & 23 & 12116.854& & 21 & 12183.165 & & \\
0-3* & 31 & 11063.037 & & 26 & 11136.944 & & 24 & 11203.004 & & \\
0-4* & 37 & 10093.892 & & 31 & 10166.938 & & 28 & 10232.599 & & \\
0-5* & 46 & 9135.714 & & 38 & 9207.438 & & 34 & 9272.352 & & \\
1-0 & 18 & 14889.145 & 14889.4 [1]& 16 & 14964.137 & 14963.6 [1] & 15 & 15030.610 & 15030.1 [1] & \\
1-1 & 20 & 13890.137 & 13889.6 [1] & 18 & 13964.949 & 13964.5 [1] & 17 & 14031.319 & 14030.1 [1] & \\
1-2 & 23 & 12900.552 & & 20 & 12975.114& & 19 & 13041.355 & & \\
1-3 & 26 & 11920.557 & & 23 & 11994.751& & 21 & 12060.818 & & \\
1-4* & 30 & 10950.355 & & 26 & 11024.037 & & 24 & 11089.856 & & \\
1-5* & 37 & 9990.374 & & 32 & 10063.272 & & 28 & 10128.667 & & \\
2-0 & 16 & 15740.491 & 15743.1 [1] & 15 & 15815.347 & 15814.7 [1] & 14 & 15881.637 & & \\
2-1 & 18 & 14741.273 & 14741.3 [1] & 16 & 14815.991 & & 15 & 14882.195 & & \\
2-2 & 20 & 13751.408 & & 18 & 13825.938 & & 17 & 13892.056 & & \\
2-3 & 22 & 12770.968 & & 20 & 12845.272 & & 18 & 12911.259 & & \\
2-4 & 26 & 11800.133 & & 23 & 11874.095& & 21 & 11939.912 & & \\
2-5* & 30 & 10839.158 & & 25 & 10912.584 & & 24 & 10978.171 & & \\
3-0* & 15 & 16584.161 & & 14 & 16658.838 & & 12 & 16724.832 & & \\
3-1 & 16 & 15584.788 & 15586.3 [1] & 15 & 15659.365 & 15658.9 [1] & 14 & 15725.306 & & \\
3-2 & 18 & 14594.705 & 14594.0 [1] & 16 & 14669.158 & 14669.1 [1] & 15 & 14735.027 & & \\
3-3* & 19 & 13613.992 & & 18 & 13688.271 & & 16 & 13754.043 & & \\
3-4 & 22 & 12642.744 & & 20 & 12716.789 & & 18 & 12782.465 & & \\
3-5 & 26 & 11681.134 & & 23 & 11754.775 & & 21 & 11820.357& & \\
4-0* & 13 & 17420.027 & & 12 & 17494.548 & & 12 & 17560.413 & & \\
4-1* & 14 & 16420.538 & & 13 & 16494.964 & & 13 & 16560.785 & & \\
4-2 & 16 & 15430.316 & 15430.2 [1] & 15 & 15504.628 & 15505.4 [1] & 14 & 15570.404 & & \\
4-3 & 17 & 14449.410 & & 16 & 14523.591 & 14522.8 [1] & 15 & 14589.288 & 14588.0 [1] & \\
4-4* & 19 & 13477.864 & & 17 & 13551.898 & & 16 & 13617.525 & & \\
4-5 & 22 & 12515.842 & & 20 & 12589.596 & & 18 & 12655.156 & & \\
5-0* & 12 & 18248.069 & & 11 & 18322.338 & & 10 & 18387.978 & & \\
5-1* & 13 & 17248.458 & & 12 & 17322.646 & & 12 & 17388.282 & & \\
5-2* & 15 & 16258.090 & 16258.9 [1] & 13 & 16332.224 & & 12 & 16397.805 & & \\
5-3 & 15 & 15277.035 & 15276.6 [1] & 14 & 15351.024 & 15350.6 [1] & 14 & 15416.585 & & \\
5-4* & 17 & 14305.324 & & 16 & 14379.181 & & 15 & 14444.694 & & \\
5-5* & 19 & 13343.000 & & 19 & 13416.662 & & 16 & 13482.091 & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
[1] 28Lowater \citep{28Lowater.TiO}, [2] 29Christya \citep{29Chxxx1.TiO}, [3] 72PhDa \citep{72PhDaxx.TiO}
* {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tab:bh_BX} Triplet B $^3\Pi$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-branch band-heads in cm$^{-1}${} for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.}
\begin{tabular}{lrrp{2cm}rrp{2cm}rrp{2cm}HHH}
\\ \toprule
v'-v" & \multicolumn{3}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_0$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_1$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{B $^3\Pi$$_2$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_3$} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule{5-7} \cmidrule(l){8-10}
& $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. \\
\hline
0-0 & 12 & 16233.187 &16233 [1] & 17 & 16160.243 & 16160 [2]& 28 & 16085.853 & 16085 [2] & \\
& & &16233 [2] & & & 16160 [2]& & & 16085 [2] & \\
0-1 & 13 & 15233.618 & 15218 [1] & 19 & 15161.155 & 15156 [2] & 32 & 15088.458 & 15081 [1] & \\
0-2* & 15 & 14243.289 & & 22 & 14171.535 & & 36 & 14101.011 & & \\
0-3* & 16 & 13262.269 & & 26 & 13191.512 & & 41 & 13123.750 & & \\
0-4* & 18 & 12290.645 & & 31 & 12221.408 & & 47 & 12157.203 & & \\
0-5* & 22 & 11328.578 & & 38 & 11261.867 & & 57 & 11202.350& & \\
1-0 & 12 & 17096.309 &17098 [1] & 15 & 17023.495 & 17022 [2] & 25 & 16947.583 &16950 [1] & \\
& & & 17095 [2] & & & 17022 [2] & & &16950 [2] & \\
1-1 & 12 & 16096.673 &16081 [1] & 17 & 16024.203 & 16022 [1] & 28 & 15949.664 & 15930 [1] & \\
& & & 16096 [2] & & & 16023 [2] & & 15949.664 & 15949 [2] & \\
1-2 & 14 & 15106.267 & & 19 & 15034.244 & & 31 & 14961.413 & & \\
1-3 & 15 & 14125.142 & & 22 & 14053.757 & & 35 & 13983.062 & & \\
1-4* & 17 & 13153.331 & & 25 & 13082.904 & & 41 & 13014.997 & & \\
1-5* & 19 & 12190.954 & & 30 & 12121.999 & & 48 & 12057.532 & & \\
2-0* & & & 17952 [1] & & & 17881 [1] & & & 17804 [1] \\
2-1* & & & 16931 [1] & & & 16877 [1] & & & 16799 [1] \\
& & & & & & 16881 [2] & & & 16804 [2] \\
2-2* & & & 15961 [2] & & & 15887 [1] & & & 15814 [2] \\
& & & & & & 15887 [2] & & & \\
3-0* & & & & & & 18727 [1] & \\
3-1* & & & 17804 [1] & & & 17722 [1] & & & 17650 [1] \\
3-2* & & & 16799 [1] & & & 16717 [1] & & & 16654 [1] \\
& & & & & & 16736 [2] & & & 16663 [2] \\
4-2* & & & 17650 [1] & & & 17579 [1] & & & 17502 \\
4-3* & & & 16654 [1] & & & 16574 [1] & & & 16504 [1] \\
& & & & & & 16596 [2] & & & 16521 [2] \\
5-4* & & & & & & 16332 [2] & & & 16382 [2] \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
[1] 69Phillips \citep{69Phxxxx.TiO}, [2] 76ZyPa \citep{76ZyPaxx.TiO}
* {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
\end{table*}
\clearpage
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{longtable}{lrrp{2cm}rrp{2cm}rrp{2cm}p{2cm}}
\caption{\label{tab:bh_CX2} C $^3\Delta${} -- X $^3\Delta${} R-branch band-heads for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.} \\
\toprule
v'-v" & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_1${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_2${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_3${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_3$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C $^3\Delta${} -- X $^3\Delta$} \\
\midrule
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} \cmidrule(r){8-10} \cmidrule(r){11-11}
& $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & Low-res obs.\\% (spin-unresolved) \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{5}{c}%
{{ \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\toprule
v'-v" & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_1${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_2${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{C $^3\Delta$$_3${} -- X $^3\Delta$$_3$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{C $^3\Delta${} -- X $^3\Delta$} \\
\midrule
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} \cmidrule(r){8-10} \cmidrule(r){11-11}
& $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & Low-res obs.\\% (spin-unresolved) \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
\hline
0-0 & 11 & 19347.333 & 19347 [2] & 11 & 19349.241 & 19349 [2] & 11 & 19339.917 & 19340 [2] & 19348 [3] \\
0-1 & 12 & 18347.688 & 18347 [2]& 12 & 18349.571 & 18349 [2] & 12 & 18340.234 & 18339 [2] & 18350 [3] \\
0-2 & 13 & 17357.230 & 17358 [1] & 13 & 17359.1176& 17361 [1]& 13 & 17349.818 & 17350 [1] & 17359 [3] \\
0-3 & 14 & 16376.034 & & 13 & 16377.898 & & 14 & 16368.658 & & 16378 [3] \\
0-4* & 15 & 15404.171 & & 15 & 15405.969 & & 15 & 15396.793 & & \\
0-5* & 17 & 14441.577 & & 16 & 14443.352 & & 17 & 14434.300 & & \\
1-0 & 10 & 20175.638 & 20177 [2] & 10 & 20177.880 & 20178 [2] & 10 & 20167.862 & 20168 [2] & 20176 [3] \\
1-1* & 11 & 19175.912 & & 11 & 19178.139 & & 12 & 19168.148 & & \\
1-2 & 12 & 18185.422 & & 12 & 18187.640 & & 12 & 18177.671 & & 18186 [2] \\
& & & & & & & & & & 18186 [3] \\
1-3 & 13 & 17204.151 & 17204 [1] & 13 & 17206.354 & 17207 [2,3] & 13 & 17196.403 & 17192 [1]& \\
1-4* & 14 & 16232.174 & 16231 [1] & 14 & 16234.350 & & 14 & 16224.432 & & \\
& & & 16232 [2] & \\
1-5* & 15 & 15269.512 & & 15 & 15271.589 & & 16 & 15261.827 & 15264 [1] & \\
2-0 & 10 & 20995.714 & 20995 [2] & 9 & 20997.734 & 20997 [2] & 10 & 20983.435 & 20983 [2] & 20998 [3] \\
2-1 & 10 & 19995.958 & 19995 [2] & 9 & 19997.910 & 19996 [2]& 11 & 19983.702 & 19984 [2] & 19998 [3]\\
2-2 & 10 & 19005.366 & & 11 & 19007.348 & & 12 & 18993.166 & & \\
2-3 & 12 & 18024.053 & & 11 & 18025.981 & & 13 & 18011.876 & & 18026 [3] \\
2-4 & 13 & 17051.956 & 17051 [1] & 12 & 17053.891 & 17055 [2] & 13 & 17039.866 & & 17054 [3] \\
2-5 & 13 & 16089.177 & & 14 & 16091.005 & & 15 & 16077.182 & & 16086 [2]\\
3-0 & 9 & 21807.075 & 21806 [2] & 9 & 21808.677 & 21809 [2] & 10 & 21795.164 & 21795 [2]& 21809 [3] \\
3-1 & 9 & 20807.262 & 20807 [2] & 9 & 20808.853 & 20810 [2] & 10 & 20795.391 & 20796 [2] & 20810 [3] \\
3-2* & 11 & 19816.669 & & 11 & 19818.257 & & 10 & 19804.784 & & \\
3-3* & 11 & 18835.356 & & 11 & 18836.890 & & 11 & 18823.417 & & 18835 [2] \\
3-4* & 11 & 17863.148 & & 11 & 17864.735 & & 12 & 17851.329 & & 17859.4 [2]\\
3-5 & 12 & 16900.260 & & 12 & 16901.808 & & 13 & 16888.491 & & 16901 [3] \\
3-6* & & & & & & 15949 [1] \\
& & & & & & 15950 [2] \\
4-0 & 8 & 22609.714 & & 8 & 22610.389 & 22610 [2]& 9 & 22598.630 & 22598 [2] & 22608 [3] \\
4-1 & 10 & 21609.903 & & 9 & 21610.534 & 21610 [2]& 9 & 21598.807 & & 21611 [3] \\
4-2 & 10 & 20619.300 & & 10 & 20619.912 & & 10 & 20608.153 & 20611 [2]& 20624 [2] \\
& & & & & & & & & & 20621 [3] \\
4-3* & 11 & 19637.898 & & 10 & 19638.495 & & 11 & 19626.797 & & \\
4-4* & 11 & 18665.690 & & 11 & 18666.320 & & 11 & 18654.639 & & 18655 [2] \\
4-5* & 11 & 17702.743 & & 11 & 17703.359 & & 11 & 17691.749 & & \\
5-0* & 8 & 23404.326 & & 8 & 23402.807 & & 7 & 23392.984 & & 23413 [2] \\
5-1 & 8 & 22404.467 & & 8 & 22402.937 & 22403 [2] & 9 & 22393.112 & & 22405 [3]\\
5-2 & 9 & 21413.793 & 21414 [2] & 10 & 21412.258 & 20412 [2] & 10 & 21402.472 & 20402 [2] & \\
5-3* & 11 & 20432.387 & 20433 [2] & 10 & 20430.841 & 20431 [2] & 10 & 20421.063 & 20423 [2] & \\
5-4* & 11 & 19460.179 & & 10 & 19458.568 & & 10 & 19448.840 & & \\
5-5* & 11 & 18497.232 & & 10 & 18495.551 & & 11 & 18485.936 & & \\
6-0* & & & & 7 & 24185.806 & & 8 & 24177.683 & & \\
6-1* & & & & 7 & 23185.891 & & 8 & 23177.807 & & 23169 [2]\\
6-2 & & & & 9 & 22195.159 &22196 [3] & 9 & 22187.097 & 22187 [2] & \\
6-3 & & & & 9 & 21213.672 & & 9 & 21205.630 & & \\
6-4* & & & & 9 & 20241.353 & & 10 & 20233.358 & & \\
6-5* & & & & 10 & 19278.337 & & 10 & 19270.397 & & \\
7-0* & 7 & 24954.533 & & 7 & 24958.629 & & 7 & 24952.632 & & \\
7-1* & 7 & 23954.634 & & 7 & 23958.714 & & 8 & 23952.739 & & 23951[2] \\
7-2* & 7 & 22963.885 & & 7 & 22967.964 & & 8 & 22962.022 & & 22963 [2] \\
7-3 & 8 & 21982.354 & & 8 & 21986.421 & 21986 [3] & 8 & 21980.502 & 21981 [2] & \\
7-4* & 10 & 21010.106 & & 8 & 21014.077 & & 10 & 21008.202 & 21008 [2]& 21017 [2]\\
7-5* & 10 & 20047.088 & & 9 & 20050.967 & & 10 & 20045.240 & & \\
\end{longtable}
[1] 28Lowater \citep{28Lowater.TiO}, [2] 29Christya \citep{29Chxxx1.TiO}, [3] 72PhDa \citep{72PhDaxx.TiO}
* {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
\end{center}
\begin{table*}
\footnotesize
\caption{\label{tab:bh_EX} E $^3\Pi$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-branch band-heads in cm$^{-1}${} for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.}
\begin{tabular}{llrp{2cm}HHp{2cm}HHp{2cm}H
\\ \toprule
v'-v" & \multicolumn{3}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_0$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_1$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_2$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{E $^3\Pi$$_3$ -- X $^3\Delta$$_3$} \\%& \multicolumn{1}{c}{E $^3\Pi$ -- X $^3\Delta$} \\
\cmidrule(r){2-4} \cmidrule(r){5-7} \cmidrule(r){8-10}
& $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. & Low-res obs.\\% (spin-unresolved) \\
\hline
0-0 & 26 & 11854.767 & 11856 [1] & & & 11842 [1] & && 11828 [1] \\
0-1 & 32 & 10856.099 & 10857 [1] & && 10845 [1] & && 10831 [1] \\
1-0 & & & 12774 [1] & && 12760 [1] & && 12743 [1] \\
1-1* & & & 11768 [1] & && 11753 [1] & & &11739 [1] \\
1-2* & & & 10777 [1] & && 10766 [1] & & &10752 [1] \\
2-1* & & & 12674 [1] & && 12658 [1] & & &12643 [1] \\
2-2* & & & 11679 [1] & && 11667 [1] & & &11652 [1] \\
2-3* & & & 10701 [1] & & &10689 [1] & && 10675 [1] \\
3-2* & & & 12578 [1] & & &12564 [1] & && 12548 [1] \\
3-3* & & & 11588 [1] & & &11576 [1] & && 11564 [1] \\
3-4* & & & 10623 [1] & & &10607 [1] & && 10594 [1] \\
4-3* & & & 12478 [1] & & &12462 [1] & && 12448 [1] \\
4-4* & & & 11504 [1] & & &11487 [1] & && 11474 [1] \\
4-5* & & & 10544 [1] & & &10521 [1] & && 10509 [1] \\
5-4* & & & 12371 [1] & & & 12356 [1] & & & 12342 [1]\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
[1] 77LiBr \citep{77LiBrxx.TiO}
* {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
\end{table*}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\begin{longtable}{llrrlll}
\caption{\label{tab:bh_singlet} Singlet R-branch band-heads in cm$^{-1}${} for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.} \\
\toprule
& v'-v" & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. \\
\midrule
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{5}{c}%
{{ \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\toprule
& v'-v" & $J$ & MARVEL & Low-res obs. \\
\midrule
\endhead
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
b $^1\Pi${} -- a $^1\Delta${} & 0-0 & 22 & 11284.109 & & \\
& 0-1* & 25 & 10276.404 & 10280 [1] 10282 [3] & \\
& 0-2* & 28 & 9278.175 & & \\
& 1-0 & 19 & 12194.027 & 12194 [2] & \\
& 1-1* & 22 & 11185.966 & 11186 [1] & \\
& 1-2* & 26 & 10187.226 & 10187 [1] 10191 [3] & \\
& 2-0* & 17 & 13095.493 & & \\
& 2-1* & 19 & 12087.207 & 12092 [1] & \\
& 2-2* & 22 & 11088.132 & 10099 [1] 10103 [3] & \\
& 3-0* & 16 & 13988.405 & & \\
& 3-1* & 17 & 12979.947 & & \\
& 3-2* & 19 & 11980.629 & 11981 [1] & \\
& 3-4* & & & 10011 [1], 10015 [3] \\
& 4-0* & 15 & 14872.663 & & \\
& 4-1* & 16 & 13864.061 & & \\
& 4-2* & 17 & 12864.569 & & \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
b $^1\Pi${} -- d $^1\Sigma^+${} & 0-0 & 15 & 9061.930 & 9064 [1] & \\
& 0-1 & 16 & 8049.405 & & \\
& 0-2 & 18 & 7046.835 & 7046.343 [6] & \\
& 0-3* & 21 & 6054.266 & & \\
& 0-4* & 24 & 5071.780 & & \\
& 0-5* & 27 & 4099.283 & & \\
& 1-0 & 14 & 9972.462 & 9972 [1], 9976 [3], 9972.424 [6] & \\
& 1-1 & 15 & 8959.784 & 8962 [1], 8959.789 [6] & \\
& 1-2 & 16 & 7957.084 & 7967.036 [6] & \\
& 1-3 & 18 & 6964.277 & 6964.220 [6] & \\
& 1-4* & 21 & 5981.463 & & \\
& 1-5* & 24 & 5008.744 & & \\
& 2-0 & 13 & 10874.420 & 10874.381 [6] & \\
& 2-1 & 14 & 9861.679 & 9867 [3], 9861.640 [6] & \\
& 2-2* & 15 & 8858.820 & & \\
& 2-3 & 17 & 7865.838 & 7865.786 [6] & \\
& 2-4* & 19 & 6882.782 & 6882.550 [6] & \\
& 2-5* & 21 & 5909.698 & & \\
& 3-0* & 12 & 11767.709 & & \\
& 3-1 & 12 & 10754.909 & 10754.867 [6] & \\
& 3-2 & 14 & 9751.932 & 9756 [3], 9651.879 [6] & \\
& 3-3* & 15 & 8758.826 & & \\
& 3-4 & 17 & 7775.659 & 7775.519 [6] & \\
& 3-5* & 19 & 6802.248 & 6802.185 [6] & \\
& 4-0* & 11 & 12652.286 & & \\
& 4-1* & 11 & 11639.391 & & \\
& 4-2 & 13 & 10636.341 & 10636.312 [6] & \\
& 4-3 & 14 & 9643.116 & 9643.049 [6] & \\
& 4-4* & 15 & 8659.749 & & \\
& 4-5* & 16 & 7686.202 & & \\
c $^1\Phi${} -- a $^1\Delta${} & 0-0 & 36 & 17859.641 & 17859 [4] & \\
& 0-1* & 46 & 16855.359 & & \\
& 1-0* & 30 & 18765.794 & 18767 [5] & \\
& 1-1 & 36 & 17759.615 & 17759 [4] & \\
& 1-2* & 44 & 16763.966 & 16770 [4] & \\
& 2-0* & 24 & 19662.833 & & \\
& 2-1* & 29 & 18655.669 & 18658 [5] & \\
& 2-2 & 35 & 17658.308 & 17658 [4] & \\
& 3-2* & & & 18549 [5] \\
& 3-3 & & & 17556 [4] \\
& 3-4* & & & 16566 [4] \\
& 4-3* & & & 18438 [5] \\
& 4-4* & & & 17455 [4]\\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
f $^1\Delta$ -- a $^1\Delta$&0-0&15&19076.916 &19075.4 [7]&\\
&0-1*&17&18068.396&18068.4 [7]&\\
&0-2*&18&17069.021&17072.1 [7]&\\
&1-0*&14&19945.353&&\\
&1-1&15&18936.706& 18918.3 [7]&\\
&1-2*&17&17937.144&17918.7 [7]&\\
&2-0*&14&20809.072&&\\
&2-1*&14&19800.392&19785.5 [7]&\\
&2-2&17&18800.792&18763.9 [7] &\\
&2-3 & & & 17775.9 [7] \\
\vspace{-0.5em} \\
e $^1\Sigma^+$ -- d $^1\Sigma^+$&0-0&9&24302.257&&\\
&0-1*&9&23289.220&&\\
&0-2*&9&22285.939&&\\
&0-3*&11&21292.407&&\\
&0-4*&11&20308.720&&\\
&0-5*&12&19334.758&&\\
&1-0&9&25146.767&&\\
&1-1*&10&24133.737&&\\
&1-2*&10&23130.521&&\\
&1-3*&10&22137.051&&\\
&1-4*&10&21153.289&&\\
&1-5*&10&20179.273&&\\
\end{longtable}
[1] 37WuMe \citep{37WuMexx.TiO}, [2] 57GaRoJu \citep{57GaRoJu.TiO}, [3] 69Lockwood \citep{69Loxxxx.TiO}, [4] 28Lowater \citep{28Lowater.TiO}, [5] 69LiNi \citep{69LiNixx.TiO}, [6] 80GaBrDa \citep{80GaBrDa.TiO}, [7] 82DeVore \citep{82DeVore.TiO}
* {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
\end{center}
\subsection{Prediction of Unmeasured Lines}
The {\sc Marvel}\ spin-rovibronic states for which we have assigned energies will be
involved in more transitions than were used in their generation. The tabulation
and analysis of these potential transitions provides key information which can
be used to assist assignment of new spectra. We have produced a list of all
transitions between {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels that obey the following selection
rules: $|\Delta J| \le 1$, $|\Delta \Lambda| \le 1$ and $\Delta S = 0$. This data is provided in the Supplementary
Information.
\subsection{Band-heads}
\Cref{tab:bh_AX,tab:bh_BX,tab:bh_CX2,tab:bh_EX,tab:bh_singlet} tabulate the
{\sc Marvel}-derived band-heads for each spin$-$vibronic state and compare these
band-heads against low-resolution observations of band-heads from the references
tabulated in \Cref{tab:databandheads}. Additionally, there are some band-heads
that have been experimentally observed and assigned and involve some spin
vibronic states not studied in any high-resolution study that are thus not in
the {\sc Marvel}\ analysis. These will be very useful to verify the final {\sc Duo}\
spectroscopic model for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}\ in a future study. Further, we tabulate the
approximate $J$ for the bandhead based on the transition frequencies derived from {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels; this can be used to help suggest a $J$ value
associated with these other experimentally observed band-heads.
\Cref{tab:bh_AX} provides the A $^3\Phi$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-band-heads. Agreement between the
low-resolution and {\sc Marvel}\ band-heads is generally within 2 cm$^{-1}${}.
\Cref{tab:bh_BX} gives the B $^3\Pi$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-band-heads: 5 have been observed in
rotationally-resolved spectra, 6 have positions predicted by {\sc Marvel}\ data and 9
other band-heads have been observed in low-resolution non-rotationally-resolved
observations. Of the 28 low-resolution band-heads observed by 69Phillips, 9 were also
calculated using {\sc Marvel}\ data. Most agree with our calculations to around a few cm$^{-1}${},
but there are clearly some mis-assignments for the 15,930 and 16,081 cm$^{-1}${}
band-heads. The higher vibrational levels of the B $^3\Pi${} state have yet to be
observed in a rotationally-resolved study, but there is significant band-head
information that can be very valuable in fitting the B $^3\Pi${} state PEC for the
final spectrosopic model of \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}. Further high-resolution rotationally-resolved
studies would be welcome.
\Cref{tab:bh_CX2} tabulates C $^3\Delta$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-band-heads. There is very extensive
coverage both rotationally-resolved and low-resolution band-head observations.
There is good agreement (within a couple of cm$^{-1}${}) between almost all {\sc Marvel}\
and low-resolution observations. band-heads from transitions with large $\Delta
v$ can be predicted from {\sc Marvel}\ data despite not being directly observed due
to either congestion in the spectra and/or low intensity due to small
Franck$-$Condon factors.
\Cref{tab:bh_EX} tabulates E $^3\Pi$ -- X $^3\Delta${} R-band-heads. The coverage of high
vibrational levels of the E $^3\Pi${} state in the low-resolution observed band-heads is
much more extensive than any rotationally-resolved data and will be valuable for
the future {\sc Duo}\ model. Again, high resolution studies of these bands would be
valuable.
For the singlet states (band-heads shown in \Cref{tab:bh_singlet}), the
rotationally resolved data in combination with the {\sc Marvel}\ predicted band-heads
are generally more extensive and accurate than the low-resolution
observations. The key exception is probably the c $^1\Phi${} -- a $^1\Delta${} data, for which
low-resolution data exist involving vibrational levels up to $v=4$, including
non-vertical transitions (i.e. $\Delta v \ne 0$). The agreement between the {\sc Marvel}\ energies and the low-resolution observations is generally high, except for the f $^1\Delta${} -- a $^1\Delta${} data. The bandhead assignments from \citet{82DeVore.TiO} involving higher vibrational quantum numbers do not agree with the {\sc Marvel}\ data obtained mostly from the rotationally-resolved study of \citet{85BrGaxx.TiO}. The difference between these two assignments is in the vibrational frequency of the f $^1\Delta${} level; it is likely that the higher resolution rotationally-resolved data we have used is the correct assignment.
\subsection{Comparison with \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO}}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Xcomp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{E3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{A3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{B3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{C3comp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Sch1} Visual comparison of the absolute energy difference between the {\sc Marvel}\ experimentally-derived energy levels and those in the \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} linelist for triplet states. Note the logarithmic vertical axis. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{a1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{d1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{b1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{c1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{f1comp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Sch2} Visual comparison of the absolute energy difference between the {\sc Marvel}\ experimentally-derived energy levels and those in the \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} linelist for singlet states. Note the logarithmic vertical axis. }
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:Sch1} compares the {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels against those derived by
\citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} for the triplet states. The X $^3\Delta${} and A $^3\Phi${} states have
differences generally less than 0.01 cm$^{-1}${} for $J < 50$, with larger errors for
higher rotational levels. The E $^3\Pi${} state has significant errors up to 2 cm$^{-1}${};
this is partially to be expected as a significant source of experimental data
for this state post-dates Schwenke's work. Many of the B $^3\Pi${}
state levels have quite high errors around 3 cm$^{-1}${}. Most of the B $^3\Pi${} state data
come from \citet{79HoGeMe.TiO}, so for the most part Schwenke and us should have
used the same data. The error bars on these data are much smaller than
differences in the energy levels. Schwenke reports some difficulty in the
fitting, giving a RMSE of 0.743 cm$^{-1}${} for these lines. For the C $^3\Delta${}
state, there are significant differences between Schwenke's fitted energies and
the {\sc Marvel}\ energies; Schwenke himself reported a RMSE of 1.582 cm$^{-1}${} between
his fit and the experimental energy levels he used. This state is significantly
affected by perturbations that are difficult to model theoretically and which
have recently been analysed by \citet{03NaItDa.TiO}.
\Cref{fig:Sch2} compares the {\sc Marvel}\ experimentally-derived energy levels and
the fitted energy levels used in the \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} linelist for singlet
levels. The d $^1\Sigma^+${}, a $^1\Delta${}, c $^1\Phi${} and f $^1\Delta${} levels seem reasonable; the deviation
from the fitted Schwenke lines increases for larger $J$ in general. However, errors for the b $^1\Pi${} state are
particularly high, around 3 cm$^{-1}${}. Schwenke reports RMSE of 0.054 cm$^{-1}${}.
However, our predicted b $^1\Pi${}--d $^1\Sigma^+${} band-heads reproduce experiment almost
perfectly, whereas there are clear discrepancies between experiment and the
Schwenke data (see \Cref{fig:bdbandhead}). We therefore conclude that there
is an approximately 3 cm$^{-1}${} off-set error in the b $^1\Pi${} state Schwenke energy
levels.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{t1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:bdbandhead} Simulated absorption cross-section from the \citet{98Scxxxx.TiO} line list at 300 K, $\delta v$ = 0.01 cm$^{-1}${}. The b $^1\Pi${}--d $^1\Sigma^+${} (1-0) bandhead experimentally is 9972.42 cm$^{-1}${} \citep{80GaBrDa.TiO}.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with VALD
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_Xcomp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_E3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_A3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_B3comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_C3comp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Plez1} Visual comparison of the absolute energy difference between the {\sc Marvel}\ experimentally-derived energy levels and those in the \citet{98Plxxxx.TiO} linelist for triplet states. Note the logarithmic vertical axis and that the axis range is different from \Cref{fig:Sch1}. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_a1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_d1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_b1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_c1comp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Plez_f1comp.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Plez2} Visual comparison of the absolute energy difference between the {\sc Marvel}\ experimentally-derived energy levels and those in the \citet{98Plxxxx.TiO} linelist for singlet states. Note the logarithmic vertical axis and that the axis range is different from \Cref{fig:Sch2}. }
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:Plez1} and \Cref{fig:Plez2} show a visual comparison of the 2012
version of the Plez TiO line list from the VALD database \citep{VALD3} vs {\sc Marvel}\ energy levels. For the triplets, we
get results qualitatively similar to the Schwenke comparisons, though the errors
are often about a factor of 10 larger (note the difference in the vertical scale
between the Plez and Schwenke comparisons). However, for the singlets it is
clear that the vibrational spacings within some singlet states is incorrect. The
Phillips experimental frequencies (for which the most recent version of this
line list is fitted) may have been correctly reproduced. However, other
experimental data would not be due to these erroneous vibrational frequencies.
The {\sc Marvel}\ energies will thus allow a more thorough understanding of the whole
spectrum of TiO.
\subsection{Future Directions}
\subsubsection{Recommended Experiments}
The experimental coverage of rovibronic bands in TiO is extensive. However, the complexity of the electronic structure of this species and its importance in understanding, modelling and interpreting the spectroscopy and opacity of cool stars and hot Jupiter exoplanets means that extra experimental data are always welcome. We would like to direct experimentalists towards some key transitions for which data are not yet available, and for which our experience with \emph{ab initio}\ computations \citep{jt632,jt623,jt599,jtCrH} on these species leads us to conclude that they will not be calculated to satisfactory accuracy.
The D $^3\Sigma^-${} state has been identified by \citet{97BaMeMe.TiO} using fluorescence from a very high $^3\Pi$ state but its spectrum has not been rotationally resolved or measured with high accuracy. For the purposes of absorption spectroscopy of astrophysical objects, further data are probably not critical as this state does not contribute to any allowed absorption bands from the electronic states with significant thermal population at 5000 K, nor does it appear to be a strong perturber of the other states. However, it will contribute to weak background absorption and, more importantly, the partition function of TiO.
Rotationally-resolved data involving higher vibrational excitations of the B $^3\Pi${} and E $^3\Pi${} electronic states are both achievable (given the detection of band-heads), and valuable for constraining the shape of the potential energy curves of these states.
Hints from experimental observations, e.g., $^1\Pi$ state near 22,300 cm$^{-1}${} by \citet{03NaItDa.TiO}, \emph{ab initio}\ evidence and results from similar diatomic species strongly suggest that experimental identification of electronic states between 20,000 cm$^{-1}${} and 30,000 cm$^{-1}${} is not complete for singlet states. Targeted (non-absorption) experiments, perhaps two-photon ones, are probably required to map out this region more thoroughly. This means that understanding \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}\ absorption in the UV and bluer region of the visible spectra may be currently incomplete. This is of most relevance to transit spectroscopy of hot Jupiters around stars with strong UV fluxes.
\section{Conclusions}
We have collated all suitable available assigned TiO experimental data. We have
used over 48,000 assigned transitions to produce 10,564 energy levels. These span
11 electronic states, and 84 total rovibronic bands.
The Supplementary Information to this paper contains three main files: 48Ti-16O.marvel.inp, which
contains the final input data of spectroscopic transitions in {\sc Marvel}\ format,
48Ti-16O.energies,
which contains the sorted energies in the main component, and
48Ti-16O\_FFN\_ca\_33.energies, which contains the relative energies in the free-floating
network incorporating the c $^1\Phi${} $v$=3 and a $^1\Delta${} $v$=3 states. There is also three zip folders containing sorted folders and files with predicted transition frequencies using the {\sc Marvel}\ energies.
The data collated here assists with the evaluation of the partition function for \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}. However, there are two other electronic states, the D $^3\Sigma^-${} and g $^1\Gamma${} states, which high quality theory \citep{10MiMaxx.TiO} predicts exist below 20,000 cm$^{-1}${} that have not been experimentally characterised in rotationally-resolved spectra. Further, in many cases only a small number of vibrational levels have {\sc Marvel}\ data. Therefore, we will defer the detailed evaluation of an updated recommended partition function for the upcoming \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}\ linelist paper \citep{jtTiO} that will produce an extensive spectroscopic model incorporating a large number of vibrational levels in all low-lying electronic states of \ce{^{48}Ti^{16}O}.
The {\sc Marvel}\ energy level data is going to be immediately useful in the construction of the new ExoMol line list for TiO \citep{jtTiO}. The energy levels presented here will allow the accurate refinement of the potential energy curves and coupling constants, i.e. the spectroscopic model, in order to maximise the quality of the predicted energy levels. The refinement process is particularly important for transition metal diatomics due to the complexity of the electronic states and the insufficient accuracy of even modern \emph{ab initio}\ methods \citep{jt632}.
Finally, we note that a major part of this work was performed by 16 and 17 year old pupils from the Highams Park
School in London, as part of a project known as ORBYTS (Original Research By Young Twinkle
Students). Two other {\sc Marvel}\ studies on astronomically important molecules, methane \citep{jtCH4Marvel} and acetylene \citep{jtC2H2Marvel}), were undertaken as part of the same project and
will be published elsewhere. \citet{ORBYTSed} discusses our experiences of working with school
children to perform high-level research.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Bob Kurucz, Mohamed Ahmed, Sheila Smith, Tim Morris, Jon Barker, Fawad Sheikh, Highams Park School and Researchers in Schools for support and helpful discussions.
We thank Claude Amiot, Thomas DeVore, Bob Kurucz and Amanda Ross for providing data.
This work has been supported by the UK Science, Technology and Facilities Council (STFC) under grant ST/M001334 and the European Research Council under ERC Advanced Investigator Project 267219 and ERC grant number 320360. The authors acknowledge the use of the UCL Legion High Performance Computing Facility (Legion@UCL), and associated support services, in the completion of this work.
The work performed in Hungary was supported by the NKFIH (grant no. K119658). The collaboration between the London and Budapest teams received support from COST action CM1405, MOLIM: Molecules in Motion.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction}
The use of spatial adaptivity is widely recognized as an effective way
to improve the performance of Cartesian grid methods for partial
differential equations (PDEs), and in fact was cited in a recent survey
as the main reason for users to adopt a particular code
\cite{du-an-ga-re-ri-sh-si-we:2009}. With the ubiquity of multi-core
machines at every level of computing performance, parallel
capabilities are expected for codes running on anything from desktop
machines to petascale supercomputer architectures. However, building
parallel, adaptive capabilities into solvers is a daunting task, and
often one which is completely orthogonal to the task of improving the
speed and accuracy of single grid solvers for PDEs. While this
situation presents difficult challenges with respect to numerical
accuracy and parallel performance, we see it as providing a highly
motivating opportunity to investigate a modular strategy to adaptive
solver development that maximizes the reuse of proven algorithms.
We describe a hybrid approach to adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) that
uses the highly scalable quadtree/octree library \texttt{p4est}\xspace
\cite{BursteddeWilcoxGhattas11, IsaacBursteddeGhattas12,
IsaacBursteddeWilcoxEtAl15} to manage a dynamic, multi-resolution
hierarchy of small grids that are distributed in parallel. This
hierarchy occupies non-overlapping regions of the computational domain
defined by recursively subdividing the domain into quadrants (or
octants in 3D). Each region is assigned to an owner process,
and the technical issues of parallel mesh management are encapsulated
inside the meshing library. Our atomic unit of computation is thus a
small uniform grid. Each such grid is processed by a single grid Cartesian
solver (e.g.\ {\sc Clawpack}\xspace, \cite{be-le:1998}) that mostly
encapsulates the solver details. Our software implementation,
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, provides the central orchestration and coordinates calls
between the mesh management library and solver libraries, including those
AMR tasks related to parallel neighbor communication,
dynamic remeshing (including re-mapping of the solution to newly
created meshes) and time stepping.
There are several existing software frameworks for general patch-based
parallel AMR, including {\sc Boxlib}\xspace, {\sc AMRClaw}\xspace, {\sc Samrai}\xspace, {\sc Paramesh}\xspace, {\sc Amroc}\xspace,
{\sc Uintah}\xspace, {\sc Chombo}\xspace and {\sc EBChombo}\xspace
\cite{amrclaw,amroc,boxlib,chombo,paramesh,samrai,ebchombo}. These
codes are typically based on finite volume methods for conservation
laws on logically Cartesian meshes, and so complex geometries are
handled using either mapped grids, or cut-cell approaches, although
only {\sc EBChombo}\xspace has extensive support for cut cells. Discussions of
survey and experiences in using several of the high level frameworks
for block-structured AMR described above can be found in
\cite{du-al-be-be-br-br-co-gr-li:2014, du-st:2014}.
With the exception of {\sc Paramesh}\xspace, these software platforms use the
original Berger-Oliger and Berger-Collela block-structured mesh
approach to dynamic mesh refinement. Such mesh hierarchies consist of
nested, overlapping grids of increasingly finer
resolution. {\sc Paramesh}\xspace, which is the mesh management library supporting the
{\sc FLASH}\xspace multiphysics code, in contrast, consists of a hierarchy of
non-overlapping grids, organized as leaves in a quad- or octree. The
approach taken by {\sc Paramesh}\xspace is thus most closely related to the
approach we describe here.
What sets the {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace code and project apart from related adaptive
mesh methods, notably the current standard approach described by Berger,
Oliger, Colella, LeVeque and others for solving
conservation laws on Cartesian, finite volume grids \cite{be-ol:1984,
be-co:1989}, is the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item Highly scalable quadtree regridding using a the \texttt{p4est}\xspace parallel mesh
backend that has been demonstrated succesfully at the petascale.
\item A flexible mapped, multiblock\xspace infrastructure for solving on a variety
of domains not easily represented by a single Cartesian block. A key
infrastructure element includes transformations for handling orientation
mis-matches at block boundaries.
\item A detailed description of both a serial and parallel algorithm for filling
ghost regions of grids stored in the leaves of a quadtree, and:
\item Many customizable options, including a package
handling infrastructure for binding to multiple solvers.
\end{itemize}
Additional features that are based on earlier research on Cartesian
grid methods include built-in support for computing metric terms
needed for solving PDEs on mapped grids that are consistent with
second order finite volume schemes.
Even when not using the adaptive refinement features, one can expect
to benefit from better cache performance for a uniformly refined
domain, more flexible geometric features that the multiblock\xspace architecture
provides, and a highly flexible and performant parallel partitioning scheme
based on space-filling curves.
The main focus of this article will be on the algorithmic details,
implemented in the {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace code, associated with orchestrating
parallel communication between grids for second order finite volume
schemes for time dependent hyperbolic PDEs in a two-dimensional
quadtree layout. We highlight our main design goals which were chosen
to facilitate re-use of code involved in grid communication, and the
ease of use for developing new numerical methods. We provide
performance results on 1 to 64Ki processes, for the solution of a
scalar advection equation, integrated explicitly using a single
globally stable time step. Detailed numerical accuracy results,
refinement criteria and solutions to more general conservation laws
are discussed in this article, but will be presented in a second paper.
\ignore{%
\comment{Shall we remove this summary paragraph?}
We start by describing our quadtree layout, including how ghost cells
are handled, in \Sect{quadtreelayout}. We discuss more involved
details concerning parallel algorithms in \Sect{parallel}. Then we
discuss the time stepping strategy on a the adaptive hierarchy in
\Sect{advance}. Finally, we show several numerical examples
illustrating the geometric flexibility and parallel performance of the
method.
}
\section{A quadtree layout%
\label{sec:quadtreelayout}
A {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace domain consists of a static arrangement of one or more
blocks, each of which can be recursively and dynamically
subdivided into quadrants. When refinement is requested, a
level 0 quadrant, which occupies the same computational space as its
parent block, is partitioned into four equally sized level 1
quadrants. One or more level 1 quadrants can then be partitioned into
four level 2 quadrants each, and so on. Coarsening proceeds in
reverse. The collection of all quadrants in a block forms a partition
of a square computational subdomain, with the length of an edge of a
level $\ell$ quadrant being $2^{-\ell}$ times the length of the level
0 edge. An optional feature of meshes generated using the \texttt{p4est}\xspace
library, and specifically called upon by {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace is that meshes
can be made {\em 2:1 balanced} \cite{SundarSampathBiros08,
IsaacBursteddeGhattas12}.
Any two quadrants that share a face or corner will never be more than
one level apart. We refer to this arrangement of blocks, each of
which is partitioned into one or more quadrants, as a {\em multiblock\xspace
quadtree} layout, or simply a {\em quadtree} layout.
Throughout this paper, we will often use the term ``patch'' to mean a quadrant
together with associated numerical data.
See \Fig{grids} for a typical single block layout generated by {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fc_adv_mesh_0020.pdf}\hfil
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,clip=true,trim=0cm -1cm 0cm 0cm]{grids.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The left figure shows quadrants in levels 3 through 6 of a
adaptive quadtree on a single block. For clarity, we only show grid
lines inside the $8 \times 8$ grids occupying level 3 quadrants
(with darker solid borders). The right figure shows three $8 \times
8$ computational grids, each with a layer of ghost cells, at three
adjacent levels. Thick lines indicate quadrant (grid) boundaries.}
\label{fig:grids}
\end{figure}
Each quadrant that makes up the final partitioning of a {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace
quadtree layout is occupied by a fixed-size, logically Cartesian grid.
Each grid has an interior region that fits the quadrant area, made up
of typically $8^2$, $16^2$ or $32^2$
grid cells, and one or more layers of ghost cells that extend
outside in the two coordinate directions. Solution data on a
computational grid is stored in a contiguous array that includes both
interior and ghost regions, so that a grid with $8^2$
interior cells and two layers of ghost cells stores solution data in a
contiguous array of $12^2$ mesh cells.
The solution at each grid cell stores one or more field variables that make up
the numerical solution, as well as any metric dependent data.
The interior regions of computational grids do not overlap each other,
but the ghost region of one grid will overlap with the interior region
of multiple face-adjacent and corner-adjacent neighbors. In {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace,
values for the interior grid dimensions and number of ghost cell layers are
the same for all grids, effectively enforcing a constant 2:1 refinement
ratio between grid levels. The {\em resolution} of a particular grid
is determined by the size of the quadrant it occupies, so a grid
occupying a level $\ell$ quadrant has $2^\ell$ times the resolution of
the same grid in a level 0 quadrant.
When describing numerical schemes, it will
be convenient to refer to the border of the interior region (i.e., the
quadrant) as the grid {\em boundary},
even though this boundary does not enclose the ghost regions belonging to the grid.
When the context is clear, the ``size'' of
a grid should be loosely understood to mean the size of the quadrant
occupied by that grid, although there will also be occasion to
describe a grid using its (fixed) interior dimensions, e.g.\ a $32
\times 32$ grid. It is also informally understood that the use of the
term ``grid'' often refers to the contiguous array of solution values
associated with the grid, and not just the geometric metadata\xspace needed to
describe the grid. In this context, a ``coarse grid solution'' or a
``fine grid solution'' is the solution on a coarser or finer grid. In
the current version of {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, we store grids (and solution
values) only for those quadrants that make up the final partitioning
of the domain. If, during refinement, a coarse quadrant is subdivided
into four finer quadrants, the storage for the coarse grid solution
and any coarse grid metadata\xspace is deleted and storage for a finer grid is
allocated in each of the four finer quadrants. See \Fig{grids} for an
illustration of grids and quadrants.
There are several advantages to tree-based refinement. One, the
numerical analyst developing methods for an adaptive mesh should find
it relatively simple to work with the quadtree layout, since quadrant
connection patterns appear in only one of three regular arrangements:
a neighboring grid is either the same size, twice the size, or one of
two half sized grids. Also, it can guaranteed that higher order stencils
will have sufficient data from directly adjacent grids and will never need to
use data from more than two levels of refinement.
Finally, all communication between grids
needed for advancing the solution takes place at grid boundaries,
reducing the reliance on metadata\xspace. From a performance standpoint,
tree structures have been extensively studied, and so
their performance characteristics in a wide range of scenarios is well
understood. The information on neighboring quadrants can be cached and exposed
by the meshing library in such a way that they may be located
within a tree traversal by $\mathcal O(1)$-time lookup functions. Finally,
the grids in a quadtree layout can be enumerated to preserve data
locality using either Morton ordering (as we do in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace) or
other types of well known space-filling curves \cite{Samet06,
Bader12}.
One potential disadvantage of the quadtree layout is that a single
quadtree may not be appropriate for a general rectangular domain with
a large aspect ratios. In
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, this difficulty can be overcome in at least two ways.
First, one could simply choose fixed size grids with different numbers
of grid cells in each of the two coordinate directions. For example,
a quadtree in which each leaf contains a $64 \times 16$ grid would
effectively allow one to grid a $4 \times 1$ domain, while maintaining
square grid cells. This is done for example in the Racoon code
\cite{dr-gr:2005}. The downside to this approach is that while
individual grid cells have aspect ratios close to 1, the quadrants do
not, making it more difficult to efficiently refine around some
regions. A second approach, and the approach favored in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, is
to allow domains to consist of more than one quadtree, or a {\em forest} of
trees. A $4 \times 1$ domain is naturally divided into four square
blocks, each of which contains a quadtree with square mesh cells.
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace allows for general arrangements of blocks, with the only
restriction being that face-adjacent blocks must share a complete
face. One surprisingly useful domain is the ``brick'' domain, an $M
\times N$ arrangement of square blocks in an optimized order.
In {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, the brick
domain is used for meshing general rectangular domains, the annulus, a
spherical coordinate (e.g.\ latituted/longitude) grid of the mid-latitude region
of the earth, and the torus, all with relatively uniform, square mesh
cells. Another useful multiblock\xspace layout is the cubed sphere grid, widely
used in numerical simulations of weather, climate, geodynamics, etc.%
\ignore{Any
number of blocks can meet at a corner, allowing for a forest whose
blocks are the quads in a general unstructured quadrilateral mesh.
Developing solvers for such mesh layouts is challenging, due to the
presence of metric seams at block boundaries, and so is the topic of
on-going research.}
A quadtree/octree data structure is commonly used in various kinds of numerical
applications, including the fast multipole method, and computer graphics,
making the quadtree a natural choice for interfacing with other libraries.
For this reason, it is well suited as a foundation for more general
libraries doing mesh refinement \cite{BangerthBursteddeHeisterEtAl11,
SampathAdavaniSundarEtAl08}.
A quadrant/octant based approach
has been used in other parallel adaptive frameworks,
including {\sc Paramesh}\xspace, {\sc Nirvana}, {\sc Racoon II},
Peano \cite{WeinzierlMehl11}, and the
Building-Cubes Method \cite{paramesh, dr-gr:2005, zi:2012,
ko-so-eg-ta-ko-ta-sa-ha:2011}.
None of these other codes, however, have general multiblock\xspace capabilities,
or documented performance results for adaptive simulations at petascale.
\texttt{p4est}\xspace, on the other
hand, has well-established performance results
\cite{BursteddeGhattasGurnisEtAl08, BursteddeGhattasGurnisEtAl10,
Bui-ThanhBursteddeGhattasEtAl12, RudiMalossiIsaacEtAl15}.
The \texttt{p4est}\xspace algorithms unify the design principles underlying the use
of space filling curves for the ordering of elements \cite{Hilbert91,
Lebesgue04, Morton66, GriebelZumbusch99, TuOHallaronGhattas05}, the refinement
one or more tree roots into an adaptive forest \cite{StewartEdwards04,
BangerthHartmannKanschat07}, and the use of linear (i.e.\ leaf-only) octree
storage \cite{SundarSampathBiros08}. The terms ``leaf''
or``quadrant'' (used interchangeably) refer to an abstract
placeholder for any kind of application data, identified by
discrete tree coordinates and their refinement level.
The quadrants in \texttt{p4est}\xspace can be searched and indexed in a random access
pattern, which we exploit to assemble $\mathcal O(1)$ lookup information on neighbors.
We do not make use of compressed encodings of the leaves that would save
additional memory at the price of
enforcing ordered-only tree traversals
\cite{BungartzMehlWeinzierl06, WeinzierlMehl11}. The main \texttt{p4est}\xspace
algorithms, including 2:1 balancing and partitioning among the MPI processes,
are similar in spirit to collective MPI commands. Applications such
as {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace can access the quadrant storage and access all required
neighborhood information without calling MPI directly.
\subsection{Ghost regions}
\label{sec:ghostcells}
As described above, the interior region of each grid (stored as a leaf of a
quadtree) is surrounded by
a layer of one or more ghost cells occupying {\em ghost regions}. All
communication between grids is facilitated by copying, averaging or
interpolating data from the interior regions of one grid to the ghost
regions of a neighboring grid. Since we will want to use unsplit
schemes for hyperbolic problems, we also must fill corner ghost regions of
each grid with valid data.
We define grid neighbors as those grids occupying either
face-adjacent or corner-adjacent quadrants. The coarse grid
neighbors of a level $\ell$ grid are neighboring grids occupying
level $\ell-1$ quadrants, while fine grid neighbors are those
neighboring grids occupying level $\ell+1$ quadrants. We
use the term {\em coarse ghost regions} to refer
collectively to those ghost regions which are filled using data
copied from the interior of a same-size neighbor or averaged (as described
below) from the interior of a fine grid neighbor. {\em Fine grid ghost
regions} are those ghost regions which are filled by interpolating
from data in the interior and ghost regions of a
neighboring coarse grid. A coarse grid is a grid with coarse grid
ghost regions, and a fine grid is a grid with fine grid ghost
regions. Depending on the context, a grid can be both a coarse grid
and a fine grid. A ghost region is an interior region if it
is inside the physical domain, and an exterior ghost region otherwise.
The numerical operations used in filling ghost cells are copying between
neighboring grids of the same size, averaging (restricting) data from the
interior of the fine grids to ghost cells of a coarse grid, or interpolating
(prolongating) from a coarse grid to fine grid ghost
cells. At the boundary of the computational domain, we impose
physical boundary conditions. For our purposes here, we assume that
we have cell-centered data which represents either a cell average
value (in the finite volume sense) or cell-centered point-wise
values. For the second order schemes we have implemented, these two
interpretations are interchangeable.
Two key assumptions in our present algorithm for filling in ghost
cells is that copying and averaging only require data from the
interior of a neighboring grid cell, whereas interpolation will in
general require data from both interior and ghost regions.
In \Fig{coarseghost}, we show typical stencils for averaging and copying
from neighboring grids, and
in \Fig{interpolation}, we show a typical 5 point stencil used
to fill fine grid ghost regions.
Because they do not require any data from ghost regions,
the coarse grid regions can be filled first, before filling
fine grid ghost regions. This ordering of how ghost regions are
filled adds some complexity to the serial and parallel ghost
filling algorithms, but this additional complexity is more than
justified by the greater ease of use obtained with the regular
interpolation stencils, especially when going to higher order.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{copy_avg_stencils.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Dark-shaded coarse ghost regions (of the center grid)
are filled by copying from a neighboring
same-size grid (left edge) or averaging from a half-size grid (right edge). The
open circles are the cell-centered ghost values on the center grid, and smaller black
circles are the values on the neighboring grid that are either copied (same-size neighbor)
or averaged (finer neighbor).}
\label{fig:coarseghost}
\end{figure}
Filling exterior ghost regions is done using standard methods of copying
or extending data in some way from the neighboring interior cells, depending on
the type of physical boundary condition. The averaging and
interpolation stencils we use are shown in \Fig{interpolation}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{interp_stencil_interior.pdf}\hfil
\includegraphics[width=0.475\textwidth]{interp_stencil_bc.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Coarse grid interpolation stencils used to fill in fine ghost regions.
The open circles are the coarse grid values used in the stencil
and the filled smaller circles are the fine grid ghost cell values to be filled in. The
stencils used in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace are applied to a single coarse grid after the coarse grid
ghost regions have been filled. The right figure shows fine grid ghost cells
at a physical
boundary, where the coarse grid interpolation stencil requires valid data from the
exterior coarse grid ghost region.
This is fabricated according to the boundary condition.}
\label{fig:interpolation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Serial ghost filling algorithm}
Assuming that the values in all interior grid cells are valid, either after
setting initial conditions or running a time step, it remains to compute
correct values in all ghost regions to prepare the following time step.
Because our interpolation stencils rely on data in coarse ghost regions,
a ghost filling algorithm must ensure that all coarse ghost regions
are filled before we fill fine ghost regions. A relatively
straightforward algorithm that accomplishes this is presented in
\Alg{ghostfill_serial}. In this algorithm, the expression ``fill
coarse ghost regions'' means to copy or average data from a
neighboring same-size or fine grid neighbor into all edge and corner
coarse ghost regions. Conversely, ``fill fine ghost regions'' refers to using
interpolation from coarse neighbors to fill all edge and corner fine ghost
regions.
To ensure that exterior corner ghost regions have valid data, physical
boundary conditions are applied to both edge and corner exterior ghost
regions.
The following proposition provides conditions that guarantee that
\Alg{ghostfill_serial} fills all edge and corner coarse and fine ghost
regions in a quadtree layout with valid data.
\begin{prp}
\label{prop:serial}
Suppose we have a 2:1 balanced quadtree layout, with
grids of fixed size $M\times M$ and $m$ layers of ghost cells each.
Let $w$ be the width
of the stencil used to interpolate from a coarse grid to a fine ghost region.
Assume that the interior regions of all grids contain valid data.
Then, if $m \le M/4$ and $w \le M/2$,
\Alg{ghostfill_serial} is guaranteed to fill in all coarse, fine and
exterior ghost regions with valid data.
\ignore{Moreover, all coarse and fine ghost regions can be filled by visiting
coarse grids only.}
\end{prp}
To justify this proposition, we only need to demonstrate that an
interpolation stencil can never cross more than one {\em level curve}.
Let a {\em level region} $\Omega_{\ell}$ (\Fig{omega_regions}) be defined
as the polygonal region (possibly multiply-connected) containing the
interiors of all level $\ell$ grids. We then define a {\em level curve} $\Gamma_{\ell+1}$
as the rectilinear curve (or set of curves) separating $\Omega_{\ell}$ from $\Omega_{\ell+1}$.
In a 2:1 balanced quadtree layout, each curve in $\Gamma_{\ell+1}$ is either a
simple closed curve (the boundary of a rectilinear polygon), or an
open simple rectilinear curve that intersects the physical boundary at
each end. Furthermore, if $\ell \ne \ell'$, no curve in
$\Gamma_{\ell}$ will intersect a curve in $\Gamma_{\ell'}$ and two
curves in $\Gamma_{\ell}$ can intersect only at a corner point.
From this, and the other conditions laid out in Proposition~\ref{prop:serial},
we conclude that an interpolation stencil cannot cross two level
curves from two distinct levels. The practical implication of this is
that interpolation stencils will never require data from more than two
adjacent levels, and so an algorithm which first fills all coarse
ghost regions (traversing the coarse grids in any order), and then
fills fine ghost regions (traversing grids in any order), is
guaranteed to fill all ghost regions, without breaking any
data dependency chains between averaging and interpolation.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Serial algorithm for updating cells in ghost regions on
all levels $\ell$, $\ell_\mathrm{min} \le \ell \le \ell_\mathrm{max}$. The first application
of physical boundary conditions will in general leave data in exterior corner fine ghost
regions invalid, requiring a second application of physical boundary conditions
after interior fine ghost regions have been filled in an interpolation step.}
\label{alg:ghostfill_serial}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require Solution on interior of all grids contains valid data for given time $t$.
\Procedure{update\_ghost}{}
\ForAll{levels $\ell$, $\ell_\mathrm{min} \le \ell \le \ell_\mathrm{max}$}
\Comment{Copy and average}
\State Fill all interior coarse ghost regions belonging to level $\ell$ grids.
\EndFor
\ForAll{levels $\ell$, $\ell_\mathrm{min} \le \ell \le \ell_\mathrm{max}-1$}
\Comment{Apply phys. boundary conditions}
\State Fill exterior coarse ghost regions belong to level $\ell$ grids.
\EndFor
\ForAll{levels $\ell$, $\ell_\mathrm{min} \le \ell \le \ell_\mathrm{max}-1$}
\Comment{Interpolate}
\State Fill fine ghost regions belonging to level $\ell+1$ grids.
\EndFor
\ForAll{levels $\ell$, $\ell_\mathrm{min}+1 \le \ell \le \ell_\mathrm{max}$}
\Comment{Apply phys. boundary conditions}
\State Fill exterior ghost regions of level $\ell$ grids.
\EndFor
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{omega_regions.pdf}\hfil
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,clip=true,trim=1.25in 2.5in 1.5in 0.25in]{omega_withghost.pdf}\hfil
\end{center}
\caption{Typical quadtree layout showing non-overlapping refinement regions
$\Omega_{\ell}$ (left),
separated by level curves $\Gamma_{\ell}$ (thick lines).
The dashed lines represent the bounds of the ghost regions of selected grids
with a zoom-in shown in the right hand picture. By imposing
restrictions on the allowable grid size, the number of ghost cell layers,
and the width of the interpolation stencil, \Alg{ghostfill_serial} is
guaranteed to fill in all corner and edge ghost cell regions with correct values.}
\label{fig:omega_regions}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multiblock\xspace indexing}
\label{sec:mblock} In the low level routines that implement
\Alg{ghostfill_serial} (and later, the parallel version) in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace,
we explicitly handle several cases of grid arrangements between pairs of neighboring
grids.
\ignore{
Low level routines which actually carry out the ghost filling
operations (copying, averaging or interpolation) between two
neighboring grids must have information about which grid is the coarse
grid and if the two grids are at different levels, which grid is the
fine grid. The routine must also know which faces or corners are
involved in the exchange, and possibly the position of a neighboring
fine grid relative to the coarser grid. In a practical
implementation of these operations between two neighboring grids,
we explicitly handle each of several cases, since the Cartesian
layout of the data in memory makes it inconvenient to abstract the
coarse grid face or corner further, without remapping data in memory.
However, in the multiblock\xspace setting, we seek an approach which does not
lead to a prohibitive number of cases between grids with different index orientations.
One of our primary goals is to maximum code re-use by minimizing the
number of cases that must be explicitly handled.
}
For pairs of face or corner adjacent grids on the same block, each
low-level routine handling the ghost-filling designates a coarse grid
(``this'' grid) and a same-size or fine ``neighbor'' grid. We then
explicitly handle 20 cases. At each coarse grid face, we have three
cases, one for a same-size neighbor, and two for each fine grid neighbor.
At each corner, we have two cases, one for a same-size neighbor, and
one for a fine grid neighbor.
Considering four faces and four corners per patch, we obtain $4 \times (3 + 2)
= 20$. There is no advantage in reducing the number of
cases below these 20, since doing so would require an expensive remapping of
coarse and fine grid data in memory and would lead to code which is
hard to read, maintain, or modify. The case of a double-size
neighbor is not explicitly handled, since each routine is always
written from the perspective of the coarsest grid.
When two neighboring grids are on different blocks, additional
information about the relative orientations of the indices is needed.
Holding the coarse grid
fixed, the face-adjacent neighboring grid can be rotated through one
of four possible positions in the plane, or through two possible
positions out of the plane, so that the z-axes (the directions of
which are determined from a right hand rule) of the coarse grid and
neighboring grid point in opposite directions. Taking into account the two
possible positions that a fine grid can have relative to a coarse grid
face, the total number of arrangements between a coarse grid and a
neighboring grid at one of four coarse grid faces is 96 (eight
positions for each of three types of grids at each of four faces).
Similarly, the number of possible configurations for an adjacent
corner grid is 32 for both same-size or fine grid neighbors (8 for
each same-size corner-adjacent neighbor at each corner, or 8 for each
fine grid corner adjacent neighbor).
To avoid this combinatorial explosion of possible grid configurations,
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace makes use of {\em index transforms} for all corner and
face exchanges at grid boundaries, regardless of whether the exchange is
between grids on
the same block or different blocks. The use of these transforms
effectively reduces the complexity in handling multiblock\xspace orientations to
the 20 cases required by the neighboring grids on the same block.
The index transforms from one index space to the index space
of a neighboring same-size grid, possibly at a multiblock\xspace boundary,
has the general form
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}_n = A{\bf I}_c + {\bf F}
\label{eqn:transform}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a $2\times 2$ matrix, ${\bf F}$ is a $2 \times 1$ vector,
and ${\bf I}_c$ and ${\bf I}_n$ are $2\times 1$ vectors of grid
indices $(i_c,j_c)$ and $(i_n,j_n)$.
The matrix $A$ encodes the orientation of indices on one patch
relative to a second patch, and the vector ${\bf F}$ encodes the position
of these patches relative to each other. For patches on the same
block, the matrix $A$ is the identity matrix, but for patches on
different blocks, $A$ will be a diagonal or anti-diagonal matrix
whose non-zero entries are 1 or -1. The vector $F$ depends in general
on the fixed grid size $M$.
In what follows, we use $q_c(I_c)$ to indicate a cell-centered value
on the coarse grid at index coordinates $I_c$, defined in coarse grid
coordinates. By analogy, the neighboring grid values are indicated
using $q_n(I_n)$, where $I_n$ is obtained using \eqn{transform}.
The transform in \eqn{transform} is provide by \texttt{p4est}\xspace as a low-level
routine, which {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace then uses when copying, averaging
and interpolation at patch boundaries, with no distinction made between
patches on the same block or on different blocks. With these transformations, the
numerical developer can effectively assume all patches have the same
index orientation and can essentially implement operations between pairs of patches as if
both patches were on the same block.
\paragraph{Copying at patch boundaries}
To use multiblock\xspace indexing to fill coarse
ghost regions via copying, we transform grid cell coordinates ${\bf
I}_c$ to get index location ${\bf I}_n$ on the neighboring same-size
grid and then make the assignment $q_c({\bf I}_c) = q_n({\bf I}_n)$.
\paragraph{Averaging and interpolation at patch boundaries}
To fill coarse ghost regions via averaging or fine ghost regions via
interpolation, we need to map a single coarse grid index $I_c$ to four
fine grid indices. We do this by defining four direction vectors on
the coarse grid which we use to find four fine grid locations
contained within a coarse grid cell. These direction vectors are
given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf d}_0 = (-1,-1), \quad {\bf d}_1 = (1,-1),
\quad {\bf d}_2 = (-1,1), \quad {\bf d}_3 = (1,1).
\end{equation}
The corresponding fine grid locations, in coarse grid coordinates, are then given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}_c^k = {\bf I}_c + \frac{1}{4}{\bf d}_k, \qquad k = 0,1,2,3 .
\end{equation}
A mapping between coarse and fine grid indices has the general form
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}_f = 2 A {\bf I}_c + {\bf F}^f ,
\end{equation}
where $A$ encodes index orientations between neighboring coarse and fine grids (as in the same-size
transforms), and $F^f$ encodes, in fine grid coordinates,
the location of the fine grid relative to the coarse grid.
The four fine grid interpolation points can then be defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{\bf I}_f^k & = 2A \left( {\bf I}_c + \frac{1}{4}{\bf d}_k \right) + {\bf F}^f \\
& = 2A{\bf I}_c + \frac{1}{2}A {\bf d}_k + {\bf F}^f, \qquad k = 0,1,2,3. \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The vector ${\bf F}^f$ encodes the location of the center of the coarse grid
in fine grid coordinates, and so the entries of ${\bf F}^f$ are half-index values.
It follows, then, that entries in the vector $\frac{1}{2}A {\bf d}_k + {\bf F}^f$ are integers,
and the final fine grid location ${\bf I}_f^k$ will be integer coordinates.
\ignore{
The index location ${\bf I}^c_f$ is the center of a coarse grid cell.
Thus, the entries of $\widetilde A$ are multiples of $2$ and $\widetilde F$
contains integers shifted by $\frac12$. \comment{But don't we say that A has
entries 1, -1, or 0, above? I think this section still needs work.}
In this convention, $\widetilde{\bf d}_k$ adds or subtracts another half which
ensures that the fine grid indices are integers as well.}
Using the above, we can fill in coarse grid ghost cell values (on a
uniform grid) via averaging from a fine grid neighbor as
\begin{equation}
q_c({\bf I}_c) = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{k=0}^3 q_f({\bf I}_f^k) .
\label{eqn:ghost_coarse}
\end{equation}
To fill in fine grid ghost cells, we use interpolation stencils
that are described entirely in the coarse grid index space, but the
index locations of the fine grid ghost cells to be filled in by the
interpolation must be obtained via the transformation. The interpolation
stencil can be applied as
\begin{equation}
q_f({\bf I}_f^k) = q_c({\bf I}_c) + \frac{h}{4} \widetilde{\nabla} q_c \cdot {\bf d}_k
\label{eqn:ghost_fine}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\nabla} q_c$ is an approximation to the gradient of the coarse grid
solution and computed using one-sided differences and $h$ is the coarse grid mesh width.
\ignore{
To further reduce the complexity of possible grid configurations,
ghost exchange routines in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace are all written from the
perspective of the coarse grid, and the fine grid perspective is
realized by swapping the coarse and fine grids in subroutine argument
lists. In this coarse grid perspective, the coarse grid
is assumed to be fixed in the usual Cartesian
orientation (index $i$ increases to the right; index $j$ increases
going up), and grid transforms handle any index orientation mismatches
at the patch boundaries. With this approach, only four cases
need to be explicitly handled in subroutines for handling face
exchanges, and four cases for handling corner exchanges.
}
\ignore{
When a coarse grid is visited, coarse grid ghost regions are
filled by copying or averaging from a same-size or fine grid neighbor.
In a second interpolation step, coarse grids fill in the fine grid
ghost regions of neighboring fine grids. While all four grid faces
and four grid corners must be explicitly handled by ghost exchange
routines, the orientation mismatches between grids at block boundaries
are handled by the transforms and are essentially transparent to a
user or developer.
}
\section{Parallel algorithms}
\label{sec:parallel}
Evenly distributing grids to processors using a space-filling curve
results in a partitioning of the quadtree layout into logical {\em
processor regions}. See \Fig{procboundaries} for a typical
distribution of quadrants to processor regions. Pairs of processor
regions are separated by simple rectilinear curves, which we call
{\em processor boundaries}. The {\em parallel boundary} for a
particular processor region is the rectilinear curve made up of all
processor boundaries that separate the particular region from all
other regions. \texttt{p4est}\xspace (and by extension, {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace) uses Morton
ordering to delineate the space-filling curve. While this is a
discontinuous ordering, it can be shown that any processor region
defined by this ordering consists of at most two face-connected
sub-regions per tree, and so its parallel boundary will consist of at
most two simple curves for each tree \cite{bu-is:2015}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{proc_regions.pdf}\hfil
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]
{proc_regions_with_ghost.pdf}\hfil
\end{center}
\caption{Shaded regions showing processor regions. The left figure
shows patches on all processors, whereas the right figure shows
the patches local to processor 3 (thicker lines) and remote ghost
patches (thinner lines), sent to processor 3 from processors 1 and 2,
and stored as a local copy by processor 3. Only processor region 1
consists of two disjoint subregions.}
\label{fig:procboundaries}
\end{figure}
Using the single-instruction-multiple-data (SIMD) paradigm underlying
the {\sc MPI}\xspace model, we describe our parallel exchange and parallel
ghost filling algorithm
in terms of a {\em local} processor region and {\em remote} processor
regions. We refer to {\em local} grids as those grids whose
interiors are in the local processor region. By analogy, remote grids
are those grids whose interiors are in remote processor regions. {\em
Local ghost regions} and {\em remote ghost regions} are ghost regions
in local or remote processor regions, respectively. To avoid confusion,
we will use terms {\em
local} or {\em remote} ghost regions for those local or remote regions
belonging to local grids only, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
Interior regions and ghost regions of a local or remote grid are said
to be ``on the parallel boundary'' if these regions share a corner or
face with the parallel boundary.
If we allow processor boundaries to extend beyond the physical domain
in an obvious way, we can also designate exterior ghost regions of local grids as
either {\em local} or {\em remote}.
\subsection{Parallel exchange of ghost cell data}
To exchange data across processor boundaries, {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace uses the
data transfer mechanisms available in \texttt{p4est}\xspace. First,
each processor packs local patches on the parallel boundary
into a sender communication buffer. This packing exploits the fact
that only the outermost layers of interior cells of a patch need to be
sent, while the center region of a patch is never needed by remote
processors. Remote patches on the parallel boundary are received by
the processor in receiver communication buffers, unpacked
accordingly, and stored in a ghost patch array. These local
copies of parallel ghost patches are not stored as part of the local
tree hierarchy and have limited meta-data, but for the purposes of
filling ghost regions, parallel patches can be used just like
local neighboring grid patches.
The \texttt{p4est}\xspace abstract ghost exchange algorithm is based on its
internal knowledge of patches on the parallel boundary and can
optionally be split into an {\sc MPI}\xspace send phase and an {\sc MPI}\xspace receive phase. This
design allows {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace to process the local patches not on the
parallel boundary between calls to send and receive parallel patches,
effectively overlapping communication and computation. Our approach
to smoothly grade the refinement described in \Sect{smoothrefine}
also makes use of this abstract \texttt{p4est}\xspace ghost exchange facility by
sending and receiving the target refinement level for each patch.
After the target levels for remote patches on the parallel boundary are
received, each local patch can compute its target level as the maximum over
itself and its direct neighbors without further communication.
\subsection{Parallel ghost filling algorithm}
\label{sec:ghostfill_parallel}
Our parallel exchange algorithm needs to manage the sequence of data
transfers and mathematical operations between local and remote
patches. The challenge in implementing our parallel ghost-filling
algorithm is imposing the correct order on the interleaving of steps
to fill coarse ghost regions and steps to fill fine ghost regions.
Because interpolation stencils may cross multiple parallel boundaries,
our algorithm requires multi-way ghost filling between patches received from
different processors.
In the adaptive setting, parallel boundaries will in general cross
boundaries between levels and fine ghost regions belonging to local
processors may fall on the parallel boundary. This means that both
remote coarse ghost regions belonging to local patches and local
coarse ghost regions belonging to remote patches may be required to
have valid data before the fine ghost region can be properly filled.
For this reason, a pre-processing step on local patches and a
post-processing step on remote patches must be carried out before and
after parallel communication. It will also be advantageous (even in
the uniformly refined case) to hide latency associated with parallel
communication. These pre- and post-processing steps and the send and
recieve calls split the serial algorithm into three distinct steps.
These are labeled \textbf{Steps 1, 2 and 3} and detailed in the parallel
\Alg{ghostfill_parallel}.
\ignore{The
proof that the algorithm fills all ghost regions is provided below, and serves
as an explanation of the algorithm.}
\ignore{In the first step, all
local coarse grid ghost regions belonging to grids on the parallel
boundary are filled. In the second step, all local coarse and fine
grid ghost regions belonging to patches that are not on the parallel
boundary are filled. Finally, in the third step, local grids on the
parallel boundary are visited a second time and all remote ghost
regions are filled, using data from remote ghost patches. In each of
the three steps, physical boundary conditions are applied as needed.
Between step one and step two, ghost patches on the parallel boundary
are packed into message buffers and sent to remote neighboring
processors. Between steps two and three, remote ghost patches are
received by the local processor and unpacked and stored in the local
ghost patch array. In Step 3, an additional indirect exchange between
parallel ghost patches is carried out. The explanation of this
additional step, along with a more detailed description of the entire
algorithm, is provided in the analysis of the algorithm that follows.}
\ignore{The complete algorithm describing the parallel ghost exchange is given
in \Alg{ghostfill_parallel}. As with the serial ghost-filling
algorithm, we need to prove that all local and remote coarse and fine
grid ghost regions, as well as all exterior regions are filled with
valid data.}
\ignore{An intermediate goal of the parallel ghost filling algorithm is to
fill all coarse grid ghost regions on the parallel boundary. Only
then, can fine grid regions at the parallel boundary be filled in. To
this end, Step 1 assures that the coarse grid ghost regions between
face-adjacent ghost patches from the same processor will have valid
data. The left figure of \Fig{procboundaries_zoom} illustrates how
this coarse grid ghost region may be needed by a fine grid stencil at
the parallel boundary. To ensure that coarse grid ghost regions
between neighboring ghost patches from different processors will also have
valid data, an indirect exchange is carried out in the first loop in
Step 3 of the algorithm. The second figure in
\Fig{procboundaries_zoom} shows a fine grid stencil that covers three
processor regions. Finally, the local coarse grid regions belonging
to remote ghost patches are filled in the second iteration in Step 3.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,clip=true,
trim=7.25cm 4.9cm 2.25cm 4.59cm]{proc_regions_zoom_good.pdf}\hfil
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,clip=true,
trim=4.25cm 4.25cm 4.25cm 4.25cm]{proc_regions_zoom.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{%
These figures illustrate the challenge in filling fine corner
ghost regions on the parallel boundary. In the left figure, the
interpolation stencil needed to fill in the corner fine ghost region
on the local patch crosses a single processor boundary and is applied
to the remote patch on processor 2. To ensure that the required
coarse ghost region on the remote patch has been filled, a
pre-processing step on all processors fills coarse ghost regions on
the parallel boundary before patches are sent to the remote
processors. In the right figure, the interpolation stencil crosses
two processor boundaries and the pre-processing step is not sufficient
to ensure that the required coarse ghost regions on the remote patch
on processor 1 are filled.
Therefore, a second ghost filling between locally stored
remote patches from processors 1 and 2 is required.}
\label{fig:procboundaries_zoom}
\end{figure}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{%
Parallel interleaved ghost cell update.}
\label{alg:ghostfill_parallel}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require{Grids on all levels must be time synchronized}
\ForAll{coarse grids {\bf on} the parallel boundary}
\Comment{Step 1}
\State Fill in local coarse ghost regions
\State Apply physical boundary conditions to exterior ghost regions
\EndFor
\State {\bf Send local patches at parallel boundary to remote processors}
\ForAll{coarse grids {\bf not on} the parallel boundary}
\Comment{Step 2}
\State Fill in local coarse regions
\State Apply physical boundary conditions to exterior ghost regions
\State Fill in fine grid neighbors' ghost regions using this grid's interior
\EndFor
\State {\bf Receive patches from remote processors}
\State Fill coarse ghost regions between remote ghost patches from
different processors.
\ForAll{coarse grids {\bf on} the parallel boundary}
\Comment{Step 3}
\State Fill in remote coarse grid ghost regions, using remote grids
\State Apply physical boundary conditions to exterior ghost regions
\EndFor
\ForAll{{\bf remote} coarse grids}
\State Fill local coarse ghost regions using local grids.
\EndFor
\ForAll{grids {\bf on} the parallel boundary}
\State Fill local coarse ghost regions belonging to remote grids
\State Apply physical boundary conditions to exterior ghost regions
\EndFor
\ForAll{fine grids {\bf on} the parallel boundary}
\State Fill in remote fine ghost regions, using remote coarse grids.
\EndFor
\ForAll{grids {\bf on} the parallel boundary}
\State Apply physical boundary conditions to exterior ghost regions
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{prp}
Assume we have a 2:1 balanced quadtree layout partitioned to processors
using a space-filling curve. Let $M$ be the fixed grid size, let $m$
be the number of ghost layers, and $w$ be the width of the stencil
used to interpolate from the coarse grid to fine grid ghost cells.
Assume that the interior regions of all grids contain valid data.
Then, if $m \le M/4$ and $w \le M/2$, \Alg{ghostfill_parallel} is
guaranteed to fill in all coarse, fine and exterior ghost regions
belonging to grids on the local processor with valid data.
\end{prp}
We justify the proposition by describing in detail the three steps of
\Alg{ghostfill_parallel}.
Steps 1 and 2 of our parallel ghost filling algorithm are responsible for
filling the coarse grid regions between any two local neighbor grids,
and all local fine ghost regions not on the parallel boundary.
All local coarse ghost regions can be filled
using data from the interior of local
patches, or by applying physical boundary conditions. Similarly, all
local fine ghost regions not on the parallel boundary can be
filled using interpolation stencils that rely only on local coarse
grid ghost regions. To overlap communication, Step 1 only fills
coarse grid ghost regions on the parallel boundary. Following this
step, all grids on the parallel boundary are packed into communication
buffers and sent to remote processors. Step 2 then continues by filling
all coarse and fine grid regions not on the parallel boundary.
What remains are remote coarse grid regions belonging to local grids
and remote and local fine grid ghost regions on the parallel boundary.
These remaining ghost regions are filled in Step 3, after the
communication step. In the first loop in Step 3, remote coarse grid
regions belonging local grids on the parallel boundary are filled by
copying or averaging from the locally stored remote parallel patches.
To show that local and remote fine grid regions belonging to local
grids on the parallel boundary are filled by our algorithm, we have to
demonstrate that the stencils involved will have valid data.
In the simplest case, an interpolation stencil needed to fill a remote
or local fine grid region on the parallel boundary does not cross the
parallel boundary. In this case, the coarse grid ghost data needed
for the stencil will have been filled from the averaging step in Step
1 and so the stencil will have valid data.
A slightly more complicated situation occurs when the interpolation
stencil crosses a single parallel boundary. In this situation, the
fine grid region to be filled may be either local or remote, but the
interpolation stencil will at least partially depend on data from a
remote coarse grid ghost region. If the fine grid region is local,
then the coarse grid used for the stencil is local, but since it
crosses the parallel boundary, the stencil will depend on a remote
ghost region belonging to the local coarse grid. These remote ghost regions
are filled in the first loop of Step 3. In a second case, the fine
grid region is itself a remote region (but belonging to a local grid)
and the coarse grid used for the
interpolation is itself a remote parallel patch. In this situation,
the parallel patch must have valid data in any coarse grid ghost
region on the parallel boundary. These regions are filled in the
second loop of Step 3. For an illustration of this second case, see
the left plot in \Fig{procboundaries_zoom}.
Finally, the case that requires extra handling is the one in which an
interpolation stencil crosses two or more processor boundaries. This
situation can arise, for example, when filling corner fine ghost
regions that lie in a remote processor region (see the right plot in
\Fig{procboundaries_zoom}). In this case, the remote (but locally
stored) parallel ghost patch is not guaranteed to have valid data in
all coarse ghost regions on the parallel boundary. If the coarse grid
region lies in the local processor region, then this coarse grid ghost region
will have been filled in the second loop of Step 3. But if the coarse
grid ghost region lies in a third processor's region, then we need a mechanism
for filling coarse ghost regions between parallel patches originating from different
processors. This is included in \Alg{ghostfill_parallel} between Step 2 and
Step 3.
\ignore{
\begin{enumerate}
\item[Type I] {\em remote coarse grid ghost regions on a single
remote processor}
are remote coarse ghost regions belonging to remote patches
from a single remote processor. These remote coarse
grid ghost regions are filled locally by each processor in Step 1 of
\Alg{ghostfill_parallel}, before the patches are sent to neighboring
remote processors. There are no Type I exterior regions.
\item[Type II] {\em remote coarse grid ghost regions} are those
regions that can be filled by the interior of a grid on a different
remote processor. These regions are filled in a special ``indirect
exchange,'' carried out in the first loop in Step 3, after
parallel patches have been received on
the local processor. To fill these coarse grid regions, the local
array storing parallel ghost patches is traversed, and each parallel
patch is queried (using metadata communicated in a one-time setup step
carried out after regridding) to see if it has a same-size or fine
grid neighbor originating from a different remote processor. If so,
the Type II coarse grid ghost region if filled from the interior of
the neighboring grid. There are no Type II exterior ghost regions.
\item[Type III] {\em remote coarse grid ghost regions} are those regions
that can be filled by data from the interior of a local grid. These
regions are filled in Step 3 of \Alg{ghostfill_parallel}. To fill
these regions, we set up a special traversal of the local tree
hierarchy that recognizes when a neighboring patch is a remote coarse
grid. When a remote coarse grid neighbor is detected, the roles of
the local grid and the neighboring remote grid are swapped, and the
Type III coarse grid ghost region is filled by either copying from the
interior of the local same-size grid, or averaging from the interior
of the local fine grid. Type III exterior ghost regions, i.e.\ those exterior
ghost
regions belonging to remote parallel patches but that are in the local
processor region, are filled by applying physical boundary conditions.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Fine grid ghost regions}
The first time interpolation stencils
are applied is in Step 2. In this step, all local coarse grid ghost
regions have been filled, including local exterior coarse grid ghost
regions. Any fine grid ghost region belonging to a grid that is not
on the parallel boundary cannot itself be on the parallel boundary.
So therefore, any stencils needed to fill in interior fine grid ghost
regions do not cross the parallel boundary, and therefore do not rely
on data in remote coarse grid ghost regions. Because all local
interior and coarse grid ghost region data is valid, the interpolation
stencils used in Step 2 will all have valid data.
In Step 3, remote fine grid ghost regions are filled. To fill these regions,
interpolation stencils may be applied to parallel ghost regions. So the
key is to show that when these stencils are applied, the parallel ghost
patches have valid data in their coarse grid regions. That is, that
all Type I, Type II and Type III regions have been filled. Type II regions are
filled in Step 3, as part of the special traversal of parallel ghost patches.
At the point that fine grid interpolation stencils have to be applied, then,
all necessary coarse grid data will be valid.
The last loop in Step 3 applies physical boundary to all grids on the
parallel boundary. This step will fill any local exterior fine grid
ghost regions belonging to coarse grids on the parallel boundary and
that were left with invalid data after the application of physical
boundary conditions in Step 1. This final application of physical
boundary conditions also fills remote fine and coarse grid exterior
regions using newly filled data from remote regions on parallel boundary.
} %
\ignore{
\subsection{Implementation details}
In the serial algorithm, low-level
routines carrying out ghost region exchanges expect metadata encoding
index transforms, the numerical value of the face at which an exchange
should take place, and so on, from the perspective of the coarse grid.
This presents a technical difficulty when filling Type III remote coarse
grid regions, since local and neighbor grids and any metadata must be
swapped in order to re-use these low level routines to fill ghost
regions on the parallel patches. For patches on the same block, this
swapping of metadata is relatively straightforward, since the
numerical value of a face on the coarse grid neighbor can be deduced from
the value of same face on the fine grid patch, and index
transforms in this case are trivial. However, at multiblock\xspace boundaries,
these conversions are far from trivial, and so specialized routines
have been written and included {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace to swap the metadata
perspective between fine and coarse grids. These conversions
are largely transparent to the user, and low-level ghost filling
routines can be used to fill both interior ghost regions and
ghost regions on parallel patches.
Since ghost patches are only used to fill in ghost region data and are not
themselves updated, we can
reduce communication costs by only passing data from the border
regions of patches at the parallel boundary. We pass
all the layers of ghost cells plus $2m$
additional interior layers. These additional interior layers are
needed so that there are sufficient interior layers on fine grid
parallel ghost patches to average to local coarse grid ghost regions.
For an $8 \times 8$ grid with $m=2$ ghost layers, this optimization
does not result in any savings, but for a $16 \times 16$ grid, the
packed data is 84\% of the full data, and for a $32 \times 32$ grid,
the packed data is just over $50\%$ of the full grid. This optimization
could be carried further by only passing data in those border regions
that are directly on the parallel boundary, but this complicates the
packing and unpacking of data into ghost buffers so we instead pack
data in all four border regions, regardless of whether those borders
are on the parallel boundary.
When solving on a mapped grid, one can optionally pass cell areas
(i.e.\ values of the discrete Jacobian in each cell) to the remote
processor. This data is needed when the solution on a fine grid
parallel patch is averaged to the coarse ghost region of a local
patch. If this extra data is not passed in the communication step, it
must be re-generated locally, which, depending on the mapping, may
incur considerable expense. Because the solution is never updated on
these remote ghost patches, metric data such as edge lengths and
edge normals, or auxiliary data such as bathymetry, prescribed
velocity fields, or material properties are not needed on the parallel
ghost patches.
}
\section{Dynamic grid adaptation}
\label{sec:amr}
One of the defining features of {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, and other adaptive grid
codes, is that grids are dynamically adapted to follow solution
features of interest. The general refinement strategy in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace
involves applying refinement and coarsening criteria at regular
regridding intervals to determine if the solution in a particular
quadrant should be replaced with four sibling grids (``refined''), or
if the solution on four sibling grids should be replaced by a single
parent grid (``coarsened''). Once the refinement and coarsening
criteria have been applied, the quadtree mesh is regenerated and
the numerical solution is adapted to newly created coarse or fine
quadrants. In a parallel setting, this regridding step is followed by
a parallel partitioning step that re-distributes grids evenly to
processors, correcting potential load imbalances caused by the
regridding.
\ignore{It many cases, it is desirable to smoothly grade transitions between
refinement levels and to effectively extend a tagged region occupied by
one level into the next coarser level. To achieve this, we
follow the initial tagging phase of the regridding process
by a post-processing step that tags additional grids (not initially
tagged based on the solution) to provide buffer grids around specified
levels. The left plot in \Fig{amrgrid} shows an illustration of smooth
refinement between levels 5 and 6 to ensure that the tracer quantity remains
on the finest level grids.}
\ignore{
\comment{A sentence or two on how cells are tagged}
}
\subsection{Dynamic refinement algorithm}
\label{sec:adapt}
The {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace regridding algorithm proceeds in three
basic steps. First, each grid in a quadtree layout $Q$ is either
tagged for refinement, tagged, along with any sibling grids, for
coarsening, or left untagged. A common criterion for tagging cells is
a ``feature'' based refinement, identifying, for example, a sharp jump in
the computed solution or a steep gradient. Once tagging has been
completed, a quadtree adaptation step creates a new quadtree layout
$Q'$. A 2:1 balancing step, needed to enforce proper nesting of
refinement levels, may tag additional grids for refinement, and so
coarsening is not always guaranteed to occur based on user-defined
coarsening criteria. Grids that are tagged for refinement are
guaranteed to be refined.
After the new mesh is generated, we interpolate the solution from
coarse grids to the newly created fine grids using the same monotone
interpolation scheme we use for filling ghost cells. Sibling grids
are averaged to a coarser grid using an averaging stencil.
Grids that were neither refined or coarsened are reassigned
unchanged from $Q$ to $Q'$. Once all grids in $Q'$ are populated, grids
are re-partitioned to processors to ensure proper load balancing.
Again, repartitioning is delegated to the \texttt{p4est}\xspace library.
To support general refinement criteria (examining differences between
neighboring grid cells, for example), the tagging algorithm should run after
a call to the ghost filling algorithm. Ghost-filling is required once again
on the new and re-partitioned domain $Q'$ to ensure that the adapted solution
is well-defined.
The generation of the new adaptive mesh layout $Q'$ and the 2:1 balancing
are delegated to the \texttt{p4est}\xspace library, which operates largely independent of
the {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace layer.
\ignore
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Regridding algorithm for quadtree layout $Q$ to produce new
layout $Q'$. A quadtree is regridded every user-specified
$N$ coarse grid time steps. In practice, regridding is done every coarse grid
time step ($N=1$). }
\label{alg:regridding}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require{All grids in $Q$ must be time synchronized at level $t_n$ and have
valid ghost cells.}
\Statex
\State Let $K$ be a subset of indices $\{K_1,K_2,\hdots,K_F\}$, $1 \le K_j \le G$
which start a family of sibling grids.
\Statex
\ForAll{families $f_j = \{g_{K_j},g_{K_j + 1},g_{K_j + 2},g_{K_j+3}\}$,
$j = 1,2,\hdots,F$}
\State Compute $\delta_{K_j+i}^n$, $i = 0,1,2,3$ using either \eqn{delta_undivide} or \eqn{delta_grid}
\If{$\delta_{K_j + i}^n < \tau_c$ for all $i = 0,1,2,3$}
\State Tag all grids in family $f_j$ for coarsening.
\EndIf
\EndFor
\ForAll{grids $g_k$, $k = 1,2, \hdots,G$}
\If{grid $g_k$ is not tagged for coarsening}
\State Compute $\delta_{k}^n$ using either \eqn{delta_undivide} or \eqn{delta_grid}
\If{$\delta_k^n > \tau_r$}
\State Tag grid $g_k$ for refinement
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndFor
\Statex
\State If smooth refinement is on, exchange target level of ghost grids,
modify tags.
\State Construct new 2:1 balanced quadtree $Q'$ consisting of grids $g'_k$,
$k = 1,2, \hdots,G'$.
\Statex
\If{$Q'$ is different from $Q$}
\State Copy, average or interpolate grids from $Q$ to $Q'$
\State Repartition grids across processors
\State \Call{update\_ghost}{$\ell_\mathrm{min}$}
\EndIf
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
}%
\ignore{
For example, one could exit the computation of
$\delta_k^n$ as soon as it is detected that for some $(i,j)$, the
tagging criteria in \eqn{delta_undivide} or \eqn{delta_grid} exceed
$\tau_r$ or $\tau_c$. If the tagging criteria exceeds $\tau_r$ for
some $(i,j)$ the grid should be tagged for refinement, and there is no
need to check the remaining $(i,j)$. If the criteria exceeds
$\tau_c$, the grid will not be coarsened, and there is no need to
apply the coarsening criteria to the remainder of that grid, or the
remaining sibling grids. With more detailed knowledge of how many
grids are likely to be refined or coarsened during any regridding
step, one could probably implement more optimizations. However, in
practice, regridding takes such a small fraction of the overall
wall-clock time, that such optimizations would likely have negligible
impact on the total time to solution.
}
\subsection{Smooth refinement}
\label{sec:smoothrefine}
When dynamically adapting grid resolution to follow solution features
of interest, one wishes to ensure that such features are not
too close to coarse-fine boundaries. To provide a buffer region
around grids that have been tagged for refinement, {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace can
optionally smoothly refine from one region to the next. This
effectively adds an additional layer of tagged grids around the finest
levels and avoids the situation in which sharp solution features are
just barely contained by the finest level grids.
After all grids have been tagged for coarsening or refinement,
refinement levels are smoothly graded as follows. Each grid stores
its current level and a {\em target level} which is either equal to
the current level (i.e.\ the grid is not tagged for refinement or
coarsening), one greater than the current level, or one level less.
Then, for each patch, we compute the maximum of the target level over
that patch and all neighboring patches and pass this to the \texttt{p4est}\xspace
adapt/balance routines. The 2:1 balancing algorithm then ensures that
neighboring levels will never differ by more than one.
\ignore{
\section{Time stepping}
\label{sec:advance}
In this paper, we consider two explicit,
CFL-limited time stepping strategies. In the first
strategy, a stable (possibly variable) time for the finest level grid is chosen,
with the assumption that this time step will be stable for all coarser
levels. Then, the solution is advanced on each grid using this global
time step. In this strategy, which we call a {\em global time
stepping strategy}, the CFL number will generally be much lower on
coarser levels than on the finer levels, resulting in a potential loss
of accuracy on the coarser grids. On the other hand, one does not expect
sharp gradients on the coarser levels, so this loss of accuracy may by minimal.
In a second time stepping strategy, we seek to maintain a constant CFL
number across all levels by advancing each level with a time step
appropriate for that level. This second strategy, which is often
referred to as {\em subcycling}, {\em local time stepping} or
{\em multirate\xspace} time stepping, has the advantage that we take fewer time
steps on the coarser level than on the finest level grids. In
particular, we take $2^{\ell_\mathrm{max}-\ell_\mathrm{min}}$ time steps on the finest level
for each coarsest level time step.
In {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, both time stepping strategies are implemented in a single
recursive algorithm in which recursive calls to update the solution on the coarser
levels are made after the solution has been updated on the finer levels. Time
interpolated solutions are used to provide intermediate boundary conditions
in the local time stepping case. Also in the local time stepping case, ghost
cell updates are performed by a version of \Alg{ghostfill_parallel} that
that is parameterized by a minimum level.
\ignore{
Whether one sees a benefit from
using local time stepping is problem dependent, but in general, one
should expect the overall time to be proportional the number of grids
advanced over the duration of the simulation time.
}
}
\section{Scaling results}
\label{sec:examples}
We demonstrate our ghost-filling algorithm and parallel
communication scheme using the wave propagation algorithms available in
{\sc Clawpack}\xspace, a software package for solving hyperbolic problems using
high resolution, second order finite volume schemes on logically
Cartesian meshes \cite{ma-ah-be-ca-ge-ha-ke-le-le:2016, le:1996,
le:1997, le:2002, be-le:1998}.
Incorporating the {\sc Clawpack}\xspace Fortran library routines into {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace
required only minimal changes to a few of those routines. Both
{\sc Clawpack}\xspace 4.6 and {\sc Clawpack}\xspace 5 solvers, along with most {\sc Clawpack}\xspace
applications from those packages, are all available as part of
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace.
In the following study, we focus on how the choice of
fixed grid size $M$ affects the efficiency of the adaptive algorithms in
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace. The model problems we consider are scalar advection of a tracer field in
a square, replicated domain and on a sphere.
The scalar advection problem is ideally suited for performance
scaling studies because we can easily choose a fixed time step size that
remains stable throughout a simulation and across a wide range of
resolutions. The Riemann problem for scalar advection has very low
arithmetic intensity, so any overhead associated with communication
and dynamic regridding cannot be easily hidden by the cost of
advancing the solution. Also, because of the low memory requirements
of the scalar advection problem, we can run problems that are large
enough to maintain appropriate granularity at high processor counts
without becoming memory-bound on lower counts.
\input{scaling.tex}
\input{sphere.tex}
\section{Conclusions and future work}
In this article, we describe our work in developing a forest-of-quadtrees
approach to block-structured adaptive mesh refinement using the algorithms
first put forth by Berger and Oliger in 1985.
We demonstrate that these ideas can be implemented using the scalable mesh
management library \texttt{p4est}\xspace and hyperbolic solvers from the {\sc Clawpack}\xspace library.
A particular focus of this article is on the implementation of the parallel
ghost filling algorithm and inter-grid indexing necessary to formulate unsplit
finite volume schemes on a multiblock\xspace adaptive hierarchy of non-overlapping grids.
We add a smooth refinement procedure to preserve moving features of the
solution on the finest levels.
We demonstrate our approach numerically by solving a scalar advection problem
on 1 to 64Ki MPI processes with good parallel scalability.
We also solve an advection problem on the cubed sphere that is composed of
multiple blocks.
In addition, we looked carefully at how AMR efficiency depends on the
granularity (grids-per-process\xspace) and fix-grid sizes. We find that $32 \times 32$ grids strike
a favorable compromise between the flexible refinement offered by small grid
sizes and high arithmetic intensity offered by larger sizes.
While {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace supports multirate\xspace (locally adaptive) time stepping, we only
demonstrate global time stepping here.
A follow-up article will describe the multirate\xspace time stepping capabilities
currently available in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, report on detailed verification studies,
comparisons with other adaptive codes, and results from solving more complex
hyperbolic systems including the shallow-water and Euler equations.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Donna Calhoun would like to acknowledge the Isaac Newton Institute program
``Multiscale Numerics for the Ocean and Atmosphere'' for its support of much of
this work during the fall of 2012 and the National Science Foundation (NSF
DMS-1419108).
Carsten Burstedde is supported by the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics (HCM) at
Bonn University
funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Gau\ss{} Centre for Supercomputing (GCS)
for providing computing time through the John von Neumann Institute for
Computing (NIC) on the GCS share of the supercomputer JUQUEEN at J\"ulich
Supercomputing Centre (JSC). GCS is the alliance of the three national
supercomputing centres HLRS (Universit\"at Stuttgart), JSC (Forschungszentrum
J\"ulich), and LRZ (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften), funded by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German State
Ministries for Research of Baden-W\"urttemberg (MWK), Bayern (StMWFK) and
Nordrhein-Westfalen (MIWF).
\input{ms.bbl}
\end{document}
\subsection{Constant velocity in a square, replicated domain}
\label{sec:parallel_advection}
\label{sec:scaling}
In this first test, we run the scalar advection problem on a sequence
of replicated domains designed to provide meaningful weak scaling
results for adaptive simulations. Each domain is a multiblock\xspace (or ``brick'')
domain consisting of a $2^n \times 2^n$ arrangement of unit blocks, each of
which is an adaptive quadtree. The initial tracer field (shown in \Fig{tracer_init})
is replicated on each of the blocks in the multiblock\xspace domain, and periodic boundary
conditions are used at the physical boundaries of the domain. Once
the initial tracer field is replicated across the domain, the
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace simulation is oblivious to the replication, and all
aspects of the parallel regridding, communication and load balancing
algorithms in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace are rigorously exercised.
\paragraph{Problem setup}
Each unit block in the tracer field on the replicated domain is
initialized using the piecewise constant initial field shown in
\Fig{tracer_init}. The prescribed flow field is the constant velocity
${\bf u} = (u,v) = (0.5,0.5)$, defined using the streamfunction
$\psi(x,y) = -(x-y)/2$ \cite{ca-le:2000, ca:2002}. The periodic boundary
conditions imposed on the physical boundary ensure that each
block runs the same problem.
For all runs, we fix the CFL number $\alpha$ to 0.64 and adjust the
time step for each run to satisfy $\ensuremath{\Delta t}\xspace = \alpha\ensuremath{\Delta x}\xspace$, where $\ensuremath{\Delta x}\xspace$ is
the mesh width for the finest level grids. The number of time steps
taken is held fixed so that the final time varies with the resolution
of the fixed size grids. For the adaptive runs, we run the
simulations for 160 time steps to final times $T=0.2$, $T=0.1$ and
$T=0.05$, corresponding to the three different grid resolutions, as
described in the next paragraph. The uniform results are run for 20
steps, and resulting timings scaled by 8 to make valid
comparisons with the adaptive runs.
We ran three sets of uniform runs and three sets of adaptive runs,
corresponding to fixed size grids $8 \times 8$, $16 \times 16$ and $32
\times 32$. For the uniform runs, we set $\ell_\mathrm{min} = \ell_\mathrm{max} = 7$ so that
the effective resolutions on each block in the uniform case are
$1024\times 1024$, $2048 \times 2048$ and $4096 \times 4096$. For the
adaptive runs, we set $\ell_\mathrm{min}=4$ and $\ell_\mathrm{max} = 7$, corresponding to
initial coarse grid resolutions of $128\times 128$, $256\times 256$
and $512\times 512$. The adaptive mesh is dynamically regenerated
every $2^{\ell_\mathrm{max}-\ell_\mathrm{min}} = 2^3 = 8$ times steps. For the uniform runs,
we disabled the dynamic regridding and only use the initial mesh
created by \texttt{p4est}\xspace. A grid is tagged for refinement if the
difference between its largest value and smallest value exceeds a
refinement threshold $\tau_r=0.25$. Four sibling grids are tagged for
coarsening if the difference between the largest and smallest value on
each sibling grid does not exceed a coarsening threshold of $\tau_c =
0.001$. The finest level is smoothly graded for all adaptive runs.
\paragraph{Parallel setup}
Within each of the six sets of runs described above, we vary the
number of processors used and dimensions of the replicated multiblock\xspace
domain. For example, on the $32\times32$ runs, we run on replicated domains
ranging from a single block to $256\times 256$ blocks, while
corresponding MPI process counts vary from 1 to 65,536 (shown in
\Tab{scale_gpp}).
All of our parallel runs were done on JUQUEEN, the
BlueGene/Q system at the J\"ulich Supercomputing Centre
(Forschungszentrum, J\"ulich, Germany). Each node on JUQUEEN has one
16-core PowerPC A2 processor running at 1.6 \si{\giga\hertz} with 16
\si{\giga\byte} RAM. Unless otherwise stated, we ran 32 ranks ({\sc MPI}\xspace
processes) on each JUQUEEN node, making 0.5 \si{\giga\byte} of memory
available for each process.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,clip=true,trim=0cm 0.2cm 0cm 0cm]
{fc_adv_mesh_0010.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{torus_replicate.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Initial tracer field for the replicated
scalar advection problem (left).
The mesh is adapted to the tracer field, which is set to 1 inside of one of
five disks of radius 0.3 and 0 outside.
We use refinement levels 4 through 7 (grid lines not shown).
The domain on the right shows the unit quadtree replicated
four times on a $[0,2] \times [0,2]$ domain.%
}
\label{fig:tracer_init}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\caption{Average number of grids-per-process\xspace for the \adaptrun{32} set of runs for the
replicated, multiblock\xspace scalar advection problem. The leftmost column
shows number of {\sc MPI}\xspace ranks used for the run and the top row shows the
dimensions of the multiblock\xspace brick domain used, i.e.\ $1\times1$, $2
\times 2$, $4 \times 4$ and so on. Weak scaling results are taken
from runs along diagonals, where the work per process remains fixed.
We carried out similar sets of runs for $8\times8$ and $16\times 16$
fixed size grids, for both adaptive and uniform cases (not shown here).}
\label{tab:scale_gpp}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r*{9}{S[table-format=4]}}
\toprule
Ranks & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128 & 256\\
\midrule
1 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
64 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
256 & 19 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
1024 & \textemdash & 19 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4096 & \textemdash & \textemdash & 19 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16384 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & 19 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 & \textemdash \\
65536 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & 19 & 79 & 316 & 1264 & 5059 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Results}
\ignore{
Tables \ref{tab:scale_gpp}, \ref{tab:scale_wallclock} and \ref{tab:scale_rates} report
numerical results from the adaptive $32\times32$ set of runs. The figures in \Fig{weak_scaling}
show efficiency results from all six sets of runs, and \Fig{overhead} shows the cost of
doing AMR for subsets of runs from each set. In \Fig{scale_adaptive}, we present a novel
plot showing AMR efficiency as a function of grids-per-process\xspace, or granularity.
In \Tab{scale_gpp}, we see that if we simultaneously increase the size of the replicated domain,
and the process count, we can maintain a fixed number of grids-per-process\xspace (as shown along the diagonals of
the table. The wall-clock\xspace times from \Tab{scale_wallclock} show that when we keep the work per process
fixed, the corresponding times are very nearly constant, at least with sufficient number of grids-per-process\xspace.
Finally, \Tab{scale_rates} shows that for all but the highest process counts, over \%80 of the time
is spent advancing the solution.
}
The weak scaling results for the uniform runs (top row of
\Fig{weak_scaling}) show near perfect scaling with close to 100\%
efficiency on up to 64Ki processes for runs with sufficient
granularity. Only the $8\times8$ run on 64Ki processes with 16 grids
per process dips below 80\% efficiency. As a point of
comparision, Ketcheson, Mandli et al.\ show 92\% efficiency using
{\sc PyClaw}\xspace, a massively parallel Python implementation of {\sc Clawpack}\xspace, to
solve the Euler equations on up to 64Ki processes on a uniformly
refined mesh with $400 \times 400$ fixed-sized grids
\cite{ke-ma-ah-al-lu-pa-kn-em:2012}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_uniform_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_uniform_16x16.pdf}} \hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_uniform_32x32.pdf}}\\
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_adaptive_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_adaptive_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.95cm 0cm]
{grids_per_time_adaptive_32x32.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Weak scaling results for the replicated, multiblock\xspace scalar
advection problem. The uniform runs are shown in the top row and the
adaptive runs on the bottom row. The $8\times8$, $16\times16$ and
$32\times32$ runs are shown in the left, middle and right columns,
respectively. Each plot shows the efficiency (\%) of the
particular run, where efficiency is computed as the ratio of the
number of grids updated per time for a simulation run on $P$
processes to the number of grids updated per time on 1 process.
The number of grids-per-process\xspace is indicated in the legend and remains constant for
each curve. The reduction in efficiency going from 16 processes to 64 processes results from running 1 {\sc MPI}\xspace
process per core on 1,4 and 16 cores to 2 processes per core for 64 and
higher process counts, e.g.\ 32 ranks per node on each JUQUEEN node.}
\label{fig:weak_scaling}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_uniform_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_uniform_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_uniform_32x32_modified.png}} \\
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_adapt_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_adapt_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_adapt_32x32.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Strong scaling of replicated uniform problem (top) and the replicated
adaptive problem (bottom). The legend labels indicate the number of blocks in each
direction in the replicated domain. The values plotted are the wall-clock\xspace
time for each run. The black dashed line is the ideal scaling, i.e.\ slope
$= -2$). The timing results for the lowest granularity simulations
in the upper right plot
(boxed) could not be computed within allocated time;
we estimated them from runs done on higher process counts to complete the
picture.}
\label{fig:scale_strong}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_uniform_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_uniform_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_uniform_32x32.pdf}} \\
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{time_partition_32x32.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Fraction of time spent in filling ghost cells, ghost cell
communication, CFL synchronization, and (in the adaptive case)
regridding on the replicated multiblock\xspace scalar advection problem.
The top row shows fractions for the uniformly refined
simulations, and the bottom row shows fractions for the adaptive
simulations. Columns show the $8\times8$, $16\times16$ and $32 \times
32$ fixed-size grid runs. Ghost filling tasks include both copying
between grids on the same level and averaging and interpolation at
coarse/fine interfaces. Regridding tasks include tagging grids,
dynamic mesh regeneration, rebuilding newly coarsened or refined
grids, and partioning to correct load imbalances. The fractions indicated by the
green stars (total time of all AMR tasks shown in the legends), and black dots (wall-clock\xspace time
minus time spent advancing the solution) are nearly identical,
confirming that we have accounted for all significant grid tasks in the indicated
legend entries.}
\label{fig:overhead}
\end{figure}
In the adaptive case, we see from \Fig{weak_scaling} that we have
close to 90\% or better efficiency on up to 4096 processes for all
grid sizes, even at very high granularity. For the $32\times 32$
grids, the efficiency on 64Ki only dips below 80\% for simulations with
79 grids-per-process\xspace and below 60\% for 19 grids-per-process\xspace. Simulations on the $8 \times 8$
grids dips close to or below 60\% on 64Ki processes, regardless of
granularity, but on 16Ki processes are close to 80\% as long as the
granularity exceeds roughly 300 grids-per-process\xspace. The $16 \times 16$ runs show
close to 80\% or better efficiency on up to 16Ki processes for all
levels of granularity, whereas the 64Ki runs dip below 80\% efficiency,
regardless of granularity.
\Fig{scale_strong} shows strong scaling results for all six sets of
runs. The data for these results was taken from columns of \Tab{scale_wallclock}
(for the $32\times 32$ adaptive run) and similar tables for the other five
runs. As with the weak scaling results, the strong scaling results
are nearly perfect for the uniform case and show better efficiency
for higher resolution fixed size grids in the adaptive case.
In \Fig{overhead}, we show a breakdown of overhead costs in managing
both the uniform and adaptive simulations for the case of 256 grids-per-process\xspace in
the uniform case, or 300-350 grids-per-process\xspace for the adaptive case. In the
uniform case, we see that essentially all overhead is in the filling
of coarse grid ghost regions via copying between grids. Communication
costs for the uniform case are negligible and for the $32 \times 32$
grids, these communication costs remain essentially flat, even at the
highest process counts. For the adaptive $8\times8$ runs, the
adaptive overhead is significant, consuming over 50\% of the total
time. By contrast, the adaptive $32\times32$ runs are nearly as
efficient, in terms of overhead, as the equivalent uniform runs.
Select numerical data from the runs shown in the previous plots are
shown in \Tab{scale_wallclock} and \Tab{scale_rates}.
In the results presented here we see a drop in efficiency when going from 16Ki
to 64Ki processes.
Especially in weak scaling experiments, this is not ideal behavior.
We suspect that the overlap of computation and communication
we implement is not sufficient at this scale to produce optimal scaling.
The precise cause will be investigated using more elaborate profiling.
\ignore{
To achieve the grids-per-process\xspace counts reported in \Fig{overhead} for the adaptive
runs, each unit block was distributed to 16 processes so that the
\texttt{p4est}\xspace mesh was identical for each fixed grid resolution. For the
uniform runs, each unit block was distributed to 64 processes. At
levels of granularity reported, we are using less than 10\% of the 0.5
\si{\giga\byte} of memory allocated per process.
}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_8x8.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_16x16.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.320\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_32x32.pdf}}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Plots showing AMR efficiency as a function of granularity (grids-per-process\xspace), for the scalar advection
problem on a single block. The solid line shows results for process
counts of 64 or greater, whereas the dashed line shows results for
process counts of 16 or less. }
\label{fig:scale_adaptive}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\caption{Wall-clock\xspace times (seconds) for the \adaptrun{32} set of runs
on the replicated, multiblock\xspace
scalar advection problem. The leftmost column shows
number of {\sc MPI}\xspace ranks used for the run, and the top row shows the
dimensions of the multiblock\xspace brick domain used, i.e.\ $1\times1$, $2
\times 2$, $4 \times 4$ and so on. Times along the diagonals remains relatively
fixed, showing good weak scaling results.}
\label{tab:scale_wallclock}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r*{9}{S[table-format = 4.1]}}
\toprule
Ranks & 1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128 & 256\\
\midrule
1 & 1430.5 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & 365.6 & 1450. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & 95.8 & 371. & 1470. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
64 & 32.2 & 119. & 460. & 1470. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash\\
256 & 9.85 & 32.2 & 119. & 461. & 1480. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash\\
1024 & \textemdash & 9.95 & 32.4 & 119. & 462. & 1480. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash\\
4096 & \textemdash & \textemdash & 10.3 & 32.9 & 120. & 465. & 1490. & \textemdash & \textemdash\\
16384 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & 11.8 & 34.8 & 123. & 479. & 1560. & \textemdash\\
65536 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & 18.8 & 43.0 & 143. & 575. & 1830.\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Details of $32\times 32$ run for entries along the top diagonal in \Tab{scale_gpp} and
\Tab{scale_wallclock}. The number of grids-per-process\xspace for the runs below is fixed at 5059. The rate in
the rightmost column is computed as total number of grid cells advanced per time per process.
All results were run using 16 ranks per JUQUEEN node. }
\label{tab:scale_rates}
\begin{advtable}{$32 \times 32$; Replicated problem}
\rowadv{mx=32,p=1, pp=1, w=1430.5, asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1292.07,gf=112.474,gc=0.00533591}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=4, pp=2, w=1448.79,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1299.09,gf=120.585,gc=2.75172}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=16, pp=4, w=1471.67,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1316.13,gf=123.577,gc=4.89805}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=64, pp=8, w=1474.89,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1317.3, gf=123.741,gc=6.08375}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=256, pp=16, w=1476.68,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1317.46,gf=124.563,gc=5.93793}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=1024, pp=32, w=1477.79,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1316.25,gf=126.114,gc=6.23245}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=4096, pp=64, w=1487.81,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1317.17,gf=134.249,gc=5.21293}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=16384,pp=128,w=1561.0, asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1318.78,gf=204.592,gc=4.40963}\\
\rowadv{mx=32,p=65536,pp=256,w=1831.75,asteps=809584,gpp=5059,a=1329.58,gf=449.497,gc=5.41203}\\
\end{advtable}
\end{table}
Finally, we report results from three sets of single-block adaptive
runs in which we vary the process count and the maximum level of
refinement. This problem is more typical of how one might allocate
computational resources, in that one would use additional
resources to increase resolution, not run more copies of the same
problem. We initialize the single block domain using the same initial
conditions and time stepping parameters as in the replicated problem.
The range of refinement levels and process counts we chose are shown
in \Tab{single_gpp}.
The results of these single-block runs allow us to obtain interesting
insight into the balance between AMR efficiency, granularity and
grid size. In \Fig{scale_adaptive} we show three plots,
corresponding to grid sizes $8\times8$, $16\times16$ and $32
\times 32$. In these plots, we show the relationship between AMR
efficiency, measured as fraction of time spent in AMR tasks and
advancing the solution, and granularity. Each plot shows a clear
crossover point indicating the minimum granularity needed to
ensure that at least 50\% of computational time is spent advancing the
solution. What the plots clearly show is that this crossover point
moves left, towards higher granularity, as the fixed-grid size
increases. For $8\times8$ grids, one needs nearly 1000 grids-per-process\xspace before
one is spending more time advancing the solution than managing the
grids. But for the $32 \times 32$ grids, allocating roughly 100 grids-per-process\xspace
is enough to ensure that over 80\% of the total time is spent
advancing the solution. Plotting efficiency data from other
applications and machine architectures should lead to plots with the
same general characteristics as those shown here, and so this novel
approach to illustrating the dependence of AMR efficiency on
granularity and grid size should provide a useful guide in how
to allocate computational resources for adaptive simulations using
{\sc ForestClaw}\xspace.
\begin{table}
\caption{Wall-clock\xspace times for the $32\times 32$ adaptive runs on a single
block (quadtree) of the replicated problem.
The minimum level for each run was fixed at $\ell_\mathrm{min} = 4$
and the maximum levels are listed across the top row. The
number of grids-per-process\xspace for the topmost run in
each column is listed in parenthesis in the header for that column.
The number of grids-per-process\xspace for remaining runs in the column are roughly one
fourth of the previous entry.}
\label{tab:single_gpp}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r*{6}{S[table-format=6.2]}}
\toprule
Ranks & 7 (4798)& 8 (2656) & 9 (1412)& 10 (186)& 11 (94)& 12 (28) \\
\midrule
1 & 1380. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & 358. & 1570. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & 93.9 & 413. & 1740. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
64 & 31.5 & 134. & 554. & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
256 & 9.54 & 37.7 & 149. & 606. & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
1024 & \textemdash & 12.9 & 44.5 & 168. & 644. & \textemdash \\
4096 & \textemdash & 5.94 & 17.4 & 55.3 & 188. & 450. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\ignore{
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.450\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{walltime_strong_adapt_single_32x32.pdf}}\hfil
\end{center}
\caption{Strong scaling for \adaptrun{32} simulation on a single block.
See \Tab{single_gpp} for actual timing values for this case and
explanation of the grids-per-process\xspace listed in legend.}
\label{fig:strong_single}
\end{figure}
}
\subsection{Advection on a sphere}
The cubed-sphere grid, shown in \Fig{sphere_map}, has become a popular
alternative to spherical coordinate grids for solving PDEs on the
sphere. This mapping, and many variants, typically have the properties
that mesh cells are relatively uniform and they do not suffer from the extreme
aspect ratios seen when using spherical coordinates.
The cubed-sphere is also an example of a multiblock\xspace domain in which
grid indices at block boundaries do not generally align and so is a
good test case for the multiblock\xspace indexing described in \Sect{mblock}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip=true,trim=5cm 2.5cm 4.5cm 2cm]{sdisk001.png}}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip=true,trim=5cm 2.5cm 4.5cm 2cm]{sdisk005.png}}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,clip=true,trim=5cm 2.5cm 4.5cm 2cm]{sdisk010.png}}
\end{center}
\caption{Three views of the slotted disk problem illustrating flow on a cubed sphere grid
for times $t=0.05$ (left), $t = 0.25$ (middle) and $t = 0.4$ (right).
Levels 2--6 are shown (patch borders for level 6 are not shown).}
\label{fig:sphere_map}
\end{figure}
\ignore{
numerical discretization we use to solve the advection equations on the sphere are
based on the {\sc Clawpack}\xspace solvers available in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace and described in
\cite{be-ca-he-le:2009, ca-he:2009}.
}
\paragraph{Scalar advection on a manifold}
\label{sec:parallel_sphere}
To demonstrate the cubed-sphere functionality in {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace, we use the
tracer transport problem proposed by Lauritzen, Skamarock et
al. \cite{la-sk-pr-ta:2012, la-ul-ja-bo-ca-co-en-do-du:2014}.
The test is intended to assess how well tracer transport schemes can
stretch a slotted-disk (see \Fig{sphere_map}) and return it to its initial
shape.
Our goal is to use this example to demonstrate our multiblock\xspace mapping
capabilities and to assess how metric terms impact the performance of {\sc ForestClaw}\xspace.
Two slotted disks are initialized
and the
velocity field is given in spherical coordinates $(\rho,\theta)$ as
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\rho,\theta) = \kappa \sin(\rho-2\pi t/T)^2 \cos(\theta)^2
\cos(\pi t/T) - 2\pi\sin(\theta)/T_f
\end{equation} where $\kappa=2$ and $T_f=5$. We advect the initial
slotted-disk tracer distribution in this velocity field from the
initial time to final time $T = 0.5$. For this problem, we test the
fixed size $32\times 32$, and, as with the single block example in the
previous problem, we vary the refinement levels. A fixed time step on
level $\ell$ is set to $\ensuremath{\Delta t}\xspace_\ell = (\num{2.5e-3})/2^{\ell - \ell_\mathrm{min}}$.
We run 5 series of runs, from a uniformly refined run at level 2 (16
$32 \times 32$ patches per block) to adaptive runs which start at
minimum $\ell_\mathrm{min}=2$ and maximum levels varying from 3 to 6. The
numerical discretization we use for the sphere is based on {\sc Clawpack}\xspace
and is described in \cite{ca-he:2009,ca-he-le:2008}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Wall-clock\xspace times and grids-per-process\xspace (in parenthesis) for the slotted-disk problem on the cubed-sphere.
The header for each column is the maximum level of refinement $\ell_\mathrm{max}$ on
each block of the six blocks forming the cubed-sphere. The minimum level
for all runs is $\ell_\mathrm{min}=2$. }
\label{tab:sphere_wallclock_gpp}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{
S[table-format=2,table-column-width=1cm]
*5{S[table-column-width=2.0cm,table-number-alignment=center]}}
\toprule
Ranks & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 \\
\midrule
1 & {274. (96)} & {1360. (242)} & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & { 72.2 (24)} & { 366. (60)} & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & { 19.2 (6)} & { 111. (15)} & {508. (38)} & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
64 & \textemdash & \textemdash & {251. (9)} & {1200. (25)} & \textemdash \\
256 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & { 489. (6)} & {1700. (16)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Parallel setup}
We increase the refinement level and MPI process counts simultaneously.
For each of the 5 series of runs, we start with
an initial process count and then increase that count by a factor of four as
long as the number of grids-per-process\xspace exceeds a reasonable threshold (10 or so).
In \Tab{sphere_wallclock_gpp} shows the number of processes for each of 11 runs
that we carried out. All runs were done on JUQUEEN.
\paragraph{Results}
\Fig{scale_adaptive_sphere} shows the adaptive efficiency as a function of the number of grids-per-process\xspace.
Adaptive efficiency generally
increases with more grids-per-process\xspace and reaches over 90\% with at least 100 grids-per-process\xspace. Even though
the runs on the sphere domain have far fewer grids-per-process\xspace than on the replicated flat domain, the results in
\Fig{scale_adaptive_sphere} have the same characteristics as those seen in \Fig{scale_adaptive}.
In \Tab{sphere_details}, we show the cell processing rate for this problem.
This rate is about an order
of magnitude smaller than for the flat domain from the previous example.
This is due to the extra computational effort required to compute metric terms.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_8x8_sphere.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_16x16_sphere.pdf}}\hfil
\plotbox{\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth, clip=true,trim=1cm 0cm 1.6cm 0cm]
{weak_scale_adapt_32x32_sphere.pdf}}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Adaptive efficiency of the scalar advection problem on a cubed-sphere grid.}
\label{fig:scale_adaptive_sphere}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Timing details from slotted-disk problem. Entries are taken along a diagonal
from \Tab{sphere_wallclock_gpp}. The rate in
the rightmost column is computed as total number of grid cells advanced per time per process.
All results were run using 16 ranks per JUQUEEN node. }
\label{tab:sphere_details}
\begin{spheretable}{$32\times32$; Slotted-disk}
\rowsphere{mx=32,lmax=2, p=1, pp=1, w=274.0, asteps=19200, gpp=96, a=265., gf=2.26, gc=0.00179}\\
\rowsphere{mx=32,lmax=3, p=4, pp=1, w=366., asteps=24237, gpp=60, a=333., gf=6.65, gc=16.4}\\
\rowsphere{mx=32,lmax=4, p=16, pp=1, w=508., asteps=30910, gpp=38, a=421., gf=10.8, gc=53.4}\\
\rowsphere{mx=32,lmax=5, p=64, pp=1, w=1200., asteps=40996, gpp=25, a=819., gf=20.5, gc=268.}\\
\rowsphere{mx=32,lmax=6, p=256, pp=1, w=1700., asteps=51210, gpp=16, a=688., gf=20.7, gc=862.}\\
\end{spheretable}
\end{table}
\ignore{
\begin{table}
\caption{Processing rates for cubed-sphere problem. Rates are computed as
number of cells advanced per time, per process.}
\label{tab:sphere_rate}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{
S[table-format=4,table-column-width=1.cm]
*5{S[scientific-notation=true,
table-number-alignment=right,
table-text-alignment=center,
round-precision=1,
round-mode=places,
fixed-exponent=4,
table-figures-exponent=1,
table-figures-decimal=1,
input-symbols=\textemdash,
table-column-width= 1.8cm]}
}
\toprule
{Ranks} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{2} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{3} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{4} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{5} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{6} \\
\midrule
1 & 7.18e4 & 7.28e+4 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
4 & 6.81e+04 & 6.78e+4 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
16 & 6.40e+04 & 5.61e+4 & 6.23e+4 & \textemdash & \textemdash \\
64 & \textemdash & \textemdash & 3.15e+4 & 3.51e+4 & \textemdash \\
256 & \textemdash & \textemdash & \textemdash & 2.15e+4 & 3.08e+4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $k$ be a field and $G$ a finite group of order coprime to the exponential characteristic of $k$. Levine-Serp\'e have defined in \cite{LS1} equivariant higher Chow groups $CH_{p}(G,X,r)$
for any separated noetherian scheme $X$ which is essentially of finite type over $k$ equipped with an action of $G$ (see Definition \ref{higherChowgroup} below).
They are a generalization of Bloch’s higher Chow groups in the equivariant setting.
Equivariant higher Chow groups can be considered as a motivic Borel-Moore homology theory on the category of $G$-schemes over $k$.
Moreover, these groups have a close relation with the higher $K$-theory of $G$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $X$ (cf. \cite{RT1}) by a spectral sequence
\begin{equation} \label{LevineSerpe}
E^{p,q}_1 = CH_{-p}(G,X,-p-q) \Rightarrow G_{-p-q}(G,X)
\end{equation}
(\cite[Corollary 3.8]{LS1}). In the case of the trivial group, this reduces to the motivic spectral sequence constructed by Bloch-Lichtenbaum \cite{BL1}, Friedlander-Suslin \cite{FS1} and Levine \cite{ML3}.
The groups $CH_p(G,X,r)$ are interesting objects which contain information about $X$ as well as the action of $G$ on $X$. They are, of course, very hard to compute in general.
In this note, we establish the following reconstruction theorem for equivariant higher Chow groups.
\begin{theorem*}[Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}]
Let $n$ be the order of $G$ and assume that $k$ contains $n$-th roots of unity. For any $G$-scheme $X$ over $k$, there is a natural isomorphim of $\mathbb{Z}[1/n]$-modules
\begin{equation} \label{1stIso}
\pi(X) : \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_G(\sigma)} \xrightarrow{\sim} CH_p(G, X, r) \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n]
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of cyclic subgroups of $G$,
$X^{\sigma}$ is the \textit{fixed point subscheme} of $X$ under the action of $\sigma$,
$\tilde{R}\sigma$ is the $m$-th cyclotomic subring of the representation ring $R\sigma$ tensored with $\mathbb{Z}[1/n]$ where $m$ is the order of $\sigma$
and $N_G(\sigma)$ is the \textit{normalizer} of $\sigma$ in $G$.
\end{theorem*}
The left-hand side of \eqref{1stIso} can be easily expressed in the form of
$$
(\prod_{g \in G} CH_p (X^{g}, r) \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n])^G.
$$
For $X$ smooth, $r=0$ with rational coefficients, $(\prod_{g \in G} CH_*(X^g,0) \otimes \mathbb{Q})^G$ is exactly the
(\textit{small}) \textit{orbifold Chow ring} $CH_{*}^{orb}([X/G])$ of the global quotient $[X/G]$ studied by Abramovich–Graber–Vistoli \cite{AGV1} and Jarvis-Kaufmann-Kimura \cite{JKK1} which is an algebraic version of Chen–Ruan cohomology.
Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} is an analog of Vistoli’s theorem for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory \cite[Theorem 1 and 2]{AV1} and Segal’s theorem for equivariant topological $K$-theory \cite{HH1}.
Using this result we show that the spectral sequence \eqref{LevineSerpe} degenerates with rational coefficients for $X$ smooth which yields
a Riemann-Roch theorem for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory.
\begin{theorem*}[Theorem \ref{BigConsequence}]
If $X$ is a smooth $G$-scheme over $k$, there is a natural isomorphism of $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces
\begin{equation}
\bigoplus_{p,q} CH_{p}(G,X,q) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{q}K_{q}(G,X) \otimes \mathbb{Q}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem*}
Moreover, Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} provides two multiplicative structures on rational equivariant higher Chow groups. Hence we obtain complete answers to questions proposed in \cite[Introduction]{LS1}.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we will briefly review Levine-Serp\'e's construction of equivariant higher Chow groups and discuss various functorial properties.
Most of the things can be found in \cite{LS1} except the construction and functorialities of the \textit{induction map} that is new.
In Section 3, we establish the comparision morphism from higher Chow groups of fixed point subschemes to equivariant higher Chow groups. This is modelled by Vistoli's construction for the $K$ groups \cite[Section 3]{AV1}.
Using localization property for (equivariant) higher Chow groups, we will show that the comparision morphism is an isomorphism.
In Section 4, we will lift Vistoli's construction to the $K$-theory spectra. This allows us to compare the equivariant motivic spectral sequence with the ordinary one.
From there, some applications will be derived, including a Riemann-Roch theorem for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory and multiplicative structures on equivariant higher Chow groups with rational coefficients.
We will also see how to understand Levine-Serp\'e's equivariant higher Chow groups from orbifold theories.
This paper was written during my visit at the Mittag-Leffler Institute inside the Research program on Algebro-Geometric and Homotopical Methods.
I would like to thank the Institute and organizers, especially Paul Arne Østvær, for providing a stimulating, supportive environment and financial support.
Discussions with Alexey Ananyevskiy, Federico Binda, Marc Levine and Mathias Wendt were very helpful. A brief visit to the Hausdorff Research Institute for Mathematics enabled me to profit from discussions with Lie Fu.
\subsection*{Notation and conventions}
Throughout this paper, $k$ is a fixed base field and $G$ is a finite group whose order is coprime to the exponential characteristic of $k$.
We write $\mathbf{Sch}^G_k$ for the category whose objects are seperated schemes essentially of finite type and quasi-projective over $k$ equipped with a left $G$-action and morphisms are $G$-equivariant morphisms.
Set $\Lambda: = \mathbb{Z}[1 /|G|]$ for our coefficient ring.
For any $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$, the \textit{abelian category} of $G$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $X$ is denoted by $\mathbf{Coh}_G(X)$ and
the \textit{exact category} of $G$-equivariant vector bundles on $X$ is denoted by $\mathbf{Vect}_G(X)$.
In the case of the trivial group $G$, we denote $\mathbf{Coh}(X)$ for $\mathbf{Coh}_G(X)$.
The connected $K$-theory spectra of $\mathbf{Coh}_G(X)$ and $\mathbf{Vect}_G(X)$ are denoted by $G(G,X)$ and $K(G,X)$, respectively.
We will use the notation $G_i(G,X)$ to denote the $i$-th homotopy group of $G(G,X)$ and similarly for $K(G,X)$.
When $X$ is smooth, the natural inclusion $\mathbf{Vect}_G(X) \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Coh}_G(X)$ induces an isomorphim $K_i(G,X) \xrightarrow{\sim} G_i(G,X)$. This identification will be used frequently in this paper.
For any group $H$, the ring of representations of $H$ over $k$ tensored with $\Lambda$ is denoted by $RH$, i.e., $RH: = K_0(H, \mathrm{Spec}(k)) \otimes \Lambda$.
\section{Equivariant higher Chow groups}
We recall Levine-Serp\'e's definition of equivariant higher Chow groups \cite{LS1} and discuss some of their properties which will be used in the following sections.
\subsection{Construction}
Let $\Delta^{\bullet}$ be the standard cosimplicial scheme with
$$
\Delta^{r}: = {\rm Spec} \big( k[t_0, \ldots , t_r] / (\sum t_i = 1) \big)
$$
equipped with the trivial action of $G$. A $face$ of $\Delta^r$ is a closed subscheme defined by $t_{i_1} = \ldots = t_{i_j} = 0$.
For any $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$, we set
$$
S_{(p)}^{G,X}(r): = \left\{ W \subset X \times \Delta^r \middle|
\begin{array}{c l} W \mbox{ is a closed } G-\mbox{stable subset} \\
\mbox{and }\mbox{dim}_{X\times F} (W \cap X\times F) \le p + \mbox{dim} F \\
\mbox{for all faces }F \subset \Delta^r
\end{array} \right\}.
$$
The group $G$ acts obviously on the set $(X \times \Delta^r)_{(p+r)}$ of dimension $(p+r)$ points on $X \times \Delta^{r}$. Let
$$
X^{G}_{(p)}(r): = \{[x] \in (X \times \Delta^r)_{(p+r)} /G \ | \ \overline{G . x} \in S^{G,X}_{(p)}(r)\}
$$
where $\overline{G .x}$ stands for the closure of the orbit $G.x$ in $X \times \Delta^r$.
We define
$$
z_p (G,X,r): = \bigoplus_{[x] \in X^G_{(p)}(r)} K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} (k(x))),
$$
where $k(x)$ is the residue field of $x$ and $G_{x}$ is the \textit{set-theoretic stabilizer group} of $x$ in $G$, i.e.,
$
G_x:= \{g \in G | \ gx = x \}.
$
The assigment $r \to z_p(G,X,r)$ forms a simplicial abelian group (\cite[Proposition 3.2]{LS1}) which is denoted by $z_p(G,X,\bullet)$.
\begin{definition} \cite[Definition 3.4]{LS1} \label{higherChowgroup}
The \textit{equivariant cycle complex (of Bredon type)} $z_p(G,X,*)$ is the complex associated to $z_p(G,X,\bullet)$.
The \textit{equivariant higher Chow groups (of Bredon type)} are defined by
$$
CH_{p}(G,X,r): = H_r( z_p(G,X,*)).
$$
\end{definition}
In the case of the trivial group, we recover the set $X_{(p)}(r)$ of dimension $(p+r)$ subvarieties of $X \times \Delta^{r}$ meeting all faces properly, the cycle complex $z_{p}(X,*)$ and the higher Chow group $CH_{p}(X,r)$ defined in \cite{Bloch1} (or \cite{ML2}).
Note that $CH_p(X,0)$ is exactly the usual Chow group $CH_{p}(X)$ of dimension $p$ cycles on $X$.
When $G$ acts $trivially$ on $X$, there is a natural isomorphism
$$
K_0(X) \otimes K_0(G, \mathrm{Spec}(k)) \cong K_0(G, X)
$$ (cf. \cite[Proposition 1.6]{AV1}) which yields an isomorphism
$$
z_p(X, r) \otimes RG \cong z_p(G, X, r) \otimes \Lambda.
$$
Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{TrivialAction}
CH_p(X, r) \otimes RG \cong CH_p(G, X, r) \otimes \Lambda.
\end{equation}
Since $X$ is quasi-projective and $G$ is finite, the quotient $X/G$ exists as a scheme. If $G$ acts $freely$ on $X$, then
$
X^G_{(p)}(r) = (X/G)_{(p)}(r)
$ and $K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)) = K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)) \cong \mathbb{Z}$. This gives a natural isomorphism
$$
z_p(G,X,r) \cong z_p(X/G,r),
$$
and hence
$$
CH_p(G,X,r) \cong CH_p(X/G,r).
$$
\subsection{Functoriality with respect to X}
If $f: Y \to X$ is a $proper \ G$-equivariant morphism in $\mathbf{Sch}^G_k$, there is the \textit{push-forward homomorphism}
\begin{equation*}
f_{*}(r): z_p(G,Y,r) \to z_p(G,X,r)
\end{equation*} defined by
$$
[\alpha \in K_0 (G_z, \mathrm{Spec}(k(Z)))] \mapsto [( f \times \mathrm{id})_{*} (\alpha) \in K_0 (G_{( f \times \mathrm{id})(z)} , \mathrm{Spec}(k(( f \times \mathrm{id})(Z ))))]
$$
if $Z \mapsto (f \times \mathrm{id})(Z)$ is generically finite and sending $\alpha$ to zero if not. These maps form a simplical map
$$
f_{*}(-): z_p(G,Y,-) \to z_p(G,X,-)
$$
which yields the \textit{push-forward map} for equivariant higher Chow groups
\begin{equation} \label{PushForward}
f_{*}: CH_p(G,Y,r) \to CH_{p}(G,X,r).
\end{equation}
If $f:Y \to X$ is a $flat \ G$-equivariant morphism of relative dimension $d$, the \textit{pull-back homomorphism}
\begin{equation*}
f^{*}(r): z_p(G,X,r) \to z_{p+d}(G,Y,r)
\end{equation*}
is given by
$$
[\alpha \in K_0 (G_z, \mathrm{Spec}(k(Z)))] \to [( f \times \mathrm{id})^{*} (\alpha) \in
\bigoplus_{[y] \in Y^G_{(p+d)}(r), (f\times \mathrm{id})(y) \in G.x} K_0 (G_y , \mathrm{Spec}(k(y))].
$$
These maps form a simplical map
$$
f^{*}(-): z_p(G,X,-) \to z_{p+d}(G,Y,-)
$$
which yields the \textit{pull-back map} for equivariant higher Chow groups
\begin{equation} \label{PullBack}
f^{*}: CH_p(G,X,r) \to CH_{p}(G,Y,r).
\end{equation}
For proper composable morphisms $f$ and $g$, we have $(f \circ g)_* = f_* \circ g_*$. If $f$ and $g$ are flat composable morphisms then $(f \circ g)^* = g^* \circ f^*$. Moreover, if
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
W \arrow{r}{f'} \arrow{d}{g'}
&Z \arrow{d}{g}\\
Y \arrow{r}{f} &X
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is a $G$-equivariant cartesian squares in which $f$ is proper and $g$ is flat then $g^* \circ f_* = f'^* \circ g'_*$. These properties are well-known for (equivariant) algebraic $K$-theory and higher Chow groups.
See \cite[3.2]{LS1} for more details.
\subsection{Functoriality with respect to G}
If $\phi: H\to G$ is a group homomorphism and $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$ is a $G$-scheme then $\phi$ gives an action of $H$ on $X$. The collection of maps
$$
\phi_x^{*}: K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} k(x)) \to K_0(H_x, \mathrm{Spec})
$$
induces the map of simplicial abelian groups
$$
\phi^{*}: z_p(G, X, r) \to z_p(H,X,r)
$$
which yields the \textit{restriction map}
$$
\phi^{*}: CH_p(G, X, r) \to CH_p(H,X,r).
$$
It is easy to see that the maps $\phi^*$ are natural with respect to the proper push-forward and flat pull-back (cf. \cite[Section 3.2]{LS1}).
We now want to construct a group homomorphism going in the other direction when $H \subset G$ be a subgroup.
Recall that the \textit{induction morphism} for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^G_H: K_0(H,X) \to K_0(G,X)
$$
is the push-forward
$$
\pi_{*}: K_0(G, (X\times G) / H) \to K_0(G,X)
$$
along the ($G$-equivariant) projection $\pi: (X \times G) / H \to X$ together with a natural identification
$$
K_0(G, (X \times G) / H) \cong K_0(H,X)
$$ where the (free) action of $H$ on $X \times G$ is given by
$$
h(x,g) = (hx, gh^{-1}).
$$
For more details, see \cite[Section 2]{AV1}.
The analogous operations are valid for equivariant cycle complex. If $[x] \in (X \times \Delta^{r})_{(p+r)}/H$ such that $\overline{H.x} \in S^{H,X}_{(p)}(r)$ then $\overline{G.x} \in S^{G,X}_{(p)}(r)$.
It is obvious that each orbit $H.x$ gives rise to an orbit $G.x$ and the stabilizer group $H_x$ is a subgroup of $G_x$. Therefore, we have the induction map for equivariant $K$-theory:
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^{G_x}_{H_x}(\mathrm{Spec}(k(x))): K_0(H_x, \mathrm{Spec} (k(x))) \to K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} (k(x))).
$$
Take the sum over all orbits on both sides to obtain a map on the elements of the equivariant cycle complexes
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X,r) : z_p(H,X,r) \to z_p(G,X,r).
$$
The maps $\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X,r)$ are 'push-forward' maps, so they form a simplical map
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X,-) : z_p(H,X,-) \to z_p(G,X,-)
$$
which yields the \textit{induction map} for equivariant higher Chow groups
\begin{equation} \label{InducedMap}
\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X) : CH_p (H, X, r) \to CH_p (G, X, r).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{Commutativity}
$\mathrm{(1)}$ If $f: Y \to X$ is a flat $G$-morphism of $G$-schemes, then for any subgroup $H \subset G$ the diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
CH_{p}(H,X,r) \arrow{r}{\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X)} \arrow{d}{f^{*}}
&CH_{p}(G,X,r) \arrow{d}{f^{*}}\\
CH_{p}(H,Y,r) \arrow{r}{\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(Y)} & CH_{p}(G,Y,r)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes.
$\mathrm{(2)}$ If $g: Y \to X$ is a proper $G$-morphism of $G$-schemes, then for any subgroup $H \subset G$ the diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
CH_{p}(H,Y,r) \arrow{r}{\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(Y)} \arrow{d}{g_{*}}
&CH_{p}(G,Y,r) \arrow{d}{g_{*}}\\
CH_{p}(H,X,r) \arrow{r}{\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X)} & CH_{p}(G,X,r)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is straightforward, using the fact that the induction morphism
$$
\mathrm{Ind}^G_H(X) : CH_p (H, X, r) \to CH_p (G, X, r).
$$
is the push-forward
$$
\pi_{*}: CH_p (G, (X \times G)/H, r) \to CH_p (G, X, r).
$$
along the ($G$-equivariant) projection $\pi: (X \times G) / H \to X$, together with an identification
$$
CH_p(G, (X \times G) / H, r) \cong CH_p(H,X, r).
$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Equivariant motivic spectral sequence}
Equivariant higher Chow groups enjoy certain good properties as their ordinary counterparts.
\begin{proposition}[Localization theorem] \cite[Theorem 4.1]{LS1} \label{Localization}
Let $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$, $i: W \to X$ a $G$-invariant closed subscheme with open complement $j: U \to X$. Then for each $p$, there is a long exact sequence
$$
\ldots \to CH_p(G,W,r) \xrightarrow{i^*} CH_p(G,X,r) \xrightarrow{j^*} CH_p(G,U,r) \xrightarrow{\delta} CH_p(G,W,r-1) \rightarrow \ldots
$$
\end{proposition}
Using this, Levine and Serp\'e show that
\begin{proposition}[Equivariant motivic spectral sequence] \cite[Corollary 3.8]{LS1} \label{SpectralSequence}
Let $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$. There is a strongly convergent spectral sequence
\begin{equation} \label{EquivariantSpectralSequence}
E^{p,q}_1 = CH_{-p}(G,X,-p-q) \Rightarrow G_{-p-q}(G,X).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\section{Reconstruction Theorem}
From now on, we will assume that $k$ contains all the $n$-th roots of unity where $n:=|G|$. With our hypotheses, the ring $RG$ only depends on the characteristic of $k$.
In this section, we will investigate the relation between equivariant higher Chow groups and the ordinary higher Chow groups of fixed point subschemes under cylic subgroups.
\subsection{Comparision morphism} For any cyclic subgroup $\sigma \subset G$ of order $m$,
let $t$ be the generator of the dual group $\hat{\sigma}$ of homomorphisms $\sigma \to k^*$.
We have
$$
R \sigma \cong \Lambda \hat{\sigma} \cong \Lambda[t]/(t^m-1) \cong \prod_{d|m} \Lambda[t]/(\Phi_d(t))
$$
where $\Phi_d(t)$ is the $d$-th \textit{cyclotomic polynomial}. Denote by $\tilde{R} \sigma$ the factor of $R \sigma$ corresponding to $\Lambda[t]/(\Phi_m(t))$ which is independent of the choice of the generator $t$.
The \textit{normalizer} $N(\sigma)$ of $\sigma$ acts naturally on $R\sigma$ and $\tilde{R}\sigma$.
Moreover, $N(\sigma)$ acts on the \textit{fixed point subscheme} $X^{\sigma}$ of $X$ under $\sigma$ hence acts on $CH_{*}(X^{\sigma}, *)$.
Note that by our assumption, the functor $-\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma$ is exact on the cateogry of $\Lambda$-modules and
for any subgroup $H \subset G$, taking $H$-invariants $(-)^H$ is an exact functor from the category of $\Lambda H$-modules to the category of $\Lambda$-modules.
Let $\Gamma$ be a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of cyclic subgroups of $G$. We define the morphism
\begin{equation} \label{Morphism}
\pi(X) : \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \to CH_p(G, X, r) \otimes \Lambda
\end{equation}
as the composition of the inclusion
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \hookrightarrow \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes R\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}
$$
given by the embedding $\tilde{R} \sigma \hookrightarrow R \sigma$,
the isomorphism
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes R\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \xrightarrow{\sim} \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} ((CH_p (\sigma, X^{\sigma}, r))\otimes \Lambda)^{N(\sigma)}
$$
given by \eqref{TrivialAction},
the obvious inclusion
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (\sigma, X^{\sigma}, r)\otimes \Lambda )^{N(\sigma)} \hookrightarrow \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} CH_p (\sigma, X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \Lambda,
$$
the push-forward
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} CH_p (\sigma, X^{\sigma}, r)\otimes \Lambda \to \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} CH_p (\sigma, X, r) \otimes \Lambda
$$
along closed embeddings $X^{\sigma} \hookrightarrow X$,
and the product of induction maps \eqref{InducedMap}
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} CH_p (\sigma, X, r)\otimes \Lambda \to CH_p (G, X, r)\otimes \Lambda.
$$
Replace equivariant higher Chow groups by the $K$-groups of equivariant cohenrent sheaves everywhere, we obtain the homomorphism
\begin{equation} \label{FourthIdentity}
\alpha_{*}(X): \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (G_{*}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \to G_{*}(G,X) \otimes \Lambda
\end{equation}
defined by Vistoli \cite[Section 3]{AV1}. We will show that $\pi(X)$ is an isomorphism of $\Lambda$-modules.
\subsection{A simple case}
\begin{proposition} \label{FirstIdentity}
Let $X: = \coprod_{y} \mathrm{Spec}(k(y))$ be a $0$-dimensional scheme where $G$ acts transitively on a set of points then
\begin{equation} \label{Simple}
\alpha_{0}(X): \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (K_0(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \to K_0(G, X) \otimes \Lambda
\end{equation}
is an isomorphim.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ acts trivially on $X$, then $X = \mathrm{Spec}(F)$ for a field extension $F/k$. In this case, both sides of \eqref{Simple} are free $\Lambda$-modules whose rank are the number of conjugacy classes of $G$.
The injectivity of $\alpha_{0}(\mathrm{Spec}(F))$ is proved in \cite[Proposition 1.5]{AV1}.
In general, we fix an arbitrary element $x$. Since $G$ acts transitively on the index set, we have
$$
K_0(G,X) = K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)).
$$
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of cyclic subgroups of $G$ and $\mathcal{D}(y)$ the set of cyclic subgroups of $G_y$. We also have
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{C}} K_0(X^{\sigma}) \cong \prod_{y} \prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{D}(y)} K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y))^{\sigma}).
$$
Denote $\Psi$ for a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of cyclic subgroups of $G_x$ and let $\mathcal{D}: = \mathcal{D}(x)$.
By Lemma \ref{ElementaryLemma} below, there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (K_0(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_G(\sigma)} & \cong (\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{C}} K_0(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{G} \\
& \cong (\prod_{y} \prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{D}} K_0(\mathrm{Spec}\ k(x))^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{G} \\
& \cong (\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{D}} K_0((\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x))^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{G_x} \\
& \cong \prod_{\sigma \in \Psi} (K_0((\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x))^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_{G_x}(\sigma)}.
\end{align*}
Remark that if $\sigma$ acts non-trivially on $\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)$ then $(\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x))^{\sigma} = \emptyset$.
Hence, by replacing $G$ with $G_x$, $X$ with $\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)$ and changing notation, one reduces the statement to the case of a point, i.e., to prove that
\begin{equation} \label{SecondIdentity}
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_G(\sigma)} \cong K_0(G, \mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \Lambda
\end{equation}
where $F/k$ is a finitely generated field extension and $\Gamma'\subset \Gamma$ is the subset consisting of cyclic subgroups of $G$ which act $trivially$ on $F$.
Denote $G_{(F)}$ for the \textit{inertia group} of $\mathrm{Spec} \ F$, i.e.,
$$
G_{(F)}: = \mathrm{ker}(G \to \mathrm{Aut}(F / k)),
$$
and $\mathcal{I}$ for the set of cyclic subgroup of $G_{(F)}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_G(\sigma)} \cong & (\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{I}} K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^G \\
\cong & ((\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{I}} K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{G_{(F)}})^{G/G_{(F)}} \\
\cong & (K_0(G_{(F)}, \mathrm{Spec} \ F)\otimes \Lambda)^{G/G_{(F)}} \\
\cong & K_0(G,\mathrm{Spec} \ F) \otimes \Lambda.
\end{align*}
The first isomorphism holds by Lemma \ref{ElementaryLemma}. The third isomorphism holds because $G_{(F)}$ acts trivially on $F$. The last isomorphism is a special case of the descent property for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory with $\Lambda = \mathbb{Z}[1/n]$-coefficients. Hence \eqref{SecondIdentity} is an isomorphism as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{ElementaryLemma}
Let the group $G$ act on the left on a set $\mathcal{S}$ and let $\mathcal{T}$ be a set of representatives for the orbits. Assume that $G$ acts on the left on a product of abelian
groups of the type $\prod_{s \in \mathcal{S}} M_s$ in such a way that for any $g \in G$
$$
gM_s = M_{gs}.
$$
For each $t\in \mathcal{T}$ let $G_t$ be the stabilizer of $t$ in $G$. Then the canonical projection
$$
\prod_{s \in \mathcal{S}} M_s \to \prod_{t \in \mathcal{T}} M_t
$$
induces an isomorphism
$$
(\prod_{s \in \mathcal{S}} M_s)^G \to \prod_{t \in \mathcal{T}} (M_t)^{G_t}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward.
\end{proof}
In particular, if $\mathcal{C}$ is the set of cyclic subgroups of $G$ and $\Gamma$ is a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of cyclic subgroups of $G$, then
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (K_0(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N_G(\sigma)} \cong (\prod_{\sigma \in \mathcal{C}} K_0(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{G} \cong
(\prod_{g \in G} K_0(X^{g}) \otimes \Lambda)^{G}.
$$
\subsection{The general case}
\begin{theorem}[Reconstruction Theorem] \label{MainTheorem}
The map $\pi(X)$ in \eqref{Morphism} is an isomorphism for any $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Both sides of \eqref{Morphism} satisfy localization and $\pi(-)$ is natural with localization.
Indeed, by Lemma \ref{Commutativity}, each component of $\pi$ is compatible with the push-forward $i_{*}$ given by closed immersion $i: Z \hookrightarrow X$ and the pull-back $j^{*}$ given by open immersion $j: U \hookrightarrow X$.
Hence, we only need to show that $\pi(X)$ is an isomorphism for $X = \coprod_x \mathrm{Spec}(k(x))$ when $G$ acts transitively on a set of points.
By the same argument as in Proposition \ref{FirstIdentity}, we reduce our problem to the case of a point, i.e., $\pi(\mathrm{Spec}(F))$ is an isomorphism for any finitely generated field extension $F/k$.
In this case
$$
(CH_p( (\mathrm{Spec} \ F)^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} = (CH_p(\mathrm{Spec} \ F), r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}
$$
if $\sigma$ acts trivially on $\mathrm{Spec}(F)$ and
$$
(CH_p((\mathrm{Spec} \ F)^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} = 0
$$
otherwise.
Denote by $\Gamma'$ the subset of $\Gamma$ consisting of cyclic subgroups of $G$ which act trivially on $F$.
We have
\begin{align*}
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (z_p (\mathrm{Spec} \ F, r)\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}
& = \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'}((\bigoplus_{x \in (\mathrm{Spec} \ F)_{(p)}(r)} \mathbb{Z}.x)\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \\
& = \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} ((\bigoplus_{x \in (\mathrm{Spec} \ F)_{(p)}(r)} K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)))\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \\
& = \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (\bigoplus_{[x] \in (\mathrm{Spec} \ F)^G_{p}(r)} \bigoplus_{y \in G.x} K_0(\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y)) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \\
& = \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (\bigoplus_{[x]} K_0(\coprod_{y \in G.x}\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y)) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \\
& = \bigoplus_{[x]} \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (K_0(\coprod_{y \in G.x}\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y))\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}.
\end{align*}
If $\sigma \notin \Gamma'$, i.e., $\sigma$ acts non-trivially on $F$, then the scheme $\coprod_{y \in G.x} \mathrm{Spec} \ k(y)$ with $[x] \in (\mathrm{Spec} \ F)^G_{p}(r)$ has no fixed point subscheme under $\sigma$.
If $\sigma \in \Gamma'$ then $\sigma$ acts trivially on $\coprod_{y \in G.x} \mathrm{Spec} \ k(y)$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
\bigoplus_{[x]} \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma'} (K_0(\coprod_{y \in G.x}\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y))\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)})
& = \bigoplus_{[x]} \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (K_0((\coprod_{y \in G.x}\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y))^{\sigma})\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}) \\
& = \bigoplus_{[x]} K_0(G, \coprod_{y \in G.x}\mathrm{Spec} \ k(y)) \otimes \Lambda \ ({\rm by \ Proposition}\ \ref{FirstIdentity})\\
& = \bigoplus_{[x]} K_0(G_x, \mathrm{Spec} \ k(x)) \otimes \Lambda \\
& = z_p(G,\mathrm{Spec}\ F, r) \otimes \Lambda.
\end{align*}
Take homologies of the associated complexes, one obtains isomorphisms
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma}(CH_p(\mathrm{Spec}\ F, r)\otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \cong CH_p(G, \mathrm{Spec}\ F, r) \otimes \Lambda.
$$
for each $p$ and $r$.
\end{proof}
\section{Applications}
Levine has constructed in \cite{ML2} a spectral sequence
\begin{equation} \label{MotivicSpectraSequence}
E^{p,q}_1 = CH_{-p}(X,-p-q) \Rightarrow G_{-p-q}(X)
\end{equation}
for any quasi-projective scheme $X$ over $k$. In this section we will show that the isomorphism \eqref{Morphism} is compatible with the spectral sequences \eqref{MotivicSpectraSequence} and\eqref{SpectralSequence}.
We then show that the equivariant motivic spectral sequence \eqref{SpectralSequence} degenerates rationally to obtain a Riemann-Roch theorem for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory.
\subsection{Comparision morphism revisited}
In Section 3 we defined the homomorphism \eqref{FourthIdentity}
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_{*}(X): \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (G_{*}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \to G_{*}(G,X) \otimes \Lambda.
\end{equation*}
We show now that this morphism can actually be expressed on the level of spectra.
Assume that $H$ is a finite group which acts \textit{trivially} on a $k$-scheme $Y$ (in our application, $\sigma$ acts trivially on $X^{\sigma}$).
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the set of \textit{irreducible representations} of $H$ over $k$. For any representation $\rho$ in $\mathcal{I}$ with representation space $V$, we define
\begin{equation*}
\rho^* : \mathbf{Coh}(Y) \to \mathbf{Coh}_H(Y)
\end{equation*}
by mapping any coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $Y$ to $\mathcal{F} \otimes_k V$ with the action of $H$ induced by the action of $H$ on $V$. It is obvious that $\rho^*$ is an exact functor, hence it induces a map between spectra
\begin{equation*}
\rho^*: G(Y) \to G(H,Y).
\end{equation*}
Assume further that there is another group $\Pi$ acting (possibly \textit{non-trivially}) on $Y$ and $H$ in such a way that the action respects the group structure of $H$, i.e.,
$$
\alpha(h_1.h_2) = \alpha h_1 . \alpha h_2
$$
for any $\alpha \in \Pi$ and $h_1, h_2 \in H$.
This induces actions of $\Pi$ on the spectra $G(Y)$, $G(H,Y)$ and on the set $\mathcal{I}$.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be a subset of $\mathcal{I}$ which is closed under the action of $\Pi$, then $\prod_{\rho \in \mathcal{J}} \mathbf{Coh}(Y)$ and $\mathbf{Coh}_H(Y)$ have a natural action of $\Pi$ and the map
\begin{equation*}
\prod_{\rho \in \mathcal{J}} \rho^*: \prod_{\rho \in \mathcal{J}} \mathbf{Coh}(X) \to \mathbf{Coh}_H(X)
\end{equation*}
is an $\Pi$-equivariant map. This induces an $\Pi$-equivariant map between spectra
\begin{equation} \label{ThirdIdentity}
\prod_{\rho \in \mathcal{J}} \rho^{*}: \prod_{\mathcal{J}} G(Y) \to G(H,Y).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the inclusion $\mathcal {J} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{I}$ induces an $\Pi$-equivariant map
$$
\prod_{\mathcal{J}}G(Y) \to \prod_{\mathcal{I}}G(Y)
$$
and the following diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\prod_{\mathcal{J}}G(Y) \arrow[r, hook] \arrow[dr]
& \prod_{\mathcal{I}}G(Y) \arrow[d]\\
& G(H,Y)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
commutes. Hence we obtain a commutative diagram between \textit{homotopy fixed point spectra}
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
(\prod_{\mathcal{J}}G(Y))^{h\Pi} \arrow[r, hook] \arrow[dr]
& (\prod_{\mathcal{I}}G(Y))^{h\Pi} \arrow[d]\\
& (G(H,Y))^{h\Pi}
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Replacing $H$ by $\sigma$, $Y$ by $X^{\sigma}$ and $\Pi$ by $N(\sigma)$. Since $k$ contains enough roots of unity,
it is well-known that the set of irreducible representations of $\sigma$ over $k$ has $m$ elements where $m$ is the order of $\sigma$ and every irreducible representation of $\sigma$ is one dimensional given by multiplication by a $m$-th root of unity.
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be the set of representations given by multiplication by a $primitive \ m$-th root of unity. It is clear that $|\mathcal{J}| = \mathrm{deg} (\Phi_m(t))$, the degree of the $m$-th cyclotomic ring $\Phi_m(t)$.
Define the map
\begin{equation} \label{5thIdentity}
\alpha(X): \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \to G(G,X)[1/n]
\end{equation}
($n = |G|$ is inverted) as the composition of the inclusion
$$
\prod_{\sigma} (\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \to \prod_{\sigma} (\prod_{\mathcal{I}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)}
$$
given by the inclusion $\mathcal{J} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{I}$, the morphism
$$
\prod_{\sigma} (\prod_{\mathcal{I}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \to \prod_{\sigma} (G(\sigma, X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)}
$$
given by \eqref{ThirdIdentity}, the natural morphism
$$
\prod_{\sigma} (G(\sigma, X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \to \prod_{\sigma} G(\sigma, X^{\sigma})[1/n],
$$
the push-forward
$$
\prod_{\sigma} (G(\sigma, X^{\sigma}))[1/n] \to \prod_{\sigma} G(\sigma, X)[1/n]
$$
given by the closed embedding $X^{\sigma} \hookrightarrow X$,
and the wedge sum of induction maps
$$
\prod_{\sigma} G(\sigma, X)[1/n] \to G(G,X)[1/n].
$$
\begin{proposition}
The map $\alpha(X)$ of \eqref{5thIdentity} induces $\alpha_{*}(X)$ of \eqref{FourthIdentity} on homotopy groups.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only have to show that
$$
\pi_d (\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \cong (\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G_d(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)}
$$
and
$$
\pi_d (G(G,X)[1/n]) \cong G_d(G,X) \otimes \Lambda.
$$
The last identity is clear by definition. For the first identity, note that if $S$ is a spectrum with an action of a finite group $G$ of order $n$, then there is a natural isomorphism
\begin{equation} \label{6thIdentity}
\pi_d (S^{hG}[1/n]) \cong (\pi_d S)^{G} \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n].
\end{equation}
Indeed, the spectral sequence
\begin{equation*}
E_2^{p,q} = H^{-p} (G, \pi_q(S) \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n]) \Rightarrow \pi_{p+q} (S^{hG}[1/n])
\end{equation*}
has $E_2^{p,q} = (\pi_q(S))^G \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n]$ if $p=0$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Moreover, it is easy to see that
\begin{equation} \label{7thIdentity}
\pi_d (\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G(X^{\sigma})[1/n]) = \prod_{\mathcal{J}} G_d(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \mathbb{Z}[1/n] \cong G_d(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma
\end{equation}
with a compatible action of $N(\sigma)$ on both sides. Our claim follows from \eqref{6thIdentity} and \eqref{7thIdentity} .
\end{proof}
\subsection{A Riemann-Roch theorem}
The way we define $\alpha(X)$ extends naturally to a family of compatible maps $\alpha_{(*)}(X)$ between the two towers
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\prod_{\sigma}(\prod_{\mathcal{J}} G_{(p)}(X^{\sigma},-)[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \arrow{d}{\alpha_{(p)}(X)} \arrow{r} & \ldots \arrow{r} & \prod_{\sigma}(\prod_{\mathcal{J}}(X^{\sigma})[1/n])^{hN(\sigma)} \arrow{d}{\alpha(X)}\\
G_{(p)}(G,X,-)[1/n] \arrow{r} & \ldots \arrow{r} & G(G,X)[1/n].
\end{tikzcd}
\]
The notation $G_{(p)}(G,X,-)$ used here is inherited from \cite[Section 2.1]{LS1}. Namely, $G_{(p)}(G,X,-)$ is the simplicial spectrum whose $r$-simplices is
$$
G_{(p)}(G,X,r): = \mathrm{hocolim}_{W} \ G^{W}(G,X\times \Delta^r)
$$
the $K$-theory of equivariant coherent sheaves on $X \times \Delta^r$ with supports in $W$
where $W$ runs over all the closed $G$-stable subsets of $X \times \Delta^{r}$ such that $\mathrm{dim}_k \ W \cap X \times F \le p + \mathrm{dim}_k \ F$ for all faces $F \subset \Delta^r$.
The top tower induces the spectral sequence
\begin{equation} \label{1SpectralSequence}
E^{p,q}_1 = \prod_{\sigma} (CH_{-p}(X^{\sigma},-p-q) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \Rightarrow \prod_{\sigma} (G_{-p-q}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}
\end{equation}
by applying operations to \eqref{MotivicSpectraSequence}.
The bottom tower induces the spectral sequence
\begin{equation} \label{2SpectralSequence}
E^{p,q}_1 = CH_{-p}(G,X,-p-q) \otimes \Lambda \Rightarrow G_{-p-q}(G,X) \otimes \Lambda
\end{equation}
which is essentially the spectral sequence \eqref{SpectralSequence} with $\Lambda = \mathbb{Z}[1/n]$-coefficients.
This shows that the map $\pi(X)$ (induced by the family $(\alpha_{(p)}(X))_p$) is natural with respect to the spectral sequences \eqref{1SpectralSequence} and \eqref{2SpectralSequence}.
Hence, one obtains Vistoli’s reconstruction theorem for equivariant algebraic $G$-theory:
\begin{corollary} {\rm \cite[Theorem 2]{AV1}} \label{Vistoli}
For any $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$ the map
$$
\alpha_*(X): \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (G_{*}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \to G_{*}(G,X) \otimes \Lambda
$$
is an isomorphism of graded $\Lambda$-modules which is compatible with localization sequence.
\end{corollary}
The following lemma is a weak version of \cite[Corollary 5.6]{LS1} but the proof is simpler:
\begin{corollary}
Let $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$ and let $G$ act on $X \times \mathbb{A}^1$ via the given action on $X$ and the trivial action on $\mathbb{A}^1$.
Then the pull-back via the projection $p: X \times \mathbb{A}^1 \to X$ induces an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
p_X^{*}: CH_p(G, X, r) \otimes \Lambda \to CH_{p+1}(G,X\times \mathbb{A}^1, r) \otimes \Lambda.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ acts trivially on $\mathbb{A}^1$, we have $(X \times \mathbb{A}^1)^{\sigma} = X^{\sigma} \times \mathbb{A}^1$. The diagram
\[
\begin{tikzcd}
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_p (X^{\sigma}, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \arrow{r}{\pi(X)} \arrow{d}{\prod p_{X^{\sigma}}^{*}}
& CH_p(G, X, r) \otimes \Lambda \arrow{d}{p_X^{*}}\\
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (CH_{p+1} (X^{\sigma}\times \mathbb{A}^1, r) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \arrow{r}{\pi(X \times \mathbb{A}^1)} & CH_{p+1}(G, X \times \mathbb{A}^1, r) \otimes \Lambda
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is commutative. The maps $\pi(X)$ and $\pi(X \times \mathbb{A}^1)$ are isomorphisms by Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}.
Each map $p_{X^{\sigma}}^{*}$ is an isomorphism by homotopy invariance for higher Chow groups \cite[Theorem (2.1)]{Bloch1}.
Therefore, $p_X^{*}$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
The reconstruction theorem for equivariant higher Chow groups yields a Riemann-Roch theorem for equivariant algebraic $K$-theory:
\begin{theorem} [Riemann-Roch]\label{BigConsequence}
If $X$ is a smooth $G$-scheme over $k$ then the spectral sequence \eqref{SpectralSequence} degenerates rationally, i.e., there are isomorphisms of $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces
\begin{equation} \label{Degeneration}
\bigoplus_{q}K_q(G,X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{q}G_{q}(G,X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{p,q} CH_{p}(G,X,q) \otimes \mathbb{Q}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $X$ is smooth and $G$ is finite, every $G$-equivariant coherent sheaf on $X$ has a resolution by $G$-equivariant locally free sheaves (\cite[Corollary 5.8]{RT1}).
Quillen's \textit{Dévissage theorem} provides for any $q \in \mathbb{N}$ an isomorphism
$$
K_q(G,X) \cong G_q(G,X).
$$
For any $\sigma \in \Gamma$, the scheme $X^{\sigma}$ is smooth (cf. \cite[Proposition 3.4]{Edixhoven}). Hence, the spectral sequence
\begin{equation*}
E^{p,q}_1 = CH_{-p}(X^{\sigma},-p-q) \Rightarrow G_{-p-q}(X^{\sigma})
\end{equation*} degenerates rationally to get
$$
\bigoplus_{p,q} CH_{p}(X^{\sigma},q) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{q}G_{q}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \mathbb{Q}
$$
(cf. \cite[Theorem 14.8]{ML1}). Taking product over all $\sigma \in \Gamma$ yields
$$
\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (\bigoplus_{p,q} (CH_{p}(X^{\sigma},q) \otimes \mathbb{Q}) \otimes_{\Lambda} \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)} \cong \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} (\bigoplus_{q} (G_{q}(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \mathbb{Q}) \otimes_{\Lambda} \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}.
$$
Equivalently,
$$
\bigoplus_{p,q} (\prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} CH_{p}(X^{\sigma},q)) \otimes \tilde{R} \sigma)^{N(\sigma)}\otimes_{\Lambda} \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{q}( \prod_{\sigma \in \Gamma} G_{q}(X^{\sigma}) ) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)}\otimes_{\Lambda} \mathbb{Q},
$$
i.e.,
$$
\bigoplus_{p,q} CH_{p}(G,X,q) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{q}G_{q}(G,X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q}.
$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
When $X \in \mathbf{Sch}^G_k$ which is not neccessarily smooth, there is still an isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\bigoplus_{q}G_{q}(G,X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \cong \bigoplus_{p,q} CH_{p}(G,X,q) \otimes \mathbb{Q}
\end{equation*}
by Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}, Corollary \ref{Vistoli} and Bloch-Riemann-Roch isomorphism
$$
G_q(X^{\sigma}) \otimes \mathbb{Q} \xrightarrow{\sim} \bigoplus_{p} CH_{p}(X^{\sigma},q) \otimes \mathbb{Q}
$$
\cite[Theorem (9.1)]{Bloch1}. However, we do not know how to define directly an \textit{equivariant Riemann-Roch map}
$$
G_{q}(G,X) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{p} CH_{p}(G,X,q) \otimes \mathbb{Q}.
$$
\end{remark}
\subsection{Multiplicative structure and further remarks} When $X$ is smooth, there are certainly two ways to equip a multiplicative structure on equivariant higher Chow groups with rational coefficients (the integral case is still unknown).
The first structure is obtained through the isomorphism \eqref{Degeneration} where the multiplication on $CH_{*}(G,X,*) \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ inherits the ordinary multiplication on $K_{*}(G,X)\otimes \mathbb{Q}$ (given by tensor product over $\mathcal{O}_X$).
The second structure is obtained by the reconstruction theorem for equivariant higher Chow groups. Recall that Jarvis-Kaufmann-Kimura have considered in \cite{JKK1} the \textit{stringy Chow ring}
$$
\prod_{g \in G} CH_{*} (X^{g}) \otimes \mathbb{Q}
$$
with the multiplicative structure given by the \textit{stringy product} \cite[Definition 1.6]{JKK1}. This can be extended to define a multiplicative structure on
$$
\prod_{g \in G} CH_{*}(X^{g},*) \otimes \mathbb{Q},
$$
and hence on the algebra of invariants
$$
(\prod_{g \in G} CH_{*}(X^{g},*) \otimes \mathbb{Q})^G.
$$
By Theorem \ref{MainTheorem}, this gives another multiplicative structure on $CH_{*}(G,X,*)\otimes \mathbb{Q}$.
These two structures are different in general even in the case of Chow groups $CH_{*}(G,X,0)\otimes \mathbb{Q}$.
The first one is the usual multiplication on the Grothendieck group of the quotient stack $[X/G]$.
The second one should be the usual multiplication on the Grothendieck group of a (and all) hyper-Kähler resolution of the coarse moduli space $X/G$ of $[X/G]$.
This is the content of the \textit{K-theoretic hyper-Kähler resolution conjectures} \cite[Conjecture 1.2]{JKK1} which has been verified in certain interesting cases.
\begin{remark}
As the reader might guess, the isomorphism $\pi(X)$ in Theorem \ref{MainTheorem} need not to be true in general if we index equivariant higher Chow groups by codimension rather than dimension as in \cite{LS1}.
Some degree shifts are needed to get right indexes. The reason is that $\pi(X)$ is defined by using push-forward for algebraic cycles and $K$-theory that do not preserve codimension in general.
For instance, let $G = \mathbb{Z}/2$ act on $X = \mathbb{A}^1: = \mathrm{Spec}(k[t])$ by sending $t \to -t$. A simple calculation gives
$$
CH^1(\mathbb{Z}/2, \mathbb{A}^1, 0) = \mathbb{Z}.
$$
(cf. \cite[Example 6.17]{LS1}).
The group $\mathbb{Z}/2$ has only two (cyclic) subgroups $0$ and $\mathbb{Z}/2$. We have
$$
CH^1((\mathbb{A}^1)^0, 0) = CH^1(\mathbb{A}^1, 0) = CH^1(\mathrm{Spec}k, 0) = 0
$$
and
$$
CH^1((\mathbb{A}^1)^{\mathbb{Z}/2}, 0) = CH^1(\mathrm{Spec}k, 0) = 0
$$
by dimension reason. Therefore,
$$
\prod_{\sigma}(CH^1((\mathbb{A}^1)^{\sigma}, 0) \otimes \tilde{R}\sigma)^{N(\sigma)} = 0.
$$
\end{remark}
It is aslo worth mentioning that the two multiplicative structures on rational equivariant higher Chow groups considered above do not respect the grading by codimension.
For the first multiplicative structure, the reason is that the ring structure on $K_0(G,X)$ does not in general respect the topological filtration \cite[Remark 3.6]{LS1}.
For the second multiplicative structure, this failure is measured by 'age' (or 'degree shifting number') \cite[Definition 1.3]{JKK1}.
\begin{remark}
In the non-equivariant case for $X$ smooth, the spectral sequence $\eqref{MotivicSpectraSequence}$ admits actions of \text{Adams operations} which implies its degeneration with
rational coefficients. It would be interesting to see how to equip Adam operations on the equivariant motivic spectral sequence \eqref{EquivariantSpectralSequence}.
It might be possible to follow the construction given in \cite[Theorem 9.7]{ML1}, but there are some technical annoyances we have to overcome.
Even if we are in a good situation, there is no reason to expect that $\pi(X)$ preserves these operations because it is defined using push-forwards which are not ring homomorphisms in general.
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Social media are powerful tools connecting millions of people across the globe. These connections form the substrate that supports information dissemination, which ultimately affects the ideas, news, and opinions to which we are exposed.
There exist entities with both strong motivation and technical means to abuse online social networks --- from individuals aiming to artificially boost their popularity, to organizations with an agenda to influence public opinion.
It is not difficult to automatically target particular user groups and promote specific content or views~\cite{ferrara2014rise,bessi2016social}.
Reliance on social media may therefore make us vulnerable to manipulation.
\textit{Social bots} are accounts controlled by software, algorithmically generating content and establishing interactions. Many social bots perform useful functions, such as dissemination of news and publications~\cite{lokot2016news,haustein2016tweets} and coordination of volunteer activities~\cite{savage2016botivist}.
However, there is a growing record of malicious applications of social bots. Some emulate human behavior to manufacture fake grassroots political support~\cite{ratkiewicz2011detecting}, promote terrorist propaganda and recruitment~\cite{berger2015isis,abokhodair2015dissecting,ferrara2016predicting}, manipulate the stock market~\cite{ferrara2014rise}, and disseminate rumors and conspiracy theories~\cite{bessi2015science}.
A growing body of research is addressing social bot activity, its implications on the social network, and the detection of these accounts~\cite{lee2011seven,boshmaf2011socialbot,beutel2013copycatch,yang2014uncovering,ferrara2014rise,Chavoshi2016}. The magnitude of the problem was underscored by a Twitter bot detection challenge recently organized by DARPA to study information dissemination mediated by automated accounts and to detect malicious activities carried out by these bots~\cite{subrahmanian2016darpa}.
\subsection*{Contributions and Outline}
Here we demonstrate that accounts controlled by software exhibit behaviors that reflects their intents and \textit{modus operandi}~\cite{bakshy2011everyone,hin2016}, and that such behaviors can be detected by supervised machine learning techniques.
This paper makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a framework to extract a large collection of features from data and meta-data about social media users, including friends, tweet content and sentiment, network patterns, and activity time series. We use these features to train highly-accurate models to identify bots. For a generic user, we produce a $[0,1]$ score representing the likelihood that the user is a bot.
\item The performance of our detection system is evaluated against both an existing public dataset and an additional sample of manually-annotated Twitter accounts collected with a different strategy. We enrich the previously-trained models using the new annotations, and investigate the effects of different datasets and classification models.
\item We classify a sample of millions of English-speaking active users. We use different models to infer thresholds in the bot score that best discriminate between humans and bots. We estimate that the percentage of Twitter accounts exhibiting social bot behaviors is between 9\% and 15\%.
\item We characterize friendship ties and information flow between users that show behaviors of different nature: human and bot-like.
Humans tend to interact with more human-like accounts than bot-like ones, on average. Reciprocity of friendship ties is higher for humans. Some bots target users more or less randomly, others can choose targets based on their intentions.
\item Clustering analysis reveals certain specific behavioral groups of accounts. Manual investigation of samples extracted from each cluster points to three distinct bot groups: spammers, self promoters, and accounts that post content from connected applications.
\end{itemize}
\section{Bot Detection Framework}
In the next section, we introduce a Twitter bot detection framework (\url{truthy.indiana.edu/botornot}) that is freely available online. This system leverages more than one thousand features to evaluate the extent to which a Twitter account exhibits similarity to the known characteristics of social bots~\cite{davis2016botornot}.
\subsection{Feature Extraction}
Data collected using the Twitter API are distilled in 1,150 features in six different classes. The classes and types of features are reported in Table~\ref{tab:features} and discussed next.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\caption{List of 1150 features extracted by our framework.}
\small
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}l@{}|l@{}l@{}}
\hline\multirow{20}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{User meta-data}}}
& Screen name length & \multirow{18}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{Sentiment}}}
& (***) Happiness scores of aggregated tweets \\
& Number of digits in screen name & & (***) Valence scores of aggregated tweets \\
& User name length & & (***) Arousal scores of aggregated tweets\\
& Time offset (sec.) & & (***) Dominance scores of single tweets \\
& Default profile (binary) & & (*) Happiness score of single tweets\\
& Default picture (binary) & & (*) Valence score of single tweets\\
& Account age (days) & & (*) Arousal score of single tweets\\
& Number of unique profile descriptions & & (*) Dominance score of single tweets\\
& (*) Profile description lengths & & (*) Polarization score of single tweets\\
& (*) Number of friends distribution & & (*) Entropy of polarization scores of single tweets\\
& (*) Number of followers distribution & & (*) Positive emoticons entropy of single tweets \\
& (*) Number of favorites distribution & & (*) Negative emoticons entropy of single tweets \\
& Number of friends (signal-noise ratio and rel. change) & & (*) Emoticons entropy of single tweets \\
& Number of followers (signal-noise ratio and rel. change) & & (*) Positive and negative score ratio of single tweets \\
& Number of favorites (signal-noise ratio and rel. change) & & (*) Number of positive emoticons in single tweets \\
& Number of tweets (per hour and total) & & (*) Number of negative emoticons in single tweets \\
& Number of retweets (per hour and total) & & (*) Total number of emoticons in single tweets \\
& Number of mentions (per hour and total) & & Ratio of tweets that contain emoticons\\
& Number of replies (per hour and total) & & \\
& Number of retweeted (per hour and total) & & \\
\hline\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{Friends ($\dag$)}}}
& Number of distinct languages &
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{Network ($\ddagger$)}}}
& Number of nodes\\
& Entropy of language use & & Number of edges (also for reciprocal) \\
& (*) Account age distribution & & (*) Strength distribution \\
& (*) Time offset distribution & & (*) In-strength distribution \\
& (*) Number of friends distribution & & (*) Out-strength distribution \\
& (*) Number of followers distribution & & Network density (also for reciprocal) \\
& (*) Number of tweets distribution & & (*) Clustering coeff. (also for reciprocal) \\
& (*) Description length distribution & & \\
& Fraction of users with default profile and default picture & & \\
\hline\multirow{4}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{Content}}}
& (*,**) Frequency of POS tags in a tweet &
\multirow{4}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{\textbf{Timing}}}
& (*) Time between two consecutive tweets \\
& (*,**) Proportion of POS tags in a tweet & & (*) Time between two consecutive retweets\\
& (*) Number of words in a tweet & & (*) Time between two consecutive mentions \\
& (*) Entropy of words in a tweet & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[$\dag$] We consider four types of connected users: retweeting, mentioning, retweeted, and mentioned.
\item[$\ddagger$] We consider three types of network: retweet, mention, and hashtag co-occurrence networks.
\item[*] Distribution types. For each distribution, the following eight statistics are computed and used as individual features: min, max, median, mean, std. deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and entropy.
\item[**] Part-Of-Speech (POS) tag. There are nine POS tags: verbs, nuns, adjectives, modal auxiliaries, pre-determiners, interjections, adverbs, wh-, and pronouns.
\item[***] For each feature, we compute mean and std. deviation of the weighted average across words in the lexicon.
\bigskip
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:features}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{User-based features.}
Features extracted from user meta-data have been used to classify users and patterns before~\cite{mislove2011understanding,ferrara2014rise}.
We extract user-based features from meta-data available through the Twitter API. Such features include the number of friends and followers, the number of tweets produced by the users, profile description and settings.
\subsubsection{Friends features.}
Twitter actively fosters inter-connectivity. Users are linked by follower-friend (followee) relations. Content travels from person to person via retweets. Also, tweets can be addressed to specific users via mentions. We consider four types of links: retweeting, mentioning, being retweeted, and being mentioned. For each group separately, we extract features about language use, local time, popularity, etc.
Note that, due to Twitter's API limits, we do not use follower/followee information beyond these aggregate statistics.
\subsubsection{Network features.}
The network structure carries crucial information for the characterization of different types of communication. In fact, the usage of network features significantly helps in tasks like political astroturf detection \cite{ratkiewicz2011detecting}. Our system reconstructs three types of networks: retweet, mention, and hashtag co-occurrence networks. Retweet and mention networks have users as nodes, with a directed link between a pair of users that follows the direction of information spreading: toward the user retweeting or being mentioned.
Hashtag co-occurrence networks have undirected links between hashtag nodes when two hashtags occur together in a tweet.
All networks are weighted according to the frequency of interactions or co-occurrences.
For each network, we compute a set of features, including in- and out-strength (weighted degree) distributions, density, and clustering. Note that out-degree and out-strength are measures of popularity.
\subsubsection{Temporal features.}
Prior research suggests that the temporal signature of content production and consumption may reveal important information about online campaigns and their evolution~\cite{Ghosh11snakdd,ferrara2016campaign,Chavoshi2016}. To extract this signal we measure several temporal features related to user activity, including average rates of tweet production over various time periods and distributions of time intervals between events.
\subsubsection{Content and language features.}
Many recent papers have demonstrated the importance of content and language features in revealing the nature of social media conversations~\cite{danescu2013no,mcauley2013amateurs,mocanu2013twitter,botta2015quantifying,letchford2015advantage,hin2016}. For example, deceiving messages generally exhibit informal language and short sentences \cite{briscoe2014cues}. Our system does not employ features capturing the quality of tweets, but collects statistics about length and entropy of tweet text. Additionally, we extract language features by applying the \emph{Part-of-Speech} (POS) tagging technique, which identifies different types of natural language components, or \emph{POS tags}.
Tweets are therefore analyzed to study how POS tags are distributed.
\subsubsection{Sentiment features.}
Sentiment analysis is a powerful tool to describe the emotions conveyed by a piece of text, and more broadly the attitude or mood of an entire conversation.
Sentiment extracted from social media conversations has been used to forecast offline events including
financial market fluctuations~\cite{bollen2011twitter}, and is known to affect information spreading \cite{mitchell2013geography,ferrara2015quantifying}.
Our framework leverages several sentiment extraction techniques to generate various sentiment features, including \emph{arousal}, \emph{valence} and \emph{dominance} scores~\cite{warriner2013norms}, \emph{happiness} score~\cite{kloumann2012positivity}, \emph{polarization} and \emph{strength}~\cite{wilson2005recognizing}, and \emph{emoticon} score~\cite{agarwal2011sentiment}.
\subsection{Model Evaluation}
\label{sec:model-evaluation}
To train our system we initially used a publicly available dataset consisting of 15K manually verified Twitter bots identified via a \textit{honeypot} approach~\cite{lee2011seven} and 16K verified human accounts. We collected the most recent tweets produced by those accounts using the Twitter Search API. We limited our collection to 200 public tweets from a user timeline and up to 100 of the most recent public tweets mentioning that user. This procedure yielded a dataset of 2.6 million tweets produced by manually verified bots and 3 million tweets produced by human users.
We benchmarked our system using several off-the-shelf algorithms provided in the \textit{scikit-learn} library~\cite{scikit-learn}.
In a generic evaluation experiment, the classifier under examination is provided with numerical vectors, each describing the features of an account. The classifier returns a numerical score in the unit interval. A higher score indicates a stronger belief that the account is a bot.
A model's accuracy is evaluated by measuring the Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) with 5-fold cross validation, and computing the average AUC score across the folds using Random Forests, AdaBoost, Logistic Regression and Decision Tree classifiers.
The best classification performance of 0.95 AUC was obtained by the \textit{Random Forest} algorithm. In the rest of the paper we use the Random Forest model trained using 100 estimators and the Gini coefficient to measure the quality of splits.
\section{Large-Scale Evaluation}
We realistically expect that the nature and sophistication of bots evolves over time and changes in specific conversational domains. It is therefore important to determine how reliable and consistent are the predictions produced by a system trained on a dataset but tested on different data (in the wild). Also, the continuously-evolving nature of bots dictates the need to constantly update the models based on newly available training data.
To obtain an updated evaluation of the accuracy of our model, we constructed an additional, manually-annotated collection of Twitter user accounts.
We hypothesize that this recent collection includes some bots that are more sophisticated than the ones obtained years earlier with the honeypot method.
We leveraged these manual annotations to evaluate the model trained using the honeypot dataset and then to update the classifier's training data, producing a \textit{merged} dataset to train a new model that ensures better generalization to more sophisticated accounts. User IDs and annotation labels in our extended dataset
are publicly available (\url{truthy.indiana.edu/botornot/data}).
\subsection{Data Collection}
Our data collection focused on users producing content in English, as inferred from profile meta-data. We identified a large, representative sample of users by monitoring a Twitter stream, accounting for approximately 10\% of public tweets, for 3 months starting in October 2015. This approach avoids known biases of other methods such as snowball and breadth-first sampling, which rely on the selection of an initial group of users~\cite{gjoka2010walking,morstatter2013sample}.
We focus on English speaking users as they represent the largest group on Twitter~\cite{mocanu2013twitter}.
To restrict our sample to recently active users, we introduce the further criteria that they must have produced at least 200 tweets in total and 90 tweets during the three-month observation window (one per day on average). Our final sample includes approximately 14 million user accounts that meet both criteria.
For each of these accounts, we collected their tweets through the Twitter Search API.
We restricted the collection to the most recent 200 tweets and 100 mentions of each user, as described earlier. Owing to Twitter API limits, this greatly improved our data collection speed.
This choice also reduces the response time of our service and API.
However the limitation adds noise to the features, due to the scarcity of data available to compute them.
\subsection{Manual Annotations}
\label{sec:annotations}
We computed classification scores for each of the active accounts using our initial classifier trained on the honeypot dataset.
We then grouped accounts by their bot scores, allowing us to evaluate our system across the spectrum of human and bot accounts without being biased by the distribution of bot scores.
We randomly sampled 300 accounts from each bot-score decile. The resulting balanced set of 3000 accounts were manually annotated by inspecting their public Twitter profiles.
Some accounts have obvious flags, such as using a stock profile image or retweeting every message of another account within seconds. In general, however, there is no simple set of rules to assess whether an account is human or bot.
With the help of four volunteers, we analyzed profile appearance, content produced and retweeted, and interactions with other users in terms of retweets and mentions.
Annotators were not given a precise set of instructions to perform the classification task, but rather shown a consistent number of both positive and negative examples. The final decisions reflect each annotator's opinion and are restricted to: \textit{human, bot}, or \textit{undecided}. Accounts labeled as undecided were eliminated from further analysis.
We annotated all 3000 accounts. We will refer to this set of accounts as the \emph{manually annotated} data set. Each annotator was assigned a random sample of accounts from each decile. We enforced a minimum 10\% overlap between annotations to assess the reliability of each annotator. This yielded an average pairwise agreement of 75\% and moderate inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's $\kappa=0.41$). We also computed the agreement between annotators and classifier outcomes, assuming that a classification score above 0.5 is interpreted as a bot. This resulted in an average pairwise agreement of 79\% and a moderately high Cohen's $\kappa=0.5$.
These results suggest high confidence in the annotation process, as well as in the agreement between annotations and model predictions.
\subsection{Evaluating Models Using Annotated Data}
To evaluate our classification system trained on the honeypot dataset, we examined the classification accuracy separately for each bot-score decile of the \emph{manually annonated} dataset.
We achieved classification accuracy greater than 90\% for the accounts in the $(0.0, 0.4)$ range, which includes mostly human accounts. We also observe accuracy above 70\% for scores in the $(0.8, 1.0)$ range (mostly bots). Accuracy for accounts in the grey-area range $(0.4, 0.8)$ fluctuates between 60\% and 80\%. Intuitively, this range contains the most challenging accounts to label, as reflected also in the low inter-annotators overlap in this region. When the accuracy of each bin is weighted by the population density in the large dataset from which the \emph{manually annonated} has been extracted, we obtain 86\% overall classification accuracy.
We also compare annotator agreement scores for the accounts in each bot-score decile. We observe that agreement scores are higher for accounts in the $(0.0, 0.4)$ range and lower for accounts in the $(0.8, 1.0)$ range, indicating that it is more difficult for human annotators to identify bot-like as opposed to human-like behavior.
We observe a similar pattern for the amount of time required on average to annotate human and bot accounts. Annotators employed on average 33 seconds to label human accounts and 37 seconds for bot accounts.
Fig.~\ref{fig:bot_detection_comparison} shows the results of experiments designed to investigate our ability to detect manually annotated bots. The baseline ROC curve is obtained by testing the honeypot model on the manually annotated dataset. Unsurprisingly, the baseline accuracy (0.85 AUC) is lower than that obtained cross-validating on the honeypot data (0.95 AUC), because the model is not trained on the newer bots.
\subsection{Dataset Effect on Model Accuracy}
\label{sec:dataset_effect}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{bot_detection_analysis_roc_new_v2.png}
\caption{ROC curves of models trained and tested on different datasets. Accuracy is measured by AUC.}
\label{fig:bot_detection_comparison}
\end{figure}
We can update our models by combining the \emph{manually-annotated} and honeypot datasets.
We created multiple balanced datasets and performed 5-fold cross-validation to evaluate the accuracy of the corresponding models:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Annotation}: We trained and tested a model by only using annotated accounts and labels assigned by the majority of annotators. This yields 0.89 AUC, a reasonable accuracy considering that the dataset contains recent and possibly sophisticated bots.
\item \textbf{Merged}: We merged the honeypot and annotation datasets for training and testing. The resulting classifier achieves 0.94 AUC, only slightly worse than the honeypot (training and test) model although the \emph{merged} dataset contains a variety of more recent bots.
\item \textbf{Mixture}: Using mixtures with different ratios of accounts from the \emph{manually annotated} and honeypot datasets, we obtain an accuracy ranging between 0.90 and 0.94 AUC.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{dataset_effect_distributions__mixture-2000-10000_sum2.png}
\caption{Distribution of classifier score for human and bot accounts in the two datasets.}
\label{fig:dataset_effect_distributions}
\end{figure}
In Fig~\ref{fig:dataset_effect_distributions}, we plot the distributions of classification scores for human and bot accounts according to each dataset. The mixture model trained on 2K annotated and 10K honeypot accounts is used to compute the scores. Human accounts in both datasets have similar distributions, peaked around 0.1. The difference between bots in the two datasets is more prominent. The distribution of simple, honeypot bots peaks around 0.9. The newer bots from the \emph{manually annotated} dataset have typically smaller scores, with a distribution peaked around 0.6. They are more sophisticated, and exhibit characteristics more similar to human behavior.
This raises the issue of how to properly set a threshold on the score when a strictly binary classification between human and bots is needed. To infer a suitable threshold, we compute classification accuracies for varying thresholds considering all accounts scoring below each threshold as human, and then select the threshold that maximizes accuracy.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{model_comparison_scatter_mixture-2000-2000_vs_mixture-2000-5000_v2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{model_comparison_scatter_mixture-2000-2000_vs_mixture-2000-20000_v2.png}
\caption{Comparison of scores for different models. Each account is represented as a point in the scatter plot with a color determined by its category. Test points are randomly sampled from our large-scale collection. Pearson correlations between scores are also reported, along with estimated thresholds and corresponding accuracies.}
\label{fig:model_comparison_scatter}
\end{figure}
We compared scores for accounts in the \emph{manually annotated} dataset by pairs of models (\emph{i.e.} trained with different mixtures) for labeled human, bot, and a random subset of accounts (Fig.~\ref{fig:model_comparison_scatter}). As expected, both models assign lower scores for humans and higher for bots. High correlation coefficients indicate agreement between the models.
\subsection{Feature Importance Analysis}
To compare the usefulness of different features, we trained models using each class of features alone.
We achieved the best performance with user meta-data features; content features are also effective. Both yielded AUC above 0.9. Other feature classes yielded AUC above 0.8.
We analyzed the importance of single features using
the Gini impurity score produced by our Random Forests model.
To rank the top features for a given dataset, we randomly select a subset of 10,000 accounts and compute the top features across 100 randomized experiments.
The top 10 features
are sufficient to reach performance of 0.9 AUC.
Sentiment and content of mentioned tweets are important features along with the statistical properties of retweet networks. Features of the friends with whom a user interacts are strong predictors as well. We observed the redundancy among many correlated features, such as distribution-type features (cf.~Table~\ref{tab:features}), especially in the content and sentiment categories.
Further analysis of feature importance is the subject of ongoing investigation.
\subsection{False Positive and False Negative Cases}
Neither human annotators nor machine-learning models perform flawlessly. Humans are better at generalizing and learning new features from observed data. Machines outperform human annotators at processing large numbers of relations and searching for complex patterns.
We analyzed our annotated accounts and their bot scores to highlight when disagreement occurs between annotators and classification models. Using an optimal threshold, we measured false positive and false negative rates at 0.15 and 0.11 respectively in our extended dataset. In these experiments, human annotation is considered as ground truth.
We identified the cases when the disagreement between classifier score and annotations occurs. We manually examined a sample from these accounts to investigate these errors. Accounts annotated as human can be classified as bot when an account posts tweets created by connected applications from other platforms. Some unusually active users are also classified as bots. Those users tend to have more retweets in general. This is somewhat intuitive as retweeting has lower cost than creating new content.
We encountered examples of misclassification for organizational and promotional accounts. Such accounts are often operated by multiple individuals, or combinations of users and automatic tools, generating misleading cues for the classifiers. Finally, the language of the content can also cause errors: our models tend to assign high bot scores to users who tweet in multiple languages. To mitigate this problem, the public version of our system now includes a classifier that ignores language-dependent features.
\section{Estimation of Bot Population}
\label{sec:estimation}
\begin{figure*}[!th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{prediction_densities_nlarge_collection_mixture-2000-2000_v2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{prediction_densities_nlarge_collection_mixture-2000-5000_v2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{prediction_densities_nlarge_collection_mixture-2000-10000_v2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\linewidth]{prediction_densities_nlarge_collection_mixture-2000-20000_v2.png}
\caption{Estimation of bot population obtained from models with different sensitivity to sophisticated bots. The main charts show the score distributions based on our dataset of 14M users; accounts identified as bots are highlighted. The inset plots show how the thresholds are computed by maximizing accuracy. The titles of each subplot reflect the number of accounts from the annotated and honeypot datasets, respectively.}
\label{fig:bot_estimations}
\end{figure*}
In a 2014 report by Twitter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the company put forth an estimate that between 5\% and 8.5\% of their user base consists of bots.\footnote{\url{www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000156459014003474/twtr-10q_20140630.htm}} We would like to offer our own assessment of the proportion of bot accounts as measured with our approach. Since our framework provides a continuous bot score as opposed to a discrete bot/human judgement, we must first determine an appropriate bot-score threshold separating human and bot accounts to estimate the proportion of bot accounts.
To infer a suitable threshold, we computed classification accuracies for varying thresholds considering all accounts scoring below each threshold as human. We then selected the threshold yielding maximum accuracy (see insets of Fig.~\ref{fig:bot_estimations}).
We estimated the population of bots using different models. This approach allows us to identify lower and upper bounds for the prevalence of Twitter bots.
Models trained using the annotated dataset alone yield estimates of up to 15\% of accounts being bots.
Recall that the honeypot dataset was obtained earlier and therefore does not include newer, more sophisticated bots.
Thus models trained on the honeypot data alone are less sensitive to these sophisticated bots, yielding a more conservative estimate of 9\%.
Mixing the training data from these two sources results in estimates between these bounds depending on the ratio of the mixture, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:bot_estimations}.
Taken together, these numbers suggest that estimates about the prevalence of Twitter bots are highly dependent on the definition and sophistication of the bots.
Some other remarks are in order. First, we do not exclude the possibility that very sophisticated bots can systematically escape a human annotator's judgement. These complex bots may be active on Twitter, and therefore present in our datasets, and may have been incorrectly labeled as humans, making even the 15\% figure a conservative estimate.
Second, increasing evidence suggests the presence on social media of hybrid human-bot accounts (sometimes referred to as \textit{cyborgs}) that perform automated actions with some human supervision~\cite{chu2012detecting,clark2016sifting}. Some have been allegedly used for terrorist propaganda and recruitment purposes. It remains unclear how these accounts should be labeled, and how pervasive they are.
\section{Characterization of User Interactions}
Let us next characterize social connectivity, information flow, and shared properties of users. We analyze the creation of social ties by accounts with different bot scores, and their interactions through shared content. We also cluster accounts and investigate shared properties of users in each cluster. Here and in the remainder of this paper, bot scores are computed with a model trained on the \emph{merged} dataset.
\subsection{Social connectivity}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{botscore_frfl_distributions_n10_v2.png}
\caption{Distributions of bot scores for friends (top) and followers (bottom) of accounts in different score intervals.}
\label{fig:social_connectivity}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{botscore_frfl_reciprocation_n10.png}
\caption{Distribution of reciprocity scores for accounts in different score intervals.}
\label{fig:social_connectivity_reciprocal}
\end{figure}
To characterize the social connectivity, we collected the social networks of the accounts in our dataset using the Twitter API. Resulting friend and follower relations account for 46 billion social ties, 7 billion of which represent ties between the initially collected user set.
Our observations on social connectivity are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:social_connectivity}. We computed bot-score distributions of friends and followers of accounts for each score interval.
The dark line in the top panel shows that human accounts (low score) mostly follow other human accounts.
The dark line in the bottom panel shows a principal peak around 0.1 and a secondary one around 0.5. This indicates that humans are typically followed by other humans, but also by sophisticated bots (intermediate scores).
The lines corresponding to high scores in the two panels show
that bots tend to follow other bots and they are mostly followed by bots.
However simple bots (0.8--1.0 ranges) can also attract human attention.
This happens when, e.g., humans follow benign bots such as those that share news. This gives rise to the secondary peak of the red line in the bottom panel.
In summary, the creation of social ties leads to a homophily effect.
Fig.~\ref{fig:social_connectivity_reciprocal} illustrates the extent to which connections are reciprocated, given the nature of the accounts forming the ties. The \emph{reciprocity score} of a user is defined as the fraction of friends who are also followers.
We observe that human accounts reciprocate more (dark line). Increasing bot scores correlate with lower reciprocity. We also observe that simple bot accounts (0.8--1.0 ranges) have bimodal reciprocity distributions, indicating the existence of two distinct behaviors. The majority of high-score accounts have reciprocity score smaller than 0.2, possibly because simple bots follow users at random.
The slight increase as the reciprocity score approaches one may be due to botnet accounts that coordinate by following each other.
\subsection{Information flow}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{botscore_retweet-mention_distributions_n10_v2.png}
\caption{Bot score distributions of users mentioned (top) and retweeted (bottom) by accounts with different scores.}
\label{fig:information_flow}
\end{figure}
Twitter is a platform that fosters social connectivity and the broadcasting of popular content.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:information_flow} we analyze information flow in terms of mentions/retweets as a function of the score of the account being mentioned or retweeted.
Simple bots tend to retweet each other (lines for scores in the 0.8--1.0 ranges peak around 0.8 in the bottom panel), while they frequently mention sophisticated bots (peaking around 0.5 in the top panel).
More sophisticated bots (scores in the 0.5--0.7 ranges) retweet, but do not mention humans. They might be unable to engage in meaningful exchanges with humans.
While humans also retweet bots, as they may post interesting content (see peaks of the dark lines in the bottom panel), they have no interest in mentioning bots directly (dark lines in the top panel).
\subsection{Clustering accounts}
To characterize different account types, let us group accounts into behavioral clusters. We apply K-Means to normalized vectors of the 100 most important features selected by our Random Forests model.
We identify 10 distinct clusters based on different evaluation criteria, such as silhouette scores and percentage of variance explained.
In Fig~\ref{fig:account_clustering}, we present a 2-dimensional projection of users obtained by a dimensionality reduction technique called t-SNE~\cite{maaten2008visualizing}.
In this method, the similarity between users is computed based on their 100-dimensional representation in the feature space. Similar users are projected into nearby points and dissimilar users are kept distant from each other.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{clustering_tsne-distributions_nCluster10.png}
\caption{t-SNE embedding of accounts. Points are colored based on clustering in high-dimensional space. For each cluster, the distribution of scores is presented on the right.}
\label{fig:account_clustering}
\end{figure}
Let us investigate shared cluster properties by manual inspection of random subsets of accounts from each cluster.
Three of the clusters, namely \cluster{0}--\cluster{2}, have high average bot scores. The presence of significant amounts of bot accounts in these clusters was manually verified.
These \textit{bot} clusters exhibit some prominent properties: cluster \cluster{0}, for example, consists of legit-looking accounts that are promoting themselves (recruiters, porn actresses, etc.). They are concentrated in the lower part of the 2-dimensional embedding, suggesting homogeneous patterns of behaviors. \cluster{1} contains spam accounts that are very active but have few followers. Accounts in \cluster{2} frequently use automated applications to share activity from other platforms like YouTube and Instagram, or post links to news articles. Some of the accounts in \cluster{2} might belong to actual humans who are no longer active and their posts are mostly sent by connected apps.
Cluster \cluster{3} contain a \textit{mix} of sophisticated bots, cyborg-like accounts (mix of bot and human features), and human users.
Clusters of predominantly \textit{human} accounts, namely \cluster{4}--\cluster{9}, separate from one another in the embedding due to different activity styles, user popularity, content production and consumption patterns.
For instance, accounts in \cluster{7} engage more with their friends, unlike accounts from \cluster{8} that mostly retweet with little other forms of interaction. Clusters \cluster{5}, \cluster{6}, and \cluster{9} contain common Twitter users who produce experiential tweets, share pictures, and retweet their friends.
\section{Related Work}
Also known as ``sybil'' accounts, social bots can pollute online discussion by lending false credibility to their messages and influence other users~\cite{ferrara2014rise,aiello2014people}. Recent studies quantify the extent to which automated systems can dominate discussions on Twitter about topics ranging from electronic cigarettes~\cite{clark2015vaporous} to elections~\cite{bessi2016social}.
Large collections of social bots, also known as botnets, are controlled by botmasters and used for coordinated activities. Examples of such botnets identified for advertisement~\cite{zhou2017starwars} and influence about Syrian civic war~\cite{abokhodair2015dissecting}.
Social bots also vary greatly in terms of their behavior, intent, and vulnerabilities, as illustrated in a categorization scheme for bot attacks~\cite{mitter2014categorization}.
Much of the previous work on detecting bots is from the perspective of the social network platform operators, implying full access to all data.
These studies focus on collecting large-scale data to either cluster behavioral patterns of users~\cite{wang2013you} or classify accounts using supervised learning techniques~\cite{yang2014uncovering,lee2011seven}. For instance, Beutel \textit{et al.} decomposed event data in time, user, and activity dimensions to extract similar behaviors~\cite{beutel2013copycatch}. These techniques are useful to identify coordinated large-scale attacks directed at a common set of targets at the same time, but accounts with similar strategies might also target different groups and operate separately from each other.
Structural connectivity may provide important cues. However, Yang \textit{et al.} studied large-scale sybil attacks and observed sophisticated sybils that develop strategies for building normal-looking social ties, making themselves harder to detect~\cite{yang2014uncovering}. Some sybil attacks analyze the social graph of targeted groups to infiltrate specific organizations~\cite{elyashar2013homing}. SybilRank is a system developed to identify attacks from their underlying topology~\cite{cao2012aiding}.
Alvisi \textit{et al.} surveyed the evolution of sybil defense protocols that leverage the structural properties of the social graph~\cite{alvisi2013sok}.
The work presented here follows several previous contributions to the problem of social bot detection that leverage learning models trained with data collected from human and bot accounts. Chu \textit{et al.} built a classification system identifying accounts controlled by humans, bots, and cyborgs~\cite{chu2010tweeting,chu2012detecting}. Wang \textit{et al.} analyzed sybil attacks using annotations by experts and crowd-sourcing workers to evaluate consistency and effectiveness of different detection systems~\cite{wang2012social}.
Clark \textit{et al.} labeled 1,000 accounts by hand and found natural language text features to be very effective at discriminating between human and automated accounts~\cite{clark2016sifting}. Lee \textit{et al.} used a honeypot approach to collect the largest sample of bot accounts available to date~\cite{lee2011seven}. That study generated the honeypot dataset used in the present paper. Here, we extend this body of prior work by exploring many different categories of features, contributing a new labeled dataset, estimating the number of bot accounts, analyzing information flow among accounts, identifying several classes of behaviors, and providing a public bot detection service.
An alternative approach to study social bots and sybil attacks is to understand what makes certain groups and individuals more appealing as targets. Wald \textit{et al.} studied the factors affecting the likelihood of a users being targeted by social bots~\cite{wald2013predicting}.
These approaches point to effective strategies that future social bots might develop.
Recently, we have observed efforts to facilitate research collaborations on the topic of social bots. DARPA organized a bot detection challenge in the domain of anti-vaccine campaigns on Twitter~\cite{subrahmanian2016darpa}.
We released our Twitter bot detection system online for public use~\cite{davis2016botornot}. Since its release, our system has received millions of requests and we are improving models based on feedback we received from our users.
The increasing availability of software and datasets on social bots will help design systems that are capable of co-evolving with recent social bots and hopefully mitigating the effects of their malicious activities.
\section{Conclusions}
Social media make it easy for accounts controlled by hybrid or automated approaches to create content and interact with other accounts. Our project aims to identify these bots. Such a classification task could be a first step toward studying modes of communication among different classes of entities on social media.
In this article, we presented a framework for bot detection on Twitter. We introduced our machine learning system that extracts more than a thousand features in six different classes: users and friends meta-data, tweet content and sentiment, network patterns, and activity time series. We evaluated our framework when initially trained on an available dataset of bots. Our initial classifier achieves 0.95 AUC when evaluated by using 5-fold cross validation. Our analysis on the contributions of different feature classes suggests that user meta-data and content features are the two most valuable sources of data to detect simple bots.
To evaluate the performance of our classifier on a more recent and challenging sample of bots, we randomly selected Twitter accounts covering the whole spectrum of classification scores. The accuracy of our initial classifier trained on the honeypot dataset decreased to 0.85 AUC when tested on the more challenging dataset. By retraining the classifier with the two datasets merged, we achieved high accuracy (0.94 AUC) in detecting both simple and sophisticated bots.
We also estimated the fraction of bots in the active English-speaking population on Twitter. We classified nearly 14M accounts using our system and inferred the optimal threshold scores that separate human and bot accounts for several models with different mixes of simple and sophisticated bots. Training data have an important effect on classifier sensitivity. Our estimates for the bot population range between 9\% and 15\%. This points to the importance of tracking increasingly sophisticated bots, since deception and detection technologies are in a never-ending arms race.
To characterize user interactions, we studied social connectivity and information flow between different user groups. We showed that selection of friends and followers are correlated with accounts bot-likelihood. We also highlighted how bots use different retweet and mention strategies when interacting with humans or other bots.
We concluded our analysis by characterizing subclasses of account behaviors. Clusters identified by this analysis point mainly to three types of bots. These results emphasize that Twitter hosts a variety of users with diverse behaviors; this is true for both human and bot accounts. In some cases, the boundary separating these two groups is not sharp and an account can exhibit characteristics of both.
\fontsize{9pt}{10pt}
\selectfont
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
We thank M. JafariAsbagh, P. Shiralkar for helpful discussions. We also want to thank undergraduate students A. Toms, A. Fulton, A. Witulski, and M. Johnston for contributing data annotation. This work was supported in part by ONR (N15A-020-0053), DARPA (W911NF-12-1-0037), NSF (CCF-1101743), and the J.S. McDonnell Foundation.
\fontsize{9pt}{10pt}
\selectfont
\bibliographystyle{aaai}
|
\section{Algorithm}
We first provide a basic overview of our algorithm, Algorithm \ref{alg:main}: Feature Selection Explore and Exploit~(FS-EE), before discussing details.
Algorithm \ref{alg:main} proceeds by fixing a possible in-degree $K$, starting with $K=1$ up to the total number of features. This is similar to LSE-RMax \cite{chakraborty2011structure}. For each $K$, our algorithm first performs exploration and feature selection (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) to identify the set of features whose dynamics can be modeled well with in-degree $K$. Then once it has selected those features, it calls a PAC RL algorithm for factored MDPs which then only considers the selected features and treats all other features as nonexistent.
We will prove in Section \ref{sec:theorysketch} that under the diameter assumption and the Superset Assumption, suitable instantiations of constants, and a suitable PAC RL algorithm for FMDPs, FS-EE~obtains
near optimal average reward on all but a number of steps that depends only on the (unknown) in-degree of the necessary features. Note that we do not need to know the number of necessary features in advance either. This translates to an exponential savings in samples if the in-degree of unnecessary features is larger than the in-degree of the necessary features; our algorithm will start acting near-optimally as soon as $K$ is at least as large as the in-degree of the necessary features. However, before $K$ is at least as large as the in-degree of the necessary features, there are no guarantees on performance and nothing can be determined about the features that are temporarily eliminated.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $m_1$, $m_2$, $H$
\FOR{$K=1$ to \# of features}
\STATE $F$=LearnAndSelect($K$,$m_1$,$H$)
\STATE PAC--FactoredMDP--RL($K$, $F$,$m_2$)
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{FS-EE}
\label{alg:main}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $K$, $m$, $H$
\STATE Set $G$ as all possible $F$ choose $2K$ feature-value vectors
\WHILE{Exists a element $g$ of $G$ not visited $m$ times} \label{lin:while}
\STATE Create MDP $M$ where reward for states matching $g$ is $R_{max}$, reward for all other states is 0 \label{lin:targetmdp}
\STATE Compute optimistic policy $\pi_o$ for $M$
\STATE stuck=True
\FOR{$t=1$ to $H$} \label{lin:befor}
\STATE Run $\pi_o$
\STATE Use Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm to update possible parent sets for each feature \label{lin:adak}
\STATE If a feature-value vector that has not yet been visited $m$ times is visited, set stuck=False and break out of loop
\ENDFOR \label{lin:endfor}
\IF{stuck}
\STATE Superset Test: Eliminate possible parent sets that predict significantly different dynamics than their supersets \label{lin:ss}
\STATE Shrink $F$ to be remaining features $F$ that still have possible parent sets \label{lin:elim}
\STATE Shrink $G$ to be all remaining $F$ choose $2K$ feature-value vectors
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE \label{lin:endwhile}
\STATE \textbf{Return} remaining $F$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{LearnAndSelect}
\label{alg:episode}
\end{algorithm}
We now describe our algorithm in further detail. The purpose of Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} is twofold. One, it explores to gather $m$ samples for all potential parent sets to learn an accurate dynamics model. Two, under the diameter assumption and Superset Assumption, it detects features whose transition/reward dynamics cannot be accurately modeled using a parent set of size $K$ and eliminates them.
To achieve both goals, Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} repeatedly picks a target feature-value vector of size $2K$ to visit (line \ref{lin:while}--\ref{lin:endwhile}). A feature-value vector is a particular instantiation of values for a set of features. We will describe Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} through a concrete example. Consider an FMDP with 3 binary features $(f_1, f_2, f_3)$. Suppose $K=1$. Then all feature-value vectors of size $2$ for $(f_1, f_3)$ are simply $(f_1=0,f_3=0),(f_1=0,f_3=1),(f_1=1,f_3=0),(f_1=1,f_3=1)$. Then the first thing Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} does is form the set $G$ of all possible feature-value vectors for all subsets of 2 features: $(f_1,f_2),(f_1,f_3),(f_2,f_3)$. Then the algorithm attempts to target exploration to one particular feature-value vector. Let $g = (f_1=0,f_2=1)$ be the first target. To reach $(f_1=0,f_2=1)$, Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} creates an FMDP where the reward function for any state that matches $g$ is $R_{\max}$ i.e. states $(0,1,0),(0,1,1)$ (line \ref{lin:targetmdp}). The reward for all other states is 0. Then an optimistic policy $\pi_o$ is computed and followed for up to $H$ steps to try to visit states that match the target feature-value vector (line \ref{lin:befor}--\ref{lin:endfor}).
The optimistic policy is computed by choosing a parent set for each feature out of the possible parent sets that results in an FMDP with the largest optimal value. We also use the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists Algorithm \cite{diuk2009adaptive} to update potential parent sets and the dynamics model from the gathered data during exploration (line \ref{lin:adak}); see section \ref{subsec:meteor} for an overview.
Following the optimistic policy $\pi_o$ will then result in 3 possible outcomes (under the diameter assumption): 1) it will reach the target feature-value vector, 2) it will visit some other feature-value vector that has not yet been visited $m$ times, or 3) it will get stuck visiting already visited feature-value vectors. This is similar to the PAC-EXPLORE algorithm \cite{guo2015concurrent}. The first two outcomes are both good and end up collecting data towards feature-value vectors that have not yet been visited $m$ times. The third outcome implies that one of the parent sets used for computing $\pi_o$ is incorrect. This is because the diameter assumption guarantees that any state is reachable on average in $D$ (diameter) steps. If all of the parent sets used in computing the optimistic policy $\pi_o$ were correct, then $\pi_o$ would be expected to reach the target feature-value vector within $O(D^2)$ steps. Thus we can detect that we have not reached the target in the expected time nor accumulated any new samples for less visited feature-value vectors, and determine that we are stuck.
If we are stuck, then we perform the Superset Test (line \ref{lin:ss}) to figure out which parent sets are incorrect and eliminate them. The Superset Test will compare the predictions of all potential parent sets of all features with the predictions of all of their possible supersets of size $2K$. This leverages the idea that if a parent set is the correct parent set for a feature, then any superset of that parent set will give the same prediction; thus if a superset gives a different prediction then that parent set must be missing necessary features. The Superset Assumption guarantees that if we are stuck, then the Superset Test will always find at least one incorrect parent set to eliminate.
Suppose we have explored for some time and our current target is now $g = (f_2=1,f_3=1)$. Suppose we get stuck. Then after $H$ steps, we would detect that we got stuck and then perform the Superset Test. Suppose we first look at feature $f_2$ and the possible parents remaining are $f_2$ and $f_3$ i.e. $f_1$ has been eliminated. The Superset Test will test the predictions of each parent set with all of their possible supersets. For the parent set $(f_2 = 0)$, the supersets of size 2 are $(f_2 = 0, f_3 = 0)$ and $(f_2 = 0, f_3 = 1)$. Let $\hat{P}(f_2 = 0 | f_2 = 0)$ be the estimated transition for $f_2$ with parent set $(f_2 = 0)$. Let $\hat{P}(f_2 = 0 | f_2 = 0, f_3 = 0)$ be the estimated transition for $f_2$ with the parent set $(f_2 = 0, f_3 = 0)$. The Superset Test will check whether $|\hat{P}(f_2 = 0 | f_2 = 0, f_2 = 0) - \hat{P}(f_2 = 0 | f_2 = 0)|$ is above some threshold. If it is, then it would mean that $f_2$ is not a parent of $f_2$ and so both parent sets $(f_2 = 0)$ and $(f_2 = 1)$ would be eliminated. The Superset Test then continues with the other possible parents and their supersets, and then will check the other features in the same way. If all possible parent sets for a feature $f$ has been eliminated, then $f$ itself is eliminated (line \ref{lin:elim}).
Each time Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} targets a feature-value vector for exploration, either some target that has not yet been visited $m$ times will get visited, or the Superset Test will eliminate a potential parent for a feature. Thus eventually the algorithm will terminate. Once Algorithm \ref{alg:episode} terminates, we are left with the remaining features $F$ which we know that our model is capable of reaching and exploring. Thus Algorithm \ref{alg:main} calls a generic PAC RL algorithm for FMDPs with in-degree $K$ with remaining features $F$, ignoring the eliminated features completely.
\subsection{Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist}
\label{subsec:meteor}
The Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists Algorithm is used to update the predictions of parent sets as well as to eliminate incorrect parent sets as more and more data is accumulated \cite{diuk2009adaptive}. It maintains MLE estimates for transition and reward functions for every possible parent set of every feature. It also keeps track of the mean squared error (MSE) of those MLE estimates for every parent set. Once two different parent sets for a feature $f$ have an accurate enough MSE estimate but different predictions, the algorithm will eliminate the parent set with the higher MSE. Thus eventually with enough data, all the parent sets that remain for a feature $f$ will reach consensus in their predictions. Note that because this algorithm only performs pairwise comparisons of parent sets, it will always leave at least one parent set for every feature, thus this cannot be used to eliminate features as it cannot detect when all parent sets of some size $J$ are incorrect.
\iffalse
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $p_{i,a}, R$
\STATE $M =$ model where for every $(i,a)$ we pick some parent set from $p_{i,a}$
\FOR{every possible $M$}
\STATE Compute $\pi_M^*$ with reward function $R$ using value iteration
\IF{not enough data for some parent set}
\STATE Use extended value iteration to pick an optimistic value
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\operatorname{argmax}_{\pi_M^*}U^*_M$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Optimistic Policy}
\label{alg:optimistic}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $K, p_{i,a}, \epsilon, L$
\STATE Run and update $\pi$ along with the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm with $p_{i,a}$ for $O\left(\frac{(dn)^{3K+1} K D^{18} n^4 T_{\epsilon}^9 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5} \log \frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ steps
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi$ = OptimisticPolicy($p_{i,a}, p_{i,a}$) restricted to $F$\;
\end{itemize}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{RL with Selected Features}
\label{alg:rl_given_subset}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $K, p_{i,a}, \epsilon$
\STATE Pick random target $G \subseteq F', K \leq |G| \leq 2K$ that hasn't been visited $m$ times nor has been eliminated by superset test and run ExplorationEpisode($K,G,p_{i,a},\epsilon$)
\RETURN features that have not been eliminated
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Feature Selection}
\label{alg:featureselection}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $K$, $p_{i,a}$, $u_{i,a}$, $\epsilon_1$
\STATE For every potential parent set visited at least $m$ times, compare their predictions from $p_{i,a}$ with all supersets of up to size $2K$ that have also been visited at least $m$ times in $u_{i,a}$
\STATE Remove potential parent sets whose predictions differ by more than $O(\epsilon_1)$
\STATE Remove features/rewards for which there are states where all parent sets have been eliminated
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{Superset Test}
\label{alg:superset}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\section{Setting}
A finite FMDP is defined by a tuple $(S,A,P,R)$, where $S$ is a finite set of states, $A$ is a finite set of actions, $P$ is the transition distribution and $R$ is the reward distribution. Each state $s$ is a feature vector $(x_1, x_2,\dots, x_n)$ where $x_i \in Dom_i$ and $|Dom_i| = d$ \cite{kearns1999efficient}. The transition distribution factors over the state space i.e. $P(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t ) = \prod_i P(x_{i, t+1} | s_t, a_t) = \prod_i P_{i}(s_{t+1} | Par_{i}(s_t), a_t)$. Each $P_{i}$ is the transition probability for feature $x_i$, dependent on its parent set of features $Par_{i}$. The notation $Par_{i}(s_t)$ denotes filtering the feature vector $s_t$ to only the features present in the set $Par_{i}$.
The reward is defined as $R(s,a) = \sum_j^{|R|} R_{j}(s,a)$, where each $R_{j}$ is an individual reward distribution for the $j$-th reward function.
$ P(R_{j}(s) | Par_{j}(s), a)$ is a discrete distribution with a domain of size $d$ just like a feature. Since features and rewards both utilize the same basic representation, the same approach
can be used to learn feature transition dynamics and rewards.
The in-degree of this FMDP is the size of the largest parent set over all features/rewards and actions i.e. $\max_{i} |Par_{i}|$.
Let $F'$ denote the set of all features. Given an FMDP, we assume there exists a set of necessary features $F$, such that if we ignored all features except the ones in $F$, we would get a smaller FMDP whose optimal value function is the same as the original FMDP. This implies that the parents of features in $F$ are in $F$, and the parents of the rewards are also in $F$.
We also assume the FMDP has a finite diameter $D$ \cite{ortner2007logarithmic}. A diameter $D$ means that for any two states $s_1,s_2$, the expected number of steps to go from $s_1$ to $s_2$ is at most $D$ under the best possible policy.
In this setting, the problem is to interact with an FMDP where the transition/reward dynamics are unknown (i.e. parent sets are unknown), the in-degree is unknown, and the necessary features are unknown, and execute a polity whose performance is $\epsilon$-close to the best possible policy. Interaction proceeds in steps, where in each step an algorithm takes an action, and observes the (stochastic) next state and reward. We measure performance of a policy $\pi$ using the average reward notion, where $U^\pi(s) = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} U^\pi(s, T)= \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T}\mathbb{E}(\sum_{t=1}^T r_t | s_1 = s, \pi)$ \cite{kearns2002near}. Like prior FMDP work, we also assume $U^\pi(s)$ is independent of $s$ and can be denoted as just $U^\pi$ \cite{chakraborty2011structure}. Since we are working with finite samples, we assume the $\epsilon$-return mixing time $T_{\epsilon}$ is given, same as in prior work \cite{chakraborty2011structure}. $T_{\epsilon}$ is such that for any policy $\pi$ and $T' \geq T_\epsilon$, $|U^\pi - U^\pi(T')| \leq \epsilon$ i.e. $T_\epsilon$ is long enough to see $\epsilon$-optimal average reward.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
We proposed the algorithm FS-EE~for performing feature selection while solving FMDPs. We showed it has a sample complexity dependence that scales as an exponential function of the in-degree of the necessary feature set, potentially an exponential improvement over the in-degree of the
full feature set. We illustrated that if feature selection is not needed, our approach is comparable to prior PAC RL algorithms for factored MDPs, but if feature selection is needed, our approach can lead to significantly improved performance on a toy domain.
Many interesting questions remain. In the near term, it would be nice to investigate if it is possible to stop incrementing the cardinality of the parent sets in the dynamics model of necessary features, $K$ after a certain point. This would halt any need for further exploration if larger parent sets are required. We have discussed this possibility and presented an example where it seems extremely difficult. Perhaps a more tangible question is whether additional mild assumptions can be made to make this possible.
Another second short term question is whether we can further relax the Superset assumption, though it seems likely to apply in most practical problems.
Over the longer term, one key issue is the importance of directed feature selection. Just as many domains do not require directed exploration (such as the recent results on Atari domains), it may frequently be possible to easily learn the dynamic Bayesian network parent structure of all features passively, without requiring explicit directed exploration. In such situations our approach of doing directed feature exploration will be an unnecessary overhead. Yet it seems likely that
in other settings directed feature selection could be very helpful, particularly in situations (such
as many in supervised learning) where only a tiny subset of the potential feature set is required.
Finally, the success of deep learning reinforcement learning has created approaches that
implicitly construct features of the environment. Yet an open question is whether the
data required to learn with such techniques scales with the input feature representation,
or the input network structure, or rather only as function of the underlying learned
features (and perhaps minimal network structure needed to represent such features).
This is an important and interesting question both empirically and theoretically.
\section{Experiments}
We conducted a small experiment to show the possibility of practical improvement through feature selection. Similar to prior work \cite{chakraborty2011structure}, we did not run the additional targeted exploration to eliminate features of our approach. However, we do a passive form of feature selection by continuing to evaluate whether we can eliminate features by running a background superset test on the data collected so far: note this does not involve any explicit data collection, but can eliminate features.
When we increment the in-degree and some of the transition and reward functions have not yet accumulated enough data for the new in-degree, we fall back on the previous in-degree's model.
To illustrate our ideas, we consider a small new toy domain, Toggle. Toggle has one binary necessary feature $f_1$ and potentially two binary unnecessary features $f_2,f_3$. There are two actions, $a_1,a_2$. The parent set of $f_1$ is $(f_1)$, and the parent sets of $f_2,f_3$ are both $(f_2,f_3)$; this means the in-degree of necessary features is $1$ and the in-degree of the whole domain is $2$. We use $m=100$. The two unnecessary features $f_2,f_3$ satisfy the Superset Assumption. Full domain details are provided in appendix B.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{toggle-immediate}
\caption{Feature selection (FS) can eliminate unnecessary features early for good performance, and when the in-degree is incremented at step 2000, suffers only a little drawback before becoming optimal.}
\label{fig:immediate}
\end{figure}
We roughly optimized the number of steps before the in-degree is incremented to 2000 for best performance on the domain without feature selection. We also ran FS-EE on the base domain which only has the necessary feature as a measure of the best possible performance.
Introducing unnecessary features slows down learning, but when it is possible to start eliminating features, it can cut short the time needed to learn the unnecessary features and more quickly converge to a good policy. Figure \ref{fig:immediate} is the graph of their immediate rewards, and shows this behavior where feature selection improves performance for the first 2000 steps over no feature selection. This is due to quickly eliminating the unnecessary features and quickly learning the optimal policy. Then at step 2000 when the in-degree is incremented to 2, it suffers a little before climbing back up and matching the performance of the others. This dip in performance is due to the eliminated features becoming necessary again and thus a little more data is needed to learn them. This behavior matches what we expect -- the benefit of feature selection is due to near-optimal performance as soon as the in-degree is correct for the necessary features. Later on when the in-degree is incremented to 3, feature selection continues to match the performance of the others, with no dip in performance.
Toggle illustrates the benefit of our approach in a simple setting. We also compared our approach to prior Factored PAC MDP RL algorithms LSE-RMAX\cite{chakraborty2011structure} and MET-RMAX\cite{diuk2009adaptive} on a standard FMDP domain, Stock Trading. This is mostly a sanity check, as all variables are required to represent the optimal values in this domain. Indeed, our approach is comparable to prior work: our algorithm FS-EE achieves a cumulative reward of approximately 5500 which is greater than MET-RMAX and near LSE-RMAX.
\section{Introduction}
In many machine learning and AI control problems, choosing which features to represent the state of the domain is critical. Since the best representation is typically unknown, it is appealing to start with raw sensory input (like the pixels in a video game snapshot) or all possible features that might be relevant. Recent work in deep reinforcement learning \cite{mnih2013playing} has shown that it is possible to obtain great performance in some domains by using such
representations. Unfortunately, the complexity of representing
the dynamics, value function, and policies
typically scales with the number of features,
resulting in a large increase in the number of samples
required to learn a good decision policy. While in some simulated domains this is not a critical limitation, in many high stakes domains
(such as customer marketing, healthcare, education, and robotics) sample
efficiency is very important. In many such RL settings,
good performance still relies on using a small set of carefully hand-designed features.
This process can be expensive, requiring domain experts to
select the features, and may easily miss relevant features resulting in sub-optimal performance.
Much preferable are reinforcement learning algorithms
whose sample complexity scales only with the number of relevant features needed to learn the optimal policy, and not on the total number of features defined.
In this paper we present theory that takes a step
towards this goal, showing it is possible
for an online RL algorithm, in the factored Markov Decision
Processes setting, to achieve near-optimal average performance on all
but a number of samples that scales with an important
part of the model
complexity of the necessary features, rather than the complexity of the whole feature set.
In particular, we considered RL for Factored MDPs (FMDPs). FMDPs use feature vectors to represent states, enabling a compact encoding of real world domains. The sample complexity (the number of steps on which the algorithm may make non-near-optimal decisions) of RL algorithms for tabular MDPs scales at least linearly with the size of the state space \cite{strehl2009reinforcement}, which is exponential in the number of features if applied to FMDPs. Fortunately in an FMDP, the dynamics of each feature can depend on a small parent set of other features, so the sample complexity scales exponentially only with the size of the largest parent set (known as the in-degree) \cite{kearns1999efficient}. However, there exist
many domains where some features' dynamics may be quite complex to model,
but not be relevant to the underlying reward or value function.
For example, when making tea,
modeling the sky beyond the window may involve weather predictions,
or knowledge of the date and time,
but successful task completion may only rely on
a sensor for water temperature. Video games often dedicate many pixels in order to show a pretty scene, but most of the time only the edges and outlines of objects actually matter to the gameplay. In such domains, the set of features necessary to learn the optimal value function may have a much smaller
in-degree compared to all descriptive domain features.
Our contribution is showing the existence of an RL algorithm whose sample complexity scales exponentially with only the in-degree (number of parents) of the necessary features. Our result is an exponential improvement over prior FMDL RL algorithms \cite{chakraborty2011structure} that do no feature selection, if the in-degree of the necessary features is smaller than the in-degree of the full feature set. Our algorithm does not assume knowledge of which nor how many features are necessary, nor any knowledge of parent sets. Even if the number of necessary features $M$ is given, a naive algorithm that attempts to figure out the set of necessary features by trying all $N$ (number of total features) choose $M$ subsets would yield a sample complexity of $O(N^M)$. $M$ can easily be larger than the in-degree of the necessary features, which would result in a substantially worse sample complexity.
Our key insight is to have the RL algorithm target specific goal states and leverage a failure to reach them to identify when the current guess for the in-degree is insufficient. Our approach assumes the domain has finite diameter, to ensure that we should be able to reach any state if we have good models, and also makes a mild assumption on the transition models that allows us to detect if the number of parents is insufficient without considering the full set of all features as parents. Our approach
builds on work for RL in factored MDPs that does
not require knowledge of the in-degree of an FMDP \cite{chakraborty2011structure} but goes significantly beyond this
to tackle the feature selection problem
during online learning.
We focus on the theoretical improvement in sample complexity to show how to leverage feature selection in principle. Going forward we hope to leverage these insights towards practical FMDP RL algorithms with feature selection and guarantees of performance.
\section{Difficulty of Feature Selection}
There is an inherent difficulty when trying to detect if you have the correct in-degree or not. Consider the following domain with $5$ binary features. Feature $f_i$ depends on all features $f_j$ where $j \leq i$ as well as on $f_5$. Feature $f_5$ acts as a toggle that toggles between easier transitions and harder transitions i.e. when $f_5=0$, the other features have a low probability of transitioning to a value of 1; when $f_5=1$, they have a much higher probability. Additionally, $f_i$ only has the probability of changing its value under a particular setting of its parent set values (e.g. $f_2$'s parent set is $(f_1,f_2,f_5)$ and only has a nonzero probability of changing to value 1 when $f_1=1$ and $f_2=0$). With this domain, the true in-degree is $5$, since $f_5$ depends on all the features.
Suppose at some point our learning algorithm guesses that the in-degree for all features is $J=3$, and tries to use parent sets of size $3$ for all features. The reason for trying in-degrees less than $5$ is that the number of samples required to learn a model scales exponentially with the in-degree. If we started with guessing $J=5$, then the sample complexity of our algorithm would depend on the in-degree for all features, rather than just the necessary ones. Since the in-degree for $f_5$ is $5$, any parent sets of size $3$ learned would be incorrect. Moreover, it would be very difficult to even transition to any states where $f_5=1$, because it only has the possibility of transitioning to a value of 1 when its parent set values are a particular setting. Thus for most of the time we will stay in states where $f_5=0$. However, $f_5$ is also a parent of feature $f_1$. If we only observe states where $f_5=0$, then it is impossible for an algorithm to detect whether $f_5$ is a parent of $f_1$. This is because we would not get any data from $f_5=1$ so we don't know whether the transition dynamics of $f_1$ would be affected by different values of $f_5$. Therefore, only when we guess the in-degree is $J=5$ would we finally be able to reliably learn the parent set for $f_5$ and also detect that $f_5$ is a parent of $f_1$.
Now suppose we make a slight tweak to the example where $f_5$ is no longer a parent of $f_1$. We would still have the result where we would almost always observe states where $f_5=0$ if we guess an in-degree of $J<5$. Then similarly we would not be able to detect whether $f_5$ is a parent of $f_1$. Hence, we can never be sure whether a feature is a parent of another feature until we have guessed a high enough in-degree. This means that if we start trying to eliminate features such as $f_5$ early on, it would have to be temporary; once we gather more data and guess a higher in-degree, we would need to reassess whether we can detect any new dependencies between features and reinstate eliminated features as being necessary.
Thus, our algorithm will start out guessing small in-degrees and slowly increment what it thinks the in-degree is. It will only temporarily eliminate features based on what it can detect for the current in-degree. Once it increments the in-degree, it will recheck which features should be eliminated. Therefore, the benefit of feature selection is precisely in being able to achieve optimal performance as soon as the guess for the in-degree is correct for the necessary features. Then it should maintain optimal performance as the in-degree is incremented further. This leads to being able to achieve optimal performance faster and with a data dependence only on the in-degree of the necessary features.
Some work has been done for feature selection in the related setting of Sparse Linear Stochastic Bandits \cite{abbasi2012online}, where they show a lower bound with strong partial dependence on the total number features. Our results avoid a strong dependence on the total number of features and the in-degree of all features by making a mild assumption called the Superset Assumption (below) that we believe is often applicable in practice.
\subsection{Intuition for a Superset Test}
As the example above shows, it can very difficult to detect when the in-degree is too small for a feature, and in particular, difficult to detect for unnecessary features. Thus we may not be able to eliminate all unnecessary features, which can wind up as potential parents for necessary features, resulting in incorrect parent sets for necessary features. However this example is quite extreme, and in practice, it may be very possible to quickly gather enough data to detect when the in-degree is too small.
Suppose we have an incorrect parent set of size $3$ for an unnecessary feature $f$. If we looked at the parent set of all features, then clearly this would include the true parent set and thus would give an accurate transition/reward estimate for $f$. Then we would be able to detect that our parent set of size $3$ is incorrect since it would give a different transition/reward estimate. In practice, we may not need to compare to the parent set of all features; it may be enough to compare to a parent set that contains a few more true parent features than our incorrect parent set, since those additional parent features can result in a significantly different transition/reward estimate. We call this comparison process the Superset Test. We make an associated assumption called the Superset Assumption which says that looking at all supersets of double the size is enough to find a superset with a significantly different transition/reward estimate. By restricting the supersets to be at most double the size of the parent set we want to check, we can bound the number of samples required to perform this check.
Due to the pigeonhole principle, the data requirement for testing all supersets of some size $2J$ is only exponential in $2J$, which enables us to get a good bound. Note that at every step, because we observe all features of a state, we get data for all supersets of size $2J$. Thus we can define each superset of size $2J$ as a bucket, and every step we get a new sample for all buckets. In each bucket, we have $d^{2J}$ more buckets, one for each possible setting of values. We can apply the Pigeonhole principle to each of these inner buckets, which means we will need $O(d^{2J}m)$ steps to guarantee that some setting of values gets $m$ samples for every superset of size $2J$.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The research reported here was supported in part by ONR Young Investigator award, an NSF CAREER award and by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grants R305A130215 and R305B150008 to Carnegie Mellon University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of NSF, IES or the U.S. Dept. of Education.
\section{Related Work}
Prior work on factored MDP RL with formal theoretical
bounds include
Met-RMax \cite{diuk2009adaptive} and LSE-RMax \cite{chakraborty2011structure},
which does not require prior knowledge of the in-degree; however,
such work does not perform feature selection. More
recent work has significantly reduced the
sample complexity of learning FMDPs \cite{hallak2015off},
but requires strong structural assumptions and only apply to the batch setting, which does not account for the trade-off between exploration and exploitation.
The closest prior work that does feature selection for FMDP performs it as a post-processing step after solving the FMDP and uses the learned features for transfer learning \cite{kroon2009automatic}. In contrast, our algorithm learns the necessary features while doing online reinforcement learning. We also provide a formal theoretical analysis which is the first, to our knowledge, for this setting; other prior work focus more on practical algorithms without formal guarantees such as using multinomial regression with LASSO \citep{nguyen2013online}.
There does exist work for feature selection for
value function estimation, but not for the FMDP setting; OMP-BRM/TD, and iFDD are algorithms that do feature selection in the setting where the value function is a linear combination of the features \cite{painter2012greedy,geramifard2011online}. While their performance is primarily dependent on the number of necessary features,
these approaches depend on the assumption of a linear value function.
Feature selection can also be viewed as a form of model selection, where each model is a particular selection of features. Prior work has theoretical bounds for model selection such as the OAMS algorithm \cite{ortner2014selecting}; however those bounds depend on the square root of the number of models. For FMDPs the number of models grows doubly exponential with the number of features.
More generally for MDPs without a feature vector representation, the concept of feature selection translates to state abstraction -- ignoring features is equivalent to clustering all the states that match on the necessary features. An example is the U-Tree algorithm \cite{mccallum1996reinforcement}. While many state abstraction algorithms perform well empirically, they lack formal guarantees.
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
\label{sec:theorysketch}
This section presents the main theorem as well as the supporting lemmas for the performance of FS-EE. In the first section (Section \ref{sub:ass}), we present the assumptions we make. In Section \ref{sub:main} we present the main theorem and proof, which relies on two large lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:small}, we present several small lemmas that are used in the large lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:adak} we review the theory behind the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm, which is used in the large lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:episode}, we build up to the first large lemma used in the main theorem. In Section \ref{sub:exploit} we present the other large lemma used in the main theorem.
Detailed proofs are in the appendix.
\subsection{Assumptions}
\label{sub:ass}
We first present the two main assumptions that we make.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:diameter}
(Diameter Assumption)
We assume the FMDP has diameter $D$. A diameter $D$ is defined as follows. Let $s,s'$ be any two states. Let $D_\pi(s,s')$ be the random variable for the number of steps it takes policy $\pi$ to start at $s$ and reach $s'$ the first time. Let $D(s,s') = \min_{\pi}\mathbb{E}(D_{\pi}(s,s'))$. A diameter $D$ means that $D \geq \max_{s,s'}D(s,s')$. It is an upper bound on the expected number of steps it takes to go between any two states.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:superset}
(Superset Assumption)
Let $W$ be the wrong parent set for feature $f_i$. Let $U$ be the true parent set. Suppose new data has the probability of visiting a state where $W$ gives an $O(\epsilon)$-incorrect estimate of the transition probability being at least $O(\epsilon)$. Then there exists a superset $W'$ of $W$ where $W' \subset (W \cup U)$ and $|W'| \leq 2K$ such that for all settings of values $W' - W$, the transition estimate using $W$ differs more than $O(\epsilon)$ from the transition estimate using $W'$ (that is estimated from new data).
\end{assumption}
\subsection{Main Theorem}
\label{sub:main}
In this section, we give the main theorem and its proof. Note that for FS-EE~we set $m_1 = m_2 = m$ and the precise value for $m$ is determined later (eqn \ref{eqn:m}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Given $\epsilon>0, 0.5 > \delta > 0$. Let $T_{\epsilon,D} =\max(D,T_\epsilon)$. Let $J$ be the in-degree of the necessary features. Recall $n$ is the total number of features. Then the following is true of FS-EE~with probability $1-\delta$
\begin{enumerate}
\item The total number of steps taken up to $K=J$ is $O\left(\frac{J^4 T_{\epsilon,D}^{18} n^{4J+c} |A|^4 d^{8J+c} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^6}\log\left(\frac{n|A|dR_{\max}KT_{\epsilon,D}}{\epsilon\delta}\right)\right)$ for some constant $c$
\item For all $K \geq J$ i.e. at least as large as the in-degree of the necessary features, the average reward is $\epsilon$-optimal i.e. $|U - U^*| \leq \epsilon$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} (Sketch)
This follows from putting together the two large lemmas Lemma \ref{lem:selection} and Lemma \ref{lem:rlwithselected} to count the number of steps taken for each $K$. Summing over $K$ up to $K=J$ and plugging in $m$ results in the stated bound. For $K \geq J$, $\epsilon$-optimality follows Lemma \ref{lem:rlwithselected}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Small Lemmas}
\label{sub:small}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:necessary}
(Necessary Feature Lemma)
For any policy $\pi$
\begin{align}
Q^{\pi}(s, a, T) = Q^{\pi}(z, a, T)
\end{align}
where $z$ is the state $s$ restricted to only the necessary features from $F$ i.e. $Q$-functions only depend on the necessary features. Furthermore, the transition dynamics of the unnecessary features have no effect on $Q$-functions.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
This follows by induction on value iteration, and the observation that reward functions and necessary features only depend on necessary features for their dynamics.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:simulation}
(Simulation Lemma) \cite{kearns1999efficient}
Let $M$ be an FMDP over $n$ state variables with $l$ CPT entries in the transition model. Let $M'$ be an approximation to $M$ where all the CPTs differ by at most $\alpha = O((\epsilon/T^2 l R_{\max})^2)$. Then for any policy $\pi$, $|U^\pi_M(T) - U^\pi_{M'}(T)| \leq \epsilon$. Subbing in $l$ and noting that $\alpha$ error in rewards is already covered results in $\alpha = O((\epsilon/(T^2 nd^{K}|A| R_{\max}))^2)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ee}
(Explore or Exploit Lemma)
Fix a policy $\pi$. Let $M$ and $M_K$ be MDPs such that $M$ and $M_K$ agree on some states, but differ in dynamics and rewards for other states. Then $|U^{\pi}_{M_K}(T) - U^{\pi}_{M}(T)| \leq T R_{\max}P(escape)$ where $P(escape)$ is the probability of visiting a state in which the two models differ.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
The key observation is that trajectories that do not escape are identical for both $M$ and $M_K$, thus the probability of escape is the same.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Suppose $\pi_1$ is the optimal policy for $M_k$ and $\pi_2$ is the optimal policy for $M$. Suppose $U^*_{M_K}(T) \geq U^*_{M}(T)$ i.e. $M_K$ is optimistic. Then $U^{\pi_1}_{M_K} \geq U^{\pi_2}_{M} - T R_{\max}P(escape)$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm}
\label{sub:adak}
This is from the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm \cite{diuk2009adaptive}. Similar to Met-RMax \cite{diuk2009adaptive}, each sub-algorithm of our algorithm is a candidate parent set of features of size $K$. Thus there are $k = \binom{n}{K}$ sub-algorithms. By Hoeffdings, we need $O(\frac{d}{\epsilon_1^2}\log(d/\delta_1))$ samples to learn the discrete distribution of a parent set to an $L_1$ accuracy of $\epsilon_1$ (we apply Hoeffdings $d$ times, learning the probability of each outcome with Hoeffdings). There are $d^K$ possible sets of values for a parent set of size $K$ so the sample complexity of each sub-algorithm is $O\left(d^K \frac{d}{\epsilon_1^2}\log(d/\delta_1)\right)$. Then the sample complexity of the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm can be simplified to $O\left(\frac{n^K d^{K+1} K }{\epsilon_1^2} \log \frac{n}{\delta}\right)$
\subsection{LearnAndSelect}
\label{sub:episode}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:episode}
(Exploration Episode Lemma)
The following holds w.p. $1-\delta_1$. At the end of each iteration of the while loop (line \ref{lin:while} -- line \ref{lin:endwhile}) in the LearnAndSelect algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}), one of two things will happen: either the target $g$ or another feature-value vector that has not been visited $m$ times will be visited, or some feature will be eliminated as a possible parent for some other feature.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
The key is Lemma \ref{lem:ee} and the diameter assumption. The diameter assumption tells us that it is possible to reach the goal in expected $D$ steps. By the Markov Inequality, the probability of reaching the goal within $2D$ steps is at least $\frac{1}{2}$ with some policy. Thus if we have a good policy, then we simply need to keep running it many times and we can reach the goal with high probability.
In the other case of Lemma \ref{lem:ee} where the probability of escape is significant, we can accumulate new data for another feature-value vector, or new data to run the Superset Test. This data is also used towards Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists to help with eliminating incorrect parent sets. For the Superset test, we apply the Superset assumption (Assumption \ref{ass:superset}). Then we know that whenever we run the superset test, we will eliminate at least one parent set. To get enough data, we need
\begin{align}
H = O\left(\frac{d^{6K+1}n^{4} K^2 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}}\log\left(\frac{nm}{\delta_1}\right)\right) \label{eqn:supersetdata}
\end{align}
The value of $m$ comes from the sample complexity result of learning a single parent set from Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist, and from Lemma \ref{lem:simulation}:
\begin{align}
m=O\left(\frac{K^2 n^4|A|^4d^{4K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^4 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-16}}\log(nd/\delta_1)\right) \label{eqn:m}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:selection}
(LearnAndSelect Lemma)
The following holds w.p. $1-\delta_1$. After LearnAndSelect (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) is finished, all targets $g$ will either have been visited $m$ times, or one of its features will have been eliminated. If $K \geq J$, all necessary features will remain. This will take $O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18} }\log(nm/\delta_1)\right)$ steps.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}(Sketch)
The first part follows from Lemma \ref{lem:episode}. To count steps, note every time the while loop is run, either some new feature-value vector is visited, or we perform a Superset Test. For superset tests, there are $O((dn)^{K})$ tests (each test eliminates at least one parent set), so there are $O(H(dn)^{K})$ steps. For visiting feature-value vectors, all $O((dn)^{3K})$ (an upper bound on the number of possible feature-value vectors of size $2K$) targets need to be visited $m$ times so $O((dn)^{3K}m)$ visits are needed. Thus, the total count combines the count of those two cases.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Instantiating PAC-FactoredMDP-RL}
\label{sub:exploit}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rlwithselected}
(PAC-FactoredMDP-RL Lemma)
Suppose $K \geq J$. Then we instantiate PAC-FactoredMDP-RL with a specific algorithm that is a simple variant of Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist (see appendix). Then it will execute for $O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}} \log(nm/\delta_1)\right)$ steps. The average reward over LearnAndSelect (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) and PAC-FactoredMDP-RL combined is $\epsilon$-optimal, with probability $1-\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (Sketch)
We know that PAC-FactoredMDP-RL will achieve near-optimal performance, so all we need is to run it long enough to offset the sub-optimal LearnAndSelect i.e. so that the total reward averaged over the running time of both is $\epsilon$-close.
\end{proof}
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
This section presents the main theorem as well as the supporting lemmas for the performance of FS-EE. In the first section (Section \ref{sub:ass}), we present the assumptions we make. In Section \ref{sub:main} we present the main theorem and proof, which relies on two large lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:small}, we present several small lemmas that are used in the large lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:adak} we review the theory behind the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm, which is used in the large Lemmas. In Section \ref{sub:episode}, we build up to the first large lemma used in the main theorem. In Section \ref{sub:exploit} we present the other large lemma used in the main theorem.
\subsection{Assumptions}
\label{sub:ass}
We first present the two main assumptions that we make.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:diameter}
(Diameter Assumption)
We assume the FMDP has diameter $D$. A diameter $D$ is defined as follows. Let $s,s'$ be any two states. Let $D_\pi(s,s')$ be the random variable for the number of steps it takes policy $\pi$ to start at $s$ and reach $s'$ the first time. Let $D(s,s') = \min_{\pi}\mathbb{E}(D_{\pi}(s,s'))$. A diameter $D$ means that $D \geq \max_{s,s'}D(s,s')$. It is an upper bound on the expected number of steps it takes to go between any two states.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{ass:superset}
(Superset Assumption)
Let $W$ be the wrong parent set for feature $x_i$. Let $U$ be the true parent set. Suppose new data has the probability of visiting a state where $W$ gives an $O(\epsilon)$-incorrect estimate of the transition probability being at least $O(\epsilon)$. Then there exists a superset $W'$ of $W$ where $W' \subset (W \cup U)$ and $|W'| \leq 2K$ such that for all settings of values $W' - W$, the transition estimate using $W$ differs more than $O(\epsilon)$ from the transition estimate using $W'$ (that is estimated from new data).
\end{assumption}
\subsection{Main Theorem}
\label{sub:main}
In this section, we give the main theorem and its proof. Note that for FS-EE~we set $m_1 = m_2 = m$ and the precise value for $m$ is determined later (eqn \ref{eqn:m}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Given $\epsilon>0, 0.5 > \delta > 0$. Let $T_{\epsilon,D} =\max(D,T_\epsilon)$. Let $J$ be the in-degree of the necessary features. Recall $n$ is the total number of features. Then the following is true of FS-EE~with probability $1-\delta$
\begin{enumerate}
\item The total number of steps taken up to $K=J$ is $O\left(\frac{J^4 T_{\epsilon,D}^{18} n^{4J+c} |A|^4 d^{8J+c} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^6}\log\left(\frac{n|A|dR_{\max}KT_{\epsilon,D}}{\epsilon\delta}\right)\right)$ for some constant $c$
\item For all $K \geq J$ i.e. at least as large as the in-degree of the necessary features, the average reward is $\epsilon$-optimal i.e. $|U - U^*| \leq \epsilon$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that our algorithm increments $K$ up to $n$. Thus using a union bound to bound the error for each $K$, we would need an error tolerance of $\delta/n$ for each $K$.
Putting together the LearnAndSelect lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:selection}), and the PAC-FactoredMDP-RL lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:rlwithselected}), the number of steps of PAC-FactoredMDP-RL dominates, resulting in $O\left(\frac{K^3 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{18} n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^6}\log(nm/\delta)\right)$ steps.
Then just summing over $K$ up to $K=J$ results in $O\left(\frac{J^4 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{18} n^{4J+c} |A|^4 d^{8J+c} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^6}\log(nm/\delta)\right)$, where $c$ is some constant.
Now suppose $K \geq J$. Being $\epsilon$-optimal follows from the PAC-FactoredMDP-RL Lemma.
Finally plugging in $m$ (equation \ref{eqn:m}) gets the final bound.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Small Lemmas}
\label{sub:small}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:necessary}
(Necessary Feature Lemma)
For any policy $\pi$
\begin{align}
Q^{\pi}(s, a, T) = Q^{\pi}(z, a, T)
\end{align}
where $z$ is the state $s$ restricted to only the necessary features from $F$ i.e. $Q$-functions only depend on the necessary features. Furthermore, the transition dynamics of the unnecessary features have no effect on $Q$-functions.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi$ be given. Let $s = (z, y)$ be the state decomposed into necessary features $z$ and unnecessary features $y$. Initialize $Q(\cdot, \cdot, 0)$ to $0$. We will perform induction. The base case for $Q(\cdot, \cdot, 0)$ is trivially true since it is a constant.
By induction
\begin{align}
& Q(s,a,T+1) \\
&= R(s,a) + \sum_{s'}P(s'|s,a) \max_{a'}Q(s',a',T) \\
&= \sum_i R_{i,a}(s) \\
&+ \sum_{s'}\prod_i P_{i,a}(s' | Par_{i,a}(s)) \max_{a'}Q(s',a',T) \\
&= \sum_i R_{i,a}(z) \\
&+ \sum_{s'}\prod_i P_{i,a}(s' | Par_{i,a}(s)) \max_{a'}Q(z',a',T) \\
&= \sum_i R_{i,a}(z) \\
&+ (\sum_{z'}\prod_{i \in z'} P_{i,a}(s' | Par_{i,a}(s)) \max_{a'}Q(z',a',T) \\
&\cdot \sum_{y'}\prod_{i \in y'} P_{i,a}(s' | Par_{i,a}(s))) \\
&= \sum_i R_{i,a}(z) \\
&+ \sum_{z'}\prod_{i \in z'} P_{i,a}(s' | Par_{i,a}(s)) \max_{a'}Q(z',a',T) \\
&= Q(z', a', T)
\end{align}
Note that the dynamics of the unnecessary features make no difference.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:simulation}
(Simulation Lemma) \cite{kearns1999efficient}
Let $M$ be an FMDP over $n$ state variables with $l$ CPT entries in the transition model. Let $M'$ be an approximation to $M$ where all the CPTs differ by at most $\alpha = O((\epsilon/T^2 l R_{\max})^2)$. Then for any policy $\pi$, $|U^\pi_M(T) - U^\pi_{M'}(T)| \leq \epsilon$.
With our notation, $l = O(n|A|d^K)$, since there is one parent set for every feature and action, and $d^K$ possible settings for each parent set of size $K$. Furthermore, we also have additional error in the reward function. An error of $\alpha$ for the reward translates to an error of $\alpha T$ for $U^\pi_{M'}$. Since $\alpha T \leq \epsilon$, it is enough for $\alpha = O((\epsilon/T^2 nd^{K}|A| R_{\max})^2)$ to also cover error in rewards.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ee}
(Explore or Exploit Lemma)
Fix a policy $\pi$. Let $M$ and $M_K$ be MDPs such that $M$ and $M_K$ agree on some states, but differ in dynamics and rewards for other states. Then $|U^{\pi}_{M_K}(T) - U^{\pi}_{M}(T)| \leq T R_{\max}P(escape)$ where $P(escape)$ is the probability of visiting a state in which the two models differ.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tau_1$ denote trajectories that stay within states where the two models agree and $\tau_2$ denote trajectories where there are escapes to other states. Then
\begin{align}
& |U^{\pi}_{M_K}(T) - U^{\pi}_{M}(T)| \\
&= \frac{1}{T}|\sum_{\tau,|\tau| = T}P_{M}(\tau)R(\tau) - \sum_{\tau,|\tau| = T}P_{M_K}(\tau)R(\tau)| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{T}|\sum_{\tau_1}P_{M}(\tau_1)R(\tau_1) - \sum_{\tau_1}P_{M_K}(\tau_1)R(\tau_1)| \\
&+ \frac{1}{T}|\sum_{\tau_2}P_{M}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2) - \sum_{\tau_2}P_{M_K}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2)| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{T}|\sum_{\tau_2}P_{M}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2) - \sum_{\tau_2}P_{M_K}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2)| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{T}\sum_{\tau_2}|P_{M}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2) - P_{M_K}(\tau_2)R(\tau_2)| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{T} T R_{\max}\sum_{\tau_2}|P_{M}(\tau_2) - P_{M_K}(\tau_2)| \\
&= R_{\max}P(escape)
\end{align}
Because non-escapes result in exactly the same trajectories with the same dynamics, so the probability of escaping to the other states is the same in both $M$ and $M_K$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Suppose $\pi_1$ is the optimal policy for $M_k$ and $\pi_2$ is the optimal policy for $M$. Suppose $U^*_{M_K}(T) \geq U^*_{M}(T)$ i.e. $M_K$ is optimistic. Then $U^{\pi_1}_{M_K} \geq U^{\pi_2}_{M} - T R_{\max}P(escape)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\begin{align}
U^{\pi_1}_{M} &\geq U^{\pi_1}_{M_K} - R_{\max}P(escape) \\
&\geq U^{\pi_2}_{M} - R_{\max}P(escape)
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm}
\label{sub:adak}
This is from the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm \cite{diuk2009adaptive}. Suppose there are $k$ sub-algorithms (i.e. potential parent sets). Then the sample complexity of the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm is
$ O(\frac{k}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{k}{\delta}) + \sum_{i=1}^k \zeta_i\left(\frac{\epsilon}{8}, \frac{\delta}{k+1} \right)$,
where $\zeta_i$ is the sample complexity of a sub-algorithm.
Similar to Met-RMax \cite{diuk2009adaptive}, each sub-algorithm of our algorithm is a candidate parent set of features of size $K$. Thus there are $k = {n \choose K}$ sub-algorithms. Each sub-algorithm uses the samples as counts for an MLE estimate of the transition/reward multinomial distribution.
Then by Hoeffdings, we need $O(\frac{d}{\epsilon_1^2}\log(d/\delta_1))$ samples to learn each set of values of a parent set to an $L_1$ accuracy of $\epsilon_1$ (we apply Hoeffdings $d$ times, learning the probability of each outcome with Hoeffdings). Then there are $d^K$ possible sets of values for a parent set of size $K$. Then the sample complexity of each sub-algorithm is
\begin{align}
O\left(d^K \frac{d}{\epsilon_1^2}\log(d/\delta_1)\right) \label{eqn:subalg}
\end{align}
Then the sample complexity of the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm is
$ O({n \choose K}/\epsilon_1^2 \log ({n \choose K}/\delta)) + {n \choose K} O\left(\frac{d^{K+1}}{\epsilon_1^2}\log({n \choose K}/\delta)\right)$, which can be simplified to
\begin{align}
O\left(\frac{n^K d^{K+1} K }{\epsilon_1^2} \log \frac{n}{\delta}\right) \label{eqn:akm}.
\end{align}
\subsection{LearnAndSelect}
\label{sub:episode}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:episode}
(Exploration Episode Lemma)
The following holds w.p. $1-\delta_1$. At the end of each iteration of the while loop (line \ref{lin:while} -- line \ref{lin:endwhile}) in the LearnAndSelect algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}), one of two things will happen: either the target $g$ or another feature-value vector that has not been visited $m$ times will be visited, or some feature will be eliminated as a possible parent for some other feature.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The idea behind the while loop is the Explore or Exploit lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:ee}) and the diameter assumption. The diameter assumption allows the algorithm to reach $g$ with high probability. The Explore or Exploit lemma allows the algorithm to either reach $g$ or end up gathering new data, therefore making progress towards the sub-algorithms and the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist algorithm.
First, we compute how long $H$ needs to be in order for a good policy to reach $g$ with high probability. By the diameter assumption, there exists a policy expected to reach $g$ within $D$ steps, thereby obtaining a reward of $1$ from the artificially defined reward function $R$. By the Markov Inequality, the probability of reaching the goal within $2D$ steps is at least $\frac{1}{2}$. Thus the optimal average value within $2D$ steps is at least $\frac{1}{4D}$. If we used an $\epsilon$-optimal policy, it would have an expected value of at least $\frac{1}{4D} - \epsilon$. Let $\tau$ be trajectories of length $2D$. Then $\frac{1}{4D} - \epsilon = \frac{1}{2D}\sum_{\tau}Pr(escape)Pr(\tau | escape)TotalReward(\tau)$. The probability that the $\epsilon_1$-optimal policy reached the goal (escapes) can be lower bounded by the worst case scenario: every escape trajectory has every step giving a reward. That means the probability of reaching the goal (escape) is at least $\frac{1}{4D} - \epsilon$. Then probability of failing to reach the goal is at most $1 - \frac{1+ 2D\epsilon}{4D}$. Then by repeating this 2D-step trial $N$ times, the error probability is upper bounded by $\left(1 - \frac{1+ 2D\epsilon}{4D} \right)^N$. Then that means if we want to have a failure probability of $\delta_1$, we would need to repeat this $2D$-step sub-episode $\frac{\log(\delta_1)}{\log(1 - \frac{1+ 2D\epsilon}{4D})}$ times. We can simplify the denominator $\log(1 - \frac{1+ 2D\epsilon}{4D})$ by the upper bound $\log(1 - \frac{1}{4D})$. Note that the $\log$ function is concave, so we can upper bound it with its first order approximation around $\log(1)$ i.e. by $O(-\frac{1}{D})$. Simplifying the whole fraction becomes $O(D\log(1/\delta_1))$. We also want this to hold over every trial in which we can reach the target, meaning we want it to hold $m$ times. Thus we use the union bound and end up with
\begin{align}
O(D^2\log(m/\delta_1)) \label{eqn:trialsteps}
\end{align}
as the number of steps we need before reaching the goal with high probability. Thus this is a lower bound for $H$ and we also know in this case the while loop will terminate early after these many steps.
Now we consider the case when the probability of escaping is at least $\epsilon$. Then we need a much larger $H$ because we need the data from getting stuck to run the Superset test (line \ref{lin:ss}). This data is also used towards Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists to help with eliminating incorrect parent sets.
For the Superset test, we apply the Superset assumption (Assumption \ref{ass:superset}). We know that we got stuck so the data that we have is where the escape probability is high, thus meeting the superset assumption requirements of visiting distinguishing states (states where our model is incorrect). Because of the superset assumption (Assumption \ref{ass:superset}), we know that whenever we run the superset test, we will eliminate at least one parent set. Since there are a finite number of parent sets and a finite number of features, we cannot keep running the superset test forever. Eventually we will either eliminate enough features to make $g$ unreachable, or we will eliminate all incorrect parent sets, leaving a correct model that we can use to reach the target $g$.
The value of $m$ comes from the sample complexity result of learning a single parent set from Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist, which is $O(\frac{d}{\epsilon_1^2}\log(1/\delta_1))$, and subbing in the Simulation lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:simulation}) with $\epsilon_1 = \alpha$. However we want this to hold over all parents and all values, so we also need to perform a union bound over ${n \choose K}d^K$, resulting in
\begin{align}
m=O\left(\frac{K^2 n^4|A|^4d^{4K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^4 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-16}}\log(nd/\delta_1)\right) \label{eqn:m}
\end{align}
Note that the $\max(D,T_\epsilon)$ term is from using it in the simulation lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:simulation}), in order to have an $\epsilon$-optimal policy over that length.
Now we count how much data we need from getting stuck to perform the Superset Test. We need to gather new data for the prediction of supersets of size $2K$. From the discussion on the pigeonhole principle in the superset assumption, all we need is $d^{2K} m$ samples in order to accumulate enough data. However since we only have an escape probability of $\epsilon$, we need to add repeats to escape with high probability, just like we did earlier. This means we need an additional factor of $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log(1/\delta_1))$. So we need
\begin{align}
H = O\left(\frac{d^{6K+1}n^{4} K^2 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}}\log\left(\frac{nm}{\delta_1}\right)\right) \label{eqn:supersetdata}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:selection}
(LearnAndSelect Lemma)
The following holds w.p. $1-\delta_1$. After LearnAndSelect (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) is finished, all targets $g$ will either have been visited $m$ times, or one of its features will have been eliminated. If $K \geq J$, all necessary features will remain. This will take $O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18} }\log(nm/\delta_1)\right)$ steps.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Now we will count how many steps LearnAndSelect (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) will take. Every while loop (line \ref{lin:while} -- line \ref{lin:endwhile}) contributes to one of two cases: visiting a feature-value vector that has not yet been visited $m$ times, or the Superset Test.
Since there are at most $O((dn)^{K})$ superset tests (each test eliminates at least one parent set), and we know how much data each superset test requires (equation \ref{eqn:supersetdata}), we combine those to get a total of
\begin{align}
H = O\left(\frac{d^{7K+1}n^{K+4} K^2 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}}\log\left(\frac{nm}{\delta_1}\right)\right)
\end{align}
steps towards superset tests.
Our targets are subsets of features and values of size $2K$, thus there are $O((dn)^{3K})$ targets. Each target needs to be visited $m$ times, thus $O((dn)^{3K}m)$ total steps are needed. Then the number of steps this all takes is
\begin{align}
O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^4 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}}\log(nm/\delta_1)\right)
\end{align}
The contributions to Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist are incidental, and are already counted as part of the superset tests. Thus, combining the number of steps that contribute to reaching targets and the number of steps for superset tests, we get
\begin{align}
O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}}\log(nm/\delta_1)\right) \label{eqn:exploration}
\end{align}
steps before LearnAndSelect finishes.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Instantiating PAC-FactoredMDP-RL}
\label{sub:exploit}
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{Input:} $K, F, m$
\STATE Run and update $\pi$ along with the Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist Algorithm for $O\left(\frac{(dn)^{3K+1} K D^{18} n^4 T_{\epsilon}^9 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5} \log \frac{nm}{\delta}\right)$ steps
\begin{itemize}
\item $\pi$ = optimistic policy
\end{itemize}
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{PAC-FactoredMDP-RL}
\label{alg:rl_given_subset}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rlwithselected}
(PAC-FactoredMDP-RL Lemma)
Suppose $K \geq J$. Then we instantiate PAC-FactoredMDP-RL with a specific algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:rl_given_subset}). Then it will execute for $O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}} \log(nm/\delta_1)\right)$ steps. The average reward over LearnAndSelect (Algorithm \ref{alg:episode}) and PAC-FactoredMDP-RL combined is $\epsilon$-optimal, with probability $1-\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $K$ is at least as large as the in-degree of the necessary features. By the LearnAndSelect lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:selection}), the necessary features still remain and have not been eliminated. Also, we will have at least $m$ samples from the true parents of all necessary features (and rewards), and thus the true parents of all the necessary features still remain as candidates models that have not yet been eliminated by Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists.
Then we keep executing an optimistic, optimal policy. Since after LearnAndSelect we have accrued data from all remaining parent sets as well as all pairs of parent sets, no sub-algorithm will make a null prediction. Furthermore, Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist relies on gathering data from pairs of conflicting parent sets when those parent sets give different predictions. Since we have also targeted those pairs of parent sets, we know those pairs are all reachable with our remaining candidate models. LearnAndSelect has already eliminated all the features that were unreachable, so we know we will be able to get the correct distinguishing data we need. Thus during RL with Selected Features we will plan by picking the most optimistic model possible out of all remaining candidate parent sets.
As long as we keep visiting states where Adaptive $k$-Meteorologists has reached consensus and do not escape (to states without consensus), then the average reward will be $\epsilon$-close to the predicted average reward. Using the Necessary Feature lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:necessary}), the transition dynamics of the unnecessary features do not matter, and since our model is optimistic, the average reward over those steps will be $\epsilon$-close to the optimal policy.
From the Explore or Exploit lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:ee}) if we are not $\epsilon$-optimal, then it means we have at least an $\epsilon$ probability of escaping. Using the same reasoning about repeating trials for high probability in Lemma \ref{lem:episode}, we need $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log(1/\delta))$ repeats to escape with high probability. If we reach states where consensus fails, then we accrue a new sample towards eliminating an incorrect parent set. From Adaptive $k$-Meteorologist (equation \ref{eqn:akm}), the total sample complexity is $O\left(\frac{n^K d^{K+1} K }{\epsilon_1^2} \log \frac{n}{\delta}\right)$. We use the Simulation lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:simulation}) to relate model error with policy error, resulting in $O\left(\frac{n^K d^{5K+1} K n^4 T_{\epsilon}^9 |A|^4 R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^5} \log \frac{n}{\delta}\right)$; furthermore, an additional factor of $T^{\epsilon}/\epsilon$ was also added because we need a stretch of $T_{\epsilon}$ consecutive steps with consensus in order to attain near-optimal average reward (i.e. a failed consensus can affect a stretch of $T_{\epsilon}$ steps), and to escape with high probability.
In order to offset the sample complexity count just computed, we need $O(1/\epsilon)$ times as many $\epsilon$-optimal steps to average $O(\epsilon)$ error. We also want to offset the steps from LearnAndSelect. Note that the number of steps from LearnAndSelect dominates (equation \ref{eqn:exploration}). Thus the total number of steps required is
\begin{align}
O\left(\frac{K^2 n^{3K+4}|A|^4d^{7K+1} R_{\max}^4}{\epsilon^6 \max(D,T_\epsilon)^{-18}} \log(nm/\delta_1)\right) \label{eqn:exploitation}
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\section{Toggle Domain}
Toggle has one binary necessary feature $f_1$ and potentially two binary unnecessary features $f_2,f_3$. There are two actions, $a_1,a_2$. The parent set of $f_1$ is $(f_1)$, and the parent sets of $f_2,f_3$ are both $(f_2,f_3)$; this means the in-degree of necessary features is $1$ and the in-degree of the whole domain is $2$.
For states where $f_1 = 0$, action $a_1$ is optimal and gives a stochastic reward of 1 with probability $0.05$ whereas action $a_2$ gives a deterministic reward of $0.025$ and is meant to make learning difficult. Action $a_1$ also deterministically transitions to $f_1=1$ and action $a_2$ deterministically stays the same. When $f_1=1$, the dynamics of the actions are switched, so the optimal policy is to keep alternating the corresponding optimal action. For the unnecessary features, no actions give any reward. When $(f_2,f_3)=(0,0)$, action $a_1$ has an independent probability of $0.1$ of setting either feature value to 1, and otherwise $a_1$ sets them both back to 0. When $(f_2,f_3)=(1,1)$, action $a_2$ deterministically keeps both values at 1, and otherwise sets them back to 0. These dynamics make it clear that the in-degree of the unnecessary features is 2.
We constructed Toggle we need $m=100$ to learn accurate dynamics. Furthermore, the two unnecessary features $f_2,f_3$ satisfy the Superset Assumption.
|
\section{Introduction}
\bigskip In this paper, our main purpose is to study the long-time dynamics
(in terms of attractors) of the plate equation\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\begin{equation}
u_{tt}+\gamma \Delta ^{2}u-{div}\left( \beta \left( x\right) \nabla
u_{t}\right) +\alpha (x)u_{t}+\lambda u-f(\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta u+g\left( u\right) =h\left( x\right) \text{, \
(t,x)\in
\mathbb{R}
^{+}\times
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{,} \tag{1.1}
\end{equation
with initial dat
\begin{equation}
u(0,x)=u_{0}(x)\text{, \ }u_{t}(0,x)=u_{1}(x)\text{, \ \ }x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
\tag{1.2}
\end{equation
where $\gamma >0$, $\lambda >0$, $h\in L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ and the functions $\alpha \left( \cdot \right) ,$ $\beta
\left( \cdot \right) ,$ $f\left( \cdot \right) $ and $g\left( \cdot \right) $
satisfy the following conditions
\begin{equation}
\alpha ,\text{ }\beta \in L^{\infty }
\mathbb{R}
^{n})\text{, }\alpha (\cdot )\geq 0,\text{ }\beta \left( \cdot \right) \geq
\text{\ \ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{,} \tag{1.3}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\alpha (\cdot )\geq \alpha _{0}>0\text{ and }\beta (\cdot )\geq \beta _{0}>
\text{ a.e. in }\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert x\right\vert \geq r_{0}\right\} \text{, for some }r_{0}>
\text{,} \tag{1.4}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\alpha (\cdot )+\beta \left( \cdot \right) >0\text{ \ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{,} \tag{1.5}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
f\in C^{1}
\mathbb{R}
^{+}),\text{ }f\left( z\right) \geq 0\text{, for all }z\in
\mathbb{R}
^{+}, \tag{1.6}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
g\in C^{1}
\mathbb{R}
)\text{, }\left\vert g^{\prime }(s)\right\vert \leq C\left( 1+\left\vert
s\right\vert ^{p-1}\right) \text{, }p\geq 1\text{, }(n-4)p\leq n\text{,}
\tag{1.7}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\text{ }g(s)s\geq 0\text{, for every }s\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.} \tag{1.8}
\end{equation}
The problem (1.1)-(1.2) can be reduced to the following Cauchy problem for
the first order abstract differential equation in the space $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{d}{dt}\theta (t)=A\theta (t)+\mathcal{F(}\theta (t)), \\
\theta (0)=\theta _{0}
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation*
\ where $\theta (t)=(u(t),u_{t}(t))$,\ $\theta _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})$, $A(u,$
v)=(v,$ $-\gamma \Delta ^{{\small 2}}u+{div}\left( \beta \left( \cdot
\right) \nabla v\right) -\alpha (\cdot )v-\lambda u)$, $D(A)=\left\{
(u,v)\in H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times \ H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) :\text{ }\gamma \Delta ^{{\small 2}}u-{div}\left( \beta \left(
\cdot \right) \nabla v\right) \in L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right\} $ and $\mathcal{F}(u,v)=(0,$ $f(\left\Vert \nabla
u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta u$\newline
$-g\left( u\right) +h)$. Defining suitable equivalent norm in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, it is easy to see that the operator $A$, thanks to (1.3), is
maximal dissipative in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ and consequently, due to Lumer-Phillips Theorem (see \cite
Theorem 4.3]{1}), it generates a linear continuous semigroup $\left\{
e^{tA}\right\} _{t\geq 0}$. Also, by (1.6)-(1.7), we find that the nonlinear
operator $\mathcal{F}:H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \rightarrow H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ is Lipschitz continuous on bounded subsets of $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times $\ $L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. So, applying semigroup theory (see, for example \cite[p. 56-5
]{2}), and taking advantage of energy estimates, we have the following
well-posedness result.
\begin{theorem}
Assume that the conditions (1.3), (1.6), (1.7) and (1.8) hold. Then, for
every $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, the problem (1.1)-(1.2) has a unique weak solution $u\in
C\left( [0,\infty );H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $\newline
$\cap $ $C^{1}\left( [0,\infty );L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $, which depends continuously on the initial data and
satisfies the energy equality
\begin{equation*}
E\left( u\left( t\right) \right) +\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}G\left( u\left( t,x\right) \right) dx+\frac{1}{2}F\left( \left\Vert
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) -\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}h\left( x\right) u\left( t,x\right) dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\int\limits_{s}^{t}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\alpha \left( x\right) \left\vert u_{t}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right\vert ^{2}dxd\tau +\int\limits_{s}^{t}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\beta \left( x\right) \left\vert \nabla u_{t}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right\vert ^{2}dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\text{ }=E\left( u\left( s\right) \right) +\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}G\left( u\left( s,x\right) \right) dx+\frac{1}{2}F\left( \left\Vert
\nabla u\left( s\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) -\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}h\left( x\right) u\left( s,x\right) dx\text{, \ }\forall t\geq s\geq
\text{,} \tag{1.9}
\end{equation
where $F\left( z\right) =\int\limits_{0}^{z}f\left( \sqrt{s}\right) ds$ for
all $z\in
\mathbb{R}
^{+},$ $G\left( z\right) =\int\limits_{0}^{z}g\left( s\right) ds$ for all
z\in
\mathbb{R}
$ and $E\left( u\left( t\right) \right) =\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}(\left\vert u_{t}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\gamma \left\vert
{\small \Delta u}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\lambda \left\vert
{\small u}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2})dx$. Moreover, if $\left(
u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in D(A)$, then $u(t,x)$ is a strong solution satisfying
(u,u_{t})\in C\left( [0,\infty );D(A)\right) \cap $ $C^{1}[0,\infty
);H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $.
\end{theorem}
Thus, due to Theorem 1.1, the problem (1.1)-(1.2) generates a strongly
continuous semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ in
H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ by the formula $\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right) =S\left( t\right) (u_{0},u_{1})$, where $u\left( t,x\right) $ is a
weak solution of (1.1)-(1.2) with the initial data $\left(
u_{0},u_{1}\right) $.
Attractors for hyperbolic and hyperbolic like equations in unbounded domains
have been extensively studied by many authors over the last few decades. To
the best of our knowledge, the first works in this area were done by
Feireisl in \cite{3} and \cite{4}, for the wave equations with the weak
damping (the case $\gamma =0$, $\beta \equiv 0$ and $f\equiv 1$ in (1.1)) .
In those articles the author, by using the finite speed propagation property
of the wave equations, established the existence of the global attractors in
$H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. The global attractors for the wave equations involving strong
damping in the form $-\Delta u_{t}$, besides weak damping, were investigated
in \cite{5} and \cite{6}, where the authors, by using splitting method,
proved the existence of the global attractors in $H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, under different conditions on the nonlinearities. Recently,
in \cite{7}, the results of \cite{5} and \cite{6} have been improved for the
wave equation involving additional nonlocal nonlinear term in the form
-(a+b\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2})\Delta u$ ($a\geq 0,$ $b>0)$. For the plate equation with
only weak damping and local nonlinearity (the case $\gamma =1$, $\beta
\equiv 0$ and $f\equiv 0$ in (1.1)), attractors were investigated in \cite{8}
and \cite{9}, where the author, inspired by the methods of \cite{10} and
\cite{11}, proved the existence, regularity and finite dimensionality of the
global attractors in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. The situation becomes more difficult when the equation
contains localized damping terms and nonlocal nonlinearities. Recently, in
\cite{12} and \cite{13}, the plate equation with localized weak damping (the
case $\beta \equiv 0$ in (1.1)) and involving nonlocal nonlinearities as
-f(\left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta u$ and $\ f(\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-2}u$ have been considered. In
these articles, the existence of global attractors has been proved when the
coefficient $\alpha (\cdot )$ of the weak damping term is strictly positive
(see \cite{12}) or, in addition to (1.3), is positive (see \cite{13}) almost
everywhere in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$. However, in the case when $\alpha (\cdot )$ vanishes in a set of \
positive measure, the existence of the global attractor for (1.1) with
\beta \equiv 0$ remained as an open question (see \cite[Remark 1.2]{12}). On
the other hand, in the case when $\alpha \equiv 0$ and even $\beta \equiv 1
, the semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ generated by
(1.1)-(1.2) does not possess a global attractor in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Indeed, if $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$
possesses a global attractor, then the linear semigroup $\left\{
e^{tA}\right\} _{t\geq 0}$ decay exponentially in the real and consequently,
complex space $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, which, due to Hille-Yosida Theorem (see \cite[Remark 5.4]{1
), implies necessary condition $
\mathbb{R}
\subset \rho (A)$. This condition is equivalent to the solvability of the
equation $(i\mu I-A)(u,v)=(y,z)$ in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, for every\ $(y,z)$ in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ and $\mu \in
\mathbb{R}
$. Choosing $\mu =\sqrt{\lambda }$ and $y=0$, we have $\ v=i\sqrt{\lambda }u$
and $\Delta (\Delta u-iu)=z$. If the last equation for every $z\in
L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ has a solution $u\in $ $H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, then denoting $\varphi =\Delta u-iu$, we can say that the
equation $\Delta \varphi =z$ has a solution in $H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, for every $z\in L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. However, the last equation, as shown in \cite{6}, is not
solvable in $H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ for some $z\in L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Hence, the necessary condition $
\mathbb{R}
\subset \rho (A)$ does not hold. Thus, in the case when $\alpha \equiv 0$
and $\beta \equiv 1$, the problem (1.1)-(1.2) does not have a global
attractor, and in the case when $\beta \equiv 0$ and $\alpha (\cdot )$
vanishes in a set of positive measure, the existence of the global for
(1.1)-(1.2) is an open question.
In this paper, we impose conditions (1.3)-(1.5) on damping coefficients
\alpha (\cdot )$ and $\beta (\cdot )$, which, unlike the conditions imposed
in the previous articles dealing with the wave and plate equations involving
strong damping and/or nonlocal nonlinearities, allow both of them to be
vanished in the sets of positive measure such that in these sets the strong
damping and weak damping complete each other. Thus, our main result is as
follows:
\begin{theorem}
Under the conditions (1.3)-(1.8) the semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right)
\right\} _{t\geq 0}$ generated by the problem (1.1)-(1.2) possesses a global
attractor $\mathcal{A}$ in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ and $\mathcal{A=M}^{u}\left( \mathcal{N}\right) $. Here
\mathcal{M}^{u}\left( \mathcal{N}\right) $ is unstable manifold emanating
from the set of stationary points $\mathcal{N}$ (for definition, see \cite
359]{14}). Moreover, the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ is bounded in
H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $.
\end{theorem}
The plan of the paper is as follows: In the next section, after the proof of
two auxiliary lemmas, we establish asymptotic compactness of $\left\{
S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ in the interior domain. Then, we prove
Lemma 2.3, which plays a key role for the tail estimate, and thereby we show
that the solutions of (1.1)-(1.2) are uniformly (with respect to the initial
data) small at infinity for large time. This fact, together with asymptotic
compactness in the interior domain, yields asymptotic compactness of
\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ in the whole space, and\ by
applying the abstract result on the gradient systems, we establish the
existence of the global attractor (see Theorem 2.3). In Section 3, by using
the invariance of the global attractor, we show that it has an additional
regularity.
\section{Existence of the global attractor}
We begin with the following lemmas:
\begin{lemma}
Assume that the condition (1.6) holds. Also, assume that\ the sequence
\left\{ v_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ is weakly star convergent in
L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $, the sequence $\left\{ v_{mt}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$
is bounded in $L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $ and the sequence $\left\{ \left\Vert \nabla
v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ is convergent, for all $t\geq 0$.
Then, for every $r>0$ and $\phi \in C_{0}^{1}(B\left( 0,r\right) )
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow \infty
{\lim \sup }\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right)
}\tau \left( f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{m}(\tau ,x)-f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right) \right.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left. \times \phi (x)\left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right) dxd\tau \right\vert =0\text{, \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{,}
\end{equation*
where $B\left( 0,r\right) =\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert x\right\vert <r\right\} $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, we hav
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \left(
f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{m}(\tau ,x)-f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right) \right.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left. \times \phi (x)\left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right) dxd\tau \right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq \frac{1}{2}\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau f\left( \left\Vert \nabla
v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{d\tau }\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau \right\vert +\left\vert K_{r}^{m,l}\left( t\right) \right\vert
\text{,} \tag{2.1}
\end{equation
where $K_{r}^{m,l}\left( t\right) =$ $\int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau \left(
f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })-f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\right) \int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }$ $\phi (x)\Delta
v_{m}(\tau ,x)$\newline
$\times \left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( t,x\right) \right)
dxd\tau -$ $\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau f\left(
\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \nabla \phi (x)\cdot \nabla \left( v_{m}(\tau
,x)-v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right) $\newline
$\times \left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right) dxd\tau $. Applying \cite[Corollary 4]{15}, we have that the
sequence $\left\{ v_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ $\ $is relatively compact
in $C\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;H^{2-\varepsilon }\left( B\left( 0,r\right)
\right) \right) $, for every $\varepsilon >0$, $T>0$ and $r>0$. So
\begin{equation}
v_{m}\rightarrow v\text{ strongly in }C\left( \left[ 0,T\right]
;H^{2-\varepsilon }\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \right) , \tag{2.2}
\end{equation
for some $v\in $ $C\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;H^{2-\varepsilon }\left(
B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \right) $. Hence, we find
\begin{equation}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\text{ }\lim \text{ }}\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\left\vert K_{r}^{m,l}\left( t\right) \right\vert =
\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{.} \tag{2.3}
\end{equation
Now, denoting $f_{\varepsilon }\left( u\right) $ $=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
f\left( u\right) ,\text{ }u\geq \varepsilon \\
f\left( \varepsilon \right) ,\text{ }0\leq u<\varepsilo
\end{array
\right. $ for $\varepsilon >0$, we ge
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) -f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
\tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \right\vert \leq \max_{0\leq s_{1},s_{2}\leq
\varepsilon }\left\vert f\left( s_{1}\right) -f\left( s_{2}\right)
\right\vert ,
\end{equation*
and then, for the first term on the right hand side of (2.1), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau f\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
\tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{d\tau }\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau \right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert
\nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{d\tau }\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau \right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{1}\text{ }t^{2}\max_{0\leq s_{1},s_{2}\leq \varepsilon }\left\vert
f\left( s_{1}\right) -f\left( s_{2}\right) \right\vert \text{, \ }\forall
t\geq 0\text{.} \tag{2.4}
\end{equation
Let us estimate the first term on the right hand side of (2.4). By using
integration by parts, we hav
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
\tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{d\tau }\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=tf_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)\left\vert
\nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert ^{2}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
\tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)\left\vert
\nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert ^{2}dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau \frac{d}{dt}\left( f_{\varepsilon }\left(
\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \right) \int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau . \tag{2.5}
\end{equation
By the conditions of the lemma and the definition of $f_{\varepsilon }$,\ it
follows that $\left\{ f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left(
\cdot \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ is bounded in $W^{1,\infty
}\left( 0,\infty \right) $. Then, considering (2.2) in (2.5), we ge
\begin{equation}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\text{ }\lim \text{ }}\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau f_{\varepsilon
}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{d\tau }\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)\left\vert \nabla v_{m}(\tau ,x)-\nabla v_{l}(\tau ,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxd\tau \right\vert =0. \tag{2.6}
\end{equation
Taking into account (2.3), (2.4) and (2.6) in (2.1), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left(
0,r\right) }\tau \left( f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\Delta v_{m}(t,x)-f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\Delta v_{l}(t,x)\right) \right.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left. \times \phi (x)\left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right) dxd\tau \right\vert \leq c_{1}\text{ }t^{2}\max_{0\leq
s_{1},s_{2}\leq \varepsilon }\left\vert f\left( s_{1}\right) -f\left(
s_{2}\right) \right\vert \text{, \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{,}
\end{equation*
which yields the claim of the lemma, since $\varepsilon >0$ is arbitrary.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Assume that the condition (1.7) holds. Also, let the sequence $\left\{
v_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ be weakly star convergent in $L^{\infty
}\left( 0,\infty ;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $ and the sequence $\left\{ v_{mt}\right\}
_{m=1}^{\infty }$ be bounded in $L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $. Then, for every $r>0$ and $\phi \in L^{\infty
}(B\left( 0,r\right) )$
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow \infty
{\lim }\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau (g\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) -g\left( v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right) )\phi (x)\left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right) dxd\tau =0\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{.}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We hav
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \left( g\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) -g\left( v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right) \right) \phi (x)\left( v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) -v_{lt}\left(
\tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
+\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau .
\tag{2.7}
\end{equation
Let us estimate the first two terms on the right hand side of (2.7).
Applying integration by parts, we ge
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
+\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=\int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau \frac{d}{d\tau }\left( \int\limits_{B\left(
0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dx\right)
d\tau +\int\limits_{0}^{t}\tau \frac{d}{d\tau }\left( \int\limits_{B\left(
0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dx\right)
d\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=t\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v_{m}\left( t,x\right)
\right) dx+t\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v_{l}\left(
\tau ,x\right) \right) dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left(
v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left(
v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau . \tag{2.8}
\end{equation
By the conditions of the lemma, we obtai
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
v_{m}\rightarrow v\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \text{,} \\
v_{mt}\rightarrow v_{t}\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \text{,
\end{array
\right. \tag{2.9}
\end{equation
for some $v\in L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \cap W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) .$ Applying \cite[Corollary 4]{15}, by (2.9), we hav
\begin{equation*}
v_{m}\rightarrow v\text{ strongly in }C\left( \left[ 0,T\right]
;H^{2-\varepsilon }\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \right) ,
\end{equation*
for every $\varepsilon >0$ and $T>0$. Hence, taking into account (1.7), we
ge
\begin{equation}
G\left( v_{m}\right) \rightarrow G\left( v\right) \text{ strongly in
C\left( [0,T];L^{1}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \right) \text{.}
\tag{2.10}
\end{equation
Then, passing to the limit in (2.8) and using (2.10), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow \infty
{\lim }\left( \int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi
(x)g\left( v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right)
dxd\tau +\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi
(x)g\left( v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right)
dxd\tau \right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
=2t\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v\left( t,x\right)
\right) dx-2\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)G\left( v\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau . \tag{2.11}
\end{equation
Now, for the last two terms on the right hand side of (2.7), considering
(2.9), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow \infty
{\lim }\left( -\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi
(x)g\left( v_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{lt}\left( \tau ,x\right)
dxd\tau -\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi
(x)g\left( v_{l}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{mt}\left( \tau ,x\right)
dxd\tau \right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=-2\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\tau \phi (x)g\left(
v\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) v_{t}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
=-2t\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi (x)G\left( v\left( t,x\right)
\right) dx+2\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,r\right) }\phi
(x)G\left( v\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau . \tag{2.12}
\end{equation
Hence, considering (2.11)-(2.12) and passing to the limit in (2.7), we
obtain the claim of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Now, we can prove the asymptotic compactness of $\left\{ S\left( t\right)
\right\} _{t\geq 0}$ in the interior domain.
\begin{theorem}
Assume that the conditions (1.3)-(1.8) hold and $\mathcal{B}$ is a bounded
subset of$\ H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Then every sequence of the form $\left\{ S(t_{k})\varphi
_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty },$ where $\left\{ \varphi _{k}\right\}
_{k=1}^{\infty }\subset \mathcal{B}$, $t_{k}\rightarrow \infty ,$ \ has a
convergent subsequence in $H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \times
L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) $, for every $r>0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will use the asymptotic compactness method introduced in \cite{16}.
Considering (1.3), (1.6), (1.7) and (1.8) in (1.9), we have
\begin{equation}
\underset{t\geq 0}{\sup }\underset{\varphi \in \mathcal{B}}{\sup }\left\Vert
S\left( t\right) \varphi \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }<\infty . \tag{2.13}
\end{equation
Due to the boundedness of the sequence $\left\{ \varphi _{k}\right\}
_{k=1}^{\infty }$ in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, by (2.13), it follows that the sequence $\left\{ S\left(
\cdot \right) \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ is bounded in
L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $. Then for any $T\geq 1$ \ there exists a subsequence
\left\{ k_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ such that $t_{k_{m}}\geq T$, and
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
v_{m}\rightarrow v\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \text{,} \\
v_{mt}\rightarrow v_{t}\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \text{,} \\
\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\rightarrow q\text{ weakly star in }W^{1,\infty }\left(
0,\infty \right) \text{,} \\
v_{m}\rightarrow v\text{ strongly in }C\left( \left[ 0,T\right]
;H^{2-\varepsilon }\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \right) \text{, \
\varepsilon >0\text{,
\end{array
\right. \tag{2.14}
\end{equation
for some $v\in $ $L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) \cap W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $ and $q\in W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,\infty \right) $,
where $\left( v_{m}(t\right) ,v_{mt}\left( t\right)
)=S(t+t_{k_{m}}-T)\varphi _{k_{m}}$.
Now, taking into account (1.4) in (1.9), we fin
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left\Vert v_{mt}(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) \right)
}^{2}dt+\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }\left\Vert \nabla v_{mt}(t)\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}dt\leq c_{1}\text{.\ }
\tag{2.15}
\end{equation
\textbf{\ }By (1.1), we hav
\begin{equation*}
v_{mtt}(t,x)-{div}\left( \beta \left( x\right) \nabla v_{mt}(t,x)\right)
+\gamma \Delta ^{2}v_{m}(t,x)+\alpha (x)v_{mt}(t,x)+\lambda v_{m}(t,x)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
=f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\Delta v_{m}(t,x)-g\left( v_{m}(t,x)\right) +h\left( x\right)
.\newline
\tag{2.16}
\end{equation
Let $\eta \in C^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, $0\leq \eta \left( x\right) \leq 1$, $\eta \left( x\right)
=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
0,\text{ }\left\vert x\right\vert \leq 1\text{ } \\
1,\text{ }\left\vert x\right\vert \geq
\end{array
\right. $ and $\eta _{r}\left( x\right) =\eta \left( \frac{x}{r}\right) $.
Multiplying (2.16) with $\eta _{r}^{2}v_{m}$ and integrating the obtained
equality over $\left( 0,T\right) \times
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, we ge
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left( \gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta
v_{m}(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}v_{m}(t)\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=-\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \beta \left( x\right) \left\vert \nabla
v_{m}(T,x)\right\vert ^{2}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \beta \left( x\right) \left\vert \nabla
v_{m}(0,x)\right\vert ^{2}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{2}{r}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\beta \left( x\right) v_{mtx_{i}}(t,x)\eta _{r}\eta _{x_{i}}\left(
\frac{x}{r}\right) v_{m}(t,x)dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert \eta _{r}v_{mt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}dt-\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) v_{mt}\left( T,x\right)
v_{m}(T,x)dx+\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) v_{mt}\left( 0,x\right) v_{m}(0,x)dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{4\gamma }{r}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}\left( x\right) \eta _{x_{i}}\left( \frac{x}{r}\right) \Delta
v_{m}(t,x)v_{mx_{i}}(t,x)dxdt-\gamma \int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\Delta \left( \eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \right) \Delta
v_{m}(t,x)v_{m}(t,x)dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \alpha \left( x\right) \left\vert
v_{m}(T,x)\right\vert ^{2}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \alpha \left( x\right) \left\vert
v_{m}(0,x)\right\vert ^{2}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\int\limits_{0}^{T}f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) \left\vert \nabla v_{m}(t,x)\right\vert
^{2}dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{2}{r}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int\limits_{0}^{T}f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}\eta _{x_{i}}\left( \frac{x}{r}\right) v_{mx_{i}}(t,x)v_{m}dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}g\left( v_{m}\left( t,x\right) \right) \eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right)
v_{m}\left( t,x\right) dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}h\left( x\right) \eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) v_{m}\left( t,x\right)
dxdt. \tag{2.17}
\end{equation
Taking into account (1.3), (1.6), (1.8), (1.9), (2.13) and (2.15) in (2.17),
we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\lim \sup_{m\rightarrow \infty }\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left( \gamma \left\Vert
\Delta v_{m}(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert
v_{m}(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }^{2}\right) dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{2}\left( 1+\frac{\sqrt{T}}{r}+\frac{T}{r}+T\left\Vert h\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall r\geq
r_{0}\text{.} \tag{2.18}
\end{equation
Now, by (1.1), we hav
\begin{equation*}
v_{mtt}(t,x)-v_{ltt}(t,x)-{div}\left( \beta \left( x\right) \cdot \nabla
\left( v_{mt}(t,x)-v_{lt}(t,x)\right) \right) +\gamma \Delta ^{2}\left(
v_{m}(t,x)-v_{l}(t,x)\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\alpha (x)\left( v_{mt}(t,x)-v_{lt}(t,x)\right) +\lambda \left(
v_{m}(t,x)-v_{l}(t,x)\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
=f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\Delta v_{m}(t,x)-f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }))\Delta v_{l}(t,x)-g\left( v_{m}\right) +g\left( v_{l}\right)
\newline
\tag{2.19}
\end{equation
\ Multiplying (2.19) by $\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\left( 1-\eta
_{4r}\right) \left( v_{m}-v_{l}\right) _{x_{i}}+\frac{1}{2}\left( n-1\right)
\left( 1-\eta _{4r}\right) \left( v_{m}-v_{l}\right) $, integrating the
obtained equality over $\left( 0,T\right) \times
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$ and taking into account (2.13), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{3\gamma }{2}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert \Delta \left( v_{m}\left(
t\right) -v_{l}\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}dt+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert
v_{mt}\left( t\right) -v_{lt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{3}(1+T+rT)\left\Vert v_{m}-v_{l}\right\Vert _{C[0,T];H^{1}(B\left(
0,8r\right) )}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{3}\left( \sqrt{T}+r\sqrt{T}\right) \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\left( \nabla
v_{mt}-\nabla v_{lt}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}(\left( 0,T\right) \times
B\left( 0,8r\right) )}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{3}\left( \left\Vert v_{mt}-v_{lt}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
0,T;L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,8r\right) \backslash B\left( 0,4r\right) \right)
\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert v_{m}-v_{l}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
0,T;H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,8r\right) \backslash B\left( 0,4r\right) \right)
\right) }^{2}\right) . \tag{2.20}
\end{equation
Thus, considering (2.14), (2.15), (2.18) and passing to the limit in (2.20)
, we get
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left[ \left\Vert \Delta \left(
v_{m}\left( t\right) -v_{l}\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}+\left\Vert v_{mt}\left( t\right)
-v_{lt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,4r\right) \right)
}^{2}\right] dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{4}\left( 1+\frac{\sqrt{T}}{r}+\frac{T}{r}+r\sqrt{T}+T\left\Vert
h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall r\geq
r_{0}\text{.} \tag{2.21}
\end{equation
Now, multiplying (2.19) by $\left( 1-\eta _{2r}\right) ^{4}t\left[ 2\left(
v_{mt}-v_{lt}\right) +\alpha _{0}\eta _{r}^{4}\left( v_{m}-v_{l}\right)
\right] $ and integrating the obtained equality over $\left( 0,T\right)
\times
\mathbb{R}
^{n},$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\gamma T\left\Vert \Delta \left( v_{m}\left( T\right) -v_{l}\left( T\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r\right) \right)
}^{2}+T\left\Vert v_{mt}\left( T\right) -v_{lt}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }^{2}+
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+T\lambda \left\Vert v_{m}\left( T\right) -v_{l}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }^{2}\leq
\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert v_{mt}\left( t\right) -v_{lt}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\gamma \int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert \Delta \left( v_{m}(t)-v_{l}(t)\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}dt+\lambda
\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert v_{m}(t)-v_{l}(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,4r\right) \right) }^{2}dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+2\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right) }t\left(
f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{m}\left( t,x\right) -f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{l}\left( t,x\right) )\right) \right.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left. \times \left( 1-\eta _{2r}\right) ^{4}\left( v_{mt}\left( t,x\right)
-v_{lt}\left( t,x\right) \right) dxdt\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+2\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right) }t\left(
g\left( v_{m}\left( t,x\right) \right) -g\left( v_{l}\left( t,x\right)
\right) \right) \left( 1-\eta _{2r}\right) ^{4}\left( v_{mt}\left(
t,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( t,x\right) \right) dxdt\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\alpha _{0}\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right)
}t\left( f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{m}\left( t,x\right) -f(\left\Vert \nabla v_{l}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta v_{l}\left( t,x\right) )\right) \right.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left. \times \left( 1-\eta _{2r}\right) ^{4}\eta _{r}^{4}(x)\left(
v_{m}\left( t,x\right) -v_{l}\left( t,x\right) \right) dxdt\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\alpha _{0}\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right)
}t\left( g\left( v_{m}\left( t,x\right) \right) -g\left( v_{l}\left(
t,x\right) \right) \right) \left( 1-\eta _{2r}\right) ^{4}\eta
_{r}^{4}(x)\left( v_{m}\left( t,x\right) -v_{l}\left( t,x\right) \right)
dxdt\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{c_{5}T}{r}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right)
\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) }\left\vert \nabla \left( v_{mt}\left(
t,x\right) -v_{lt}\left( t,x\right) \right) \right\vert ^{2}dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{c_{5}T}{r}\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{B\left( 0,4r\right)
\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) }\left\vert v_{mt}\left( t,x\right)
-v_{lt}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dxdt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{5}T\left\Vert v_{m}-v_{l}\right\Vert _{C([0,T];H^{1}\left( B\left(
0,4r\right) \right) )}^{2}\text{, \ \ }\forall r\geq r_{0}\text{, \ }\forall
T\geq 1\text{.} \tag{2.22}
\end{equation
Then, taking into account (2.14), (2.15), (2.21), Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2,
and passing to the limit in (2.22), we fin
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\left( \left\Vert v_{m}\left( T\right) -v_{l}\left(
T\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r\right) \right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert v_{mt}\left( T\right) -v_{lt}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{6}\left( \frac{1}{T}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}r}+\frac{1}{r}+\frac{r}{\sqrt{
}}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,2r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall r\geq
r_{0}\text{, \ }\forall T\geq 1\text{.} \tag{2.23}
\end{equation
Thus, by the definition of $v_{m}$, the inequality (2.23) yield
\begin{equation*}
\underset{m\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \sup }\text{ }\underset{l\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \sup }\left\Vert S(t_{k_{m}})\varphi
_{k_{m}}-S(t_{k_{l}})\varphi _{k_{l}}\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( B\left(
0,r\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{T}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{T}r}+\frac{1}{r}+\frac{r}{\sqrt{
}}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall r\geq
2r_{0}\text{, \ }\forall T\geq 1\text{.} \tag{2.24}
\end{equation
Passing to the limit as $T\rightarrow \infty $ in (2.24), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\underset{l\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\text{ }\underset{m\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \inf }\left\Vert S(t_{k})\varphi _{k}-S(t_{m})\varphi
_{m}\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall r\geq
2r_{0},
\end{equation*
which give
\begin{equation*}
\underset{l\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\text{ }\underset{m\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \inf }\left\Vert S(t_{k})\varphi _{k}-S(t_{m})\varphi
_{m}\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{\widetilde{r}}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,\widetilde{r}\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ \
\forall \widetilde{r}\geq r\geq 2r_{0}. \tag{2.25}
\end{equation
Consequently, by passing to the limit as $\widetilde{r}\rightarrow \infty $
in (2.25), we deduc
\begin{equation}
\underset{l\rightarrow \infty }{\lim \inf }\text{ }\underset{m\rightarrow
\infty }{\lim \inf }\left\Vert S(t_{k})\varphi _{k}-S(t_{m})\varphi
_{m}\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }=0\text{, \ \ }\forall r>0\text{.} \tag{2.26}
\end{equation
Let $r_{i}\nearrow \infty $ as $i\rightarrow \infty $. Taking $r=r_{i}$ in
(2.26) and using the arguments at the end of the proof of \cite[Lemma 3.4
{17}, we can say that there exist subsequences $\left\{ k_{m}^{(i)}\right\} $
\ such that
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ k_{m}^{(1)}\right\} \supset \left\{ k_{m}^{(2)}\right\} \supset
...\supset \left\{ k_{m}^{(i)}\right\} \supset ..
\end{equation*
and
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ S(t_{k_{m}^{(i)}})\varphi _{k_{m}^{(i)}}\right\} \text{ converges in
}H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r_{i}\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,r_{i}\right) \right) \text{.}
\end{equation*
Thus, the diagonal subsequence $\left\{ S(t_{k_{m}^{(m)}})\varphi
_{k_{m}^{(m)}}\right\} $ converges in $H^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right)
\right) \times L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,r\right) \right) $, for every $r>0$.
\end{proof}
To establish the tail estimate, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let the conditions (1.3)-(1.6) hold and $B$ be a bounded subset of
H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) .$ Then for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exist a constant
\delta \equiv \delta \left( \varepsilon \right) >0$ and functions $\psi
_{\varepsilon }\in L^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, $\varphi _{\varepsilon }\in C^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, such that $0\leq \psi _{\varepsilon }\leq \min \left\{
1,\delta ^{-1}\beta \right\} $ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, $0\leq \varphi _{\varepsilon }\leq 1$ in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, supp$\left( \varphi _{\varepsilon }\right) \subset \{x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\alpha \left( x\right) \geq \delta $ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\}$ an
\begin{equation}
\left\vert f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) -f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi
_{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla
u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \right\vert <\varepsilon , \tag{2.27}
\end{equation
for every $u\in B,$ where $f_{\delta }$ is the function defined in the proof
of Lemma 2.1.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A_{0}=\left\{ x\in B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) :\alpha \left( x\right)
=0\right\} $ and $A_{k}=\left\{ x\in B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) :0\leq \alpha
\left( x\right) <\frac{1}{k}\right\} $. It is easy to see that
A_{k+1}\subset A_{k}$, and $A_{0}=\underset{k>0}{\cap }A_{k}.$ Hence,
\underset{k\rightarrow \infty }{\lim }mes\left( A_{k}\right) =mes\left(
A_{0}\right) $. So, for $\delta >0$, there exists $k_{\delta }~$such tha
\begin{equation}
mes\left( A_{k_{\delta }}\backslash A_{0}\right) <\frac{\delta }{3}.
\tag{2.28}
\end{equation
Since $A_{k_{\delta }}$ is a measurable subset of $B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) ,$
there exists an open set $O_{\delta }^{\left( 1\right) }\subset B\left(
0,r_{0}\right) $ such that $A_{k_{\delta }}\subset O_{\delta }^{\left(
1\right) }$ and
\begin{equation}
mes\left( O_{\delta }^{\left( 1\right) }\backslash A_{k_{\delta }}\right)
\frac{\delta }{3}. \tag{2.29}
\end{equation
Now, let $\eta _{\delta }\in C_{0}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ such that $0\leq \eta _{\delta }\leq 1,$ $\left. \eta _{\delta
}\right\vert _{O_{\delta }^{\left( 1\right) }}=1$ and supp$\left( \eta
_{\delta }\right) \subset $ $O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) },$where
O_{\delta }^{\left( 1\right) }\Subset $ $O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }$ and
\begin{equation}
mes\left( O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash O_{\delta }^{\left(
1\right) }\right) <\frac{\delta }{3}. \tag{2.30}
\end{equation
Then setting $\varphi _{\delta }:=1-$ $\eta _{\delta }$, we have $\varphi
_{\delta }\in C\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, $0\leq \varphi _{\delta }\leq 1,\left. \varphi _{\delta
}\right\vert _
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }}=1$ and supp$(\varphi _{\delta
})\subset
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash O_{\delta }^{\left( 1\right) }$.
By (2.28)-(2.30), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \int\limits_{O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }}\varphi _{\delta
}\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2}dx-\int\limits_{O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash
A_{0}}\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=\left\vert \int\limits_{O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash O_{\delta
}^{\left( 1\right) }}\varphi _{\delta }\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right)
\right\vert ^{2}dx-\int\limits_{O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash
A_{0}}\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq 2\int\limits_{O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash A_{0}}\left\vert
\nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx\leq 2c\left\Vert u\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\left( mes\left( O_{\delta }^{\left( 2\right) }\backslash
A_{0}\right) \right) ^{n^{\ast }}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
<2c\delta ^{n^{\ast }}\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}, \tag{2.31}
\end{equation
for every $u\in H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, where $n^{\ast }=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
1,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }n=1, \\
q,\text{ \ }0<q<1,\text{ \ }n=2, \\
\frac{2}{n},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }n\geq
\end{array
\right. $ and $c>0$.
Now, by (1.5), it follows tha
\begin{equation*}
\beta >0\text{ \ a.e. in }A_{0}.
\end{equation*
Hence, by Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, there exists $\lambda
_{\delta }>0$ such tha
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{A_{0}}\frac{\lambda _{\delta }}{\lambda _{\delta }+\beta \left(
x\right) }dx<\delta ,
\end{equation*
which yields
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \int\limits_{A_{0}}\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2}dx-\int\limits_{A_{0}}\frac{\beta \left( x\right) }{\lambda _{\delta
}+\beta \left( x\right) }\left\vert \nabla u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2}dx\right\vert <c\delta ^{n^{\ast }}\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}. \tag{2.32}
\end{equation
Thus, denoting $\psi _{\delta }=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\beta \left( x\right) }{\lambda _{\delta }+\beta \left( x\right)
\text{, }x\in A_{0}, \\
0\text{, }x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash A_{0}
\end{array
\right. $ by (2.31) and (2.32), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}-\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}-\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
<3c\delta ^{n^{\ast }}\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2},
\end{equation*
and consequentl
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert \left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }-\sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right\vert
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \sqrt{\left\vert \left\Vert \nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}-\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}-\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\delta }}\nabla u\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right\vert }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
<\sqrt{3c}\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}n^{\ast }}\left\Vert u\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }.
\end{equation*
The last inequality, together with the differentiability of the function $f
, yields (2.27).
\end{proof}
Now, let us proof the following tail estimate.
\begin{theorem}
\bigskip Assume that the conditions (1.3)-(1.8) hold and $\mathcal{B}$ is a
bounded subset of$\ H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Then for any $\varepsilon >0$ there exist $T\equiv T\left(
\mathcal{B},\varepsilon \right) $ and $R\equiv R\left( \mathcal{B
,\varepsilon \right) $ such tha
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert S\left( t\right) \varphi \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }<\varepsilon \,\text{,}
\end{equation*
for every $t\geq T$, $r\geq R$ and $\varphi \in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in \mathcal{B}$ and $\left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) =S\left( t\right) \left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) $.
Multiplying (1.1) with $\eta _{r}^{2}u_{t}$, integrating the obtained
equality over
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$ and taking into account (2.13)$,$ we ge
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{d}{dt}\left( \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) G\left( u\left( t,x\right) \right)
dx\right) +\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r}\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}f(\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\Delta u\eta _{r}^{2}u_{t}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{2}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta
_{r}\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,2r\right) \right) }+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ \ }\forall
r\geq r_{0}\text{.} \tag{2.33}
\end{equation
Now, let us estimate the last term on the left hand side of (2.33). By Lemma
2.3, we hav
\begin{equation*}
-f(\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\Delta u\eta _{r}^{2}u_{t}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\geq -\varepsilon \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }-\frac{c_{3}}{r}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+\frac{1}{2}f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\varepsilon }
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\phi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla
\left( u\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) . \tag{2.34}
\end{equation
Moreover, for the last term on the right hand side of (2.34), by using the
definition of $f_{\delta }$ and the properties of $\psi _{\varepsilon }$ and
$\varphi _{\varepsilon }$, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\varepsilon }
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla
\left( u\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\geq \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt
\psi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\varphi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
-c_{4}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}. \tag{2.35}
\end{equation
Considering (2.34) and (2.35) in (2.33), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{d}{dt}\left( \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) G\left( u\left( t,x\right) \right)
dx\right) +\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r}\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi
_{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\phi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-c_{4}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}.
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\varepsilon \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{2}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta
_{r}\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,2r\right) \right) }+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) . \tag{2.36}
\end{equation
Multiplying (1.1) with $\mu \eta _{r}^{2}u$, integrating the obtained
equality over
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$ and taking into account (1.6), (1.8) and (2.13), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\mu \gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u(t)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\mu \lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u(t)\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}-\mu \left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{\mu }{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r}\nabla
u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r}u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\mu \frac{d}{dt}\left( \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) u_{t}\left( t,x\right) u(t,x)dx\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{5}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta
_{r}\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,2r\right) \right) }+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) . \tag{2.37}
\end{equation
Summing (2.36) and (2.37), applying Young inequality and choosing
\varepsilon $ and $\mu $ small enough, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) }\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) G\left(
u\left( t,x\right) \right) dx\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi
_{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\phi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{\mu }{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r}\nabla
u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r}u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{6}\left( \left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{7}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, }\forall r\geq
r_{0}\text{,}
\end{equation*
where $c_{i}\left( i=6,7\right) $ are positive constants. By denoting
\begin{equation*}
\Phi \left( t\right) :=\left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r}^{2}\left( x\right) G\left( u\left( t,x\right) \right) dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{1}{2}f_{\delta }\left( \sqrt{\left\Vert \sqrt{\psi _{\varepsilon }
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\phi _{\varepsilon }}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{\mu }{2}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r}\nabla u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha
\eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }^{2}\right) ,
\end{equation*
we ge
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\Phi \left( t\right) +c_{6}\left( \left\Vert \eta
_{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{7}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \eta _{r}\nabla \left( u\left( t\right)
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, }\forall r\geq
r_{0}\text{.} \tag{2.38}
\end{equation
Moreover, there exist $\widehat{c}\equiv \widehat{c}\left( B\right) >0$ such
tha
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \eta _{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq \Phi \left( t\right) \leq \widehat{c}\left( \left\Vert \eta
_{r}u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \eta _{r}\Delta u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert \eta _{r}u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) . \tag{2.39}
\end{equation
So, considering (2.39) in (2.38), we hav
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\Phi \left( t\right) +H\left( t\right) \Phi \left( t\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $H\left( t\right) =c_{8}-c_{7}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla
u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) $ and $c_{8}>0$. Then, by Gronwall inequality, we obtai
\begin{equation}
\Phi \left( t\right) \leq e^{-\int_{0}^{t}H\left( \tau \right) d\tau }\Phi
\left( 0\right) +c_{7}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right)
\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\int_{\tau }^{t}H\left( \sigma \right) d\sigma }d\tau .
\tag{2.40}
\end{equation
Furthermore, applying Young inequality and taking into account (1.9), we hav
\begin{equation*}
e^{-\int_{\tau }^{t}H\left( \sigma \right) d\sigma }\leq e^{-\frac{1}{2
c_{8}\left( t-\tau \right) +c_{9}\int_{\tau }^{t}\left( \left\Vert \sqrt
\beta }\nabla u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) d\sigma \text{\ }}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{10}e^{-\frac{1}{2}c_{8}\left( t-\tau \right) }\text{, \ }\forall
t\geq \tau \geq 0\text{.} \tag{2.41}
\end{equation
Therefore, considering (2.41) in (2.40), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\Phi \left( t\right) \leq c_{10}e^{-\frac{1}{2}c_{8}t}\Phi \left( 0\right)
+c_{11}\left( \frac{1}{r}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r\right) \right) }\right) \text{, \ }\forall t\geq
\text{,}
\end{equation*
which completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Now, we are in a position to prove the existence of the global attractor.
\begin{theorem}
Let the conditions (1.3)-(1.8) hold. Then the semigroup $\left\{ S\left(
t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ generated by the problem (1.1)-(1.2) possesses
a global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $ and $\mathcal{A=M}^{u}\left( \mathcal{N}\right) $.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, it follows that every sequence of the form
\left\{ S\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$, where
\left\{ \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\subset \mathcal{B}$,
t_{k}\rightarrow \infty ,$ and $\mathcal{B}$ is bounded subset of
H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $,\ has a convergent subsequence in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Since, by (1.6) and (1.8), the set $\mathcal{N}$, which is
the set of stationary points of $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq
0} $ is bounded in $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, to complete the proof, it is enough to show that the pair
\left( S\left( t\right) ,H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $ is a gradient system (see \cite{14}).
Now, for $\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) =S\left(
t\right) \left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) $, let the equalit
\begin{equation*}
L\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) =L\left(
u_{0},u_{1}\right) \text{, \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{,}
\end{equation*
hold, where $L\left( u,v\right) =\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}(\left\vert v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\gamma \left\vert {\small
\Delta u}\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\lambda \left\vert {\small u
\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2})dx+\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}G\left( u\left( x\right) \right) dx+\frac{1}{2}F\left( \left\Vert
\nabla u\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) -\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}h\left( x\right) u(x)dx.$ Then considering (1.3) and (1.9), we hav
\begin{equation*}
\alpha u_{t}\left( t,\cdot \right) =0\text{ and }\beta \nabla u_{t}\left(
t,\cdot \right) =0\text{ \ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n},
\end{equation*
for $t\geq 0.$ Taking into account (1.5), from the above equalities, it
follows tha
\begin{equation*}
u_{t}\left( t,\cdot \right) u_{tx_{i}}\left( t,\cdot \right) =0\text{ a.e.
in
\mathbb{R}
^{n},
\end{equation*
and consequentl
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}\left( u_{t}^{2}\left( t,\cdot \right)
\right) =0\text{ \ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n},
\end{equation*
for $i=\overline{1,n}$ and $t\geq 0.$ The last equality means that
u_{t}^{2}\left( t,\cdot \right) $ is independent of variable $x$, for every
t\geq 0.$ Hence, by $u_{t}\left( t,\cdot \right) \in L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, we hav
\begin{equation*}
u_{t}\left( t,\cdot \right) =0\text{ \ a.e. in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{,}
\end{equation*
for $t\geq 0$. So
\begin{equation*}
\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) =\left( \varphi
,0\right) \text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0,
\end{equation*
where $\left( \varphi ,0\right) \in \mathcal{N}$. Thus, the pair $\left(
S\left( t\right) ,H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \right) $ is a gradient system.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularity of the global attractor}
We start with the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let the condition (1.7) hold and $K$ be a compact subset of $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $. Then for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists a constant
C_{\epsilon }>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert g(u_{1})-g(u_{2})\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\leq \varepsilon \left\Vert u_{1}-u_{2}\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+C_{\epsilon }\left\Vert u_{1}-u_{2}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }, \tag{3.1}
\end{equation
for every $u_{1},u_{2}\in K$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Mean Value Theorem, H\"{o}lder inequality and\ the embedding $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \hookrightarrow L^{\frac{2n}{\left( n-4\right) ^{+}}}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \cap L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, we hav
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert g\left( u\right) -g\left( v\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}=\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\left\vert \int\limits_{0}^{1}g^{\prime }\left( \tau u\left( x\right)
+\left( 1-\tau \right) v\left( x\right) \right) d\tau \right\vert
^{2}\left\vert u\left( x\right) -v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \int\limits_{0}^{1}\int\limits_{\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert \tau u\left( x\right) +\left( 1-\tau \right) v\left(
x\right) \right\vert >M\right\} }\left\vert g^{\prime }\left( \tau u\left(
x\right) +\left( 1-\tau \right) v\left( x\right) \right) \right\vert
^{2}\left\vert u\left( x\right) -v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dxd\tau
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\left\Vert g^{\prime }\right\Vert _{C\left[ -M,M\right] }\left\Vert
u-v\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{1}\int\limits_{\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert +\left\vert v\left( x\right)
\right\vert >M\right\} }\left( 1+\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2\left( p-1\right) }+\left\vert v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2\left(
p-1\right) }\right) \left\vert u\left( x\right) -v\left( x\right)
\right\vert ^{2}dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\left\Vert g^{\prime }\right\Vert _{C\left[ -M,M\right] }\left\Vert
u-v\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{2}\left( \int\limits_{\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert +\left\vert v\left( x\right)
\right\vert >M\right\} }\left( 1+\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2\left( p-1\right) q}+\left\vert v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2\left(
p-1\right) q}\right) dx\right) ^{\frac{1}{q}}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\times \left\Vert u-v\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left\Vert g^{\prime }\right\Vert _{C\left[ -M,M\right]
}\left\Vert u-v\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}, \tag{3.2}
\end{equation
where $q=$ $\max \left\{ 1,\frac{n}{4}\right\} $.
Since, by (1.7), $H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \hookrightarrow L^{2\left( p-1\right) q}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $, we have that $K$ is compact subset of $L^{2\left( p-1\right)
q}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) .$ Hence
\begin{equation}
\lim_{M\rightarrow \infty }\sup_{u,v\in K}\int\limits_{\left\{ x\in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}:\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert +\left\vert v\left( x\right)
\right\vert >M\right\} }\left( 1+\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert
^{2\left( p-1\right) q}+\left\vert v\left( x\right) \right\vert ^{2\left(
p-1\right) q}\right) dx=0. \tag{3.3}
\end{equation
Thus, (3.2) and (3.3) give us (3.1).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ is bounded in $H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) $.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{A}$. Since $\mathcal{A}$ is invariant, there
exists an invariant trajectory $\Gamma =\left\{ \left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) :t\in
\mathbb{R}
\right\} $\newline
$\subset \mathcal{A}$ such that $\left( u\left( 0\right) ,u_{t}\left(
0\right) \right) =\varphi $ (see \cite[p. 159]{18}). Now, let us define
\begin{equation*}
v\left( t,x\right) :=\frac{u\left( t+\sigma ,x\right) -u\left( t,x\right) }
\sigma }\text{, \ }\sigma >0\text{.}
\end{equation*
Then, by (1.1), we ge
\begin{equation*}
v_{tt}(t,x)+\gamma \Delta ^{2}v(t,x)-{div}\left( \beta \left( x\right)
\nabla v_{t}\right) +\alpha (x)v_{t}(t,x)+\lambda v(t,x)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \Delta v\left( t,x\right) -\frac{f(\left\Vert \nabla
u\left( t+\sigma \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })-f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) }{\sigma }\Delta u(t+\sigma ,x)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+\frac{g\left( u\left( t+\sigma ,x\right) \right) -g\left( u\left(
t,x\right) \right) }{\sigma }=0\text{, \ \ \ }(t,x)\in
\mathbb{R}
\times
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\text{.} \tag{3.4}
\end{equation
Multiplying (3.4) by $v_{t}$ and integrating the obtained equality over
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, we fin
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}E(v(t))+\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq -\frac{1}{2}f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) +\frac{f(\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t+\sigma \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) })-f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) }{\sigma }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\times \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\Delta u(t+\sigma ,x)v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx-\frac{1}{\sigma
\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\left( g\left( u\left( t+\sigma ,x\right) \right) -g\left( u\left(
t,x\right) \right) \right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq -\frac{1}{2}f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{1}\left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\frac{1}{\sigma }\left\Vert g\left( u\left( t+\sigma \right)
\right) -g\left( u\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }.
\end{equation*
Taking into account Lemma 3.1 in the last inequality, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}E(v(t))+\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq -\frac{1}{2}f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{1}\left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\left( \varepsilon \left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+C_{\varepsilon }\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }, \tag{3.5}
\end{equation
for any $\varepsilon >0$. Moreover, by (2.13), we have
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }=\left\Vert \frac{u\left( t+\sigma ,x\right) -u\left(
t,x\right) }{\sigma }\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\leq \sup_{0\leq t<\infty }\left\Vert u_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }<\widehat{C}\text{, \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.} \tag{3.6}
\end{equation
Then, considering (3.6) in (3.5), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}E(v(t))+\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq -\frac{1}{2}f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+\left( c_{2}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon \left\Vert v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\widetilde{C_{\varepsilon }}\right) \left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }. \tag{3.7}
\end{equation
Now, let us estimate the first term on the right hand side of (3.7). By
(2.13) and (3.6), we hav
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{1}{2}f\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{3}\max_{0\leq s_{1},s_{2}\leq \varepsilon }\left\vert f\left(
s_{1}\right) -f\left( s_{2}\right) \right\vert \left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert \Delta v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
-\frac{1}{2}f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \frac{d}{dt}\left( \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{3}\max_{0\leq s_{1},s_{2}\leq \varepsilon }\left\vert f\left(
s_{1}\right) -f\left( s_{2}\right) \right\vert \left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert \Delta v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left( f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \nabla
u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) +c_{4}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }, \tag{3.8}
\end{equation
for any $\varepsilon >0$, where $f_{\varepsilon }$ is the function defined
in the proof of Lemma 2.1. Considering (3.8) in (3.7), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( E(v(t))+\frac{1}{2}f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right) +\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{3}\max_{0\leq s_{1},s_{2}\leq \varepsilon }\left\vert f\left(
s_{1}\right) -f\left( s_{2}\right) \right\vert \left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left\Vert \Delta u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+c_{4}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+\left( c_{2}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon \left\Vert v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }+\widetilde{C_{\varepsilon }}\right) \left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }. \tag{3.9}
\end{equation}
Let $\eta _{r}\left( x\right) $ be the cut-off function defined in the proof
of Theorem 2.1. Multiplying (3.4) by\newline
$\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\right) v_{x_{i}}+\frac{
}{2}\left( n-1\right) \left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\right) v$, and integrating
over
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, by (2.13) and (3.6), we ge
\begin{equation*}
\frac{3}{2}\gamma \left\Vert \Delta \left( v\left( t\right) \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left( 0,2r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{2
\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,2r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\frac{d}{dt}\left( \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}x_{i}\left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\left( x\right) \right) v_{x_{i}}\left(
t,x\right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx+\frac{1}{2}\left( n-1\right)
\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\left( x\right) \right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right)
v\left( t,x\right) dx\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq c_{5}\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( B\left(
0,4r_{0}\right) \backslash B\left( 0,2r_{0}\right) \right)
}^{2}+c_{5}\left\Vert \Delta v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) \backslash B\left( 0,2r_{0}\right) \right)
}^{2}+c_{5}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}(B\left(
0,4r_{0}\right) )}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{5}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}\left( \left\Vert v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{H^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}^{\frac{1}{2}}+\left\Vert
v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+c_{5}\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}\left( \left\Vert v\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{H^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}^{\frac{1}{2}}+1\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
+c_{5}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}(B\left(
0,4r_{0}\right) )}^{\frac{3}{2}}+c_{5}. \tag{3.10}
\end{equation
Multiplying (3.4) by $\eta _{r_{0}}^{2}v$ and integrating over
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$, we fin
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r_{0}}^{2}v\left( t,x\right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx+\frac{1}{
}\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r_{0}}v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r_{0}}\nabla
v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\left\Vert \Delta v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}+\lambda \left\Vert
v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}-\left\Vert v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\backslash B\left( 0,r_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation}
\leq c_{6}\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{\frac{3}{2}}+c_{6}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\nabla v_{t}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\left( 1+\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{H^{2}(B\left( 0,4r_{0}\right) )}^{\frac{1}{2}}\right) +c_{6}. \tag{3.11}
\end{equation
Multiplying (3.10) and (3.11) by $\delta ^{2}$ and $\delta $, respectively,
then summing the obtained inequalities with (3.9), choosing $\varepsilon >0$
and $\delta >0$ sufficiently small and applying Young inequality, we ge
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\Psi \left( t\right) +c_{7}E\left( v\left( t\right) \right) \leq
c_{8}\text{, \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{,} \tag{3.12}
\end{equation
wher
\begin{equation*}
\Psi \left( t\right) :=E(v(t))+\frac{1}{2}f_{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert
\nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\right) \left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\delta \left( \int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\eta _{r_{0}}^{2}v\left( t,x\right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx+\frac{1}{
}\left\Vert \sqrt{\alpha }\eta _{r_{0}}v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert \sqrt{\beta }\eta _{r_{0}}\nabla
v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }^{2}\right)
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+\delta ^{2}\left( \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}x_{i}\left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\left( x\right) \right) v_{x_{i}}\left(
t,x\right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right) dx+\frac{1}{2}\left( n-1\right)
\int\limits_
\mathbb{R}
^{n}}\left( 1-\eta _{2r_{0}}\left( x\right) \right) v_{t}\left( t,x\right)
v\left( t,x\right) dx\right) ,
\end{equation*
and the positive constant $c_{8}$, as the previous $c_{i}$ $\left( i
\overline{1,7}\right) $, is independent of the trajectory $\Gamma .$
Since $\delta >0$ is sufficiently small, there exist constants $c>0,$
\widetilde{c}>0$ such tha
\begin{equation}
cE\left( v\left( t\right) \right) \leq \Psi \left( t\right) \leq \widetilde{
}E\left( v\left( t\right) \right) \text{, \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.} \tag{3.13}
\end{equation
Taking into account (3.13) in (3.12), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\Psi \left( t\right) +c_{9}\Psi \left( t\right) \leq c_{8}\text
, \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{,}
\end{equation*
which yield
\begin{equation*}
\Psi \left( t\right) \leq e^{-c_{9}(t-s)}\Psi \left( s\right) +\frac{c_{8}}
c_{9}}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq s\text{.}
\end{equation*
Passing to the limit as $s\rightarrow -\infty $ and considering (3.13), we
ge
\begin{equation*}
E\left( v\left( t\right) \right) \leq c_{10}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.}
\end{equation*
By using the definition of $v$, after passing to the limit as $\sigma
\rightarrow 0$ in the last inequality, we fin
\begin{equation}
E\left( u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) \leq c_{10}\text{, \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.} \tag{3.14}
\end{equation
Considering (3.14) in (1.1), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\leq c_{11}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
\text{.}
\end{equation*
Thus, the last inequality, together with (3.14), yield
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \varphi \right\Vert _{H^{3}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) \times H^{2}\left(
\mathbb{R}
^{n}\right) }\leq c_{12}\text{, \ \ }\forall \varphi \in \mathcal{A}\text{,}
\end{equation*
which completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum theory has led to the prediction and experimental realization of several novel states of light which are unobtainable by classical theory alone~\cite{Glauber1963, Walls1983, Walls2008}. Of particular interest are squeezed states~\cite{Walls1983, Kumar1984,Peng_2000}, in which the noise in one quadrature of the electromagnetic field can be reduced beyond the quantum limit, i.e., shot noise, at the expense of introducing additional noise in the orthogonal quadrature. The first demonstration of such a quantum effect was by Slusher et al., with squeezed light generated via non-degenerate four-wave mixing (4WM) with Na atoms in an optical cavity~\cite{Slusher1985}. Squeezed light has since been demonstrated with optical parametric oscillators~\cite{Camy_1987,Wu1987, Furst2011}, optical fibers~\cite{Levenson1985, Leuchs_fiber} and mechanical resonators~\cite{Safavi-Naeini2013}. Two-mode squeezed states are a particular class of squeezed light in which quantum correlations are generated in the difference or sum of quadratures between the twin beams, often produced via parametric down conversion in crystals~\cite{Wu1986} or 4WM in atomic vapor~\cite{McCormick2007, Guo2014,Vogl_NJP,Peng_1992}. In these systems, strong reductions in noise between joint-quadratures have enabled demonstrations of continuous variable entanglement~\cite{Reid1988, Kwiat1995, Boyer2008}. In addition, atomic vapors have been labeled as excellent candidates for high-dimensional entanglement, due to their inherent multi-mode nature and large gain~\cite{Boyer2008}. When the aforementioned systems are seeded with a coherent input probe, the processes generate twin beams that are quantum correlated in their relative intensities, resulting in intensity-difference squeezing.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{FIG1v2-eps-converted-to.pdf
\caption{\label{setup}Four-wave mixing in potassium vapor. (a) The pump and probe fields overlap in the center of the vapor cell, and the amplified probe and generated conjugate fields are detected on a balanced photodetector. PBS: polarizing beam splitter. GT: Glan-Taylor polarizer. (b) Measured absorption spectrum of the $^{39}$K D1 line (solid line), a double-Lorentzian model of the hyperfine states based on measurements of the transitions using polarization spectroscopy (dashed), and the measured gain lines for the probe (red) and conjugate (blue). The arrows indicate the frequency detunings used in the experiment. (c) Energy level diagram summarizing the four-wave interaction.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is well known that quantum correlations, including those discussed above, are susceptible to the adverse effects of decoherence through interactions with the environment, often in the form of absorption or loss~\cite{Zurek_review, Kiss1995}. For this reason, approaches based on atomic vapors have found much success using off-resonant schemes such as the double-$\Lambda$ configuration~\cite{McCormick2007}. This setup achieves strong coherences between the atomic levels involved, and results in negligible absorption of the twin beams. McCormick et al. first proposed this method, and demonstrated 3.5 dB of relative intensity squeezing between twin beams generated via 4WM in hot rubidium vapor~\cite{McCormick2007}. In subsequent experiments, the method produced as much as 9.2 dB of squeezing~\cite{McCormick2008, Glorieux2010a}. We note that these 4WM schemes often allow for a simpler implementation than parametric down conversion in nonlinear crystals, since large values of squeezing can be obtained without the use of a cavity, periodic poling, or waveguide techniques. Similar results have been obtained using cesium atoms~\cite{Guo2014}. These two systems share the property that the ground state hyperfine splitting is resolved at operating temperatures. More recently, 4WM in potassium vapor was investigated on account of its enhanced $\chi^{(3)}$ susceptibility and large intrinsic gain~\cite{Zlatkovic2016}, though squeezed light was not demonstrated. Unlike rubidium and cesium, potassium's hyperfine splitting $\Delta_{\textrm{HFS}} = 462$ MHz is on the order of the Doppler-broadened linewidth, and thus all of the atomic transitions are completely overlapped at room temperature. Consequently, the probe field is almost maximally absorbed. While the effect of loss on squeezed light has been studied in the context of off-resonant twin beam generation~\cite{McCormick2008, Glorieux2010, Jasperse2011}, it remains to be elucidated whether this strong asymmetric absorption would preclude the ability to generate quantum correlation.
We demonstrate for the first time a squeezed light source based on potassium vapor, in which one of the twin beams is positioned at the center of a Doppler-broadened absorption profile, where the absorption is highly asymmetric. To achieve this, we implement a double-$\Lambda$ scheme for the D1 line of $^{39}$K, and show a 1.1 dB reduction in relative intensity noise below the shot noise limit (SNL). Following the approach developed in Ref.~\cite{Jasperse2011}, we show that such strong quantum correlations are not expected when the absorption is modeled solely as loss associated with a beam splitter interaction that follows an ideal gain medium. Rather, it is the competition between the gain and absorption within the medium which leads to accurate predictions of squeezing. This important difference permits the survival of quantum correlation when appropriate operating parameters are chosen, even in the presence of significant asymmetric loss between the twin beams.
\section{Experimental setup}
The essence of the experimental setup is shown in Fig.~\ref{setup}a. The 4WM process is pumped with 380 mW of coherent light from a Ti:Sapph continuous-wave laser, detuned approximately $500$ MHz to the blue side of the $^{39}$K D1 line (Figs.~\ref{setup}b-c). The pump is collimated to a size of $0.8$ mm $\times$ $0.6$ mm and then passed through an 80 mm, anti-reflection-coated vapor cell containing natural-abundance potassium. The vapor cell is heated to approximately $100$ $^\circ$C, and the pump is filtered out after the cell using a Glan-Taylor polarizer. The probe is generated by sending a fraction of the light through an acousto-optic modulator, double-passed and driven at a frequency of $\Omega/2\pi = 238$ MHz. The orthogonally polarized pump and probe ($1/e^2$ diameter $\approx670$ $\mu$m) beams are then combined on a polarizing beam splitter (see Fig.~\ref{setup}a), and overlap in the center of the cell at a small angle ($\theta \sim 0.1^\circ$). We note here that this angle is smaller than in Rb and Cs-based 4WM schemes \cite{Turnbull2013, Zlatkovic2016}. As a result of the 4WM process, a conjugate beam is generated at an angle $2\theta$ relative to the probe, with frequency $\omega_0 + \Delta_{\textrm{HFS}}+\delta$ (Figs.~\ref{setup}b-c), where $\omega_0$ is the pump frequency and the single photon detuning $\delta$ is controlled by varying $\Omega$. In Fig.~\ref{setup}b, we also show the measured gain lines for the probe and conjugate, and indicate the relevant frequency detunings of all beams relative to the hyperfine states, as well as the Doppler-broadened absorption profile. Both the probe and conjugate beams are spatially filtered using irises to remove any residual pump light, and redirected to a balanced photodetector (Thorlabs PDB450) via two D-mirrors and two lenses. Lastly, the signals are amplified with a gain of 10$^5$ V/A and the difference signal is analyzed on a spectrum analyzer using a resolution bandwidth of 10 kHz and a video bandwidth of 30 Hz.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{FIG2v2-eps-converted-to.pdf
\caption{\label{SA_results}Two-mode squeezing via 4WM in potassium vapor. The noise power spectra correspond to (a) the 4WM difference signal for 74 $\mu$W of probe and 62 $\mu$W of conjugate beam powers, (b) the shot-noise limit for 136 $\mu$W of pump light incident on a 50/50 beamsplitter and the individual spectra for (c) 62 $\mu$W of conjugate and (d) 74 $\mu$W of probe, respectively.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One of the main results is shown in Fig.~\ref{SA_results}. The noise power spectrum labeled (a) displays the 4WM difference signal measured for $P_a = 74$ $\mu$W of probe and $P_b = 62$ $\mu$W of conjugate beam powers. For this result, we have used an input power of $P_{\textrm{in}} = 120$ $\mu$W, and estimate the effective probe and conjugate gains within the medium (accounting for iris attentuation and other optical losses with $\eta^\prime_{a,b}$) to be $g_a = P_a/ (\eta^\prime_a P_{\textrm{in}}) = 1.9$ and $g_b = P_b/ (\eta^\prime_b P_{\textrm{in}}) = 0.7$, respectively. The difference signal falls below the SNL (b) for frequencies between 900\,kHz and 5\,MHz (roughly the bandwidth of the detector), and reaches a minimum of 1.1 dB below the SNL at $3$ MHz. We confirmed that the laser light in (b) was shot-noise limited by measuring the noise power as a function of total optical power (see Fig.~\ref{shotnoise}). Also, the noise powers of the individual conjugate and probe beams, labeled (c) and (d) in Fig.~\ref{SA_results}, are more than 5 dB above the SNL for a single beam (i.e., 3 dB below the SNL trace shown in Fig.~\ref{SA_results}). Finally, as a check, we have confirmed that both the residual pump noise (obtained by blocking the input probe) and electronic dark noise are below the 4WM signal and the SNL, with a minimum clearance of 4 dB.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{SFIG1-eps-converted-to.pdf
\caption{\label{shotnoise} Measured noise power of our laser light at 3 MHz as a function of the total optical power. The data has been corrected for an offset due to electronic noise.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We found that the best squeezing could be obtained with the pump detuned approximately 500 MHz to the blue side of the broadened D1 line (solid curve in Fig.~\ref{setup}b), and with $\delta \sim 15$ MHz. In terms of the double-$\Lambda$ scheme, this situation is similar to that used previously with rubidium~\cite{McCormick2007} and cesium~\cite{Guo2014}, with the probe frequency lying in between the hyperfine ground states. However, in the present case, the probe is positioned so that it is centered on the Dopper-broadened profile and almost maximally absorbed. The probe transmission $t$ is calculated as the ratio of the output and input powers of the probe with the pump blocked, taking into account optical losses after the cell. For the data shown in Fig.~\ref{SA_results}, the probe transmission is $t = 17\%$. Additionally, since the measured value of $t$ near resonance depends on the choice of cell temperature and two photon detuning, we were able to measure squeezing with transmissions ranging from $12\%$ to $42\%$. We observe that, in the case of rubidium or cesium, this configuration could involve a resonant pump and thus additional noise which would most likely preclude the observation of any degree of squeezing~\cite{McCormick2008, Jasperse2011}.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\columnwidth]{FIG3edit-eps-converted-to.pdf
\caption{\label{gaindata}Measured squeezing compared to the two theoretical models described in the text (DGL, dashed lines, and BS, dashed-dotted lines). Data is shown for various levels of gain and measured probe transmissions of $t = 0.15$ (blue squares) and $t = 0.4$ (red circles), where each data point corresponds to the measured noise power at 3 MHz relative to the SNL. Also shown are the predicted values of squeezing for transmissions of $15\%$ (blue) and $40\%$ (red) using the two theoretical models.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=\textwidth]{SFIG2edit-eps-converted-to.pdf
\caption{\label{anticorrelation} Anti-correlated fluctuations in the probe and conjugate intensities measured over a time scale of twenty seconds. In this mesurement, the experimental parameters are the same as those which lead to the squeezing data shown in Fig.~\ref{SA_results}.}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We now turn to investigating the ramifications of the strong absorption of the probe beam, as this is an important difference between the present scheme and previous double-$\Lambda$ experiments. Intuitively, one might expect this asymmetric absorption to severely reduce, if not completely destroy, quantum correlations in the two-mode state. This is often understood through means of a simple beamsplitter interaction, in which a fraction of the light is lost through one port to the environment and vacuum is injected into the other port~\cite{Kiss1995}. In this model, beamsplitters are placed in both the probe and conjugate paths, and losses are introduced via detection efficiencies $\eta_a$ and $\eta_b$, respectively. In the present case where absorption only occurs on the probe beam, the probe transmission is given by $t = \eta_a / \eta_b$ and the predicted squeezing in the beamsplitter (BS) model is
\begin{equation}
S_\textrm{BS} = 1+ \eta_b\frac{ 2(g-1)\left(g(t-1)^2-1\right)}{g(t+1)-1}
\label{eq:SBS}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $g$ is the intrinsic 4WM gain. In this model, the squeezing scales much less favorably for asymmetric losses (i.e., $t \neq 1$), than if the losses were symmetric (or balanced)~\footnote{This is not strictly true in the case when the probe is seeded with a coherent state and the conjugate is seeded with vacuum. In this case, a small amount ($\sim$1-5$\%$) of probe loss is actually optimal.}. However, as the loss occurs $\emph{within}$ the medium itself, a competition between gain and absorption occurs, resulting in a different scaling of the squeezing parameter, as shown in the theoretical and experimental work of Refs.~\cite{McCormick2008, Jasperse2011}. In this model of distributed gain and loss (DGL), the expression for squeezing given a probe transmission $t$ and balanced detection efficiency $\eta$ is ultimately more complicated than Eq.~\ref{eq:SBS}, but can be summarily expressed as
\begin{equation}
S_{\textrm{DGL}} = 1 - \eta \tilde{S}_\textrm{4WM} + \eta \sqrt{t} \tilde{S}_\text{vac}
\label{eq:SDGL}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tilde{S}_{\textrm{4WM}}$ accounts for correlations which reduce the noise below the SNL, and $\tilde{S}_{\textrm{vac}}$ introduces additional vacuum noise. The analytical expressions for $\tilde{S}_{\textrm{4WM}}$ and $\tilde{S}_{\textrm{vac}}$ are given in Ref.~\cite{Jasperse2011}, and only depend on $g$ and $t$ when the conjugate absorption by the atoms is negligible.
In Fig.~\ref{gaindata}, we show the measured squeezing at various levels of intrinsic gain $g = g_b + 1$ for two different regimes of probe transmission: $t = 0.15$ (blue squares) and $t = 0.4$ (red circles). We have also included calculations of the predicted squeezing for these two regimes, using both the BS model of Eq.~\ref{eq:SBS} (dashed-dotted) and the DGL model of Eq.~\ref{eq:SDGL} (dashed). In the experiment, the combination of optical and detection losses leads to an overall detection efficiency of $\eta = 0.5$. Because of this, we take $\eta_b = 0.5$ and $\eta = 0.5$ in the two models, BS and DGL, respectively. Importantly, we see that squeezing is not expected for gains $\geq 1.4$ when the probe transmission is $t = 0.15$ in the BS model (blue dash-dotted curve). Rather, due to the asymmetric losses, the BS model predicts excess noise in this regime. On the other hand, there is good qualitative agreement between the experiment and the DGL model in this case, with both showing quantum correlation between the resultant beams. This agreement is noteworthy given that effects other than those considered in the model are expected to become important due to Doppler broadening. Also, it should be pointed out that the irises used in mode selection~\cite{Boyer2008} attenuate some of the light, likely resulting in additional discrepancy.
\section{Discussion and Outlook}
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not place a constraint on the maximum attainable value of squeezing. In the presence of balanced detection loss ($1-\eta$), however, the squeezing is limited to $10\times \textrm{log}_{10} (1-\eta)$. With unbalanced losses, the maximum achievable squeezing occurs for a particular, optimal value of intrinsic gain. This is evident in the minima of the theoretical curves shown in Fig.~\ref{gaindata}. In the DGL model, the optimal gains for our two experimental scenarios are $2$ and $3.8$, respectively. The dependence of the optimal gain on the probe transmission offers an explanation as to why, in Fig.~\ref{gaindata}, the probe transmission differs by more than a factor of two and yet there is not an appreciable change in squeezing. In general, the optimal gain increases with increasing probe transmission. Experimentally, however, the available gain is limited by the maximum available pump intensity, as well as excess noise introduced at higher vapor cell temperatures. Under completely ideal circumstances (i.e., optimal gain and $\eta = 1$), our calculations suggest that the attainable squeezing would be $3.4$ dB and $6.4$ dB for probe transmissions of $15\%$ and $40\%$, respectively.
An interesting corollary which is inherent to this system is that quantum correlation can be present even when the medium is effectively transparent. This was demonstrated in Refs.~\cite{Jasperse2011, Glorieux2011}, with the loss occuring within the medium itself due to absorption in the former experiment, and by introducing loss after the 4WM process in the latter. In this sense, the overall gain is equal to one, as the total input probe power equals the sum of the probe and conjugate output powers after the added loss. In our experiment, we have observed $-0.84 \pm 0.16$ dB of squeezing when the normalized powers of the probe and conjugate beams are $0.56 \pm 0.05$ and $0.47 \pm 0.04$, respectively, giving an overall gain of $1.03 \pm 0.06$ (all errors are one standard deviation throughout this manuscript). As we have shown that the beamsplitter-only loss model is insufficient in predicting the observable squeezing values when the 4WM medium exhibits strong absorption on one of the beams, in this regime we believe that competing gain/loss plays an important role in generating squeezed beams in an overall transparent medium.
Lastly, due to dispersive effects within the medium, a time delay exists between the output probe and conjugate beams which depends on various parameters of the 4WM process~\cite{Boyer2007, Glasser2012}. This delay gives rise to a frequency dependence in the squeezing spectrum, typically limiting the maximum frequency at which squeezing is observed. In our experiments, this frequency is above the bandwidth of the detector. Additionally, we observe a somewhat related effect, in which the nature of the correlation is also found to be frequency dependent. While fluctuations in the 4WM signal are correlated at high frequencies ($\geq$ 900 kHz) and lead to squeezing, we find that the intensity fluctuations at low frequencies ($\leq$ 1 Hz) are anti-correlated (see Fig.~\ref{anticorrelation}). We suspect that the dispersive nature of the probe leads to a frequency dependence of the squeezing angle, in a manner similar to that described in Refs.~\cite{Kimble2001, Mikhailov2006, Corzo2013}, resulting in a rotation of the squeezing ellipse with frequency. In future work, phase-sensitive measurements of the probe and conjugate modes could help to clarify this phenomenon, as well as characterize all joint-quadrature information in the present bright twin-beam case.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have experimentally investigated the behavior of quantum-correlated twin beams in a new regime, that in which strong absorption plays a significant role. Our results indicate that a competition between gain and absorption exists within the medium, acting to reduce the deleterious nature of loss and thus improve quantum correlations. Despite a measured probe transmission of only $17\%$ and a detection efficiency of $\eta = 0.5$, we have measured a reduction in noise of $1.10 \pm 0.27$ dB below the SNL. Intrinsically, this configuration leads to such strong attenuation of the probe beam that we are able to demonstrate quantum correlations even when the medium has become effectively transparent, rendering the medium a quantum beamsplitter for photons as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Glorieux2011}. In addition to broadening our understanding of dissipative quantum optics, these results may be relevant for the engineering of quantum-correlated states in other configurations with strong absorption. Also, as this is the first demonstation of squeezing using potassium vapor, the results open up the possibility of interfacing squeezed light with cold atom experiments involving potassium, although significant effort to lower the frequency of obtained squeezing would likely be necessary, in order to achieve reasonable interaction times. Finally, they could also provide enhancements in precision measurement when detection is performed near the potassium D1 line.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Louisiana State Board of Regents and Northrop Grumman $\emph{NG - NEXT}$. We also thank Roger C. Brown for initial discussions surrounding the experiments performed here.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Feedback from massive stars impacts their surroundings on scales
ranging from the shaping of their immediate circumstellar environment
to the reionization of the universe. Stellar wind bow shocks, falling
on the former end of that scale, provide important information about a
star's history and environment. Bow shocks are produced when the
relative velocity between a star and the surrounding interstellar
medium (ISM) is supersonic \citep{baranov1971,vanburenmccray1988}.
They typically appear as arc-shaped features in optical line emission
\citep[e.g.,][]{kaper1997,bally2000,brownbomans2005,brownsbergerromani2014}
and/or thermal infrared continuum emission from dust
\citep[e.g.,][]{vanburen1995,noriegacrespo1997,comeronpasquali2007,france2007,gaspar2008,peri2012,winston2012,kobulnicky2016}.
These features mark the sweeping-up of ambient material between the
stellar wind termination shock and a second shock from the supersonic
motion. The orientation of the bow shock arc depends on the direction
of the relative motion, although it can be skewed by density gradients
in the environment \citep{wilkin2000}. The arc's standoff distance
from the star depends on the pressure balance between the stellar wind
and the ISM and hence on the magnitude of their relative motion and
the density of the ISM. Bow-shock-like structures may also be
produced where dust in a photoevaporative flow is stalled by radiation
pressure rather than the stellar wind
\citep{ochsendorf2014a,ochsendorf2014b,ochsendorftielens2015,ochsendorf2015}.
The asymmetric stellar wind bubbles of slower-moving stars may also
have a similar appearance in the mid-infrared
\citep{mackey2015,mackey2016}.
Arc-shaped structures around massive stars have commonly been
considered a marker of high stellar velocities, under the assumption
that the relative motion between star and ISM is dominated by the
absolute motion of the star
\citep{vanburen1995,kaper1997,gvaramadzebomans2008,gvaramadze2010,kobulnicky2010,gvaramadze2011a,gvaramadze2011b}.
The typical velocity of an O-type star relative to its surroundings is
$\sim10$ km s$^{-1}$
\citep{blaauw1961,cruzgonzalez1974,giesbolton1986,tetzlaff2011},
comparable to the speed of sound in an \ion{H}{ii} region, but
20--30\% of O-type stars are ``runaways'' with velocities $\gtrsim40$
km s$^{-1}$
\citep{blaauw1961,cruzgonzalez1974,stone1991,tetzlaff2011}. The high
speeds of runaway stars are imparted through dynamical interactions in a
cluster \citep{poveda1967,giesbolton1986,fujiiportegieszwart2011},
\btxt{through the disruption of a binary system when the companion star
explodes as a supernova} \citep{blaauw1961}, or through a two-step
scenario involving both processes \citep{pflammaltenburgkroupa2010}.
Runaways make up 50--100\% of field O-type stars, the O-type
population found outside clusters and associations
\citep{dewit2005,schilbachroser2008,gvaramadze2012a}.
The question of whether all field O-type stars are runaways, or
whether a small fraction formed in isolation, is of key importance to
our understanding of massive star formation. The monolithic collapse
model \citep{mckeetan2003,krumholz2005b,krumholz2009} permits truly
isolated massive star formation, albeit rarely, while the competitive
accretion model
\citep{zinnecker1982,bonnell2001a,bonnell2001b,bonnell2004} requires
that massive stars form exclusively in clusters. In observational
studies, the presence of a bow shock \btxt{or candidate bow shock} is
sometimes taken as a clue that a given massive field star did not form
in situ. For example, HD 48229 and HD 165319 were part of the
$4\pm2$\% of all O-type stars identified by
\citet{dewit2004,dewit2005} as likely candidates for isolated massive
star formation. Bow shocks were later discovered around both sources
\citep{gvaramadzebomans2008,gvaramadze2012a}, calling into question
their origins in the field.
While 70\% of bow shocks \btxt{and bow-shock-like structures} are
located in relatively isolated environments consistent with runaway
stars \citep{kobulnicky2016}, the rest are found around OB stars in
clusters and associations. These stars have sometimes been
interpreted as runaway interlopers from other regions
\citep{gvaramadze2011a}. However, the assumption that the motion of
the ambient ISM is negligible relative to that of the star may not
always be valid, particularly in and around giant \ion{H}{ii} regions.
In many cases, bow shock orientations suggest that feedback-driven ISM
flows are relevant. \citet{povich2008} observed that bow shocks in
the massive star-forming regions M17 and RCW 49 are oriented toward
those regions' central clusters, suggesting that global expansion of
the \ion{H}{ii} regions is the dominant component of the relative
star--ISM velocity. Similarly, several bow shocks in Cygnus OB2 point
toward the association's interior \citep{kobulnicky2010}, as do more
than half of the candidate bow shocks in the Carina Nebula
\citep{smith2010b,sexton2015}. The Galactic Plane survey of
\citet{kobulnicky2016} found that roughly 15\% of infrared bow shocks
are pointed at \ion{H}{ii} regions, while another 8\% face
bright-rimmed clouds; they also noted that bow shock orientations are
correlated on small scales, indicative of the influence of external
forces. \citet{povich2008} refer to such feedback-facing bow shocks
as ``interstellar weather vanes,'' tracing \btxt{photoevaporative
flows off local dense gas and/or large-scale gas motions driven by
cluster feedback.} \citet{kobulnicky2016} call them ``in-situ bow
shocks,'' reflecting their origin around presumably non-runaway OB
stars.
\btxt{When the motion of the star dominates over the motion of the
surrounding ISM, as it does for runaway stars, the bow shock is
expected to point in the direction of the star's motion.
\citet{vanburen1995} surveyed bow shocks around known runaway stars
and found that the bow shocks were preferentially aligned with their
host stars' proper-motion vectors. However, they used proper motions
measured in an absolute reference frame, not corrected for Galactic
rotation and solar peculiar motion and thus not necessarily
representative of a star's motion relative to the surrounding ISM.
More recent surveys by \citet{peri2012,peri2015}, again of bow
shocks around known runaways stars, did correct proper motions
\ctxt{for Galactic rotation} and noted a similar, albeit
qualitative, tendency for alignment. Individual runaway stars are
also often observed to be moving in the direction of their bow
shocks \citep[e.g.,][]{moffat1998,moffat1999,comeronpasquali2007}.
But what about bow shock around stars that have not already been
identified as runaways? \citet{kobulnicky2016} compiled a sample of
bow shocks without any selection on their host stars' kinematics.
They found that more than 50\% of the host stars with significant
measured proper motions had velocity--bow shock misalignments of
more than 45\degr, although again, they were working with absolute
proper motions rather than local. The relationship between stellar
motion and bow shock orientation for stars in clusters and
associations remains largely unexplored. }
\btxt{To further investigate this relationship,} we measure
\emph{local} proper motions for five \btxt{massive stars in the Carina
Nebula (listed in Table \ref{tab:obstab}), each of which is
associated with a candidate bow shock from \citet[][which includes
objects first identified by \citealt{smith2010b}]{sexton2015}.
\citet{smith2010b} and \citet{sexton2015} identified a total of 39
``extended red objects'' (EROs) in the Carina Nebula.} These EROs
exhibit extended, often arc-shaped, morphology \btxt{in \emph{Spitzer}
Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) 8.0 $\mu$m images. Nine of the
\citet{sexton2015} EROs are clearly resolved arcs and are classified
as morphological bow shock candidates; one of our stars (ALS 15206)
is associated with one of these sources (ERO 2). Another eight of
the \citet{sexton2015} EROs lack resolved morphologies at 8.0 $\mu$m
but have infrared colors that rule out emission from young stellar
objects (YSOs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The
remaining four of our stars are associated with sources in this
category, known as color bow shock candidates.}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\emph{HST} data log.}
\label{tab:obstab}
\begin{tabular}{rlrrllllrlr}
\hline
ERO & Star ID & R.A. & Dec. & Spectral & \ctxt{V} &
ACS &
Date 1 & Exp. time 1 & Date 2 & Exp. time 2 \\
No.$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & & (J2000) & (J2000) & type & \ctxt{(mag)} &
field &
& (s) & & (s) \\
\hline
2 & ALS 15206 & 10:44:00.9 & -59:35:46 & O9.2 V$^{\mathrm{b}}$ &
\ctxt{10.7$^{\mathrm{d}}$} & TR14 &
2005 Jul 17 & 2 $\times$ 500 & 2015 Jun 28 & 2 $\times$
520 \\
23 & TYC 8626-2506-1 & 10:44:30.2 & -59:26:13 & O9 V$^{\mathrm{b}}$ &
\ctxt{10.9$^{\mathrm{e}}$} & TR14 &
2005 Jul 17 & 2 $\times$ 500 & 2015 Jun 28 & 2 $\times$
520 \\
24 & CPD-59 2605 & 10:44:50.4 & -59:55:45 & B1 V$^{\mathrm{c}}$ &
\ctxt{11.1$^{\mathrm{f}}$} & POS27 &
2006 Mar 18 & 2 $\times$ 500 & 2015 Mar 12 & 2 $\times$
560 \\
25 & HDE 305533 & 10:45:13.4 & -59:57:54 & B1 V$^{\mathrm{a}}$ &
\ctxt{10.6$^{\mathrm{f}}$} & POS26 &
2006 Mar 16 & 2 $\times$ 500 & 2015 Mar 12 & 2 $\times$
560 \\
31 & HD 93576 & 10:46:53.8 & -60:04:42 & O9.5 IV$^{\mathrm{b}}$ &
\ctxt{\phantom{1}9.6$^{\mathrm{d}}$} & POS20 &
2006 Mar 15 & 2 $\times$ 500 & 2015 Mar 11 & 2 $\times$
455 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$^{\mathrm{a}}$From \citet{sexton2015}. &
\ctxt{$^{\mathrm{d}}$From \citet{reed2003}.} \\
$^{\mathrm{b}}$From \citet{sota2014}. &
\ctxt{$^{\mathrm{e}}$From \citet{hog2000}.} \\
$^{\mathrm{c}}$From \citet{vijapurkardrilling1993}. &
\ctxt{$^{\mathrm{f}}$From \citet{masseyjohnson1993}.} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\btxt{Our five target stars reside in the Carina Nebula: their visual
magnitudes \ctxt{(see Table \ref{tab:obstab})}, spectral types, and
extinctions \citep{povich2011b} confirm that they are unlikely to be
foreground or background objects.} The Carina Nebula is home to
nearly 70 O-type and evolved massive stars \citep{smith2006a},
including some of the earliest known O-type stars \citep{walborn2002a}
and the luminous blue variable $\eta$ Carinae
\citep{davidsonhumphreys1997}. At 2.3 kpc \citep{smith2006b}, it is
one of the closest and least-extincted massive star-forming regions.
Its two central clusters, Trumpler (Tr) 14 and Tr 16, contain about
half of its massive-star population. The rest is spread across
$\sim$30 pc, mostly in a region of ongoing star formation known as the
South Pillars \citep{smith2000}. Emission-line profiles show that
feedback from the central clusters is driving the expansion of
multiple shells of ionized gas \citep{damiani2016}, resulting in a
global expansion of the \ion{H}{ii} region at $\pm$15--20 km s$^{-1}$
\citep{walbornhesser1975,walborn2002b,walborn2007}. It is easy to
envision that the inward-facing orientations of many of Carina's
\btxt{candidate} bow shocks are the result of this supersonic,
feedback-driven ISM expansion \citep{sexton2015} or that they are
shaped by interaction with dense photoevaporative flows. Here, we
explore whether those interpretations are valid and to what degree
these bow shocks are shaped by the motion and structure of the ISM
versus the motion of their driving stars.
The organization of this paper is as follows: In Section
\ref{sec:obs}, we describe our multiepoch \emph{Hubble Space
Telescope} (\emph{HST}) observations, our image alignment procedure,
and our method for measuring proper motions. We present our results
and compare the stellar motions to the orientations of their
associated \btxt{bow shock candidates} in Section
\ref{sec:results}. Section \ref{sec:disc} discusses the implications
and limitations of our results, and Section \ref{sec:conc} summarizes
our conclusions.
\section{Observations and Analysis}
\label{sec:obs}
\subsection{\emph{HST} ACS Imaging}
\label{subsec:hst}
We have conducted a large-scale multiepoch survey of the Carina Nebula
using the Wide Field Camera (WFC) of \emph{HST}'s Advanced Camera for
Surveys (ACS). All observations were made with the F658N filter,
which captures emission from H$\alpha$ and [\ion{N}{ii}] $\lambda$6584.
Our imaging coverage is shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview}, where each
small rectangle is one orbit made up of three overlapping pairs of
{\tt CR-SPLIT} exposures. Orbital pointings were designed to target
features of particular interest in star formation (pillars,
\ctxt{Herbig-Haro objects}, etc.) as well as the central Tr 14 and Tr
16 clusters. \ctxt{The pointings in Figure \ref{fig:overview} are
labelled according to their designations in the \emph{HST} data archive.}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, trim=0 13mm 0 5mm,
clip]{f1}
\caption{Ground-based H$\alpha$ image of the Carina Nebula from
\citet{smith2010a}, with the positions of our \emph{HST} ACS
fields outlined in black \ctxt{and labelled by their designations
in the \emph{HST} data archive}. All fields were observed
twice, with a 9--10 year baseline between epochs. The orange box
indicates the portion of our Tr 14 mosaic that could not be
re-observed at the same position angle due to changes in the
\emph{HST} Guide Star Catalog between epochs. Extended red
objects (EROs) from \citet{sexton2015} that fall inside our fields
are marked with red stars and labeled with their ERO number; the
red arrows show their measured proper motions (Section
\ref{sec:results}) scaled to a travel time of $10^5$ yr. The blue
filled circles are EROs from \citet{sexton2015} that fall outside
our \emph{HST} fields. The approximate positions of the primary
central clusters, Tr 14 and Tr 16, are outlined with dashed
circles, as are the positions of Bochum 11 and Collinder 228, two
smaller clusters in the South Pillars region.}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure*}
The first epoch of our ACS observations was taken in 2005--2006
(GO-10241 and GO-10475, PI: N. Smith; see \citealt{smith2010a}). The
same set of observations was repeated in 2014--2015 (GO-13390 and
GO-13791, PI: N. Smith). This second epoch was designed to replicate
the first as closely as possible in pointing and position angle in
order to minimize position-dependent systemic errors when measuring
proper motions. Owing to changes in the \emph{HST} Guide Star Catalog
between epochs, we were unable to duplicate the orientation angle of
the central segment of the Tr 14 mosaic (marked in orange in Figure
\ref{fig:overview}) and of Positions 25 and 30. Those observations
were rotated by $\sim$180\degr.
Also marked in Figure \ref{fig:overview} are the locations of EROs
from \citet{sexton2015}. Our survey serendipitously imaged the stars
associated with seven EROs. However, as discussed below, we were
unable to constrain the proper motions of the two ERO-associated stars in
the central part of the Tr 14 mosaic (the part for which the
orientation angle changed beween epochs), leaving us with a sample of
five. Full details of the observations of each of these five stars
are given in Table \ref{tab:obstab}.
\subsection{Image Alignment and Stacking}
\label{subsec:align}
Our image alignment procedure, which adapts the methods of
\citet{anderson2008a,anderson2008b}, \citet{andersonvandermarel2010},
and \citet{sohn2012}, is described in detail in
\citet{reiter2015a,reiter2015b} and \citet{kiminki2016}. In summary,
we find the positions of uncrowded, unsaturated stars in individual
exposures and use those positions to relate each image to a master,
distortion-free reference frame. We use the program {\tt
img2xym\_WFC.09x10} \citep{andersonking2006}, which uses an array of
effective point spread functions (PSFs) and has the option to fit a
spatially constant perturbation PSF to account for telescope breathing
and other focus changes. The measured stellar positions were then
corrected for geometric distortion \citep{anderson2006}.
A master reference frame with a pixel scale of 50 mas was constructed
for each orbital pointing, aligned with north in the $+y$ direction.
The six overlapping images from each epoch of a given pointing were
stacked into two reference-frame master images (one per epoch) using
the stacking algorithm of \citet{anderson2008a}. Object positions in
the master images are directly comparable between epochs to an
alignment accuracy of approximately 1 mas ($\sim$ 1 km s$^{-1}$ over a
9--10 year baseline at the distance of the Carina Nebula). We found
that including a perturbation PSF in fitting stellar positions did not
improve the alignment precision, but we address other possible effects
of \emph{HST} focus changes in Section \ref{subsec:pms}.
In all cases, the master reference frames are not tied to an absolute
proper-motion zero point. Instead, the zero point is based on the
average motion of several hundred well-measured stars in the image.
In other words, the bulk motion of the Carina Nebula is removed, as
are smaller differences in the large-scale motion of Carina's clusters
and subclusters. Features that are locally stationary, like bow
shocks, are expected to be stationary in our reference frames,
allowing direct measurement of the motion of stars relative to their
surroundings.
\subsection{Measuring Local Proper Motions of Saturated Stars}
\label{subsec:pms}
With the images from two epochs on the same reference frame, measuring
local proper motions for unsaturated stars in our stacked images is as
simple as comparing their PSF-derived positions between epochs.
However, most of the OB stars observed, including those associated
with \btxt{candidate} bow shocks, are saturated in
our ACS images (which were all $\sim$500 s long). We were unable to
reconstruct the PSF core to perform traditional astrometry. Instead,
we used the positions of the extended Airy rings, which are clearly
visible for these stars in these deep, high-resolution images. The
left column of Figure \ref{fig:resid} shows the first-epoch image of
all five \btxt{ERO-associated} stars for which we measured proper
motions.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{f2a}
\caption{Left: first-epoch ACS F658N images of five stars associated
with \btxt{candidate} bow shocks in the Carina Nebula. The red
boxes mark the sections of the Airy rings used for fitting the
offset between epochs. Middle: best-fit difference images
(unshifted second epoch minus best-fit shifted first epoch) for
each star. Right: best-fit pixel offset between epochs with a
9--10 year baseline. The gray shaded regions mark the space of
possible apparent offsets due to focus changes.}
\label{fig:resid}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{f2b} \contcaption{}
\end{figure*}
As marked in Figure \ref{fig:resid}, we identified four regions in the
outer PSF of each star, avoiding diffraction spikes, saturation
bleeding, and close companions. We then found the pixel offset in $x$
(west-east) and $y$ (north-south) by which the first epoch needed to
be shifted in order to minimize the sum over those four regions of the
absolute value of the flux difference between epochs. The best-fit
offset was computed using the {\tt AMOEBA} algorithm, the IDL
implementation of the downhill simplex function minimization method
\citep{neldermead1965,press1992}. {\tt AMOEBA} requires an input
estimate. As recommended by \citet{press1992}, we run the algorithm
twice, giving it a random starting estimate on the first run and then
starting the second run at the best-fit parameters of the first. The
resulting best-fit difference images (unshifted second epoch minus
best-fit shifted first epoch) are shown in the middle column of Figure
\ref{fig:resid}. Although the Airy rings do not disappear completely
in the difference images, there are no systematic differences in
residual flux between quadrants. The best-fit offset for each star,
in pixels over the 9--10 year baseline, is plotted in the right column
of Figure \ref{fig:resid}.
This method does not produce accurate results for saturated stars in
fields that experienced significant rotation between epochs. The
asymmetry of the ACS WFC PSF
\citep{andersonking2006,mahmudanderson2008} causes the flux
distribution in the outer PSF to be orientation-dependent. When the
fields are rotated into alignment, the asymmetric flux distribution
introduces an apparent shift of up to several pixels. Consequently,
as mentioned in Section \ref{subsec:hst}, we were unable to measure
the true shifts of the two ERO-associated stars in the central part of
our Tr 14 mosaic (see Figure \ref{fig:overview}). These stars were
removed from further analysis and are not shown in Figure
\ref{fig:resid}; our final sample consists of the five ERO-associated
stars listed in Table \ref{tab:obstab}.
To characterize the uncertainties in our fits, we ran several
different tests. First, we adjusted the size and placement of the
boxes used to calculate the residuals, then refit. These adjustments
proved to have a negligible effect on the resulting best-fit offset.
Second, we repeated the full fitting process 100 times and measured
the standard deviation among the results. These ranged from 0.03 to
0.4 pixels depending on the star. Finally, we applied 100 random
[$x$,$y$] offsets to the first-epoch images and repeated the full
fitting process again for each, to determine how well we could recover
the expected (artificial $+$ true) offsets. The standard deviation in
the offsets recovered via this approach ranged from 0.04 to 0.23
pixels. For each star, we adopt the greater of the two uncertainty
values as the formal uncertainty.
Changes in \emph{HST} focus from both short-term thermal breathing and
long-term non-thermal effects \citep[e.g.,][]{coxlallo2012} could
induce an apparent offset between epochs by redistributing flux in the
PSF. To evaluate the magnitude of this effect, we downloaded a Tiny
Tim model PSF \citep{krist2011} for each star, at its observed chip
position, for the appropriate focus value taken from the \emph{HST}
focus model \citep{dinino2008,niemilallo2010,coxniemi2011}. The true
shift between ``epochs'' of Tiny Tim models is zero, so any measured
shift would be a false positive. We ran the pair of Tiny Tim models
for each star through our fitting procedure and measured apparent
offsets of 0.035 to 0.22 pixels, which are illustrated by the shaded
gray regions in the third column of Figure \ref{fig:resid}. In most
cases, the focus-induced shifts are small and/or distributed roughly
evenly about the origin. For HDE 305533 (ERO 24), however, the focus
changes induced a systematic $-x, +y$ offset. Removing this shift
would reduce the magnitude of the observed proper motion of HDE 305533
by roughly half, but would have only a small effect on its direction
of motion.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
As the plots in the right column of Figure \ref{fig:resid}
demonstrate, each of the five \btxt{stars associated with candidate
bow shocks} traveled no more than $\sim$0.5 pixels (25 mas) in any
direction over their 9--10 year baselines. The measured pixel offsets
are given in Table \ref{tab:pmtab} along with the corresponding proper
motion components, the total transverse velocity, and the position
angle of the proper motion vector. The best-fit local transverse
velocities range from 16 to 35 km s$^{-1}$; the red arrows in Figure
\ref{fig:overview} show the expected travel distances over 10$^5$ yr.
However, the uncertainties on most of the measured velocities are
relatively large: most of the stars have motion consistent with zero
within 1--2 $\sigma$. Only HD 93576 has motion significant at the
3$\sigma$ level, in the $x$ direction, although it has negligible $y$
(north--south) motion. We argue in Section \ref{subsec:up} below that
the true proper moions are likely on the smaller side of the allowed
ranges. Even so, the results for all five stars constrain their
directions of motion to sectors less than 90\degr~wide.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Local proper motions of stars associated with
\btxt{candidate} bow shocks.}
\label{tab:pmtab}
\begin{tabular}{rlrrrrrr}
\hline
ERO No. & Star ID & $\delta x$ & $\delta y$ & $\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta $ &
$\mu_{\delta}$ & v$_{\textrm{T}}$$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Position angle \\
& & (pixels) & (pixels) & (mas yr$^{-1}$) &
(mas yr$^{-1}$) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (deg E of N) \\
\hline
2 & ALS 15206 & -0.39 (0.16) & 0.35 (0.28) & 2.0 (0.8) & 1.8 (1.4) & 29 (17) & 48 (25) \\
23 & TYC 8626-2506-1 & -0.27 (0.29) & -0.45 (0.39) & 1.4 (1.4) & -2.3 (2.0) & 29 (27) & 149 (35) \\
24 & CPD-59 2605 & 0.36 (0.37) & 0.46 (0.20) & -2.0 (2.1) & 2.5 (1.1) & 35 (25) & 322 (31) \\
25 & HDE 305533 & -0.39 (0.18) & 0.40 (0.19) & 2.2 (1.0) & 2.2 (1.1) & 34 (16) & 45 (19) \\
31 & HD 93576 & 0.26 (0.04) & 0.04 (0.07) & -1.4 (0.2) & 0.2 (0.4) & 16 ( 5) & 279 (15) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l}
Uncertainties for each quantity are listed in parentheses. \\
$^{\mathrm{a}}$Total transverse velocity, assuming a distance of 2.3 kpc. \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
In Figure \ref{fig:spitzer}, we compare the local proper motions of
the stars to the orientations of their associated \btxt{candidate} bow
shocks. The latter were determined by \citet{sexton2015} based on the
peaks of the 8.0 $\micron$ flux. (ERO 25, associated with HDE 305533,
does not have a measured orientation.) In these three-color
\emph{Spitzer} IRAC images, the \btxt{candidate} stellar wind bow
shocks appear as extended red (8.0 $\micron$) features, while nearby
stars are prominent in blue (3.6 $\micron$) and green (4.5 $\micron$).
We indicate the stars' motions with white arrows (lengths arbitrarily
scaled for visiblity) and show the range of possible directions with
dotted white lines. The \btxt{orientations of the candidate bow
shocks}, where known, are denoted by cyan arrows, and the outer
yellow arrows show the directions to the various OB clusters.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{f3}
\caption{Composite three-color \emph{Spitzer} IRAC images of the
five OB stars and their associated \btxt{candidate} bow shocks
(blue = 3.6 $\micron$, green = 4.5 $\micron$, red = 8.0
$\micron$). The white arrows indicate the direction of the
best-fit proper motion of each star, with the dotted white lines
bracketing the $\pm1\sigma$ range of directions. The cyan arrows
highlight the orientation of the \btxt{candidate} bow shock, i.e.,
the direction from the star to the peak of the 8.0 $\micron$
emission, where measured by \citet{sexton2015}. Also indicated
are the directions to Tr 14 and Tr 16, the largest OB clusters in
the Carina Nebula, and to the smaller clusters Bo 11 and Cr 228.}
\label{fig:spitzer}
\end{figure*}
The uppermost panels in Figure \ref{fig:spitzer} show ALS 15206 (with
ERO 2 from \citealt{sexton2015}) and TYC 8626-2506-1 (ERO 23). Both
of these stars are closer to Tr 14 than to Tr 16 (see Figure
\ref{fig:overview})\btxt{,} both \btxt{are associated with candidate}
bow shocks pointing at Tr 14, \btxt{and both have proper motions
directed} tangentially to the orientation of their \btxt{candidate}
bow shocks. \btxt{The radial velocity of ALS 15206 is poorly
constrained, as it is a probable spectroscopic binary (Kiminki et
al. in preparation), but is consistent with being drawn from the
radial velocity distribution of Tr 14
(\citealt{penny1993,garcia1998}; Kiminki et al. in preparation). No
radial velocity data exist for TYC 8626-2506-1.} \btxt{Thus based
on the proper motions of their associated stars, the} relative
motion shaping \btxt{EROs 2 and 23} appears to be dominated by the
motion of the surrounding ISM, expanding outward from Tr 14. Unseen
density gradients may also play a role, but the motion of the stars
themselves do not look to be influencing the directions of \btxt{these
candidate bow shocks}. \btxt{They} may truly be acting as ``weather
vanes,'' tracing the large-scale flows of the ISM.
The middle row of Figure \ref{fig:spitzer} shows CPD-59 2605 (ERO 24)
and HDE 305533 (ERO 25). These stars' \btxt{candidate} bow shocks are
not arc-shaped at IRAC resolutions; \citet{sexton2015} were able to
measure an orientation for ERO 24 but not for ERO 25. Both stars are
in Carina's South Pillars region, and are roughly 7.5 pc northeast of
the nominal center \citep{wu2009} of the sparse open cluster Cr
228. ERO 24 points north toward Tr 16, suggesting that it is
influenced by feedback-driven outflows. However, its associated star
(CPD-59 2605) has a local proper motion to the northwest, consistent
with the \btxt{orientation of the candidate bow shock} within the
uncertainties. It is thus not possible to distinguish between the
effects of ISM flows and stellar motion in the case of ERO 24, as both
may be relevant to shaping that \btxt{feature}. \btxt{No radial velocity
data exist for CPD-59 2605.}
Relative to its surroundings, HDE 305533 (ERO 25) is moving to the
northeast, away from the WNH star HD 93131 and the small group of late
O-type stars that make up the center of Cr 228. Its path hints at an
ejection from Cr 228, although at its observed speed it would have
covered the 7.5 pc from Cr 228 in just 220,000 yr (but see discussion
in Section \ref{subsec:up} below on the likelihood that our measured
proper motions are upper limits). The age and extent of Cr 228 are
also poorly constrained, as it has often been considered an extension
of Tr 16 \citep{walborn1995,smithbrooks2008}, while X-ray data show it
to be a discrete collection of groups and subclusters without a clear
center \citep{feigelson2011}. The origin of HDE 305533 is therefore
not clearly evident. \btxt{Its radial velocity \citep[-18 km
s$^{-1}$;][]{levato1990} is typical for the massive stars in Cr
228 and the South Pillars region (\citealt{levato1990}; Kiminki et
al. in preparation) and comparable to the radial velocity of the
surrounding gas pillars \citep{rebolledo2016}.}
Finally, the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:spitzer} shows HD 93576,
the binary system \citep{levato1990} associated with ERO 31. HD 93576
lies on the outskirts of the small open cluster Bochum 11 (Bo 11),
located in the southeastern part of the South Pillars. Bo 11 is home
to an estimated 1000 stars \citep{dias2002}, including the O5
supergiant HD 93632 \citep{sota2014} and three additional O-type stars
besides HD 93576. Photometric analysis indicates that the cluster is
3--5 Myr old
\citep{fitzgeraldmehta1987,patatcarraro2001,preibisch2011c}; the
presence of an O5I star suggests that 3 Myr is more likely. As Figure
\ref{fig:spitzer} shows, the proper motion vector of HD 93576 is
closely aligned with the orientation of its \btxt{candidate} bow
shock, which in turn points nearly directly away from the center of Bo
11. This configuration suggests that HD 93576 was ejected from Bo 11
and that its subsequent supersonic motion produced the observed
\btxt{candidate} bow shock. \btxt{Its systemic radial velocity (-8 km
s$^{-1}$; Kiminki et al. in preparation) is commensurate with the
radial velocities of the other massive members of Bo 11
(\citealt{levato1990}; Kiminki et al. in preparation) and the nearby
dense gas \citep{rebolledo2016}.} But its observed proper motion
(15 km s$^{-1}$) and current position (1.9 pc from the center of Bo
11) indicate an ejection date just 130,000 yr ago. Perhaps HD 93576
was ejected 2--3 Myr after the formation of Bo 11 \citep[possible;
see][]{ohkroupa2016}. Alternately, it could have originated outside
the Carina Nebula \btxt{and have a coincidental agreement in radial
velocities}, or the magnitude of its proper motion could be smaller
than measured (see discussion in Section \ref{subsec:up}). In
addition, its \btxt{candidate} bow shock is also generally directed
toward the interior of the Carina Nebula, so a contribution from ISM
flows driven by cluster feedback cannot be ruled out regardless of the
origin of the star.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:disc}
\subsection{Proper Motions as Upper Limits}
\label{subsec:up}
For four of the five \btxt{candidate} bow shock host stars in our
sample, we measure local proper motions of $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$, with
associated uncertainties of $>15$ km s$^{-1}$. (This total includes
HDE 305533, whose observed motion may include a contribution from
focus changes as described in Section \ref{subsec:pms}.) Several
lines of reasoning support the interpretation of these measured
velocities as upper limits, with the true proper motions lying on the
small side of the allowed range. First, the typical velocity of an
O-type star relative to its surrounding is $\sim$ 10 km s$^{-1}$
\citep{blaauw1961,cruzgonzalez1974,giesbolton1986,tetzlaff2011}. Of
course, the stars in our sample are arguably not typical, given their
association with \btxt{candidate} dusty bow shocks. Space velocities
of 30 km s$^{-1}$ may qualify them as runaway stars, depending on the
choice of runaway classification criteria. None of the five stars
measured here are moving with trajectories that could have originated
in Tr 14 or Tr 16, although HDE 305533 (ERO 25) and HD 93576 (ERO 31)
may have come from the smaller open clusters Cr 228 and Bo 11,
respectively. An object moving at 30 km s$^{-1}$ would cover 60 pc in
2 Myr \citep[the average estimated age of Tr
14/16;][]{walborn1995,smith2006a,preibisch2011c}, and these stars
are all significantly closer than that to any possible clusters of
origin in the Carina Nebula. It is possible that all four of the
stars with measured proper motions of $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$ were
ejected more recently, but that scenario would still not explain
their directions of motion. Similarly, it is possible that all four
are interlopers in the Carina Nebula, originating from another
cluster, but the chance of encountering four such stars in our small
sample is low. \btxt{And as described in Section \ref{sec:results},
the radial velocities of our sample stars, where available, agree
with the radial motions of the surrounding stars and gas, consistent
with more local origins.}
In addition, speeds of 30 km s$^{-1}$ are inconsistent with the
relative star--ISM velocities computed for Carina's \btxt{candidate}
bow shocks by \citet{sexton2015}. The pressure balance governing a
standard bow shock makes it possible to estimate the relative
star--ISM velocity as a function of measured standoff distance by
making reasonable assumptions about stellar wind velocity, mass-loss
rate, and ISM density. \citet{sexton2015} measured the standoff
distances of nine EROs in the Carina Nebula and found an average
star--ISM velocity of 17 km s$^{-1}$. For ERO 2 (associated with ALS
15206), the relative star--ISM velocity was a barely-supersonic 7 km
s$^{-1}$. Similar relative velocities for bow shocks in the massive
star-forming region RCW 38 were reported by \citet{winston2012}.
These numbers have substantial uncertainties due to the assumptions
that go into their calculation, but they still suggest somewhat lower
stellar velocities. Consider ERO 2 (ALS 15206): The orientation of
the \btxt{candidate} bow shock indicates that the direction of the
highest relative star--ISM velocity is to the northwest. We have
measured that ALS 15206 is moving to the northeast, tangential to its
\btxt{candidate} bow shock. If the relative star--ISM velocity in the
direction of the \btxt{candidate} bow shock is on the order of 7 km
s$^{-1}$, the relative star--ISM velocity in a different direction
cannot be substantially higher than that, although the picture may be
complicated if there are density gradients in the ISM.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that the measured \btxt{stars
associated with candidate bow shocks} are moving as fast as 30 km
s$^{-1}$ relative to their surroundings. The local proper motions
given here should thus be treated as upper limits. HD 93576 may be an
exception, as its westward motion is measured at 3$\sigma$
significance (but this raises questions about its possible origin in
Bo 11, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:results}).
\subsection{Comparison to Absolute Proper Motions}
\label{subsec:abs}
\btxt{All five of the stars in our sample have proper motions listed
in the USNO CCD Astrograph Catalog \citep[UCAC4;][]{zacharias2013},
and ALS 15206, TYC 8626-2506-1, and HD 93576 also have proper
motions in the Tycho-2 Catalogue \citep{hog2000} and \emph{Gaia}
Data Release 1
\citep[DR1;][]{gaia2016a,gaiabrown2016,lindegren2016}. (Note that
Tycho-2 and \emph{Gaia} DR 1 are not wholly independent
measurements, as the latter incorporates positional information from
the former.) The UCAC4, Tycho-2, and \emph{Gaia} DR1 proper motions
are measured in an absolute reference frame and are therefore not
directly comparable to the local proper motions measured here. We
would expect to see a roughly constant offset between these absolute
proper motions and our local ones, with that offset representing the
bulk motion of the Carina Nebula relative to the Sun. We plot the
available absolute proper motions for each star, along with our
measured local proper motions, in Figure \ref{fig:comp}. Contrary
to expectations, Figure \ref{fig:comp} does not show a
consistent offset between local and absolute proper motions. The
UCAC4 proper motions in particular do not follow any apparent trend
relative to the local proper motions or the Tycho-2 and \emph{Gaia}
DR1 data. The differences between catalogues suggest that there may
be systematic effects in the literature measurements that are not
taken into account in the published uncertainties.}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{f4}
\caption{Comparison of the \emph{local} proper motion (filled
black diamonds) of each star measured here to its \emph{absolute} proper
motion from UCAC4 \citep[open blue squares,][]{zacharias2013},
the Tycho-2 Catalogue \citep[filled orange stars,][]{hog2000}, and
\emph{Gaia} Data Release 1 \citep[open red
circles,][]{gaia2016a,gaiabrown2016,lindegren2016}. (a) ALS
15206 (ERO 2); (b) TYC 8626-2506-1 (ERO 23); (c) CPD-59 2605 (ERO
24); (c) HDE 305533 (ERO 25); (e) HD 93576 (ERO 31).}
\label{fig:comp}
\end{figure*}
\ctxt{For further comparison, we correct the \emph{Gaia} proper
motions, where available, to the rest frame of the Carina Nebula in
two ways. First, we formally correct for Galactic rotation and
solar peculiar motion, as in \citet{moffat1998,moffat1999} and
\citet{comeronpasquali2007}. We adopt Oort's constants $A=15\pm1$
km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$ and $B=-12\pm1$ km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$
\citep{feastwhitelock1997,elias2006,bovy2017} and components of the
solar peculiar velocity
$(U_{\sun},V_{\sun},W_{\sun})=(10\pm1,12\pm1,7\pm1)$ km s$^{-1}$
\citep{feastwhitelock1997,elias2006,schonrich2010,tetzlaff2011}.
The corrected proper motions are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:gaia}.
For all three stars, the corrected \emph{Gaia} proper motions are
$\le1.3$ mas yr$^{-1}$ ($\le14$ km s$^{-1}$), supporting our
interpretation that these stars are not runaways. The corrected
\emph{Gaia} proper motion of ALS 15206 (ERO 2) is, like our measured
motion, directed to the northeast, tangential to the orientation of
its candidate bow shock. The corrected \emph{Gaia} motion of TYC
8626-2506-1 (ERO 23) is to the southwest, into its candidate bow
shock, although its 1$\sigma$ uncertainties overlap with those of
our measured motion to the southeast. The corrected \emph{Gaia}
motion of HD 93576 (ERO 31) is also consistent with our data,
although the \emph{Gaia} results indicate a smaller velocity to the
west, suggesting a longer time since ejection from Bo 11.
We also perform an empirical correction to the local reference
frame: we compute the weighted mean proper motion of the 38 O-type
stars in the Carina Nebula in \emph{Gaia} DR1 \citep[which is
roughly half the total O-type population of the region;
e.g.,][]{smith2006a,gagne2011,alexander2016} and subtract that from
the absolute \emph{Gaia} proper motions of the three sample stars.
The results are consistently $\sim1.1$ mas yr$^{-1}$ ($\sim12$ km
s$^{-1}$) offset from the results of formally correcting for
Galactic rotation and solar peculiar motion. For ALS 15206 (ERO 2)
and TYC 8626-2560-1 (ERO 23), the empirical correction brings the
corrected \emph{Gaia} proper motions into better agreement with our
results. For HD 93576 (ERO 31), the empirical correction produces
worse agreement with our results and suggests that the star is
moving to the east, away from its candidate bow shock and toward Bo
11. The different parts of the Carina Nebula may have different
large-scale motions not properly accounted for in these corrections.
Future \emph{Gaia} data releases, extending into Carina's
intermediate-mass population, will allow more precise and
locally-specific corrections to the local reference frame. }
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{f5}
\caption{\ctxt{Comparison of the local proper motions (filled black
diamonds) measured here to proper motions from \emph{Gaia} Data
Release 1 \citep{gaia2016a,gaiabrown2016,lindegren2016} that
have been corrected to a local reference frame. Open red
circles are the \emph{Gaia} DR1 data corrected for Galactic
rotation and solar peculiar motion as described in Section
\ref{subsec:abs}; purple asterisks are the \emph{Gaia} DR1 data
corrected empirically by subtracting the mean proper motion of
O-type stars in the Carina Nebula. (a) ALS 15206 (ERO 2); (b)
TYC 8626-2506-1 (ERO 23); (c) HD 93576 (ERO 31).}}
\label{fig:gaia}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Interpreting Bow Shocks in Giant \ion{H}{ii} Regions}
\label{subsec:interp}
In our subsample of bow shock candidates in the Carina Nebula, EROs 2
and 23 face the OB cluster Tr 14, while EROs 24 and 31 point more
generally toward Tr 14 and 16. The majority of bow shock candidates
in the full \citet{sexton2015} sample also point in toward the
clusters rather than out as would be expected for runaway stars.
\citet{sexton2015} hypothesized that these \btxt{candidate} bow shocks
are markers of large-scale ISM flows driven by cluster feedback. The
ionized gas in the Carina Nebula is known to be globally expanding at
15--20 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{walbornhesser1975,walborn2002b,walborn2007},
with multiple local centers of expansion including Tr 14
\citep{damiani2016}. Feedback-driven outflows are also thought to
explain the orientations of bow shocks in other massive star-forming
regions \citep{povich2008,winston2012} and the correlation of bow
shock orientations on small angular scales \citep{kobulnicky2016}.
Our results are broadly compatible with this interpretation, but they
indicate that the factors influencing a bow shock \btxt{or
bow-shock-like structure} cannot be deduced solely from its
orientation.
The associated stars of EROs 2 and 23 are not moving in the direction
of their \btxt{infrared} arcs, which are thus likely shaped by
feedback from Tr 14. These two objects confirm that, at least in this
environment, \btxt{apparent} bow shock orientation does not always
follow stellar motion. In contrast, the associated stars of EROs 24,
25, and 31 are moving roughly toward Tr 14 and 16. Both stellar
motion and ISM flows could be relevant in setting the orientation of
these three \btxt{candidate} bow shocks, demonstrating that
cluster-facing \btxt{bow-shock-like structures} are not necessarily
clear markers of the motion of the ISM.
Feedback may also be affecting bow shocks in giant \ion{H}{ii} regions
in other ways besides large-scale outflows. For instance, the pile-up
of dust in bow shock arcs depends on the presence of dust in the
surrounding \ion{H}{ii} region, as the hot winds of OB stars do not
make dust effectively. This dust may originate in photoevaporative
flows off nearby molecular pillars, driven globally by ionizing
radiation from the central clusters and locally by individual OB
stars. \citet{kobulnicky2016} found that eight percent of bow shocks
across the Galactic Plane face bright-rimmed clouds, suggesting they
are shaped by local photoevaporative flows. The arc-shaped dust waves
around $\sigma$ and $\lambda$ Ori are also thought to be driven by
photoevaporative flows off the edge of ionized bubbles
\citep{ochsendorf2014a,ochsendorf2014b,ochsendorftielens2015,ochsendorf2015}.
Density gradients in the ISM can also affect bow shock symmetries
\citep{wilkin2000} or create infrared arcs via uneven heating.
We inspected \emph{Spitzer} images of the Carina Nebula to assess the
relationship between Carina's EROs, its molecular gas, and the
distribution of warm dust. There is a possible tendency for EROs to
be closer to dense pillars than expected from a random distribution,
but there is no correlation between ERO orientation and the direction
to the nearest pillar. ERO 31, for example, lies just
45\arcsec~($\sim$0.5 pc) from the edge of a prominent pillar, but
points almost directly away from it. Multiband Imaging Photometer
(MIPS) images at 24 $\micron$
reveal complex warm dust structures throughout the nebula, including
around EROs 24 and 31. However, the origin and impact of these
structures with respect to the EROs is unclear. Higher-resolution
mid-infrared imaging is required to tease out the effects of density
gradients and photoevaporative flows in shaping Carina's EROs.
In any case, our main result is unaffected: in a giant \ion{H}{ii}
region, \btxt{the orientation of bow-shock-like structures} may be
determined by the ISM, by stellar motion, or by some combination of
factors. It is worth reiterating that none of the five \btxt{stars}
in our study are runaways from Tr 14 or 16. While this result is
unsurprising given the orientation of their \btxt{candidate} bow
shocks, it confirms that stars with \btxt{bow-shock-like structures}
are not automatically runaways. The statistical preference for
alignment between stellar motion and bow shock orientation,
particularly among known runaway stars
\citep{vanburen1995,kobulnicky2016} suggests that stellar motion does
dominate over ISM flows for bow shocks far from feedback-generating
clusters. But within associations, assumptions about the implications
of bow shocks \btxt{and bow-shock-like structures}
\citep[e.g.,][]{kobulnicky2010,gvaramadze2011a} should be made with
caution.
\subsection{Implications for the Origins of OB Associations}
\label{subsec:assoc}
The local proper motions of CPD-59 2605 (ERO 24), HD 305533 (ERO 25),
and HD 93576 (ERO 31) can also shed light on the origins of the
distributed massive-star population in the Carina Nebula. Nearly half
of Carina's massive stars, including the WNH star HD 93131, are spread
across roughly 20 pc in the South Pillars \citep{smith2006a}. Some of
these massive stars are associated with small open clusters (Bo 11, Cr
228) and other groups and subclusters of young stars
\citep{smith2010b,feigelson2011}. However, \emph{Herschel} imaging
detected no massive protostars in the region, suggesting that the
ongoing star formation in the South Pillars is limited to low- and
intermediate-mass stars \citep{gaczkowski2013}.
In the classic picture of clustered star formation
\citep[e.g.,][]{ladalada2003}, massive stars rarely form in a
distributed mode as seen in the South Pillars. Instead, massive stars
are born in clusters that may subsequently become unbound after gas
dispersal and expand into OB associations
\btxt{\citep{tutukov1978,hills1980,ladalada1991,ladalada2003}}. In this
picture, one would expect the Carina Nebula's distributed massive
stars to have formed in the central Trumpler clusters and drifted out
to their current locations over several Myr.
Our proper motion results are inconsistent with this expectation, as
all three of the massive South Pillars stars measured here are moving
toward the Trumpler clusters, not away. These stars' kinematics
suggest that they were born in the South Pillars, possibly in one of
the smaller open clusters, and support a model of star formation in
which OB associations form directly as loose aggregates
\citep[e.g.,][]{efremovelmegreen1998b,clark2005}. A similar result
has been observed for the Cyg OB2 association based on its
substructure and lack of global expansion
\citep{wright2014,wright2016}. Further investigation of stellar
kinematics in the South Pillars is needed to confirm this
interpretation of the Carina Nebula's distributed population.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
Using \emph{HST} ACS imaging with 9--10 year baselines, we have
measured the local proper motions (i.e., relative to the surrounding
stars) of five OB stars associated with candidate bow shocks in the
Carina Nebula. Because these stars are highly saturated in our data,
we use precisely-aligned images to measure the shift in each star's
Airy rings between epochs. The results are largely upper limits, but
we are able to constrain the direction of each star's motion for
comparison to the orientation of its \btxt{candidate} bow shock.
Stellar wind bow shocks are formed when the relative velocity between
star and ISM is supersonic, but the bow shock alone does not indicate
which component of the relative velocity dominates. Are bow shocks
indicators of fast-moving runaway stars or do they mark the
large-scale flow of the ISM? In our sample of five, we find two cases
where the latter is likely the case, as the stars are moving at a
tangent to the arc of their \btxt{candidate} bow shocks. In the other
three cases, we conclude that the possible influences of ISM flows,
ISM structure, and stellar motion cannot be separated, and that
multiple factors could be relevant for each object. We consequently
caution against overinterpreting the orientation of bow shocks
\btxt{and bow-shock-like structures} in giant \ion{H}{ii} regions like
the Carina Nebula.
In addition, none of the five stars measured here are runaways from
the central OB clusters of the Carina Nebula, although two may have
been ejected from smaller open clusters in the South Pillars. This
finding emphasizes that bow shocks \btxt{and bow-shock-like
structures} in giant \ion{H}{ii} regions are not definite markers of
runaway stars. It also suggests that the distributed massive-star
population in the Carina's South Pillars formed along with the
distributed low- and intermediate-mass population; the resulting OB
association is not the expanding remnant of an embedded cluster but a
loose collection of many small groups and clusters.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Jay Anderson for providing us with his
suite of PSF-fitting and image alignment software, and for his
valuable instruction, guidance, and technical support. \btxt{We also
thank the anonymous referee for a constructive review.} Support for
this work was provided by NASA grants GO-13390 and GO-13791 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 is based on observations made with
the NASA/ESA \emph{Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained from the Data
Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. This work has made
use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission {\it Gaia}
(\url{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia}), processed by the {\it Gaia}
Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC,
\url{http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium}). Funding for
the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the
institutions participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral Agreement.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Giry monad $\mathcal{G}$ on the category of measurable spaces $\mathbf{Meas}$, defined for every space $X$ as the space of probability measures on $X$, has a
natural convex structure associated with it, and conversely, the category of convex spaces, $\mathbf{Cvx}$, has for each object $A$ a natural $\sigma$-algebra structure generated by the Boolean subobjects of $A$.
By using the symmetric monoidal closed category (SMCC) structure of both of these categories, we show these two natural structures determine an adjoint pair of functors which factorize the Giry monad, and prove the category $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is equivalent to the category of Giry algebras, $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$ .\footnote{The Giry monad is named after Giry\cite{Giry}, however the original construction follows from Lawvere's original paper in 1963, before ``monads'' were defined and their relationship to adjunctions were clarified.}
In the literature the Giry monad is almost always accompanied by characterizations using the simplicial category
$\Delta$ and the functor
\be \nonumber
\Delta \rightarrow \mathbf{Top}
\end{equation}
mapping a finite ordinal $\mathbf{n}$ to the standard $n$-dimensional affine simplex $\Delta_n$, viewed as a subspace of the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. While such explanations provide a useful perspective about the Giry monad, the assumption of an underlying topological structure is unnecessary and conceals the underlying connection between convex and measurable spaces necessary to prove $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is equivalent to $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$. Approaches other than the simplicial method can be found in \cite{Doberkat, Keimel, Swirszcz}.
The category $\mathbf{Cvx}$ has three basic properties,
(i) it is a symmetric monoidal closed category (SMCC) under the tensor product, (ii) it is complete and cocomplete, and (iii) the full subcategory $\mathbb{I} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Cvx}$ consisting of the unit interval $\mathbf{I} = [0,1]$ is dense in $\mathbf{Cvx}$. The proof of the first two facts are both straightforward verifications. Details can be found in Meng\cite{Meng}.
The category $\mathbf{Meas}$ is also complete, cocomplete, and a SMCC under the tensor product. The monoidal structure, $(\mathbf{Meas}, \otimes, \mathbf{1})$, endows a pair of measurable spaces with the $\sigma$-algebra generated by all the constant graph maps, $\{ X \stackrel{\Gamma_y}{\longrightarrow} X \times Y \}_{x \in X}$
and $\{ Y \stackrel{\Gamma_x}{\longrightarrow} X \times Y \}_{y \in Y}$. This tensor product structure on the cartesian product is denoted $X \otimes Y$, and contains the product $\sigma$-algebra as a sub $\sigma$-algebra.\footnote{Further details on the tensor product structure on $\mathbf{Meas}$ making $\mathbf{Meas}$ a SMCC structure can be found in \cite{Sturtz}. The results in this paper were essentially given in \cite{Sturtz}, except we were now aware that the category $\mathbb{I}$ was is dense and codense in $\mathbf{Cvx}$. With that knowledge in hand, the assumption that each affine functional $\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ preserves limits of sequences of simple functions can be dropped, since the adequacy of $\mathbb{I}$ implies that assumption.
The full implications of this SMCC structure have yet to be worked out, and one important aspect of this SMCC structure, relating to probability theory, is that while the Giry monad is a commutative monad with respect to the standard product structure, with respect to the tensor product structure on $\mathbf{Meas}$ (which is necessary if one wants to work with function spaces), the question of the commutativity/noncommutativity of the Giry monad is unknown, although we conjecture it is noncommutative. (The commutativity of a monad is defined with respect to the monoidal structure.\cite{Kock}) While the calculus of extensive quantities (probability measures are extensive quantities) has been studied by A. Kock\cite{Kock2}, the applicability to $\mathbf{Meas}$ with the SMCC structure remains an open question.}
This \emph{tensor} product structure, rather than the standard product structure generated by the two coordinage projection mappings, is necessary to obtain the SMCC structure making the evaluation maps measurable functions.
An overview of the problem, showing $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is equivalent to $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$, and an outline of the paper is as follows.
To prove the Eilenberg-Moore category of $\mathcal{G}$-algebras is equivalent to the category of convex spaces, we factor the Giry monad into two functors with the functor $\mathcal{P}$ at component $X \in_{ob} \mathbf{Meas}$
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (MG) at (0, 2) {$\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$};
\node (C) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{Meas}$};
\node (C2) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{Cvx}$};
\node (c) at (6.5, 0) {$\mathcal{P} \dashv \mathbf{\Sigma}$};
\draw[->, left] ([xshift=-2pt] C.north) to node {$\mathcal{F}^{\mathcal{G}}$} ([xshift=-2pt] MG.south);
\draw[->, right] ([xshift=2pt] MG.south) to node {$\mathcal{U}^{\mathcal{G}}$} ([xshift=2pt] C.north);
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] C.east) to node {$\mathcal{P}$} ([yshift=2pt] C2.west);
\draw[->,below,dashed] ([yshift=-2pt] C2.west) to node {$\mathbf{\Sigma}$} ([yshift=-2pt] C.east);
\draw[->, above] (C2) to node {$\Phi$} (MG);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\caption{The Eilenberg-Moore adjunction, \mbox{$\mathcal{F}^{\mathcal{G}} \dashv \mathcal{U}^{\mathcal{G}}$}, and the proposed adjunction to $\mathbf{Cvx}$, $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$.}
\label{comparisonFunctor}
\end{figure}
\noindent
being given as $\mathcal{G}(X)$ viewed simply as a convex space, having no $\sigma$-algebra associated with it. In this diagram we have employed the standard notation, with $\Phi$ being the comparison functor, and $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$ the (desired) adjunction such that the comparison functor is an equivalence of categories.
The functor $\mathcal{P}$ preserves colimits\footnote{The fact $\mathcal{P}$ preserves colimits is an elementary verification; the coproduct of $X$ and $Y$ in $\mathbf{Meas}$ is given by the disjoint union, $X+Y$, with the final $\sigma$-algebra on $X \cup Y$ such that the two inclusion maps $X \hookrightarrow X+Y$ and $Y \hookrightarrow X + Y$ are measurable.}, and in particular,\footnote{The symbol $\mathbf{2}$ is overloaded, as we use it to represent both a discrete measurable space, and a discrete convex space. The distinction should be clear from the context. Similiarly with regards to the unit interval $\mathbf{I}$, and the object $\mathbf{1}$ which is the terminal object in both $\mathbf{Meas}$ and $\mathbf{Cvx}$. (Both can be viewed as measurable spaces with a natural convex structure.) }
\be \nonumber
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2}) = \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{1} + \mathbf{1}) = \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{1}) + \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{1}) =\mathbf{1}+\mathbf{1} = [0,1]
\end{equation}
where the coproduct $\mathbf{1} +\mathbf{1}$ in $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is the unit interval, $\mathbf{I} = [0,1]$, which has the convex structure given by the free functor on $2$ generators.\footnote{In $\mathbf{Cvx}$, a coproduct of any two spaces $A$ and $B$ takes the set coproduct of $A$ and $B$, and takes the free convex space generated by those elements and then uses a equivalence relation on that set such that $
\alpha (a_1,1) + (1-\alpha) (a_2,1) \cong (\alpha a_1 + (1-\alpha) a_2,1)$
and similarly for elements of $B$.
Thus the coproduct
$ A + B = \{ \displaystyle{ \sum_{i=1}^n} (1-\alpha_i) (a_i, 1) + \alpha_i (b_i,2) \, | \, a_i \in A, \, b_i \in B, \, \forall \alpha \in [0,1], \, n \in \mathbb{N} \}$
The fact that $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is complete and cocomplete is well known. In fact $\mathbf{Cvx}$ has a coseparator $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$, as well as a separator (the one point space).\cite{Borger}}
We identify $\mathbf{I}$ with $\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})$, as convex spaces, using the isomorhism $\alpha \mapsto (1-\alpha) \delta_0 + \alpha \delta_1$, where $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ are the dirac measures on the discrete measurable space $\mathbf{2}$.
To prove the equivalence between $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\mathbf{Cvx}$, amounts to showing that there exists a right adjoint to the functor $\mathcal{P}$. We can characterize this right adjoint $\Sigma$ as being defined by taking as the generating set for the $\sigma$-algebra on any convex space $A$, the set $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2})$. Every element in the function space $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2})$ determines a \emph{Boolean subobject} pair of $A$ and is the topic of \S \ref{BooleanSubobjects}. The set of all Boolean subobjects of a convex space generate the $\sigma$-algebra for $\Sigma A$, and the space $\Sigma A$ is a \emph{separated} measurable space, which is shown in \S \ref{separated} using the fact that $\mathbf{Cvx}$ has a coseparator. The density and codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ are shown in \S \ref{density} and \S \ref{codensity}, respectively. The codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ implies that the image of the double dualization map $A \rightarrow \mathbf{Cvx}( \mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{I}), \mathbf{I})$ into $\mathbf{I}$, sending $a \mapsto ev_a$, is an isomorphism, with the image space being the space of all weakly averaging affine functionals. This isomorphism, arising from the double dualization map into $\mathbf{I}$ with the restricted codomain of all weakly averaging affine functionals, is, in many respects, the key point in proving the equivalence between $\mathbf{Cvx}$ and $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$.
\S \ref{altView} provides an alternative view of the codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ in $\mathbf{Cvx}$, while \S \ref{functions} provides a bridge from viewing function spaces, both $\mathbf{I}^A$ or $\mathbf{2}^A$, as convex spaces to viewing them as measurable spaces. Both \S \ref{altView} and \S \ref{functions} are provided to lend further understanding to duality and function spaces, respectively. They are not necessary to prove the main results, and may be skipped, referring back to them for clarification as needed.
In \S \ref{adjunction} the two functors $\mathcal{P}$ and $\Sigma$ are shown to form an adjunct pair whose composite is the Giry monad, and then in \S \ref{equiv} the equivalence between $\mathbf{Meas}^{G}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is given by explicitly showing the equivalence given the adjunction $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$.\footnote{In practice, given an adjunct pair it is often easier to show the equivalence directly rather than use the necessary and sufficient conditions.}
Throughout the paper, the ``\textbf{remark}'' paragraphs are intended as commentary and motivation for the material, and the technical remarks are not used in the subsequent development of the theory. The extended remark at the end of \S \ref{SMCCMeas} provides the ``big picture'' how this research fits into the grand scheme of probability theory as (essentially) the theory of convex spaces.\footnote{The equivalence of the two categories, $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\mathbf{Cvx}$, implies every Giry algebra $(X, h)$ corresponds to a convex space. Hence the study of Giry algebras is the study of convex spaces. The fact that $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is a complete, cocomplete, SMCC (a cosmos) provides the necessary framework for a vastly richer theory of probability than the current perspective.}
\section{Convex Spaces}
\subsection{Convex Space Structures}
In defining convex spaces, we employ the definitions given in B\"{o}rger and Kemp\cite{Borger}, so as to introduce the related categories of positively convex spaces, $\mathbf{PC}$, and superconvex spaces, $\mathbf{SC}$.\footnote{Our definitions are essentially verbatim from B\"{o}rger and Kemp, with the exception that we restrict the coefficients $\alpha_i$, as as used in the definition of an $\Omega$-algebra, to lie in the unit interval (rather than $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$) and consequently do not require the modulus of these quantities, $|\alpha_i|$. Although we note that the use of $\mathbb{C}$, or rather the (complex) unit disk, $\mathbb{D}$, yields an easy generalization of the theory that seems relevant to generalizing ``classical probability theory'' (which uses just the unit interval) to ``generalized (or quantum) probability theory''.
In this regard, the $2^{nd}$ footnote suggest that at least some aspects of quantum probability theory may be be derived using Giry algebras (over $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{D})$, and (looking ahead) consequently probability measures within that framework are weakly-averaging affine maps $\mathbb{D}^A \rightarrow \mathbb{D}$. (This course of thought requires that $\mathbb{D}$ be dense and codense in $\mathbf{Cvx}$, which we have not verified.)} The alternative approach to defining convex spaces is that presented in Meng\cite{Meng}, which views $\mathbf{Cvx}$ as a single sorted theory. For many purposes, such as showing completeness or that $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is a regular category, the definition as an algebraic theory is more useful.
For $\Omega= \{ \mathbf{\alpha} \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbb{N}} \, | \, \sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_i \le 1\}$,
an $\Omega$-algebra is a set $A$ together with a map
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccc}
\Omega &\rightarrow& \mathbf{Set}(A^{\mathbb{N}}, A) \\
\mathbf{\alpha} & \mapsto& A^{\mathbb{N}} \stackrel{\mathbf{\alpha_A}}{\longrightarrow} A
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\alpha}_A$ is a set function.
A morphism of $\Omega$-algebras from $A$ to $B$ is a set map $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} B$ such that the diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (An) at (0,0) {$A^{\mathbb{N}}$};
\node (A) at (3,0) {$A$};
\node (Bn) at (0, -2) {$B^{\mathbb{N}}$};
\node (B) at (3, -2) {$B$};
\draw[->,above] (An) to node {$\mathbf{\alpha}_A$} (A);
\draw[->,left] (An) to node {$m^{\mathbb{N}}$} (Bn);
\draw[->,right] (A) to node {$m$} (B);
\draw[->,below] (Bn) to node {$\mathbb{\beta}_B$} (B);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
commutes. Obviously, the $\Omega$-algebras form a category, the composition of the morphisms being the set-theoretic composition.
Let $\mathbf{a} \in A^{\mathbb{N}}$ denote a sequence in $A$. Then for $\alpha \in \Omega$ and $A$ an $\Omega$-algebra with the mapping $\mathbf{\alpha}_A$ let $\mathbf{\alpha}_A(\mathbf{a}) = \sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_i a_i$ denote the value of the map $\alpha_A$ at $\mathbf{a}$.
An $\Omega$-algebra $A$ is called a positively convex space when $A \ne \emptyset$ and the following two axioms are satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $e_i^j \in \Omega$ the ``unit vector'',
\be \nonumber
e_i^j = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1& \textrm{ iff } i=j \\
0 & \textrm{otherwise }
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
the following condition holds:
\be \nonumber
\displaystyle{ \sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}}} e_i^j a_i = a_j \quad \textrm{ for all }j \in \mathbb{N}, \, \textrm{ and all }\mathbf{a} \in A^{\mathbb{N}}.
\end{equation}
\item $\sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_i \bigg( \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \beta_j^i a_j\bigg) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} (\sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_i \beta_j^i) a_j$, for all $\mathbf{\alpha} , \mathbf{\beta}^i \in \Omega$, and all $\mathbf{a} \in A^{\mathbb{N}}$.
\end{enumerate}
The category of positively convex spaces, $\mathbf{PC}$, which is nonempty by hypothesis, has a nullary operator for each object $A$ in the category, called the zero (nullary) map,
\be \nonumber
1 \stackrel{0}{\longrightarrow} A
\end{equation}
which is the image of the zero sequence $\mathbf{0} \in \Omega$, i.e., $A^{\mathbb{N}} \stackrel{\mathbf{0}}{\longrightarrow} A$ is a constant map determining a unique element $0_A$.
A \emph{superconvex space} drops the hypothesis of being nonempty, but requires the limit of the countably infinite sum to have value $1$. A \emph{convex space} is an $\Omega$-algebra restricted to sequences $\alpha \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbb{N}}$ such that only finitely many terms are nonzero, and the sum of those terms is one. Hence we obtain the usual condition $\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i = 1$ associated with a ``convex sum'' $\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i a_i$.
Note the category $\mathbf{Cvx}$ contains the object $\emptyset$ which is necessary for $\mathbf{Cvx}$ to be complete (and cocomplete).
The unit interval $\mathbf{I}$ can be viewed as an object in $\mathbf{PC}$, with the zero element being $0$. Given any countable sequence $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of terms in $\mathbf{I}$ with $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \{\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i \} \le 1$, we have upon taking any another countable sequence $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of element of $\mathbf{I}$, the formal (infinite convex) sum
\be \nonumber
\sum_{i \in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_i p_i
\end{equation}
where the elements $p_i$ are viewed as variables (or ``symbols'') of $\mathbf{I}$ with the $\alpha_i$ being the coefficients of those variables. The elements $p_i$ need not be unique\footnote{These terms $p_i$ can be interpretted as values $p_i = P(m^{-1}(U_i))$ where $P$ is some probability measure on a convex space $A$, endowed with a $\sigma$-algebra, $\Sigma A$, and $\Sigma A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ is a measurable map. The $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ partition the unit interval, with each $U_i$ itself a subinterval of $\mathbf{I}$.}, and the limit of the infinite convex sum, upon evaluation (componentwise multiplication, $\alpha_i \cdot p_i$, and taking the limit of the sum), clearly gives a quantity in $\mathbf{I}$.
The category of superconvex spaces, $\mathbf{SC}$, satisfies the following property, the proof of which can be found in \cite{Borger}.
\begin{thm} \label{superconvex} For $A$ a superconvex space and $a_0 \in A$, there exists a unique positively convex space structure on $A$ with zero element $a_0$, such that the restriction of the operations to convex sums whose limit is one gives the original superconvex space.
\end{thm}
This result is useful for viewing a superconvex space as a positively convex space. From the perspective of calculating limits of a sequence of real values in $\mathbf{I}$, such as $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \{\sum_{i=1}^n P(U_i)\}$, this category is what is used in practice. Thus, while our main results focus on $\mathbf{Cvx}$, the connection between the various types of convex structures is relevant to computations and understanding, for example, how the representation of measurable functions via sequences of simple measurable functions fits into the big picture.
For subsequent reference, we note the following result. Let \mbox{$\mathbb{R} = (-\infty, \infty)$} with the natural convex structure. This convex structure extends to $\mathbb{R}_{\infty} = (-\infty,\infty]$, by defining for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$, the convex sum
\be \nonumber
\alpha \infty + (1-\alpha) r \stackrel{def}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \infty & \textrm{for all }\alpha \in (0,1] \\ r & \textrm{for }\alpha=0 \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{thm}
The object $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ is a coseparator in $\mathbf{Cvx}$.
\end{thm}
See \cite{Borger} for the proof.
\vspace{.2in}
\paragraph{\textit{Notation}}
In the category $\mathbf{Cvx}$, the arrows $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} B$ are referred to as affine maps, and preserve ``convex sums'',
\be \nonumber
m( (1-\alpha) a_1 + \alpha a_2 ) = (1-\alpha) m(a_1) + \alpha m(a_2) \quad \alpha \in \mathbf{I}.
\end{equation}
For brevity, a convex sum is often denoted by
\be \nonumber
a_1 +_{\alpha} a_2 \stackrel{def}{=} (1-\alpha) a_1 + \alpha a_2 \quad \alpha \in \mathbf{I}.
\end{equation}
\vspace{.2in}
\subsection{Boolean Subobjects of a Convex Space} \label{BooleanSubobjects}
A subobject of a convex space $A$, say $A_0 \hookrightarrow A$, is called a \emph{Boolean} subobject when its set-theoretic complement $A_0^c$ is also a subobject of $A$.
The functor $\mathbf{\Sigma}$ assigns to every convex space $A$ the measurable space $\mathbf{\Sigma}(A) = (A, \Sigma_A)$ \emph{generated} by the set of all Boolean subobjects of $A$. If $A_0$ is a Boolean subobject of $A$ then $A$ can be written as a sum (coproduct), $A = A_0 + A_0^c$.
Using the convex space $\mathbf{2}=\{0,1\}$, which has the convex structure given by
\be \nonumber
(1-\alpha) \mathbf{0} + \alpha \mathbf{1} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \mathbf{0} & \textrm{for all }\alpha \in [0,1) \\ \mathbf{1} & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
it is equivalent to say the $\sigma$-algebra of $A$ is generated by the set of all affine maps from $A$ into $\mathbf{2}$, $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2})$, since the preimages of such maps then yield the two complementary subobjects of $A$.\footnote{It is useful to this of the ``$\mathbf{0}$'' as ``$\infty$'', so that any nonzero quantity multiplied by $\infty$ gives back $\infty$, regardless of the contribution of the second term in the convex sum, $(1-\alpha)\mathbf{0} + \alpha \mathbf{1}$.} In analogy with measurable spaces, we will use the notation $\chi_{A_0}$ to denote elements of $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2})$.
The $\sigma$-algebra on a convex space $A$, generated by the set $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, 2)$, makes every affine map $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} B$ measurable since the composition of affine maps $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} B \rightarrow \mathbf{2}$ gives an element of the generating set for $\Sigma_A$.
It is elementary to verify that $\Sigma$ is functorial.
Viewing the unit interval as just a convex space, all the subobjects of $\mathbf{I}$ which are (sub)intervals of the form $(a,1]$ or $[a, 1]$ with $a>0$ have complements in $\mathbf{I}$, and hence $\Sigma(\mathbf{I})$ yields the standard Borel $\sigma$-algebra on the unit interval. Thus, applying the functor $\Sigma$ to the map $\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(\mathbf{2})) \rightarrow \mathbf{I}$ sending $\delta_0 +_{\alpha} \delta_1 \mapsto \alpha$, yields an isomorphism of measurable spaces. Subsequently, rather than write $\Sigma(\mathbf{I})$, as well as $\Sigma(\mathbf{2})$, everywhere, we just write $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{2}$, and let the context determine whether we are viewing these spaces as convex spaces or measurable spaces.
Each element $a \in A$ determines a subobject of $A$ given by
\be \nonumber
\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle = \{ b \in A \, | \, \exists c \in A, \, \exists \beta \in (0,1] s.t. \, \, a=c +_{\beta}b \}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{Lemma1} For each convex space $A$, and every $a \in A$ the map
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (A) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (2) at (6,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\node (b) at (0,-1) {$b$};
\node (c) at (5, -1) {$\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{iff }b \in \langle \langle a \rangle \rangle \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$};
\draw[->,above] (A) to node {$\chi_{\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle}$} (2);
\draw[|->] (b) to node {$$} (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
is affine, and hence $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle$ and $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle^c$ are both Boolean subobjects of $A$.
Moreover, we have the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\chi_{\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle}(b)=1$ then $\langle \langle b \rangle \rangle \subset \langle \langle a\rangle \rangle$.
\item If $\chi_{\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle }(b) = \chi_{\langle \langle b \rangle \rangle}(a)=1$ then $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle = \langle \langle b \rangle \rangle$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
The proof, which is straightforward, can be found in B\"{o}rger and Kemp\cite{Borger}. Note that $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle$ and $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle^c$ are therefore in the generating set for $\Sigma_A$ (and hence measurable under the functor $\Sigma$).
Given any Boolean subobject $A_0 \hookrightarrow A$, if $a \in A_0$ it follows that $\gen{a} \subset A_0$ because if $b \in \langle \langle a \rangle \rangle$ then there exist a $d \in A$ and an $\alpha \in (0,1]$ such that
\be \nonumber
a = d +_{\alpha} b.
\end{equation}
Since $a \in A_0$, applying the affine map $\chi_{A_0}$ shows that
\be \nonumber
1 = \chi_{A_0}(a) = \chi_{A_0}(d) +_{\alpha} \chi_{A_0}(b).
\end{equation}
and hence both $d$ and $b$ must also be in $A_0$, and hence $\langle \langle a \rangle \rangle \subset A_0$. The reverse equality follows from the fact $a \in \gen{a}$ for every $a \in A$. Consequently we have, for every Boolean subobject $A_0$
\be \label{PreDe}
\bigcup_{a \in A_0} \langle \langle a \rangle \rangle = A_0.
\end{equation}
Note that the two
constant maps,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (X) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (TX) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\node (x) at (0, -.8) {$a$};
\node (dx) at (4, -.8) {$1$};
\draw[->,above] (X) to node {$\chi_A$} (TX);
\draw[|->] (x) to node {} (dx);
\node (Y) at (6,0) {$A$};
\node (TY) at (10,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\node (y) at (6, -.8) {$a$};
\node (dy) at (10, -.8) {$0$};
\draw[->,above] (Y) to node {$\chi_{\emptyset}$} (TY);
\draw[|->] (y) to node {} (dy);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
are both in $\mathbf{2}^A$, and hence $A$ and $\emptyset$ are in the generating set for $\Sigma A$. Moreover,
\begin{lemma} \label{piSystem} The set of Boolean subobject of $A$ is closed under finite intersections. Hence the Boolean subobjects of any convex space form a $\pi$ system.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The set of Boolean subobject is closed under finite intersection since if $A_0$ and $A_1$ are any two Boolean subobjects of $A$, then $A_0 \cap A_1$ is a subobject of $A$ with Boolean complement $(A_0\cap A_1^c) \cup (A_0^c \cap A_1) \cup (A_0^c \cap A_1^c)$. Thus it is a $\pi$-system.
\end{proof}
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{The density of the unit interval} \label{density}
The full subcategory of $\mathbf{Cvx}$ consisting of the single object, the unit interval $\mathbf{I}=[0,1]$, with all its endomorphisms, is a left adequate (dense) subcategory of $\mathbf{Cvx}$. This property follows from a theorem due to Isbell\cite{Isbell} showing that if a category $\mathcal{C}$ is a full subcategory of algebras with operations at most $n$-ary, then the free algebra on $n$ generators, with all its endomorphisms is a dense subcategory.\footnote{Isbell used the terminology of \emph{left-adequate} rather than dense. We subsequently also use this terminology in our subsequent discussion.}
Meng\cite{Meng} treats the theory of convex spaces as the full subcategory of the category of $\mathcal{K}-$modules, with the same objects but only the idempotent operations. An $n$-ary operation $A^n \stackrel{\phi}{\longrightarrow} A$ is idempotent provided that $\phi \circ \Delta_n = id_A$, where $\Delta_n$ is the diagonal mapping. Using this the theory of convex spaces can be defined inductively using only the operations of maximum arity $2$ to define the theory.\footnote{This is, of course, similiar to the situation in ordinary addition where knowing the single operation ``+'' suffices to define the meaning of $(a+b)+c = a+(b+c)$.} Then, since the free object on $2$ elements in $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is the unit interval $\mathbf{I}$, it follows that the subcategory $\mathbb{I}$, consisting of the single object $\mathbf{I}$ along with all the affine endomorphisms $\mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I}, \mathbf{I})$, is adequate in $\mathbf{Cvx}$.
The slice category $\mathbb{I}/A$ has as objects affine maps $\mathbf{I} \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow} A$, and as arrows, affine maps $\mathbf{I} \stackrel{\gamma}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ such that the diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I1) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{I}$}; \node (I2) at (3,0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (A) at (1.5,-1.5) {$A$};
\draw[->,above] (I1) to node {$\gamma$} (I2);
\draw[->,left] (I1) to node {$n$} (A);
\draw[->,right] (I2) to node {$m$} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
commutes. Left adequacy (density) of $\mathbb{I}$ means every convex space $A$ is a canonical limit
\be \nonumber
A \cong colim \bigg( \mathbb{I}/A \stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{I} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Cvx} \bigg),
\end{equation}
where $\pi$ is the projection map (functor). Left adequacy of $\mathbb{I}$, using the definition given by Isbell (extended to the cosmos\footnote{A SMCC which is complete and cocomplete.} $\mathbf{Cvx}$ rather than $\mathbf{Set}$), is that the restricted Yoneda embedding
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (C) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{Cvx}$}; \node (CI) at (5,0) {$\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$};
\node (A) at (0,-.8) {$A$}; \node (hA) at (5, -.8) {$\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A)$};
\node (m) at (0, -1.8) {$A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} B$}; \node (hm) at (5, -1.8) {$\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A) \stackrel{\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot,m)}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot,B)$};
\draw[->,above] (C) to node {$Y|$} (CI);
\draw[|->] (A) to node {} (hA);
\draw[|->,right] (m) to node {} (hm);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
is a full and faithful functor. The equivalence between these two definitions follows from the fact that every object $\mathcal{F} \in_{ob} \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$ is a colimit of representables of the functor category $\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$.
The maps of the slice category $\mathbb{I}/A$, $\psi \in \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{I})$, can be characterized via a ``scaling'' parameter $s$, and a ``translation'' parameter $t$, which defines the transformation given, for all $\alpha \in \mathbf{I}$, by
\be \nonumber
\langle s,t \rangle (\alpha) = s \alpha + t \quad \quad \forall s \in [-1,1], \, \, \forall t \in [0,1], \, \, \textrm{satisfying }0 \le s + t \le 1,
\end{equation}
and such a transformation factors as a composite, $\langle s, t \rangle = \langle 1, t \rangle \circ \langle s, 0 \rangle$.
An object of $\mathbb{I}/A$ is called a \textbf{path map} in $A$ and denoted
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (I2) at (4, 0) {$A$};
\node (x) at (0,-.8) {$\alpha$};
\node (fx) at (4,-.8) {$a_1 +_{\alpha} a_2$};
\draw[->,above] (I) to node {$\lbrack a_1, a_2 \rbrack$} (I2);
\draw[|->] (x) to node {} (fx);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
sending the two generators of $\mathbf{I}$, denoted by $\underline{0}$ and $\underline{1}$, to \emph{any} two elements $a_1, a_2 \in A$,
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccc}
\underline{0} & \mapsto & a_1 \\
\underline{1} & \mapsto & a_2
\end{array},
\end{equation}
and the convex structure of $A$ itself then ``determines all the intermediate points'' on that path. Thus, every affine map $\mathbf{I} \rightarrow A$ is a path map in $A$, and the slice category $\mathbb{I}/A$ gives the basic figure types, which are the path maps, and all the incidence relationships between these path maps which completely characterize the convex space.
\vspace{.2in}
The set of all path maps into the convex space $\mathbf{2}$
are depicted in the diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I) at (1,0) {$\mathbf{I}_{0,1}$};
\node (I0) at (-1, -2) {$\mathbf{I}_{0,0}$};
\node (I1) at (-1, 2) {$\mathbf{I}_{1,1}$};
\node (2) at (5,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->,below] (I0) to node {$\overline{0}$} (2);
\draw[->,above] (I) to node [xshift=-12pt,yshift=-2pt] {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}=\lbrack 0,1\rbrack$}(2);
\draw[->,above] (I1) to node {$\overline{1}$} (2);
\draw[->,left] ([xshift=-2pt] I0.north) to node {\small{$\langle -1, 1\rangle$}} ([xshift=-2pt] I1.south);
\draw[->,right] ([xshift=2pt] I1.south) to node {\small{$\langle -1, 1 \rangle$}} ([xshift=2pt] I0.north);
\draw[->,right] (I1) to node {$\overline{1}$} (I);
\draw[->,right] (I0) to node {$\overline{0}$} (I);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Both of the constant maps, $\mathbf{I}_{0,0} \stackrel{\overline{0}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{I}_{1,1} \stackrel{\overline{1}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$, have the identity map (not shown) as a section.
The map $\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$ is given explicitly by
\begin{equation} \label{def2}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I2) at (-1,-4) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (22) at (3.5,-4) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->, above] (I2) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$} (22);
\node (a) at (-1, -4.8) {$\alpha$};
\node (e) at (3.5,-4.8) {$[0,1](\alpha) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \textrm{for all }\alpha \in [0,1) \\ 1 & \textrm{for }\alpha=1 \end{array} \right..$};
\draw[|->] (a) to node {} (e);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
We next use this map $\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$ to show that $\Sigma A$ is separated.
\section{The symmetric monoidal closed structure of $\mathbf{Meas}$.} \label{SMCCMeas}
Throughout this section, $X$ and $Y$ denote measurable spaces.
The category $\mathbf{Meas}$ is a SMCC with the tensor product $X \otimes Y$ defined by the coinduced (final) $\sigma$-algebra such that all the graph functions
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\Gamma_f &:& X & \longrightarrow & X \times Y \\
&:& x & \mapsto & (x,f(x))
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $X \stackrel{f}{ \longrightarrow} Y$ a measurable function, as well as the graph functions
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\Gamma_g &:& Y & \longrightarrow & X \times Y \\
&:& y & \mapsto & (g(y),y)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $Y \stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow} X$ a measurable function, are measurable.
Let $Y^X$ denote the set of all measurable functions from $X$ to $Y$ endowed with the $\sigma$-algebra induced by the set of all point evaluation maps\footnote{This is equivalent to saying $Y^X$ has the product $\sigma$-algebra induced by the coordinate projection maps onto $Y$.}
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccc}
Y^X &\stackrel{ev_x}{\longrightarrow}& Y \\
\ulcorner f \urcorner & \mapsto & f(x)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Because the $\sigma$-algebra structure on tensor product spaces is defined such that the graph functions are all measurable, it follows in particular the constant graph functions \mbox{$X \stackrel{\Gamma_{\ulcorner f \urcorner}}{\longrightarrow} X \otimes Y^X$} sending $x \mapsto (x,\ulcorner f \urcorner)$ are measurable.
Define the evaluation function
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccc}
X \otimes Y^X & \stackrel{ev_{X,Y}}{\longrightarrow}& Y \\
(x,\ulcorner f \urcorner) & \mapsto & f(x)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and observe that for every $\ulcorner f \urcorner \in Y^X$ the right hand diagram in the $\mathbf{Meas}$ diagrams
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (X) at (0,-1.8) {$X \cong X \otimes 1$};
\node (XY) at (0,0) {$ X \otimes Y^X$};
\node (Y) at (3,0) {$Y$};
\node (1) at (-4,-1.8) {$1$};
\node (YX) at (-4,0) {$Y^X$};
\draw[->, left] (X) to node {$\Gamma_{\ulcorner f \urcorner}\cong Id_X \otimes \ulcorner f \urcorner$} (XY);
\draw[->,below, right] (X) to node [xshift=3pt,yshift=-1pt] {$f$} (Y);
\draw[->,above] (XY) to node {$ev_{X,Y}$} (Y);
\draw[->,left] (1) to node {$\ulcorner f \urcorner$} (YX);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is commutative as a set mapping, $f = ev_{X,Y} \circ \Gamma_{\ulcorner f \urcorner}$.
By rotating the above diagram and also considering the constant graph functions $\Gamma_{x}$ the right hand side of the diagram
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (X) at (-3,0) {$X$};
\node (YX) at (3,0) {$Y^X$};
\node (XY) at (0,0) {$ X \otimes Y^X$};
\node (Y) at (0,-1.8) {$Y$};
\draw[->,above] (X) to node {$\Gamma_{\ulcorner f \urcorner}$} (XY);
\draw[->,left] (X) to node [xshift=-7pt] {$f$} (Y);
\draw[->, above] (YX) to node {$\Gamma_{x}$} (XY);
\draw[->,right] (YX) to node [xshift=5pt,yshift=0pt] {$ev_x$} (Y);
\draw[->,right] (XY) to node {$ev_{X,Y}$} (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
also commutes for every $x \in X$.
Since $f$ and $\Gamma_{\ulcorner f \urcorner}$ are measurable, as are $ev_{x}$ and $\Gamma_{x}$, it follows by
the elementary result on coinduced $\sigma$-algebras
\begin{lemma} \label{coinduced} Let the $\sigma$-algebra of $\, Y$ be coinduced by a collection of maps \mbox{$\{f_j : X_j \rightarrow Y \}_{j \in J}$}. Then a function $g:Y \rightarrow Z$ is measurable if and only if the composition $g \circ f_j$ is measurable for each $j \in J$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
that $ev_{X,Y}$ is measurable because the graph functions generate the $\sigma$-algebra of $X \otimes Y^X$.
More generally, given any measurable function $f:X \otimes Z \rightarrow Y$ there exists a unique measurable map $\tilde{f} : Z \rightarrow Y^X$ defined by $\tilde{f}(z) = \ulcorner f(\cdot,z) \urcorner: 1 \rightarrow Y^X$ where $f(\cdot,z): X \rightarrow Y$ sends $x \mapsto f(x,z)$.
This map $\tilde{f}$ is measurable because the $\sigma$-algebra is generated by the \emph{point evaluation} maps $ev_x$ and the diagram
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (XZ) at (3,-1.8) {$X \otimes Z$};
\node (YX) at (0,0) {$Y^X$};
\node (Y) at (3,0) {$Y$};
\node (Z) at (0,-1.8) {$Z$};
\draw[->,above] (YX) to node {$ev_x$} (Y);
\draw[->,left] (Z) to node [xshift=-3pt] {$\tilde{f}$} (YX);
\draw[->, above] (Z) to node [xshift=5pt] {$\Gamma_{x}$} (XZ);
\draw[->,right] (XZ) to node [xshift=5pt,yshift=0pt] {$f$} (Y);
\draw[->,right,dashed] (Z) to node {$$} (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
commutes so that $\tilde{f}^{-1}( ev_x^{-1}(B)) = (f \circ \Gamma_{x})^{-1}(B) \in \Sigma_Z$.
Conversely given any measurable map $g : Z \rightarrow Y^X$ it follows the composite
\mbox{$ev_{X,Y} \circ (Id_X \otimes g)$}
is a measurable map. This determines a bijective correspondence
\be \nonumber
\mathbf{Meas}(X \otimes Z,Y) \cong \mathbf{Meas}(X,Y^Z).
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Double dualization into the unit interval $\mathbf{I}$} As the function space $\mathbf{I}^X$ has the product \mbox{$\sigma$-algebra} it follows that each of the
point evaluation maps $\mathbf{I}^X \stackrel{ev_x}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$, for every $x \in X$, is measurable.
\begin{lemma} \label{measI}
Given any measurable space $X$ the double dual mapping\footnote{In this diagram and those to follow we abuse notation following the doctrine of expressing the mapping into a function space not as the name of an element, like $\ulcorner ev_x \urcorner \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^X}$ for the given map $\eta_X(x)$, but rather as the morphism corresponding to the named element. The dashed arrow notation is employed to make it easier to read given the multiple arrows involved.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PA) at (0,0) {$X$};
\node (I) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^X}$};
\node (PA2) at (0,-.7) {$x$};
\node (I2) at (4,-.7) {$\mathbf{I}^X \stackrel{ev_x}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->,above] (PA) to node {$\eta_{X}$} (I);
\draw[|->,densely dashed] (PA2) to node {} (I2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is a measurable function.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Since the functions $\{ev_f\}_{f \in \mathbf{Meas}(X,\mathbf{I})}$ generate $\Sigma_{\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^X}}$ it suffices to show that \\
\mbox{$\eta^{-1}_{X}(ev_f^{-1}(U)) \in \Sigma_X$ for $U \in \Sigma_{\mathbf{I}}$}. But this set is just $f^{-1}(U)$ which is measurable since $f$ is measurable.
\endproof
\begin{remark}
We will subsequently show that when $X=\Sigma A$, for some convex space $A$, then the convex space $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$, restricted to the weakly averaging affine maps, $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$, is an isomorphism, $A \cong \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$. Consequently every such weakly averaging affine map $\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ which (algebraically) we view as probability measures on $A$, must correspond to a point evaluation, i.e., $P = ev_a$ for some $a \in A$. Of course, this is not true when $X \ne \Sigma A$ for some convex space $A$.
In the case $\mathbf{I}^{X} \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ where $P$ is a weakly averaging affine (measurable) function, we still can view $P$ algebraically as a map between convex spaces, since the function space $\mathbf{I}^X=\mathbf{Meas}(X, \mathbf{I})$ has a convex structure defined pointwise, $(f+_{\alpha} g)(x) = f(x) +_{\alpha} g(x)$. It is this perspective that leads us to the result that $\mathcal{G}(X) \cong \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^X}|_{wa}$. This equivalence corresponds to a natural isomorphism of monads, $\mathcal{G} \cong \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{\bullet}}|_{wa}$, where the latter monad is the (codomain restricted) double dualization monad into $\mathbf{I}$. This in turn leads to the perspective that integration is just the evaluation function $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^X}|_{wa} \otimes \mathbf{I}^X \stackrel{ev}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$, which using the SMCC structure of $\mathbf{Meas}$, is therefore a measurable function, as are the weakly averaging affine maps (which correspond to probability measures). These ideas are discussed in \cite{Sturtz}. This paper extends that perspective leading to the idea that \emph{probability theory} should be viewed within the framework of the category $\mathbf{Cvx}$, where the basic ideas of Bayesian probability, (1) Bayesian models and (2) calculation of inference maps, can be extended to yield a richer modeling framework as well as the development of computationally more efficient inference algorithms. The latter idea coming from the idea that since $\mathbf{Cvx}$ has a much richer (nicer) categorical structure than $\mathbf{Meas}_{\mathcal{G}}$, computations should be easier than in $\mathbf{Meas}_{\mathcal{G}}$ where we traditionally do Bayesian calculations.\cite{Culbertson} (The need for ``quotient spaces'' in the computation of inference maps is the motivation for our development in this paper. $\mathbf{Cvx}$ has quotients, $\mathbf{Meas}_{\mathcal{G}}$ lacks quotients.) We hope to give a formal justification for the remark \emph{computationally more efficient} in a future paper.
\end{remark}
\section{The measurable space $\Sigma A$ is separated} \label{separated}
Given any measurable space $X$, we say it is separated if and only if for any two distinct points $x_1, x_2$ in the space there is a measurable subset $U \in \Sigma_X$ such that $x_1 \in U$ while $x_2 \not \in U$.
To prove the space $\Sigma A$ is separated we start with the fact that the object $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ is a coseparator in $\mathbf{Cvx}$. Hence for any two distinct points $a_1, a_2 \in A$, there exist an affine map $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ which separates the pair, $m(a_1) \ne m(a_2)$. The composite map
\begin{equation} \label{def2}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (A) at (3, 0) {$A$};
\node (R) at (6,0) {$\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$};
\draw[->, above] (I) to node {$[a_1, a_2]$} (A);
\draw[->,above] (A) to node {$m$} (R);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is a path in $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ with $m(a_1) \ne m(a_2)$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $m(a_1)< m(a_2)$, and hence $m(a_1) < \infty$. Now observe, that for any $\omega \in \mathbb{R}_{\infty}$, the two subsets $(-\infty, \omega)$ and $[\omega, \infty]$ are complementary subobjects of $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$. In otherwords, $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ can be viewed as the sum (coproduct) of the two subobjects,
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (R) at (0,0) {$\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$};
\node (l) at (-3,0) {$(-\infty, \omega)$};
\node (r) at (3,0) {$ [\omega, \infty]$};
\draw[>->,above] (l) to node {$$} (R);
\draw[>->,above] (r) to node {$$} (R);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
with the inclusion maps. Since this space is a coproduct, any map to $\mathbf{2}$ defined on the components yields a unique map from $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ to $\mathbf{2}$,
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (R) at (0,0) {$\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$};
\node (l) at (-3,0) {$(-\infty, \omega)$};
\node (r) at (3,0) {$ [\omega, \infty]$};
\node (2) at (0, -2) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->, left] (l) to node [yshift=-3pt] {$\overline{0}$} (2);
\draw[->, right] (r) to node [yshift=-3pt] {$\overline{1}$} (2);
\draw[->, right] (R) to node [yshift=6pt] {$\chi_{[\omega,\infty]}$} (2);
\draw[>->,above] (l) to node {$$} (R);
\draw[>->,above] (r) to node {$$} (R);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
That unique map is the characteristic function $\chi_{(-\infty, \omega)}$, which is in fact an affine map because for $x \in (-\infty, \omega)$ and $y \in [\omega, \infty]$ we have,
\be \nonumber
x+_{\alpha} y \in (-\infty, \omega) \quad \quad \textrm{for all }\alpha \in [0,1)
\end{equation}
and hence
\be \nonumber
\chi_{[\omega,\infty]}(x +_{\alpha} y) = 0
\end{equation}
whereas
\be \nonumber
\chi_{[\omega,\infty]}(y) +_{\alpha} \chi_{[\omega,\infty]}(x) = 0 +_{\alpha} 1 = 0.
\end{equation}
Clearly, if both $x$ and $y$ are both in either component of $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ then $\chi_{[\omega, \infty]}$ is the constant function on that component, and hence affine.
Choose $\omega= m(a_2)$. The map $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ which separates the two points, $a_1$ and $a_2$, in conjunction with the map $\chi_{[m(a_2),\infty]}$, in turn yields a Boolean subobject pair of objects of $A$, with corresponding insertion maps,
\be \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (A) at (0,2) {$A$};
\node (A1) at (-3.5, 2) {$m^{-1}((-\infty, m(a_2))$};
\node (A2) at (3.5, 2) {$m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])$};
\draw[>->,above] (A1) to node {$\iota_1$} (A);
\draw[>->,above] (A2) to node {$\iota_2$} (A);
\node (R) at (0,0) {$\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$};
\node (l) at (-3.5,0) {$(-\infty, m(a_2))$};
\node (r) at (3.5,0) {$ [m(a_2), \infty]$};
\node (2) at (0, -2.5) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->, left] (l) to node [yshift=-3pt] {$\overline{0}$} (2);
\draw[->, right] (r) to node [yshift=-3pt] {$\overline{1}$} (2);
\draw[->, right] (R) to node [yshift=6pt] {\small{$\chi_{[m(a_2),\infty]}$}} (2);
\draw[>->,above] (l) to node {$$} (R);
\draw[>->,above] (r) to node {$$} (R);
\draw[->,right] (A) to node {$m$} (R);
\draw[->,left] (A1) to node {$m \circ \iota_1$} (l);
\draw[->,right] (A2) to node {$m \circ \iota_2$} (r);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $m_1 = m \circ \iota_1$ and $m_2=m \circ \iota_2$ are the two restriction maps associated with $m$.
The composite map
\be \nonumber
\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])} = \chi_{[m(a_2),\infty]} \circ m
\end{equation}
yields the commutative diagram
\begin{equation} \label{def2}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I) at (3,2) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (A) at (3, 0) {$A$};
\node (R) at (3,-2) {$\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$};
\node (2) at (7,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->, left] (I) to node {$[a_1, a_2]$} (A);
\draw[->,left] (A) to node {$m$} (R);
\draw[->,above] (A) to node [xshift=-3pt] {$\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])}$} (2);
\draw[->,right] (R) to node [yshift=-3pt]{$\chi_{[m(a_2), \infty]}$} (2);
\draw[->,above] (I) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$} (2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Since the Boolean subobjects of $A$ generate the $\sigma$-algebra on $A$, it follows that the Boolean subobject pair of $A$, $m^{-1}((-\infty, m(a_2))$ and $m^{-1}([m(a_2),\infty])$, are both measurable in $\Sigma A$, and that they separate the pair of distinct points, $\{a_1, a_2\}$,
\be \nonumber
a_1 \not \in m^{-1}([m(a_2),\infty]) \quad \quad \textrm{while } \quad \quad a_2 \in m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty]).
\end{equation}
All told, $\Sigma A$ is a separated measurable space.
\begin{cor} \label{ddMap}
In $\mathbf{Cvx}$, the double dualization map
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (A) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (IIA) at (5,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$};
\node (a) at (0, -.8) {$a$};
\node (IA) at (4, -.8) {$\mathbf{I}^A$};
\node (I) at (6, -.8) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->,above] (A) to node {$\widetilde{\eta}_A$} (IIA);
\draw[|->,dashed] (a) to node {} (IA);
\draw[->,above] (IA) to node {$ev_a$} (I);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is monic (=injective).
\end{cor}
We use the notation $\widetilde{\eta}_A$ to distinguish this map from the unit of the Giry monad, $\eta$. The maps $\widetilde{\eta}_A$ form the components of a natural transformation $\widetilde{\eta}$, which is the unit of the (well known) double dualization monad into $\mathbf{I}$.
\begin{proof}
Let $a_1, a_2$ be two distinct points of $A$. We must show there exist a map $A \stackrel{\hat{m}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ which separates the pair $\{ev_{a_1}, ev_{a_2}\}$,
\be \nonumber
ev_{a_1}(\ulcorner \hat{m} \urcorner) = \hat{m}(a_1) \ne \hat{m}(a_2) = ev_{a_2}(\ulcorner \hat{m} \urcorner).
\end{equation}
Since $\mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ is a coseparator, let $m$ be the affine map $A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{R}_{\infty}$ which coseparates $a_1$ and $a_2$. Thus by the preceding constructions, the affine map
$\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])}$ satisfies the property that
\be \nonumber
\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])}(a_1)=0 \quad \quad \textrm{ while } \quad \quad \chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])}(a_2)=1.
\end{equation}
and we have the commutative diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (A) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (IIA) at (0, 2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$};
\node (III) at (6, 2) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (I) at (6,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->,below] (A) to node {$\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2),\infty])}$} (I);
\draw[>->,left] (A) to node {$\widetilde{\eta}_A$} (IIA);
\draw[->,above] (IIA) to node {$ev_{m}$} (III);
\draw[->>,right] (III) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$} (I);
\draw[->,above,dashed] (A) to node [xshift=-10pt]{$ev_m \circ \eta_A$} (III);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
The composite map $ev_m \circ \widetilde{\eta}_A$ is a ``lifting'' of the characteristic map $\chi_{m^{-1}([m(a_2), \infty])}$. Taking $\hat{m} = ev_m \circ \widetilde{\eta}_A$ we obtain
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
ev_{a_1}(\ulcorner ev_m \circ \widetilde{\eta}_A \urcorner) &=& ev_m(\ulcorner \widetilde{\eta}_A(a_1) \urcorner) \\
&=& ev_m( \ulcorner ev_{a_1} \urcorner) \\
&=& m(a_1)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly, $ev_{a_2}(\ulcorner ev_m \circ \widetilde{\eta}_A \urcorner) = m(a_2)$. Since $m(a_1) \ne m(a_2)$ the map $\hat{m} = ev_m \circ \widetilde{\eta}_A$ separates the pair $\{ev_{a_1}, ev_{a_2}\}$, i.e., proves they are distinct maps.
\end{proof}
\section{The codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ in $\mathbf{Cvx}$} \label{codensity}
The convex space $\mathbb{I}$ is codense (right-adequate) in $\mathbf{Cvx}$ when the restricted dual Yoneda embedding \mbox{$\mathbf{Cvx}^{op} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}}$} is full and faithful. The property of being faithful implies that the double dualization map into $\mathbf{I}$ is monic, which is the preceding corollary. Hence it only remains to show that the restricted dual Yoneda embedding is full.
The property of being full requires that any affine map
$\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ which makes the diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (IA) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{I}^A$};
\node (I1) at (3,0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (IA2) at (0, -2) {$\mathbf{I}^A$};
\node (I2) at (3, -2) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->,above] (IA) to node {$P$} (I1);
\draw[->,left] (IA) to node {$\langle s,t \rangle^A$} (IA2);
\draw[->,below] (IA2) to node {$P$} (I2);
\draw[->,right] (I1) to node {$\langle s, t \rangle$} (I2);
\node (m) at (5,0) {$m$};
\node (stm) at (5, -2) {$\langle s,t \rangle \circ m$};
\node (Pstm) at (7.6, -2) {$P(\langle s,t \rangle \circ m)$};
\node (Pm) at (10, -0) {$P(m)$};
\node (p) at (10, -2) {$=s P(m) +t$};
\draw[|->] (m) to node {} (Pm);
\draw[|->] (Pm) to node {} (p);
\draw[|->] (m) to node {} (stm);
\draw[|->] (stm) to node {} (Pstm);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
commute, implies that
their exist some $a \in A$ such that $P = ev_a$.\footnote{ Since the terminal object $1$ is a separator in $\mathbf{Cvx}$, and the category $\mathbb{I}$ consist of a single object, it suffice to show the affine maps $\mathbf{I}^A \rightarrow \mathbf{I}^1$ correspond to a map $1 \rightarrow A$, hence a point of $A$.}
\begin{lemma} \label{wave} The commutativity condition holds if and only if $P$ is a weakly averaging map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the affine map $\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ is weakly averaging then $P(\overline{0})=0$ and $P(\overline{1})=1$, hence it satisfies the property
\be \nonumber
P(s \cdot m) = P(s \cdot m + (1-s) \cdot \overline{0}) = P(m) +_{1-s} P(\overline{0}) = sP(m)
\end{equation}
for all $m \in \mathbf{I}^A$ and all $s \in \mathbf{I}$, as well as $P(\overline{t})=P(\overline{0}+_{t} \overline{1}) = t$. Consequently, for $0 \le s+t \le 1$, it follows
\be \nonumber
P(s\cdot m + t) = P( \frac{s}{1-t} m +_{t} \overline{1}) = s P(m) + t.
\end{equation}
Conversely, if the equation
\be \nonumber
P(s m + t) = s P(m) + t \quad \quad \textrm{ for all } \langle s, t \rangle \in \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{I})
\end{equation}
holds then $P$ is weakly averaging as the equation must hold true for $s=0$ and arbitrary $t \in \mathbf{I}$.
\end{proof}
Denote the subobject of $\mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I}^A, \mathbf{I})$ consisting of the weakly averaging functionals by
$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$. Thus $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I}^A, \mathbf{I})$, and since every
evaluation map $ev_a$ is a weakly averaging functional, the double dualization map $\widetilde{\eta}_A$ defined in Corollary (\ref{ddMap}), decomposes as
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (A) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (IIA) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (IA) at (4, -2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$};
\draw[>->, above] (A) to node {$\hat{\eta}_A$} (IIA);
\draw[>->, right] (IIA) to node {$\iota$} (IA);
\draw[>->,below] (A) to node {$\widetilde{\eta}_A$} (IA);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
Because the category $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is a regular category (it is an equational theory), each affine map has a regular-epi mono factorization. Since $\widetilde{\eta}_A$ is monic, its factorization
\be \nonumber
\widetilde{\eta}_A = j \circ q
\end{equation}
makes the map $q$ both regular-epi and monic. \emph{Editorial note: The following result is false. The truth of this fact follows from the development given in the updated version, referred to at the outset of the paper. Namely, it is necessary to show $\mathbf{2}^{\mathbf{2}^{\Sigma A}}|_{wa} \cong \Sigma A$, and then proceed to ``extend the evaluation map $ev_a$, corresponding to $\mathbf{2}^{\Sigma A} \stackrel{\chi_{P^{-1}}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{2}$, back to $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$ (restricted to affine maps)}. But a regular-epi mono map is an isomorphism in any category, and so we conclude $q$ is an isomorphism. Thus we have the commutative square
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (A) at (0,0) {$A$};
\node (cA) at (0, -2) {$Im(\widetilde{\eta}_A)$};
\node (IIA) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (IA) at (4, -2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$};
\draw[>->, above] (A) to node {$\hat{\eta}_A$} (IIA);
\draw[>->, right] (IIA) to node {$\iota$} (IA);
\draw[>->,below,dashed] (IIA) to node {$k$} (cA);
\draw[>->>,left] (A) to node {$q$} (cA);
\draw[>->,below] (cA) to node {$j$} (IA);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
and, since $Im(\widetilde{\eta}_A)$ is the largest subobject through which $\widetilde{\eta}_A$ factors, it follows there exist a unique map $k$ making the whole diagram commute. Since $q$ is an isomorphism and $q = k \circ \hat{\eta}_A$, the map $r_A \stackrel{def}{=} q^{-1} \circ k$ is a retraction map for $\hat{\eta}_A$,
\be \nonumber
r_A \circ \hat{\eta}_A = id_A.
\end{equation}
On the otherhand, the image $Im(\widetilde{\eta}_A)$ is the convex hull of all the evaluation maps $\{ev_a\}_{a \in A}$, which is the smallest convex space containing the image. Since each $ev_a$ is weakly averaging, it follows that $k$ itself is an isomorphism, and the coimage map is, up to isomorphism, just the double dualization map $\hat{\eta}_A$ having the codomain space as the weakly averaging functionals.
This result yields
\begin{lemma} \label{mainRes} In $\mathbf{Cvx}$, every weakly averaging affine map $\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ is an evaluation map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The convex space of weakly averaging affine maps, $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$, is (up to isomorphism) the convex hull of the set of evaluation points, $\{ev_a\}_{a \in A}$. Hence every weakly averaging affine map
$\mathbf{I}^A \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ is given by
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
P &=& \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i ev_{a_i} \\
&=& ev_{\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i a_i}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the first equation follows since the convex hull of the set $\{ev_a\}_{a \in A}$ consist of all convex sums of such points. The second equality follows from the fact the map $\hat{\eta}_A$ is affine. All told, $P$ is an evaluation map at some point $a \in A$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm} The convex subspace $\mathbb{I}$ is codense in $\mathbf{Cvx}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove the codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ in $\mathbf{Cvx}$ requires showing the restricted dual Yoneda functor $\mathbf{Cvx}^{op} \rightarrow \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}}$ is full and faithful. Since the object $1$ is a separator, it suffices to show that every natural transformation $\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A) \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, 1)$ arises from a point $1 \stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow} A$, so that the natural transformation is $\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, a)$, and that this point be unique, i.e., $\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, a_1) = \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot,a_2)$ implies $a_1=a_2$. The natural transformations given by $\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot,a)$, evaluated at the only object in $\mathbb{I}$, are the evaluation maps. Since the double dualization map $\hat{\eta}_A$ ($\widetilde{\eta}_A$), which is the unit of the double dualization monad into $\mathbf{I}$, evaluated at the component $A$, is monic it follows that the restricted dual Yoneda functor is faithful. The property of being full follows from Lemma \ref{mainRes} since, by Lemma \ref{wave}, every natural transformation $P$ is necessarily a weakly averaging affine functional.
\end{proof}
\section{Codensity of $\mathbb{I}$ in $\mathbf{Cvx}$ via Isbell Duality} \label{altView}
Since $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is a SMCC which is complete and cocomplete, and $\mathbb{I}$ is a dense subcategory of $\mathbf{Cvx}$, we can apply the Isbell duality theorem,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (CI) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$};
\node (IC) at (5,0) {$(\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}})^{op}$};
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] CI.east) to node {$\mathcal{O}$} ([yshift=2pt] IC.west);
\draw[->,below] ([yshift=-2pt] IC.west) to node {$\mathbf{Spec}$} ([yshift=-2pt] CI.east);
\node (d) at (8, 0) {$\mathcal{O} \dashv \mathbf{Spec}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{l}
\bigg( \mathbf{Spec}(A)\bigg)[\mathbf{I}] = (\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}})^{op})(\mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{I}, \cdot), A) \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \textrm{ and } \quad \\
\bigg( \mathcal{O}(\mathcal{F})\bigg)[\mathbf{I}] = (\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}})(\mathcal{F}, \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, \mathbf{I}))
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
The restricted Yoneda embedding
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{Cvx} & \stackrel{Y|}{\longrightarrow} & \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}} \\
A &\mapsto& \hat{A}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
which is full and faithful (since $\mathbb{I}$ is adequate), gives the representable functors \mbox{$\hat{A} = \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A) \in_{ob} \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$}, and it follows that
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathbf{Spec}(\mathcal{O}(\hat{A}))[\mathbf{I}] &=& \mathbf{Spec}(\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A)))[\mathbf{I}] \\
&\cong & \mathbf{Spec}( \mathbf{Cvx}(A, \cdot))[\mathbf{I}] \\
&=& (\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}})^{op}(\mathbf{Cvx}(I, \cdot), \mathbf{Cvx}(A, \cdot) ) \\
&=& \mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot, A)[\mathbf{I}] \\
&=& \hat{A}[\mathbf{I}]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
hence the composite functor map
\be \nonumber
\hat{A} \mapsto \mathbf{Spec}(\mathcal{O}(\hat{A}))
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism for every convex space $A$.
Since the restricted Yoneda embedding \mbox{$\mathbf{Cvx} \stackrel{Y|}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}$} is full and faithful, it follows the composite functor \mbox{$\mathbf{Cvx} \stackrel{\mathcal{O} \circ Y|}{\longrightarrow} (\mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}})^{op}$} is also full and faithful since $\mathcal{O}(\mathbf{Cvx}(\cdot,A)) = \mathbf{Cvx}(A, \cdot)$. This implies that the dual Yoneda embedding \mbox{$\mathbf{Cvx}^{op} \stackrel{\hat{Y}|}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}}$} is full and faithful - hence $\mathbb{I}$ is a right adequate subcategory of $\mathbf{Cvx}$.\footnote{This result is given in Isbell, using our notation, as
\begin{thm} A proper left adequate subcategory is a proper right adequate subcategory if and only if all the representable functors
\be \nonumber
Cvx(\cdot, A) \in \mathbf{Cvx}^{\mathbb{I}^{op}}
\end{equation}
\noindent
are reflexive, for all $A \in \mathbf{Cvx}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} \cite[Theorem 1.5]{Isbell} (Given without proof.)
\end{proof}
The property of being proper is trivial since $\mathbb{I}$ consist of a single object.}
\section{Function Spaces as Positively Convex Spaces} \label{functions}
Consider the convex space $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{I})$, with its convex structure determined pointwise by that of $\mathbf{2}$, so for all $\alpha \in (0,1)$,
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
(\chi_{A_1} +_{\alpha} \chi_{A_2})(b) &\stackrel{def}{=}& \chi_{A_1}(b) +_{\alpha} \chi_{A_2}(b) \\
&=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{iff }b \in A_1 \cap A_2 \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Thus, it is clear that for any finite convex sum of such elements in $\mathbf{2}^A$, that we have
\be \nonumber
\displaystyle{ \sum_{i=1}^n} \alpha_i \chi_{A_i} = \chi_{ \cap_{i=1}^n A_i } \quad \displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^n} \alpha_i = 1, \, \, \alpha_i \in (0,1)
\end{equation}
Moreover, since
\be \nonumber
\bigcap_{i=1}^{\infty} A_i = \left\{\begin{array}{cl} A_k & \textrm{iff } \cap_{i=1}^{\infty} A_i \ne \emptyset \\
\emptyset & \textrm{otherwise }
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where, provided the intersection is nonempty, the element $A_k$ corresponds to one of the terms in set $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$. Hence, for every $b \in A$,
\be \nonumber
(\chi_{\cap_{i=1}^{\infty} A_i})(b)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{iff }b \in A_i \textrm{ for all }i \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise} \end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
Consequently, for every convex space $A$, the set $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2})$ has a superconvex space structure given by
\be \nonumber
\displaystyle{ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}} \alpha_i \chi_{ A_i } \stackrel{def}{=} \chi_{ \cap_{i=1}^{\infty} A_i } \quad \displaystyle{\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}} \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i \right\} = 1, \, \, \alpha_i \in (0,1)
\end{equation}
with the nullary operation
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathbf{1} & \rightarrow & \mathbf{2}^A \\
\star & \mapsto & \chi_{\emptyset}
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
Similarly the convex space $\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{I})$, with its convex structure determined pointwise by that of $\mathbf{I}$, determines a superconvex space. That is, for all $b \in A$, infinite convex sums are defined by
\be \nonumber
\bigg(\displaystyle{ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}} \alpha_i \chi_{A_i}\bigg)(b) \stackrel{def}{=} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \alpha_i \chi_{A_i}(b) \quad \textrm{ where } \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \{\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i\} = 1, \, \, \alpha_i \in (0,1)
\end{equation}
with the nullary operation
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathbf{1} & \rightarrow & \mathbf{I}^A \\
\star & \mapsto & \chi_{\emptyset}
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{superconvex}, we will view these two superconvex spaces, $\mathbf{2}^A$ and $\mathbf{I}^A$, as positively convex spaces. Hence we can replace the the condition of strict equality $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \{\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i\} = 1$ with the condition of inequality $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \{\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i\} \le 1$. It is, of course, the zero element $\chi_{\emptyset}$ which allows us to add the additional term $(1- \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i)$ to obtain a superconvex space (given a positively convex space).
The property of being a superconvex (positively) space works in tandem with the idea of measurable functions into $\mathbf{I}$ being represented as limits of simple measurable functions, which themselves can be (re)written as convex sums. These representations make explicit use of the zero elements of the function space $\mathbf{I}^A$, as the proof of the following result shows.
\begin{lemma}\label{wellDefined} Every simple measurable function $\Sigma A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ can be written as a convex sum, $m = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i \chi_{A_i}$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i =1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We can assume the simple measurable function \mbox{$m = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i \chi_{S_i}$} is written with
pairwise disjoint measurable sets $\{S_i \}_{i=1}^n$ and has increasing coefficients, $\alpha_1 \le \alpha_2, \ldots \le \alpha_n$, and each $S_i$ is measurable. (Clearly, the $S_i$ will generally not be in the generating set for $\Sigma A$.) Moreover, we can assume that $\cup_{i=1}^N S_i = A$. (If not, add the complementary of the union and associate a $0$ coefficient with it.) This sum can be rewritten as the ``telescoping'' function
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
m &=& \alpha_1 \chi_{\cup_{i=1}^n S_i} +(\alpha_2 - \alpha_1) \chi_{\cup_{i=2}^n S_i} + \ldots \\
&& + (\alpha_j - \alpha_{j-1}) \chi_{\cup_{i=j}^n S_i} + \ldots + (\alpha_n - \alpha_{n-1}) \chi_{S_n} + (1-\alpha_n) \chi_{\emptyset}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
which satisfies the condition that the sum of the coefficients is one.
\end{proof}
\section{The map $\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}$}
To \emph{motivate} the following construction, the the following observation may be useful. (It is by no means necessary; it is included to lend understanding to \emph{why} the map $\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_\mathbf{2}^A}$ may have relevance.) In measure theory, it is well know that every measurable function from a measurable space into the real line can be represented as a limit of a sequence of simple functions. Thus, in particular, taking the space $\mathbf{2}^A$, which is used to generate the $\sigma$-algebra on $\Sigma A$, we expect $\mathbf{2}^{\Sigma A}$ of all measurable characteristic functions, should yield all the measurable functions $\mathbf{I}^{\Sigma A}$. We have alread noted that such function spaces can be viewed as superconvex spaces or positively convex spaces.
Take the map $\epsilon_\mathbf{2}$, defined in equation (\ref{def2}), and exponentiate it by the (convex) space $A$ to obtain the standard covariant map, in $\mathbf{Cvx}$, given by
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (IA) at (-1,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{A}$};
\node (2A) at (5,0) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\draw[->,above] (IA) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^{A}$} (2A);
\node (A) at (-2,-1.9) {$A$};
\node (I) at (-.3, -1.9) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->,above] (A) to node {$m$} (I);
\node (A2) at (4, -1) {$A$};
\node (I2) at (6, -1) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (2) at (6, -3) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\draw[->,above] (A2) to node {$m$} (I2);
\draw[->,right] (I2) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$} (2);
\draw[ ->,left] (A2) to node {$\chi_{m^{-1}(1)}=\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ m$} (2);
\node (p) at (1.8, -1.9) {};
\draw[|->,dashed] (I) to node {$$} (p);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
The composite map defines a Boolean subobject of $A$ given by
$(\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ m)^{-1}(1)=m^{-1}(1)$, yielding the property
\be \label{epsm}
\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ m = \chi_{m^{-1}(1)} \quad \textrm{ for all }m \in \mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{I}).
\end{equation}
Exponentiating this map $\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^{A}$ by the (convex) space $\mathbf{I}$, we obtain the affine map
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (wa) at (-1,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (2A) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{A}}$};
\node (I) at (-2, -1) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\node (I1) at (0, -1) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->,above] (wa) to node {$\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^{A}}$} (2A);
\draw[->, above] (I) to node {$P$} (I1);
\node (A2) at (3, -1) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\node (2) at (5, -1) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (IA) at (3, -2.2) {$\mathbf{I}^{A}$};
\draw[->, above] (A2) to node {$P$} (2);
\draw[->,left] (IA) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A$} (A2);
\draw[->,right,below, thick] (IA) to node [xshift=5pt]{$P \circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A$} (2);
\node (c1) at (8.3, 0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}} = \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{2}), \mathbf{I})$};
\node (c2) at (8.3, -.9) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{A}} = \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathbf{Cvx}(A, \mathbf{I}), \mathbf{I})$};
\draw[|->,thick,dashed] (I1) to node {} (A2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}$ is the subobject (subspace) consisting of the weakly averaging affine functionals\footnote{Recall, a weakly averaging functional $P$ sends a constant map to the value of the constant, $P(\overline{c})=c$. The evaluation maps are clearly weakly averaging.},
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PA) at (0,0) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\node (I2A) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->, above] (PA) to node {$P$} (I2A);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
sending the only two constant functions, $\chi_{\emptyset}$ and $\chi_{A}$, to their respective values, $0$ and $1$.
Using equation (\ref{epsm}), it follows that for every weakly averaging affine functional $P \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}$ that
\be \label{Pproperty}
P(\ulcorner \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ m \urcorner) = P(\ulcorner \chi_{m^{-1}(1)} \urcorner).
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}
The image of the map $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^A}|_{wa} \stackrel{\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}$ lies in the subspace of weakly averaging affine functionals, $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the trivial pair of Boolean subobjects, $\emptyset$ and $A$, any constant function $A \stackrel{\overline{c}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}$ can be written as the convex sum,
\be \nonumber
\overline{c} = \overline{0} +_{c} \overline{1} = \chi_{\emptyset} +_{c} \chi_{A}.
\end{equation}
Every weakly averaging functional $P$ satisfies $P(\ulcorner \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner)=0$ and \mbox{$P(\ulcorner \chi_A \urcorner)=1$}, and conversely if $P$ maps $\chi_{\emptyset} \mapsto 0$ and $\chi_A \mapsto 1$ then it
preserves all constant maps on $A$. Under the mapping $\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}$, $P \mapsto P\circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A$, and consequently it suffices to show that $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^{A}}|_{wa}$ contains all the functionals $P\circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A$ such that
\be \nonumber
(P \circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A)(\ulcorner \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner) = P(\ulcorner\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner)=0
\end{equation}
and
\be \nonumber
(P \circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A)(\ulcorner \chi_{A} \urcorner) = P(\ulcorner\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ \chi_{A} \urcorner)=1
\end{equation}
Using equation (\ref{Pproperty}) and taking $m= \overline{0}=\chi_{\emptyset}$ we have, for every $a \in A$,
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
P(\ulcorner \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner) &=& P(\ulcorner \chi_{\chi_{\emptyset}^{-1}(1)} \urcorner) \\
&=& P(\ulcorner \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner) \\
&=& 0 \\
&=& ev_a(\ulcorner \chi_{\emptyset} \urcorner)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Thus for every weakly averaging functional $P \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^A}$, the image of $P$ under $\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}$ is, with respect to evaluation on the affine map $\chi_{\emptyset}$, equivalent to the evaluation map at any point $a \in A$.
Similarly, we have upon taking $m= \overline{1}=\chi_{A}$ the result that, for every $a \in A$,
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
P(\ulcorner \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}} \circ \chi_{A} \urcorner) &=& P(\ulcorner \chi_{\chi_{A}^{-1}(1)} \urcorner) \\
&=& P(\ulcorner \chi_{A} \urcorner) \\
&=& 1 \\
&=& ev_a(\ulcorner \chi_{A} \urcorner)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Hence the image of every weakly averaging functional $P \in \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^A}$ is, with respect to evaluation on the affine map $\chi_{A}$, equivalent to the evaluation map at any point $a \in A$.
Since all the evaluation maps lie in $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Proving the adjunction $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$} \label{adjunction}
The unit of the proposed adjunction $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$ is necessarily the unit of the Giry monad, namely
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (X) at (0,0) {$X$};
\node (TX) at (6,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X))$};
\node (x) at (0, -.8) {$x$};
\node (dx) at (6, -.8) {$\delta_x$};
\draw[->,above] (X) to node {$\eta_X$} (TX);
\draw[|->] (x) to node {} (dx);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_x$ is the dirac (probability) measure at the point $x$.
The counit of the adjunction, at component $A$,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PA) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(A))$};
\node (A) at (6,0) {$A$};
\draw[->,above] (PA) to node {$\epsilon_A$} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
is (as always) a universal arrow from the functor $\mathcal{P}$ to the object $A$, and
the universal arrow $\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$ is as given in equation (\ref{def2}). Using the isomorphism between $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathcal{P}(\Sigma \mathbf{2})$ we have
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (P2) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(\mathbf{2}))$};
\node (2) at (6,0) {$\mathbf{2}$};
\node (PX) at (0,-2) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\draw[->>,above] (P2) to node {\tiny{$\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}(\alpha) \stackrel{def}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \textrm{ for all }\alpha \in [0,1) \\ 1 & \textrm{ otherwise} \end{array} \right.$}} (2);
\draw[->,left] (PX) to node {$\mathcal{P}(\hat{m})$} (P2);
\draw[->,below] (PX) to node {$m$} (2);
\node (22) at (-4, 0) {$\Sigma(\mathbf{2})$};
\node (X) at (-4, -2) {$X$};
\node (SPX) at (-2.5, -1) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X))$};
\draw[->,right,dashed] (X) to node [yshift=-2pt] {$\eta_X$} (SPX);
\draw[->,right,dashed] (SPX) to node [yshift=2pt] {$\Sigma(m)$} (22);
\draw[->,left] (X) to node {$\hat{m}$} (22);
\node (c) at (-4, -3) {in $\mathbf{Meas}$};
\node (d) at (3.5, -3) {in $\mathbf{Cvx}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
To show $\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}$ is a universal arrow from $\mathcal{P}$ to $\mathbf{2}$, let $m$ be any affine map as shown in the diagram. The adjunct to $m$ is
\be \nonumber
\hat{m}(x) = \chi_{(\eta_X \circ \Sigma(m))^{-1}}(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \textrm{iff }m(\delta_x)=1 \\ 0 & \textrm{otherwise } \end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
specifying the subset of $X$ consisting of all those elements $x \in X$ such that the corresponding dirac measues $\delta_x$ get mapped to $1$ under the given affine map $m$.
The counit at the other components of $\mathbf{Cvx}$, $\epsilon_A$, can be determined using the affine map $\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}$, the result that the map $A \stackrel{\widehat{\eta}_A}{\longrightarrow} \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$ is an isomorphism, and the fact that the image $Im(\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}) \subset \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$.
Thus, consider the $\mathbf{Cvx}$-diagram
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (A) at (.25,0) {$A$};
\node (22A) at (4,0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{I}^A}|_{wa}$};
\node (I2A) at (4, 2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (PA) at (.25, 2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\draw[->, above] (PA) to node {$id$} (I2A);
\draw[->,left] (PA) to node {$\epsilon_A \stackrel{def}{=}\widehat{\eta}_A^{-1} \circ \mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A}$} (A);
\draw[>->>, above] ([yshift=2pt] A.east) to node {$\widehat{\eta}_A$} ([yshift=2pt] 22A.west);
\draw[>->>,below] ([yshift=-2pt] 22A.west) to node {$\widehat{\eta}_A^{-1}$} ([yshift=-2pt]A.east);
\draw[->,right] (I2A) to node {$\mathbf{I}^{\epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^{A}}$} (22A);
\node (a) at (6,0) {$\epsilon_A(\ulcorner P \urcorner)$};
\node (Pres) at (10.6,2) {$\ulcorner P \urcorner$};
\node (eP) at (10.6, 0) {$\ulcorner P \circ \epsilon_{\mathbf{2}}^A \urcorner$};
\node (P) at (6, 2) {$\ulcorner P \urcorner$};
\node (a1) at (8.78, 0) {$\ulcorner {ev}_{\epsilon_A(P)}\urcorner=$};
\draw[|->, above,dashed] (P) to node {} (Pres);
\draw[|->,left, dashed] (P) to node {} (a);
\draw[|->, below] (a) to node {} (a1);
\draw[|->,right] (Pres) to node {} (eP);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\label{pb}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The fact the diagram is a pullback is trivial since $\widehat{\eta}_A$ is an isomorphism.
\vspace{.1in}
The affine map $\epsilon_A$ in turn determines a map on $\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$ using the affine map
sending a probability measure $\hat{P}$ (as traditionally viewed) to the weakly averaging affine map $P$,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I2A) at (5, 0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (PrA) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$};
\draw[->, above] (PrA) to node {$\phi_A$} (I2A);
\node (P) at (0, -1) {$\hat{P}$};
\node (2A) at (4, -1) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\node (I) at (6, -1) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->, above] (2A) to node {$P$} (I);
\draw[|->] (P) to node {} (2A);
\node (U) at (4, -1.8) {$\chi_U$};
\node (PU) at (6, -1.8) {$\hat{P}(U)$};
\draw[|->] (U) to node {} (PU);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
To prove $\phi_A$ is an affine map we need only use the pointwise definition of the convex structure on the function space,
\be \nonumber
\begin{array}{lcl}
\phi_A(\hat{P} +_{\alpha} \hat{Q})(\chi_U) &=& (P+_{\alpha} Q)(U) \\
&=& P(U) +_{\alpha} Q(U) \\
&=& (\phi_A(\hat{P}) +_{\alpha} \phi_A(\hat{Q}))(\chi_U)
\end{array}.
\end{equation}
This affine map $\phi_A$ is an isomorphism with the inverse given by
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I2A) at (0, 0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (PrA) at (5,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$};
\draw[->, above] (I2A) to node {$\phi_A^{-1}$} (PrA);
\node (P) at (5, -1) {$\hat{P}$};
\node (2A) at (-1, -1) {$\mathbf{2}^{A}$};
\node (I) at (1, -1) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\draw[->, above] (2A) to node {$P$} (I);
\draw[|->] (I) to node {} (P);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{P}(A_0) = P(\chi_{A_0})$ on the Boolean subobjects of $A$ which generate $\Sigma_A$. Since the Boolean subobjects form, by Lemma (\ref{piSystem}), a $\pi$ system this completely defines the probability measure $\hat{P}$.
Hence If $\hat{P}$ and $\hat{Q}$ are two probability measures on $\Sigma A$, which agree on the generating set, $\hat{P}(A_0)=\hat{Q}(A_0)$ for all Boolean subobjects $A_0$, then $\hat{P}=\hat{Q}$.\footnote{The set $D=\{U \in \Sigma_A \, | \, \hat{P}(U) = \hat{Q}(U) \}$ forms a Dynkin system. Thus $\Sigma_A$, which is generated by the Boolean subobjects, satisfies $\Sigma_A \subset D$, since the Boolean subobjects are closed under finite intersection.} Note that the value at any other measurable subset $U \in \Sigma A$ can be calculated as the limit of an infinite sum because $\mathbf{I}$ is a positively convex space, i.e., $\mathbf{I}$ can be viewed not only as a convex space, but as a positively convex space. We subsequently drop reference to the isomorphism $\phi_A$ and view $\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$ as $\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^A}|_{wa}$.
The maps $\{\phi_A\}_{A \in_{ob} \mathbf{Cvx}}$ form the components of a natural transformation $\mathcal{P}(\Sigma (\bullet)) \Rightarrow \mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{\bullet}}$, which is an elementary verification noting
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (I2A) at (0, 0) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^{A}}|_{wa}$};
\node (PrA) at (3,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$};
\node (I2B) at (0, -2) {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^B}|_{wa}$};
\node (PrB) at (3, -2) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma B)$};
\draw[->, above] (I2A) to node {$\phi_A^{-1}$} (PrA);
\draw[->,left] (I2A) to node {$\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{2}^m}$} (I2B);
\draw[->,below] (I2B) to node {$\phi_B^{-1}$} (PrB);
\draw[->,right] (PrA) to node {$\mathcal{P}\Sigma(m)$} (PrB);
\node (P) at (5, 0) {$P$};
\node (PA) at (8.4,0) {$\hat{P}$};
\node (P2m) at (5, -2) {$P \circ \mathbf{2}^m$};
\node (PB) at (8.4, -2) {$\hat{P}m^{-1}$};
\node (p2mB) at (7,-2) {$\widehat{P \circ \mathbf{2}^m}=$};
\draw[|->, above] (P) to node {} (PA);
\draw[|->,right] (PA) to node {} (PB);
\draw[|->,left] (P) to node {} (P2m);
\draw[|->,below] (P2m) to node {} (p2mB);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where the commutativity follows from
\be \nonumber
\widehat{ P \circ \mathbf{2}^m}(V) = P(\chi_{m^{-1}(V)}) = \hat{P}m^{-1}(V) \quad \forall V \in \Sigma_B.
\end{equation}
Now we can finally show that the functors $\mathcal{P}$ and $\Sigma$ form an adjoint pair between $\mathbf{Meas}$ and $\mathbf{Cvx}$, and that the two adjunctions, $\mathcal{F}^{\mathcal{G}} \dashv \mathcal{U}^{G}$ and $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$, shown in Diagram (\ref{comparisonFunctor}), yield the same monad on $\mathbf{Meas}$.
\begin{thm} \label{it} The functor $\mathcal{P}$ is left adjoint to $\Sigma$, $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$, and is naturally isomorphic to the Giry monad,
\be \nonumber
(\mathcal{G}, \eta, \mu) \cong (\Sigma \circ \mathcal{P}, \eta, \Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P} \_})).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This functor $\mathbf{\Sigma}$ endows each convex space
of probability measures $\mathcal{P}(X)$ with the same $\sigma$-algebra as that associated with the Giry monad since the evaluation maps, which are used to define the $\sigma$-algebra for the Giry monad, pulls back subobjects (=intervals) of $\mathbf{I}$ to subobjects of $\mathcal{P}(X)$,\footnote{Conversely, the image of every convex subspace of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ is a convex space under every affine map.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (ab) at (5,1.5) {$(a,b)$};
\node (P) at (0,1.5) {$ev_U^{-1}((a,b))$};
\node (I) at (5, 0) {$\mathbf{I}$};
\node (TX) at (0, 0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\node (c) at (7, .0) {$U \in \Sigma_X$};
\draw[>->] (ab) to node {} (I);
\draw[>->,dashed] (P) to node {} (TX);
\node (c) at (7,1.1) {in $\mathbf{Cvx}$};
\draw[->,below] (TX) to node {$ev_U$}(I);
\draw[->,above, dashed] (P) to node {} (ab);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
The two natural transformations, $\mathcal{P}\circ \Sigma \stackrel{\epsilon}{\longrightarrow} id_{\mathbf{Cvx}}$ and $id_{\mathbf{Meas}} \stackrel{\eta}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma \circ \mathcal{P}$, where $\eta_X$ sends a point $x \in X$ to the dirac measure $\delta_x$, together yield the required bijective correspondence. Given a measurable function $f$
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (X) at (-1,0) {$X$};
\node (TX) at (3,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X))$};
\node (SA) at (3, -3) {$\Sigma A$};
\node (c) at (2, -4) {in $\mathbf{Meas}$};
\node (PX) at (6, 0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\node (A) at (6, -3) {$A$};
\node (PA) at (7.5, -1.5) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$};
\node (c2) at (6.5, -4) {in $\mathbf{Cvx}$};
\node (d2) at (10, -1.5) {$\hat{f} \stackrel{def}{=} \epsilon_A \circ \mathcal{P}(f)$};
\draw[->,above] (X) to node {$\eta_X$} (TX);
\draw[->,right] (TX) to node {$\Sigma(\hat{f})$} (SA);
\draw[->,below] (X) to node {$f$} (SA);
\draw[->,left,dashed] (PX) to node {$\hat{f}$} (A);
\draw[->, right] (PX) to node {$\mathcal{P}(f)$} (PA);
\draw[->>,right] (PA) to node {$\epsilon_A$} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
define $\hat{f}=\epsilon_A \circ \mathcal{P}(f)$, which yields
\be \nonumber
\Sigma(\epsilon_A \circ \mathcal{P}(f))\circ \eta_X(x) = \Sigma(\epsilon_A \circ \delta_{f(x)}) = f(x)
\end{equation}
proving the existence of an adjunct arrow to $f$. The uniqueness then follows from the fact that if $g \in \mathbf{Cvx}(\mathcal{P}(X), A)$ also satisfies the required commutativity condition of the diagram on the left, $\Sigma g \circ \eta_X = f$, which says that for every $x \in X$ that
\be \nonumber
g( \delta_x) = f(x) = \epsilon_A(\delta_{f(x)}) = (\epsilon_{A} \circ \mathcal{P}(f))(\delta_x) = \hat{f}(\delta_x).
\end{equation}
We can now use the fact that $\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)} \circ \mathcal{P}(\eta_X) = id_{\mathcal{P}(X)}$ to conclude that for an arbitrary probability measure $P \in \mathcal{P}(X)$ that
$g(P) = \hat{f}(P)$ follows using $g(P) = g(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}(\delta_{P}))$ and naturality,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PX) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\node (PSPX) at (4,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X)))$};
\node (PX0) at (8,0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\node (PA) at (4, -2) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma A)$};
\node (A) at (8, -2) {$A$};
\draw[->,above] (PX) to node {$\mathcal{P}(\eta_X)$} (PSPX);
\draw[->>,above] (PSPX) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}$} (PX0);
\draw[->,below] (PX) to node [xshift=-4pt] {$\mathcal{P}(f)$} (PA);
\draw[->,right] (PSPX) to node {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma g)$} (PA);
\draw[->>, below] (PA) to node {$\epsilon_A$} (A);
\draw[->,right] (PX0) to node {$g$} (A);
\node (P) at (0,-3) {$P$};
\node (deltaP) at (4,-3) {$\delta_P$};
\node (P2) at (8,-3) {$P$};
\node (Pf) at (4, -5) {$Pf^{-1} \sim \delta_{g(P)}$};
\node (gP) at (8, -5) {$\hat{f}(P) = g(P)$};
\draw[|->] (P) to node {} (deltaP);
\draw[|->] (deltaP) to node {} (P2);
\draw[|->] (deltaP) to node {} (Pf);
\draw[|->] (Pf) to node {} (gP);
\draw[|->] (P2) to node {} (gP);
\draw[|->] (P) to node {} (Pf);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where the bottom path, $\hat{f} = \epsilon_A \circ \mathcal{P}(f)$ yields $\hat{f}(P)$, while the east-south path gives $g(P) = g(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)} \circ \mathcal{P}(\eta_X))$.
The unit of $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$ is $\eta$ (the same as the Giry monad), and the multiplication determined by the adjunction $\mathcal{P} \dashv \Sigma$ is given by
\be \nonumber
\tilde{\mu}_X = \Sigma( \epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)})
\end{equation}
where the functor $\Sigma$ just makes the affine map $\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}$ a measurable function.
We must show that this $\tilde{\mu}$ coincides with the multiplication $\mu$ of the Giry monad which is defined componentwise by
\be \nonumber
\mu_X(P)[U] = \int_{q \in \mathcal{G}(X)} ev_U(q) \, dP(q).
\end{equation}
This follows by the naturality of $\epsilon$ and the fact $\mathcal{P}(\chi_U) = ev_U$ for all $U \in \Sigma_X$,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (STSTX) at (0,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X))))$};
\node (STX) at (4,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(X))$};
\node (STST2) at (0, -2) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})))$};
\node (ST2) at (4, -2) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2}))$};
\draw[->,left] (STSTX) to node {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(ev_U))$} (STST2);
\draw[->,right] (STX) to node {$ev_U$} (ST2);
\draw[->, above] (STSTX) to node {$\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)})$} (STX);
\draw[->, below] (STST2) to node [xshift=3pt]{$\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})})$} (ST2);
\node (P) at (6,0) {$P$};
\node (Q) at (11.5,0) {$Q$};
\node (Pev) at (6, -2) {$Pev_U^{-1}$};
\node (QU) at (9.5, -2) {$\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})})(Pev_U^{-1}) = Q(U)$};
\node (p) at (11.5, -1.7) {};
\node (c) at (8.4, -1) {where $P \sim \delta_Q$};
\draw[|->] (P) to node {} (Pev);
\draw[|->] (Q) to node {} (p);
\draw[|->] (P) to node {} (Q);
\draw[|->] (Pev) to node [xshift=0pt]{} (QU);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
The east-south path gives $\tilde{\mu}_{\mathcal{P}(X)}\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}(P))[U] = Q(U)$, while the south-east path gives the multiplication $\mu_{X}$ of the Giry monad,
\be \nonumber
\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})})(Pev_U^{-1}) = \int_{q \in \mathcal{G}(X)} q(U) \, dP = \mu_{X}(P)[U].
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact $\mu_{\mathbf{2}} = \Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{2})})$.
\end{proof}
\section{The equivalence of Giry algebras with convex spaces} \label{equiv}
To show that the category $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$ is equivalent to $\mathbf{Cvx}$, we need to show that the adjoint pair\footnote{Since $\mathbf{Cvx}$ is cocomplete, the left adjoint $\hat{\Phi}$ to the comparison functor exist. (This left adjoint construction always exist whenever the category in question, here $\mathbf{Cvx}$, has coequalizers.) The question of equivalence amounts to showing that the two composites of those functors are naturally isomorphic to the identity on the respective categories.
The fact that $\Sigma$ reflects isomorphisms is trivial since, for every affine map $m$, $\Sigma m$ is just an affine measurable function. This implies that the counit of the adjunction $\hat{\Phi} \dashv \Phi$ is an isomorphism, and it only remains to show the unit of the adjunction is an isomorphism.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (MG) at (0, 0) {$\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$};
\node (C) at (5,0) {$\mathbf{Cvx}$};
\node (c) at (8, 0) {$\hat{\Phi} \dashv \Phi$};
\draw[->,below] ([yshift=-2pt] C.west) to node {$\Phi$} ([yshift=-2pt] MG.east);
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] MG.east) to node {$\hat{\Phi}$} ([yshift=2pt] C.west);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
have the unit and counit of the adjunction naturally isomorphic to the identity functors on $\mathbf{Cvx}$ and $\mathbf{Meas}^{\mathcal{G}}$. The functor $\hat{\Phi}$, applied to a Giry algebra $\mathcal{G}(X) \stackrel{h}{\longrightarrow} X$, is the coequalizer (object) of the parallel pair\footnote{Recall, by Theorem \ref{it}, $\mu_X =\Sigma(\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)})$.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (GX) at (-0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{G}(X))$};
\node (X) at (4,0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\node (CC) at (8,0) {$CoEq$};
\draw[->>,above] (X) to node {$q$} (CC);
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] GX.east) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}$} ([yshift=2pt] X.west);
\draw[->,below] ([yshift=-2pt] GX.east) to node {$\mathcal{P}(h)$} ([yshift=-2pt] X.west);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
The convex space $Coeq$ is the $\mathbf{Cvx}$ object corresponding to the Giry algebra $h$. For the equivalence to hold, we must show that the map of $\mathcal{G}$-algebras
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (GX) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{G}(X)$};
\node (X) at (0,-2) {$X$};
\node (CoEq) at (4,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\Sigma CoEq))$};
\node (Co) at (4, -2) {$\Sigma CoEq$};
\node (c) at (7, -1) {in $\mathbf{Meas}$};
\draw[->,left] (GX) to node {$h$} (X);
\draw[->, right] (CoEq) to node {$\Sigma(\epsilon_{Coeq})$} (Co);
\draw[->, above] (GX) to node {$\mathcal{G}(\theta)$} (CoEq);
\draw[->,below] (X) to node {$\theta$} (Co);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism. Towards this end, let $(Ker(q), m_1, m_2)$ denote the kernel pair of the coequalizer $q$. Since $q \circ \epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)} = q \circ \mathcal{P}(h)$ there exist a unique map $\psi$ such that the $\mathbf{Cvx}$-diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (GGX) at (0,2.5) {$\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{G}(X))$};
\node (GX) at (0,0) {$\mathcal{P}(X)$};
\draw[->,right] ([xshift=2pt] GGX.south) to node [xshift=2pt] {$\mathcal{P}(h)$} ([xshift=2pt] GX.north);
\draw[->,left] ([xshift=-2pt] GGX.south) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(X)}$} ([xshift=-2pt] GX.north);
\node (E) at (-3,0) {$Ker(q)$};
\node (CC) at (0,-1.9) {$CoEq$};
\draw[->>,right] ([xshift=0pt] GX.south) to node [xshift=5pt]{$q$} ([xshift=0pt] CC.north);
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] E.east) to node {$m_1$} ([yshift=2pt] GX.west);
\draw[->, below] ([yshift=-2pt] E.east) to node {$m_2$} ([yshift=-2pt] GX.west);
\draw[->,left] (GGX) to node [yshift=3pt]{$\psi$} (E);
\node (rGGX) at (7,2.25) {$\mathcal{G}^2(X)$};
\node (rGX) at (7,0) {$\mathcal{G}(X)$};
\draw[->>,right] ([xshift=2pt] rGGX.south) to node [xshift=2pt] {$\mathcal{G}(h)$} ([xshift=2pt] rGX.north);
\draw[->>,left] ([xshift=-2pt] rGGX.south) to node {$\mu_X$} ([xshift=-2pt] rGX.north);
\node (rX) at (7,-2) {$X$};
\node (rCC) at (3,-2) {$\Sigma CoEq$}; \node (prCC) at (3.2, -1.8) {};
\node (rE) at (3,0) {$\Sigma Ker(q)$};
\node (rEp) at (3,-.1) {};
\node (rCCp) at (3,-1.9) {};
\draw[->>,right] (rGX) to node {$h$} (rX);
\draw[->,below] (rGX.south) to node [xshift=5pt]{$\Sigma q$} (prCC.north);
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] rE.east) to node {$\Sigma m_1$} ([yshift=2pt] rGX.west);
\draw[->, below] ([yshift=-2pt] rE.east) to node {$\Sigma m_2$} ([yshift=-2pt] rGX.west);
\draw[->,left] (rEp) to node [xshift=0pt] {\tiny{$\Sigma(q \circ m_1)$}} (rCCp);
\draw[->,below,dashed] (rX) to node {$\theta$} (rCC);
\draw[->,left] (rGGX) to node [xshift=-4pt]{$\Sigma \psi$} (rE);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
commutes. Now apply the functor $\Sigma$ to this diagram to obtain the commutative $\mathbf{Meas}$-diagram on the right hand side of the above diagram.
Defining
\be \nonumber
\theta = \Sigma q \circ \eta_X
\end{equation}
in this diagram, we obtain the (equivalent but redrawn) commutative diagram
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (G2X) at (-5,4) {$\mathcal{G}^2(X)$};
\node (GX) at (-5,0) {$\mathcal{G}(X)$};
\node (GX2) at (0,4) {$\mathcal{G}(X)$};
\node (ker) at (-2.5,2) {$\Sigma ker(q)$};
\node (X) at (2.,-2.) {$X$};
\node (CC) at (0,-0) {$\Sigma CoEq$};
\node (Xp) at (2.3,-2.4) {};
\node (CCp) at (-.1, -.1) {};
\draw[->,above] (G2X) to node {$\mathcal{G}(h)$} (GX2);
\draw[->,out=-30, in=90,looseness=.5, right] (GX2) to node {$h$} (X);
\draw[->,left] (G2X) to node {$\mu_X$} (GX);
\draw[->,out=-30,in=180,looseness=.5,below] (GX) to node {$h$} (X);
\draw[->, above] (X) to node {$\theta$} (CC);
\draw[->,below,dashed] (CCp) to node [xshift=-5pt]{$\theta^{-1}$} (Xp);
\draw[->,below] (GX) to node {$\Sigma q$} (CC);
\draw[->,right] (GX2) to node [xshift=0pt] {$\Sigma q$} (CC);
\draw[->,right] (G2X) to node {$\Sigma \psi$} (ker);
\draw[->,right] (ker) to node [yshift=-3pt]{$\Sigma m_1$} (GX2);
\draw[->,right] (ker) to node [xshift=3pt]{$\Sigma m_2$} (GX);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where the outer paths commute since the $\mathcal{G}$-algebra $h$ satisfies the condition that $h \circ \mathcal{G}(h) = h \circ \mu_X$.
Since $(\Sigma(ker(q)), \Sigma m_1, \Sigma m_2)$ is a pullback and $h \circ \Sigma m_1 = h \circ \Sigma m_2$, there exist a
unique map $\Sigma CoEq \longrightarrow X$ which (necessarily) is the inverse of $\theta$, and hence we obtain the isomorphism of measurable spaces
\be \nonumber
X \cong \Sigma CoEq.
\end{equation}
This proves that the unit of the adjunction $\hat{\Phi} \dashv \Phi$ is naturally isomorphic to the identity functor $id_{\mathbf{Meas}}$.
Conversely, given a convex space $C$, applying the functor $\Sigma$ to the counit of the adjunction at $C$ gives the $\mathcal{G}$-algebra\footnote{This proof this is a $\mathcal{G}$-algebra is a straightforward verification.}
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PC) at (1,0) {$\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\Sigma C))$};
\node (C) at (5,0) {$\Sigma C$};
\draw[->,above] (PC) to node {$\Sigma \epsilon_C$} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
This is precisely the process of applying the comparison functor $\Phi$ to the convex space $C$.
Now if we apply the preceding process (apply the functor $\hat{\Phi})$ to this $\mathcal{G}$-algebra, we construct the coequalizer of the parallel pair
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\node (PC) at (1.4,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma(\mathcal{P}(\Sigma C)))$};
\node (C) at (6,0) {$\mathcal{P}(\Sigma C)$};
\node (A) at (9, 0) {$C$};
\draw[->,above] ([yshift=2pt] PC.east) to node {$\epsilon_{\mathcal{P}(\Sigma C)}$} ([yshift=2pt] C.west);
\draw[->,below] ([yshift=-2pt] PC.east) to node {$\mathcal{P} (\Sigma \epsilon_C)$} ([yshift=-2pt] C.west);
\draw[->,above,dashed] (C) to node {$\epsilon_C$} (A);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\noindent
which is, up to isomorphism, just the convex space $C$ and counit of the adjunction $\mathcal{P}\dashv \Sigma$.
|
\section{Introduction}
Renewed interest in microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing for the development of unconventional reservoirs has led the petroleum industry to invest in microsesismic technology. The technology involves installing downhole and surface sensors to detect and localize microseismic events in order to image fracturing associated with fluid injection or extraction. The microseismic fracture image is used to understand the extent of fracture network. However, microseismic events are known to have very low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) making it difficult to detect and accurately locate microseismic events. Many researchers have proposed seismic interferometry to increase the SNR of seismic data \citep{Sni2004,Wapvand2008,Sch2009,WapDraAO2010,WapSloAO2010}. Recent application of seismic interferometry in first-break enhancement through cross-correlation, summation, and convolution showed promising results when applied on seismic signals generated by an active source, e.g., \citep{MalBhaAO2011,AlAAldAO2012,BhaWanAO2013,AlHHanAO2014}.
\cite{XiaLuoAO09} used seismic interferometry to locate microseismic events by cross-correlating the direct P and S arrivals from repeated sources. They tested their approach using an elastic model and found that the repeated sources enhance arrivals after stacking. \cite{SonKulAO2010} proposed an array-based waveform correlation method to enhance the detectability of microseismic events. They used a transformed spectrogram to identify the arrivals and found an improvement over an array-stacked short-time average/long-time average (STA/LTA) approach. There are various versions of STA/LTA method, which are based on energy, amplitude or entropy functions \citep{Wong2009,Xiantai2011}. There are other similar methods, e.g., multi-window method \citep{Chen2005} and modified energy ratio (MER) \citep{Wong2009}. \cite{Mousa2011} discussed a method based on the digital image segmentation. \cite{AlSKakAO2013} proposed a workflow to enhance microseismic events and reported that the last step in their workflow (i.e., convolving the enhanced and raw records) seems responsible for leaking noise from the raw records into the enhanced data. This problem is eliminated by \cite{Iqbal2016b} using singular-value decomposition in place of convolution.
Among the existing methods, STA/LTA method is the most widely used in earthquake seismology. The STA/LTA method processes the signals in two moving windows (long and short). The ratio of the average energies in the windows are calculated. In case of noise-free seismograms, the maximum value of numerical derivative of the ratio is close to the first-arrival time. In the MER method, the concept of STA/LTA is modified in such a way that two windows are of equal length and move adjacent to each other. The peak of the cubic power of energies ratio in two windows is close to a first-break. The other technique to detect the first breaks includes interferometry approach where cross-correlations of all the distinct pair of traces are carried out. Then, the cross-correlations are aligned to a specific instant and summed up. The resulting stacked cross-correlation is considered as a filter to denoise the noisy traces by convolving the stacked cross-correlation with the traces. \
In this study, we propose a first-break picking approach based on seismic interferometry.
The proposed approach applies the basic steps of seismic interferometry (cross-correlation and summation) iteratively in order to minimize the sum of squared errors (SSE) between successive iterations. We use both synthetic and real microseismic data to demonstrate that this new approach significantly enhances first breaks, thus making it easy to pick event arrival times. Consequently, the enhanced signals with accurate picking of first breaks will likely improve microseismic event localization over the reservoir.
\section{Proposed Method}
The proposed method has two phases: reliable/accurate first-break estimation on a reference trace and estimation of the relative time delays from the reference trace to all other traces with an enhanced cross correlation function (CCF).
Assume there are $M$ raw microseismic traces, $x_m[n]$ for $m=1,\ldots,M$ of length $L_T$ and sampling interval $\Delta t$. With $M$ traces, the number of unique CCFs is $Q=(M/2)(M-1)$.
The success of the proposed method depends on the correct picking of a reference first-break on at least one trace; therefore, we have given special attention to this step. Consequently, we use the time-frequency contents of the traces simultaneously in the time-frequency domain, which will make the process of first-break manual picking more reliable. Time-frequency representation is not a new concept and many high resolution time-frequency decompositions have been developed. The short-time Fourier transform (STFT) and the continuous wavelet transform are well-known time-frequency transforms that can recover the signal contents if they do not overlap in the time-frequency domain \citep{Diallo2005,Kulesh2007,Roueff2004}. There are other transforms such as the empirical mode decomposition \citep{Huang1998}, synchrosqueezing transform \citep{Daubechies2011}, matching pursuit \citep{Mallat1993} and basis pursuit \citep{Bonar2010,VeraRodriguez2012,Zhang2011}, to name a few. The time-frequency representation has been used for travel-time picking in the past \citep{Saragiotis2013,Zhang2015,Herrera2015}. In this work, we have tested various time-frequency transforms but find spectrogram method to be most effective. Hence, we use the spectrogram method proposed by \cite{AugFla1995} to pick a reference trace $x_r[n]$ whose first-break $n_r$ is the most clear in the time-frequency domain.
For Spectrogram, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is applied on subset of data points $(N)$. This subset of data is selected using a window $\mathbf w=[w_0, w_1,\cdots,w_{L_w}]$. First, FFT is computed for data points of length $L_w$, then the window in moved $h$ data points and again FFT is calculated. Here, $h$ is called as step size. This procedure is repeated until the window covers the last $L_w$ data points. Mathematically,
\begin{eqnarray}
Y(p,q)=\sum_{j=0}^{L_{w}-1}y_{j+qh}w_{j}\exp\left({-i2\pi jp\over L_{w}}\right),\ p=0,1,\cdots,L_{w}-1,\ q=0,1,2,\cdots,{N-L_w \over h}
\end{eqnarray}
The spectrogram is calculated as$|Y(l,n)|^{2}$.
We have used the Hamming window of length $(L_w)$ quarter of the trace length and the overlap is $L_w - 1$, i.e., $h=1$ (these parameters are optimized using simulations).
The reference time index $n_r$ will be utilized to calculate the absolute timings of the enhanced first breaks after the second step which involves multiple cross correlations. The units of $n_r$ are number of samples, which can be converted to time using the sampling interval, i.e., $t_r = (n_r-1) \Delta t$. Another step in the method is to accurately find the relative time delays of all other traces to the reference trace. Then, the first-break for an arbitrary trace is the sum of $t_r$ and the relative delay to the reference trace.
See Algorithm \ref{alg:iter} for a detailed description of the proposed scheme.
\\ \emph{Notation:}
For two distinct traces, the CCF is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{lm}[\tau] = x_l\otimes x_m =\sum_n x_l[n] x_m[n+\tau],
\end{equation}
where $\otimes$ denotes the convolution operator and $\tau$ is the lag index, and $-L_{T}\le \tau\le L_{T}$, ($L_T$ denotes the length of the traces. i.e., total number of samples).
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Iterative first breaks picking method based on CCF}
\label{alg:iter}
\SetAlFnt{\small}
\SetKwInOut{KwInit}{Initialization}
\AlFnt
\KwIn{Raw microseismic traces $x_m[n]$, $m=1,\ldots,M$.}
\KwInit{ Manually pick the first-break $n_r$ of the reference trace. \\
}
\begin{itemize}
\item [Step 0:] Set iteration counter $i=0$. \\
Compute cross-correlation between trace $l$ and $m$, $\Phi^i_{lm}[\tau]$\\
$\Phi^i_{lm}[\tau] = x_l\otimes x_m $ for $l<m$, $m=2,\ldots,M$ and $-L_{T}\le \tau\le L_{T}$ \\
\item [Step 1:] Pick relative time delays between the reference trace $r$ and all other traces
\begin{equation*}
\tau^i_{rm} = \begin{cases}
{\displaystyle \argmax_\tau \Phi^i_{rm}[\tau]} & r<m\\
0 & r=m\\
{\displaystyle -\argmax_\tau \Phi^i_{rm}[\tau]} & r>m \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\KwOut{first breaks for all traces: $n^i_m= n_r+\tau^i_{rm}$, $m=1,\ldots,M$. }
\item[Step 2:] If $i\geq1$, compute iterative sum of squared errors, ISSE$(i)$ via
\begin{equation*}
\text{ISSE}(i) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^M \left(n^i_m - n^{i-1}_m \right)^2
= \sum\limits_{m=1}^M \left(\tau^i_{rm} - \tau^{i-1}_{rm} \right)^2
\end{equation*}
Terminate the iteration if ISSE$(i)$ increases.
\item [Step 3:]
Align the maxima and stack the CCFs
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{i}_s[\tau] = \frac{1}{Q} \sum_{l<m} \Phi^{i}_{lm}[\tau-\tau^{i}_{lm}], \mbox{ where } \tau^{i}_{lm}=\argmax_\tau \Phi^{i}_{lm}[\tau]
\end{equation*}
\item[Step 4:]
Update the CCFs via convolution and truncation\begin{align*}
\hat{\Phi}^{i+1}_{lm}[\tau] &= \Phi^{i}_{lm}\otimes \Phi^{i}_s[\tau]\\
\Phi^{i+1}_{lm}[\tau] &\gets \hat{\Phi}^{i+1}_{lm} [\tau]T[\tau],
\end{align*}
where $-L_{T}\le \tau\le L_{T}$ and $T[\tau]$ is a truncation window such that
\begin{equation*}
T[\tau]=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ for } -N_T\le \tau \le N_T\\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
\item[Step 5:] $i\gets i+1$. Go to Step 1.
\end{itemize}
\end{algorithm}
The algorithm use $\displaystyle \tau_{lm} = \argmax_\tau \{\Phi_{lm}[\tau]\}$ as the initial picks of the relative delays. These delays enable CCF stacking (step 3 of the Algorithm \ref{alg:iter}) which is a key step in this proposed scheme, where we iteratively perform cross-correlation of the CCFs to mitigate the negative impact of the high noise on the first-break picking. However, in the sequel we will also see that over iterating this scheme will ultimately harm the results.
It is worth mentioning here that in case of both P- and S-arrivals, the algorithm is applied sequentially to find both arrivals. Since S-waves have relatively high amplitudes than P-waves, application of the algorithm in the first place leads us to estimate S-arrivals. After getting the S-arrivals ($S_{m,arrival}$), the P-arrivals are found by again applying the algorithm on the data set with S-waves removed. This is done by taking the part of data up to the $S_{m,arrival}$, i.e,
\begin{align}\label{win1}
x_m[n]= x_m[n] p_m[n], \ m=1,\ldots,M
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}\label{win2}
p_m[n]= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{ for } 1\le n \le S_{m,arrival}\\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Accordingly, the reference trace will be used to pick S-arrival reference in the first place and P-arrival reference in the second place.
\section{Results}
This section outlines the performance of the proposed cross-correlation based method for the cases of extremely noisy synthetic and real data records.
\subsection{Test on synthetic microseismic data}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig/setup_rev.eps}
\caption{Geometry of microseismic source at (500,250,$-$1800)\,m and borehole receivers at (0,0, $z_m$) used to generate synthetic data. Circles represent borehole receivers, whereas, diamond represents the microseismic source. }
\label{fig:setup}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
First, we apply our work flow on a synthetic microseismic record generated using the following parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item Receivers are located in a vertical borehole at $x_m=0$, $y_m=0$, $z_m=-1000-(m-1)\Delta z$ for $m=1,\ldots,M$, where $M=14$ and $\Delta z=50$\,m as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:setup}.
\item Constant medium velocity of $2000$ m/s.
\item Source wavelet is a normalized minimum-phase Berlage wavelet \citep{Ald1990}
\begin{equation}
W(t) = At^n e^{-\alpha t} \cos(2\pi f t +\phi),
\end{equation}
with $A=1$, $n=0.001$, $\alpha=15$, $f=5$\,Hz, and $\phi=-\pi/2$. This wavelet is frequently used to represent a seismic source in the literature (e.g., \cite{Poiata2016}).
\item Sampling interval is $\Delta t=1$ ms with 1001 samples per trace.
\item Source coordinates are $x_s=500$\,m, $y_s=250$\,m, and $z_s=-1800$\,m.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/raw_syn.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/noisy_syn.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[ The average and standard deviation of critical parameters ]
{\small Synthetic data set. (a) noiseless traces, and (b) noisy traces SNR = $-$12\,dB.}
\label{fig:NNtraces}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Fig/TF_syn.eps}
\caption{
Spectrogram of the first trace and picked first-break at $n_r = 289$ (indicated by the small square);
the inset shows a zoomed view into the region near the first-break. Window length is 250; FFT length is 250 as well.}
\label{fig:TF}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:NNtraces}a shows the traces before adding noise in order to illustrate the correct first breaks. Figure \ref{fig:NNtraces}b shows the traces after adding noise and trace normalization. The additive white Gaussian noise has zero mean and variance $\sigma_n^2$, and the noise less signal has variance $\sigma_s^2$. The signal-to-noise ratio
\begin{equation}\label{PSNR}
\text{SNR}=10\log_{10}\left(\frac{\sigma_s^2}{\sigma_n^2}\right),
\end{equation}
is set to $-$12\,dB for the synthetic data and the corresponding peak-signal-to-noise ratio
\begin{equation}\label{PSNR}
\text{PSNR}=10\log_{10}\left(\frac{P^2}{\sigma^2}\right),
\end{equation}
is 1\,dB, where $P$ is the peak value of the known wavelet. When the wavelet duration is short, the PSNR is more intuitive than SNR, because its value is not affected by the signal length. At this PSNR level, automatic first-break picking from the noisy records is challenging. Figure \ref{fig:TF} depicts the spectrogram or time-frequency transform (TFT) of trace 1 of the synthetic data.
The time-frequency processing uses a Hamming window whose length is $L_T/4$, where $L_T$ is the total length of a trace. The time-frequency plot of trace 1 in Figure \ref{fig:TF} shows the clear case for manually picking the arrival time of the microseismic event due to the confinement of the seismic energy to a dominant region (shown in detail by the rectangle and its zoomed version). We pick the first-break of the microseismic event on trace 1 and save it as $n_r= 289$ samples.
In most cases, manual picking of the arrival time of the microseismic event can be done easily with the TFT of the first trace. For cases with even lower PSNR, when the visibility of the signal is not clear in time-frequency domain, more than one trace can be transformed to the time-frequency domain to make a robust decision.
Next, the iteration is started by performing all pairwise cross-correlations. Raw cross-correlations are not shown here since they do not give any useful information to the reader; instead aligned CCFs are shown in Figure \ref{fig:CC_syn}a (and to make the picture clear only 15 out of 91 CCFs are shown). The alignment of CCFs is obtained by shifting each cross-correlation such that its maximum value occurs at lag $\tau=0$.
In succeeding iterations, modified CCFs are produced in the update of Step 4, so Figure \ref{fig:CC_syn}b, \ref{fig:CC_syn}c, and \ref{fig:CC_syn}d also depict the aligned modified cross-correlations for each iteration. It is clear that the aligned modified CCFs after iteration 1 are less noisy when compared to the aligned CCFs after iteration 0. One notable feature that can also be seen in these figures is that, as the number of iterations increases, the modified CCFs exhibit an oscillating behavior.
The reason is that as we iterate, the Fourier transform of the modified CCFs is essentially the Fourier transform of the signal raised to higher powers. As a result the dominant frequency amplitudes will be enhanced multiple times, and finally yields modified cross-correlations that are very close to a cosine function. Therefore, the stacked cross-correlation after a number of iterations does not help to locate an accurate first-break, because of its oscillatory behavior.
After alignment the (modified) cross-correlations are stacked with the result being shown in Figure \ref{fig:SCC}. This figure validates the points highlighted for Figure \ref{fig:CC_syn}. The spike in the stacked cross-correlation after iteration 0 is due to the noise and misalignment of the CCFs.
These problems are reduced significantly and removed automatically after iteration 1 because of increasing signal contribution and decreasing noise contribution with iteration number.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig/CC_syn.eps}
\caption{\small CCFs after alignment for (a) iteration 0, (b) iteration 1, (c) iteration 2, and (d) iteration 3.}
\label{fig:CC_syn}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Fig/stackedCCF_syn.eps}
\caption{Aligned CCFs after stacking for (a) iteration 0, (b) iteration 1, (c) iteration 2, and (d) iteration 3.}
\label{fig:SCC}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Fig/firstbreak_syn.eps}
\caption{Picked first breaks using minimum-phase wavelet (dominant frequency of 5Hz) of various iterations. SNR = $-$12\,dB}
\label{fig:PFB}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/SSE_syn.eps}
\caption{Results of Monte Carlo test (with error bars) on noisy synthetic data with 20 trials for (a) ISSE and (b) TSSE.}
\label{fig:SSE}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Fig/TSSE_syn_SNRs_5Hz.eps}
\caption{Square root of TSSE at different PSNRs from Monte Carlo testing on noisy synthetic data with 20 trials. Solid lines represent results with truncation to [-350,350], whereas, dotted lines represent results without truncation}
\label{fig:SSESNR}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The raw traces after posting the first breaks from each iteration are shown in Figure \ref{fig:PFB}. Since we have to iterate through step $1$ and step $2$ of the proposed algorithm, therefore, we use the iterative sum of squared errors (ISSE) as a stopping criteria.
ISSE is calculated as the sum of the difference of first breaks obtained for two consecutive iterations (current and previous)
\begin{equation}
\text{ISSE}(i) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^M \left(n^i_m - n^{i-1}_m \right)^2
\end{equation}
We also compute the true sum of squares error (TSSE) as the sum of the differences of first breaks and the true first breaks
\begin{equation}
\text{TSSE}(i) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^M \left(n^i_m - n_{\text{true}} \right)^2
\end{equation}
Plots of the ISSE and TSSE versus iteration number are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:SSE}.
For plotting ISSE/TSSE, 20 Monte Carlo simulations are performed.
The behavior of TSSE confirms that we can base our stopping criteria on the ISSE. It can be seen that TSSE first decreases and then increases after iteration 2 and ISSE follows the same pattern. The increase in TSSE is due to the enhanced dominant frequency amplitudes mentioned earlier for Figures \ref{fig:CC_syn} and \ref{fig:SCC}.
The performance of the algorithm for different PSNRs and iterations is shown in Figure \ref{fig:SSESNR}. A 5Hz minimum-phase Ricker wavelet is used as the source waveform and 500 Monte Carlo simulations were performed. Figure \ref{fig:SSESNR} shows that the TSSE increases after first iteration for all PSNRs. Figure \ref{fig:SSESNR} also compares the performance of the proposed technique with and without truncation window $T[\tau]$ (represented by solid lines and dotted line, respectively). With truncation, the cross-correlations in step 4 (see Table \ref{alg:iter}) of the algorithm are taken as zero after $N_T$ (or $-N_T$ on the negative lag) samples. The value of $N_T$ = 350 is used in the simulation, which is quarter of the total signal duration (1000 samples). On the other hand, without truncation cross-correlations are left unchanged. The performance improvement due to truncation window $T[\tau]$ is evident from the figure.
We also apply our proposed algorithm to zero-phase Ricker wavelet with dominant frequency of 30Hz. Figure \ref{fig:rfb} shows the algorithm converges in first iteration.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Fig/firstbreak_RICKER.eps}
\caption{Picked first breaks using Ricker wavelet (dominant frequency of 30Hz) of various iterations. SNR = $-$12\,dB}
\label{fig:rfb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In order to show the effectiveness of the proposed method, we also present the result of the STA/LTA method (with zero-phase Ricker wavelet of 30Hz) in Figure \ref{fig:STA}. It is apparent from the figure that the STA/LTA method is not applicable for low SNR signal, since many false peaks are comparable or even surpass the local peaks on the correct arrivals.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth=0.6\textwidth]{Fig/STA_LTA.eps}
\caption{ STA/LTA ratio with zero-phase Ricker wavelet of 30Hz and SNR = $-$12\,dB. The lengths of the STA and LTA windows are set to 10 and 50 samples, respectively.}
\label{fig:STA}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\subsection{Test on real data}
The algorithm was originally tested on the real data set from the local industry in the Middle East. However, due to proprietary issues, we are unable to include those results. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we now apply our work-flow on a field data set (Figure \ref{fig:noisy_real}a). The data used in this study comes from the
High Resolution Seismic Network (HRSN) operated by Berkeley Seismological Laboratory,
University of California, Berkeley, and the Northern California Seismic Network
(NCSN) operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, and is distributed by
the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC). The sampling frequency
is 250 Hz. We repeat a single waveform 13 times with time shifts that simulate multiple traces recorded at distances far from the source. The microseismic event originally has a good SNR and did not need first-break enhancement; but for testing we add zero-mean white Gaussian noise. The PSNR is set to 8\,dB in order to make the first-break challenging for automatic picking, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:noisy_real}b.
In Figure \ref{fig:TF_real}a, we examine the TFT computed from the real data. It appears that trace 1 gives a good indication of the arrival time of P- and S-wave of the microseismic event in the time-frequency representation as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:TF_real}a. Therefore, trace 1 was used as the reference trace to manually pick the arrival time of the P-wave (or S-wave) microseismic event and saved as $n_r = 355$ (or $ = 896$) samples. It should be noted here that first, we pick the S-arrival reference and apply the aforementioned algorithm to get the S-arrivals of all the traces. Next, P-arrival reference is picked and algorithm is again applied after removing the S-waves. This gives the P-arrivals of all the traces. In Figure \ref{fig:TF_real}b we show cumulative frequency amplitude in each time sample, which serves as a good reference for the time picking in the spectrogram.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/raw_real.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/noisy_real.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption
{\small Real data; (a) noiseless traces; (b) noisy traces at PSNR = 8 dB.}
\label{fig:noisy_real}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig/TF_real.eps}
\caption{(a) Spectrogram of the first trace and picked first break (indicated by the small square) and (b) sum of magnitudes across frequency at each time sample.}
\label{fig:TF_real}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Fig/CC_real.eps}
\caption{
CCFs after alignment for (a) iteration 0, (b) iteration 1, (c) iteration 2, and (d) iteration 3.}
\label{fig:CC_real}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Fig/stackedCCF_real.eps}
\caption{Aligned CCFs after stacking for (a) iteration 0, (b) iteration 1, (c) iteration 2, and (d) iteration 3.}
\label{fig:stackedCCF_real}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Fig/firstbreak_real_S.eps}
\caption{Picked S-arrivals of various iterations.}
\label{fig:firstbreak_real_S}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig/SSE_real.eps}
\caption{Results of Monte Carlo test on noisy real data with 20 trials for (a) ISSE and (b) TSSE.}
\label{fig:SSE_real}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Fig/firstbreak_real_S_mute.eps}
\caption{Noisy real data set with only P-waves.}
\label{fig:firstbreak_real_S_mute}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Fig/firstbreak_real_P.eps}
\caption{Picked P-arrivals of various iterations.}
\label{fig:firstbreak_real_P}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:CC_real} and \ref{fig:stackedCCF_real} show the CCFs after alignment and stacking, respectively, during the iterative algorithm of our proposed approach, respectively. The figures for CCFs and stacked CCFs are plotted for S-arrivals only, however, for P-arrivals same procedure should be followed. The raw traces after posting the S-arrivals from each iteration are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:SSE_real}, as well as plots of the ISSE and TSSE versus iteration number in Figure \ref{fig:firstbreak_real_S} (resulting from 20 Monte Carlo simulations).
Next, to find P-arrivals, S-waves are muted according to Eqs. (\ref{win1}) and (\ref{win2}) and the P-waves only data set is shown in figure \ref{fig:firstbreak_real_S_mute}. After application of the algorithm again, P-arrivals are shown in Figure \ref{fig:firstbreak_real_P}, which confirms the algorithm's performance for P-arrivals as well. It can be seen from these figures that results of testing the proposed algorithm on real data agree well with tests on synthetic.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
We have developed a new approach for picking first breaks of noisy microseismic records using an iterative approach based on seismic interferometry. Unlike existing interferometry-based approaches our approach does not involve convolution of the stacked CCF with raw traces, which ensures that the raw data does not mix with the enhanced stacked record.
Using synthetic data as well as real data, we demonstrate a significant improvement in first break picking. Consequently, the enhanced first breaks will improve microseismic event localization over the reservoir.
Results from synthetic data show that the SSE between the true and estimated first breaks does not change considerably after the first iteration, which indicates the fast convergence rate of the proposed method. Therefore, we recommend iterating only once and using more iterations only if the SSE changes slowly. The reason for this observation is that in the first CCF between the raw traces the signal could be highly variable from trace to trace due to effects of noise and attenuation. In contrast, in the first iteration, we cross-correlate the aligned stacked CCF which essentially consists of an average auto-correlation of the signals with the cross-correlations of trace pairs which consists of an approximate auto-correlation of the signal in this trace pair; hence, they should exhibit more similarity than raw traces.
We believe that the approach proposed in this study is important and useful for the petroleum industry as well as academic and research institutions interested in continuous reservoir monitoring using microseismic data. Thus, we recommend using our newly developed workflow as a first-break picking tool during the processing of microseismic data recorded over the reservoir.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank King Fahd University of Petroleum \& Minerals (KFUPM) for supporting this study through the Center for Energy and Geo Processing (CeGP) at KFUPM under grant number GTEC1311.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is devoted to the study of the folding procedure for a Newton-Okounkov polytope of a Schubert variety. The theory of Newton-Okounkov polytopes was introduced by Okounkov \cite{Oko1, Oko2}, and afterward developed independently by Kaveh-Khovanskii \cite{KK1} and by Lazarsfeld-Mustata \cite{LM}. It is a generalization of the theory of Newton polytopes for toric varieties to arbitrary projective varieties, and it gives a systematic method of constructing toric degenerations by \cite[Theorem 1]{And} (see also \cite{HK}). In the case of Schubert varieties, their Newton-Okounkov polytopes include some representation-theoretic polytopes such as Littelmann's string polytopes \cite{Kav}, Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations \cite{FN}, and Feigin-Fourier-Littelmann-Vinberg's polytopes \cite{FeFL, Kir}; in addition, Lusztig's parametrization of the canonical basis also appears in the theory of Newton-Okounkov polytopes (see \cite{FaFL}). In this paper, we study Littelmann's string polytopes and Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations, and obtain relations among these polytopes for Schubert varieties of different types.
To be more precise, let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a simply-laced simple Lie algebra, $\mathfrak{t} \subset \mathfrak{g}$ a Cartan subalgebra, $P_+ \subset \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ the set of dominant weights for $\mathfrak{g}$, and $\omega \colon I \rightarrow I$ a Dynkin diagram automorphism, where $I$ is an index set for the vertices of the Dynkin diagram. In this paper, for technical reasons, we always assume that any two vertices of the Dynkin diagram in the same $\omega$-orbit are not joined. Such an $\omega$ induces a Lie algebra automorphism $\omega \colon \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{g}$, which preserves the Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{t}$. We know that the fixed point Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}^\omega \coloneqq \{x \in \mathfrak{g} \mid \omega(x) = x\}$ is also a simple Lie algebra. Fix a complete set $\breve{I}$ of representatives for the $\omega$-orbits in $I$; the set $\breve{I}$ is identified with an index set for the vertices of the Dynkin diagram of $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$. Then, there exists a natural injective group homomorphism $\Theta \colon \breve{W} \hookrightarrow W$ from the Weyl group of $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$ to that of $\mathfrak{g}$. If ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ is a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$, then \[\Theta({\bf i}) \coloneqq (i_{1, 1}, \ldots, i_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, i_{r, 1}, \ldots, i_{r, m_{i_r}}) \in I^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}}\] is a reduced word for $\Theta(w)$, where we set $m_i \coloneqq \min \{k \in \z_{>0} \mid \omega^k(i) = i\}$ for $i \in \breve{I}$ and $i_{k, l} \coloneqq \omega^{l-1}(i_k)$ for $1 \le k \le r$, $1 \le l \le m_{i_k}$. Let $\omega^\ast \colon \mathfrak{t}^\ast \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ be the dual of the $\mathbb{C}$-linear automorphism $\omega \colon \mathfrak{t} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{t}$, and set $(\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0 \coloneqq \{\lambda \in \mathfrak{t}^\ast \mid \omega^\ast(\lambda) = \lambda\}$. Note that an element $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ naturally induces a weight $\hat{\lambda}$ for $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$. Now, for $w \in \breve{W}$ and $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$, let $X(w)$ (resp., $X(\Theta(w))$) be the corresponding Schubert variety, and $\mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}$ (resp., $\mathcal{L}_\lambda$) the corresponding line bundle on $X(w)$ (resp., $X(\Theta(w))$). Also, let $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\hat{\lambda}, w)}, \Delta_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))}$ (resp., $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\hat{\lambda}, w)}, \widetilde{\Delta}_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))}$) denote Littelmann's string polytopes (resp., Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations) corresponding to $w \in \breve{W}$ and $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$; see Definition \ref{d:representation-theoretic polytopes} for the definitions. Kaveh \cite{Kav} (resp., the author and Naito \cite{FN}) proved that
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\hat{\lambda}, w)} = -\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}),\ \Delta_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))} = -\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda)\\
({\rm resp.},\ &\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\hat{\lambda}, w)} = -\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}),\ \widetilde{\Delta}_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))} = -\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda))
\end{align*}
for specific valuations $v_{\bf i}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ (resp., $\tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}$) and specific sections $\tau_{\hat{\lambda}}, \tau_\lambda$, where the sets on the right-hand side of these equations denote the corresponding Newton-Okounkov polytopes (see Definitions \ref{d:valuations} and \ref{d:Newton-Okounkov polytopes} for the definitions). The following is the main result of this paper.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{theor}
Define an $\mathbb{R}$-linear surjective map $\Omega_{\bf i} = \Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)} \colon \mathbb{R}^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}} \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{R}^r$ by \[\Omega_{\bf i}(a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}}) \coloneqq (a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}}).\] Then the following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i}(\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda)) = \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}),\ {\it and}\\
&\Omega_{\bf i}(\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda)) = \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}).
\end{align*}
\end{theor}\vspace{2mm}
In our proof of the theorem above, we use another simply-laced simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$ having a Dynkin diagram automorphism $\omega^\prime \colon I^\prime \rightarrow I^\prime$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[${\rm (C)}_1$] the fixed point Lie subalgebra $(\mathfrak{g}')^{\omega'}$ is isomorphic to the orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ associated to $\omega$; this condition implies that the index set $\breve{I}$ for $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ is identified with an index set $\breve{I}^\prime\ (= \breve{(I^\prime)})$ for $(\mathfrak{g}')^{\omega'}$;
\item[${\rm (C)}_2$] if we set $m_i ^\prime \coloneqq \min\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \mid (\omega^\prime)^k(i) = i\}$, $i \in \breve{I}^\prime$, then the product $L \coloneqq m_i \cdot m_i ^\prime$ is independent of the choice of $i \in \breve{I} \simeq \breve{I}^\prime$.
\end{enumerate}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r \simeq (\breve{I}^\prime)^r$ be a reduced word. It is known that $P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ is identified with the set of dominant weights for the orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ associated to $\omega$; let $\breve{\lambda}$ denote the dominant weight for $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ corresponding to $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$. Now we define an $\mathbb{R}$-linear injective map $\Upsilon_{\bf i} = \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)} \colon \mathbb{R}^r \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}}$ by
\[\Upsilon_{\bf i}(a_1, \ldots, a_r) \coloneqq (\underbrace{a_1, \ldots, a_1}_{m_{i_1}}, \ldots, \underbrace{a_r, \ldots, a_r}_{m_{i_r}}).\]
By using the theory of crystal bases, we see that Littelmann's string polytope (resp., Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realization) for $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ with respect to $\breve{\lambda}$ and ${\bf i}$ is identified with a slice of $\Delta_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))}$ (resp., $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))}$) through $\Upsilon_{\bf i}$ (see Corollary \ref{c:folding of polytopes(crystal)} for more details). Hence we obtain the following diagram:
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& \r^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}} \ar@{->>}[rd]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)}} & \\
\r^r \ar@{^{(}->}[ru]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)}} & & \ar@{^{(}->}[ld]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)}} \r^r,\\
& \ar@{->>}[lu]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)}} \r^{m_{i_1} ^\prime + \cdots +m_{i_r} ^\prime}&
}
\end{align*}
in which the composite maps $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)} \circ \Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)}$ and $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega^\prime)} \circ \Omega_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{(\omega)}$ are both identical to $L \cdot {\rm id}_{\r^r}$, where $L$ is the positive integer in ${\rm (C)}_2$. This diagram plays an important role in our proof of the Theorem above. If $\mathfrak{g}$ is of type $A_{2n-1}$ and $\omega$ is its Dynkin diagram automorphism of order two, then $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$ is of type $C_n$ and $(\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime)$ is given uniquely by the pair of the simple Lie algebra of type $D_{n+1}$ and its Dynkin diagram automorphism of order two; the fixed point Lie subalgebra $(\mathfrak{g}^\prime)^{\omega^\prime}$ is of type $B_n$. Thus the diagram above relates Newton-Okounkov polytopes of Schubert varieties of types $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$. A remarkable fact is that the composite map $\Omega_{\bf i} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i}$ is identical to the map coming from a similarity of crystal bases. This gives a new interpretation of the similarity of crystal bases in terms of the folding procedure.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some basic facts about Littelmann's string polytopes and Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations. In Section 3, we review main results of \cite{FN} and \cite{Kav}. Section 4 is devoted to the study of the folding procedure for crystal bases. In Section 5, we prove the Theorem above. In Section 6, we study the relation with a similarity of crystal bases. Finally, we mention that our arguments in this paper are naturally extended to symmetrizable Kac-Moody algebras; in Appendix A, we give the list of nontrivial pairs of automorphisms of simply-laced affine Dynkin diagrams satisfying conditions ${\rm (C)}_1$ and ${\rm (C)}_2$ above.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{ack}\normalfont
The author is greatly indebted to his supervisor Satoshi Naito for fruitful discussions and numerous helpful suggestions. The author would also like to thank Hironori Oya for suggesting the relation with a similarity of crystal bases.
\end{ack}\vspace{2mm}
\section{Littelmann's string polytopes and Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations}
In this section, we consider Littelmann's string polytopes and Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realizations, which are the main objects of our study. We first recall some basic facts about crystal bases, following \cite{Kas1, Kas2, Kas3, Kas4}. Let $G$ be a connected, simply-connected simple algebraic group over $\c$, $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra, $W$ the Weyl group, $T \subset G$ a maximal torus, and $I$ an index set for the vertices of the Dynkin diagram of $\mathfrak{g}$. Let $\mathfrak{t} \subset \mathfrak{g}$ denote the Lie algebra of $T$, $\mathfrak{t}^\ast \coloneqq {\rm Hom}_\mathbb{C} (\mathfrak{t}, \mathbb{C})$ the dual space of $\mathfrak{t}$, and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle \colon \mathfrak{t}^\ast \times \mathfrak{t} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ the canonical pairing. Denote by $P \subset \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ the weight lattice for $\mathfrak{g}$, by $P_+ \subset P$ the set of dominant integral weights, by $\{\alpha_i \mid i \in I\} \subset \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ the set of simple roots, and by $\{h_i \mid i \in I\} \subset \mathfrak{t}$ the set of simple coroots. For an indeterminate $q$, we define $q_i \in \q(q)$, $i \in I$, by:
\begin{align*}
&q_i = \begin{cases}
q^3\quad{\rm if}\ \mathfrak{g}\ {\rm is\ of\ type}\ G_2\ {\rm and}\ \alpha_i\ {\rm is\ a\ long\ root},\\
q^2\quad{\rm if}\ \mathfrak{g}\ {\rm is\ of\ type}\ B_n, C_n,\ n \ge 2,\ {\rm or}\ F_4,\ {\rm and}\ \alpha_i\ {\rm is\ a\ long\ root},\\
q\quad\ {\rm otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Let $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ be the quantized enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$ over $\mathbb{Q}(q)$ with generators $\{e_i, f_i, t_i, t_i ^{-1} \mid i \in I\}$, and $U_q (\mathfrak{u}^-)$ the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-subalgebra of $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ generated by $\{f_i \mid i \in I\}$. Denote by $\mathcal{B}(\infty)$ the crystal basis of $U_q (\mathfrak{u}^-)$ with $b_\infty \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ the element corresponding to $1 \in U_q (\mathfrak{u}^-)$, and by $\tilde{e}_i, \tilde{f}_i \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\infty) \cup \{0\}$ for $i \in I$ the Kashiwara operators.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\normalfont
Define a $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-algebra anti-involution $\ast$ on $U_q (\mathfrak{g})$ by: \[e_i ^\ast = e_i,\ f_i ^\ast = f_i,\ t_i ^\ast = t_i ^{-1}\] for $i \in I$; we see by \cite[Theorem 2.1.1]{Kas4} that this induces an involution $\ast \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\infty)$, called {\it Kashiwara's involution}.
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
For $\lambda \in P_+$, denote by $V_q(\lambda)$ the irreducible highest weight $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$-module with highest weight $\lambda$ over $\mathbb{Q}(q)$, and by $v_{q, \lambda} \in V_q(\lambda)$ the highest weight vector. Let $\mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ denote the crystal basis of $V_q(\lambda)$ with $b_\lambda \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ the element corresponding to $v_{q, \lambda} \in V_q(\lambda)$, and $\tilde{e}_i, \tilde{f}_i \colon \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ for $i \in I$ the Kashiwara operators. Define maps $\varepsilon_i, \varphi_i \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ and $\varepsilon_i, \varphi_i \colon \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ for $i \in I$ by
\begin{align*}
&\varepsilon_i(b) \coloneqq \max\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{e}_i ^k b \neq 0\},\ \varphi_i (b) \coloneqq \varepsilon_i (b) + \langle{\rm wt}(b), h_i\rangle\ {\rm for}\ b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty),\ {\rm and}\\
&\varepsilon_i(b) \coloneqq \max\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{e}_i ^k b \neq 0\},\ \varphi_i (b) \coloneqq \max\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{f}_i ^k b \neq 0\}\ {\rm for}\ b \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda).
\end{align*}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{\cite[Theorem 5]{Kas2}}]
For $\lambda \in P_+$, let $\pi_\lambda \colon U_q(\mathfrak{u}^-) \twoheadrightarrow V_q(\lambda)$ denote the surjective $U_q(\mathfrak{u}^-)$-module homomorphism given by $u \mapsto u v_{q, \lambda}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The homomorphism $\pi_\lambda$ induces a surjective map $\mathcal{B}(\infty) \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ $($denoted also by $\pi_\lambda)$. For \[\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda) \coloneqq \{b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty) \mid \pi_\lambda(b) \neq 0\},\] the restriction map $\pi_\lambda \colon \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ is bijective.
\item[{\rm (2)}] $\tilde{f}_i \pi_\lambda(b) = \pi_\lambda (\tilde{f}_i b)$ for all $i \in I$ and $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$.
\item[{\rm (3)}] $\tilde{e}_i \pi_\lambda(b) = \pi_\lambda (\tilde{e}_i b)$ for all $i \in I$ and $b \in \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda)$.
\item[{\rm (4)}] $\varepsilon_i (\pi_\lambda(b)) = \varepsilon_i (b)$ and $\varphi_i (\pi_\lambda (b)) = \varphi_i (b) + \langle\lambda, h_i\rangle$ for all $i \in I$ and $b \in \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{defi}\normalfont
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, and $\lambda \in P_+$. By \cite[Propositions 3.2.3 and 3.2.5]{Kas4}, the subsets
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{B}_w(\infty) \coloneqq \{\tilde{f}_{i_1} ^{a_1} \cdots \tilde{f}_{i_r} ^{a_r} b_\infty \mid a_1, \ldots, a_r \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}\} \subset \mathcal{B}(\infty)\ {\rm and}\\
&\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda) \coloneqq \{\tilde{f}_{i_1} ^{a_1} \cdots \tilde{f}_{i_r} ^{a_r} b_\lambda \mid a_1, \ldots, a_r \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}\} \setminus \{0\} \subset \mathcal{B}(\lambda)
\end{align*}
are independent of the choice of a reduced word ${\bf i}$. These subsets $\mathcal{B}_w (\infty), \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$ are called {\it Demazure crystals}.
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Proposition 3.2.5]{Kas4}}]\label{Demazure crystal}
For $\lambda \in P_+$ and $w \in W$, the equality $\pi_\lambda(\mathcal{B}_w(\infty)) = \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ holds$;$ hence $\pi_\lambda$ induces a bijective map $\pi_\lambda \colon \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$, where $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda) \coloneqq \mathcal{B}_w(\infty) \cap \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda)$.
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
In the theory of crystal bases, it is important to give their concrete parametrizations. In this paper, we use two parametrizations: Littelmann's string parametrization and the Kashiwara embedding.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\normalfont
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, and $b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\infty)$. Define $\Phi_{\bf i} (b) = (a_1, \ldots, a_r) \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} ^r$ by
\begin{align*}
&a_1 \coloneqq \max\{a \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{e}_{i_1} ^a b \neq 0\},\\
&a_2 \coloneqq \max\{a \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{e}_{i_2} ^a \tilde{e}_{i_1} ^{a_1} b \neq 0\},\\
&\ \vdots\\
&a_r \coloneqq \max\{a \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid \tilde{e}_{i_r} ^a \tilde{e}_{i_{r-1}} ^{a_{r-1}} \cdots \tilde{e}_{i_1} ^{a_1} b \neq 0\}.
\end{align*}
The $\Phi_{\bf i}(b)$ is called {\it Littelmann's string parametrization} of $b$ with respect to ${\bf i}$ (see \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit}).
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
By \cite[Proposition 3.3.1]{Kas4}, we have $\mathcal{B}_w(\infty)^\ast = \mathcal{B}_{w^{-1}}(\infty)$; hence the map $\Phi_{{\bf i}^{\rm op}} \circ \ast \colon \mathcal{B}_w(\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} ^r$ is well-defined, where ${\bf i}^{\rm op} \coloneqq (i_r, \ldots, i_1)$ is a reduced word for $w^{-1}$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\normalfont
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$. Define a map $\Psi_{\bf i} \colon \mathcal{B}_w(\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} ^r$ by $\Psi_{\bf i}(b) \coloneqq \Phi_{{\bf i}^{\rm op}}(b^\ast)^{\rm op}$ for $b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\infty)$, where ${\bf a}^{\rm op} \coloneqq (a_r, \ldots, a_1)$ for ${\bf a} = (a_1, \ldots, a_r) \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} ^r$. The map $\Psi_{\bf i}$ is called the {\it Kashiwara embedding} of $\mathcal{B}_w(\infty)$ (see \cite[Sects.\ 2 and 3]{Kas4}).
\end{defi}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{rem}\normalfont\label{parametrization for modules}
By the bijective map $\pi_\lambda \colon \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$ in Proposition \ref{Demazure crystal}, the maps $\Phi_{\bf i}$ and $\Psi_{\bf i}$ can be thought of as ones from $\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$, called {\it Littelmann's string parametrization} of $\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$ and the {\it Kashiwara embedding} of $\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$, respectively.
\end{rem}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\normalfont\label{d:representation-theoretic polytopes}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, and $\lambda \in P_+$. Define a subset $\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \times \mathbb{Z}^r$ by \[\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \coloneqq \bigcup_{k>0} \{(k, \Phi_{\bf i}(b)) \mid b \in \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w (k\lambda)\},\] and denote by $\mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \times \mathbb{R}^r$ the smallest real closed cone containing $\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$. Then, we define a subset $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{R}^r$ by \[\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \coloneqq \{{\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^r \mid (1, {\bf a}) \in \mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}\}.\] This subset $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ is called {\it Littelmann's string polytope} for $\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$ with respect to ${\bf i}$ (see \cite[Definition 3.5]{Kav} and \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit}). Also, by replacing $\Phi_{\bf i}$ with $\Psi_{\bf i}$ in the definitions of $\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$, $\mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$, and $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$, we obtain $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \times \mathbb{Z}^r$, $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \times \mathbb{R}^r$, and $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \subset \mathbb{R}^r$. We call the subset $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ {\it Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polytope} for $\mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)$ with respect to ${\bf i}$ (see \cite[Sect.\ 2.3]{FN}, \cite[Sects.\ 3 and 4]{Nak1}, \cite[Sect.\ 3.1]{Nak2}, and \cite[Sect.\ 3]{NZ}).
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
A subset $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \times \mathbb{R}^r$ is said to be a {\it rational convex polyhedral cone} if there exists a finite number of rational points ${\bf a}_1, \ldots, {\bf a}_l \in \mathbb{Q}_{\ge 0} \times \mathbb{Q}^r$ such that $\mathcal{C} = \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}{\bf a}_1 + \cdots + \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} {\bf a}_l$. A subset $\Delta \subset \mathbb{R}^r$ is said to be a {\it rational convex polytope} if it is the convex hull of a finite number of rational points.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Sect.\ 3.2 and Theorem 3.10]{BZ}, \cite[Corollary 4.3]{FN} and \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit}}]\label{string lattice points}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, and $\lambda \in P_+$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The real closed cones $\mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ are both rational convex polyhedral cones$;$ in addition, the following equalities hold$:$ \[\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \cap (\mathbb{Z}_{>0} \times \mathbb{Z}^r),\ \widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \cap (\mathbb{Z}_{>0} \times \mathbb{Z}^r).\]
\item[{\rm (2)}] The sets $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ and $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ are both rational convex polytopes$;$ in addition, the following equalities hold$:$ \[\Phi_{\bf i} (\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda)) = \Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \cap \mathbb{Z}^r,\ \Psi_{\bf i} (\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda)) = \widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} \cap \mathbb{Z}^r.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{rem}\normalfont
By \cite[Theorem 3.10]{BZ} and \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit}, we obtain a system of explicit linear inequalities defining Littelmann's string polytope $\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$. In addition, under a certain positivity assumption on ${\bf i}$, Nakashima \cite{Nak1, Nak2} gave a system of explicit linear inequalities defining Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polytope $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ (see also \cite[Corollary 5.3]{FN}).
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{rem}\normalfont
In \cite{FN, FO}, the polytope $\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)}$ is called Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polyhedral realization. However, the word ``polyhedral realization'' is originally used in \cite{Nak1, Nak2, NZ} to mean the realization of a crystal basis as the lattice points in an explicit rational convex polyhedral cone or an explicit rational convex polytope. Hence the terminology in \cite{FN, FO} is slightly inaccurate.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
\section{Perfect bases and Newton-Okounkov polytopes}
In this section, we recall the definition of Newton-Okounkov polytopes of Schubert varieties, following \cite{HK, Kav, KK1, KK2}.
Let us fix a Borel subgroup $B \subset G$, and denote by $B^- \subset G$ the opposite Borel subgroup. Then, the full flag variety is defined to be the quotient space $G/B$. For $w \in W$, let $X(w) \subset G/B$ denote the Schubert variety corresponding to $w$, that is, $X(w)$ is the Zariski closure of $B\widetilde{w}B/B$ in $G/B$, where $\widetilde{w} \in G$ denotes a lift for $w$; note that $X(w)$ is independent of the choice of $\widetilde{w}$. It is well-known that $X(w)$ is a normal projective variety of complex dimension $\ell(w)$; here, $\ell(w)$ denotes the length of $w$. Also, for a given $\lambda \in P_+$, we define a line bundle $\mathcal{L}_\lambda$ on $G/B$ by \[\mathcal{L}_\lambda \coloneqq (G \times \mathbb{C})/B,\] where $B$ acts on $G \times \mathbb{C}$ on the right as follows: \[(g, c) \cdot b = (g b, \lambda(b) c)\] for $g \in G$, $c \in \mathbb{C}$, and $b \in B$. By restricting this bundle, we obtain a line bundle on $X(w)$, which we denote by the same symbol $\mathcal{L}_\lambda$. Let $U^-$ denote the unipotent radical of $B^-$ with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}^-$, and regard $U^-$ as an affine open subvariety of $G/B$ by the following open immersion: \[U^- \hookrightarrow G/B,\ u \mapsto u \bmod B.\] Then we consider the set-theoretic intersection $U^- \cap X(w)$ in $G/B$. Since this intersection is an open subset of $X(w)$, it inherits an open subvariety structure from $X(w)$; note that it coincides with the variety structure on $U^- \cap X(w)$ as a closed subvariety of $U^-$ (see \cite[Sect.\ 2]{FO}).
Let $\mathfrak{b} \subset \mathfrak{g}$ be the Lie algebra of $B$, and $E_i, F_i, h_i \in \mathfrak{g}$, $i \in I$, the Chevalley generators such that $\{E_i, h_i \mid i \in I\} \subset \mathfrak{b}$ and $\{F_i \mid i \in I\} \subset \mathfrak{u}^-$. We set $[k]_i ! \coloneqq [k]_i [k-1]_i \cdots [1]_i$ for $i \in I$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{> 0}$, and $[0]_i ! \coloneqq 1$, where
\begin{align*}
[k]_i \coloneqq \frac{q_i ^k - q_i ^{-k}}{q_i - q_i ^{-1}}\ {\rm for}\ i \in I,\ k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}.
\end{align*}
Also, let $U_{q, \z}(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ denote the $\z[q^{\pm 1}]$-subalgebra of $U_q(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ generated by $\{f_i ^{(k)} \mid i \in I,\ k \in \z_{\ge 0}\}$, where $f_i ^{(k)} \coloneqq f_i ^k/[k]_i !$. Then, the $\c$-algebra $\mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[q^{\pm 1}]} U_{q, \mathbb{Z}}(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ is isomorphic to the universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ of $\mathfrak{u}^-$ by $1 \otimes f_i^{(k)} \mapsto F_i ^k/k!$, where the $\mathbb{Z}[q^{\pm 1}]$-module structure on $\mathbb{C}$ is given by $q \mapsto 1$; hence this process is called the {\it specialization at $q=1$}. We define a $\c$-algebra anti-involution $\ast$ on $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ by $F_i ^\ast \coloneqq F_i$ for all $i \in I$. The algebra $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ has a Hopf algebra structure given by the following coproduct $\Delta$, counit $\varepsilon$, and antipode $S$:
\[\Delta(F_i) = F_i \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes F_i,\ \varepsilon(F_i) = 0,\ {\rm and}\ S(F_i) = -F_i\]
for $i \in I$. In addition, we regard $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ as a multigraded $\mathbb{C}$-algebra: \[U(\mathfrak{u}^-) = \bigoplus_{{\bf d} \in \mathbb{Z}^I _{\ge 0}} U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\bf d},\] where the homogeneous component $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\bf d}$ for ${\bf d} = (d_i)_{i \in I} \in \mathbb{Z}^I _{\ge 0}$ is defined to be the $\mathbb{C}$-subspace of $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ spanned by all those elements $F_{j_1} \cdots F_{j_{|{\bf d}|}}$ such that the cardinality of $\{1 \le k \le |{\bf d}| \mid j_k = i\}$ is equal to $d_i$ for every $i \in I$; here we set $|{\bf d}| \coloneqq \sum_{i \in I} d_i$. Let \[U(\mathfrak{u}^-)^\ast _{\rm gr} \coloneqq \bigoplus_{{\bf d} \in \mathbb{Z}^I _{\ge 0}} {\rm Hom}_\c(U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\bf d}, \c)\] be the graded dual of $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ endowed with the dual Hopf algebra structure. Note that the coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[U^-]$ has a Hopf algebra structure given by the following coproduct $\Delta$, counit $\varepsilon$, and antipode $S$: \[\Delta(f) (u_1, u_2) = f(u_1 u_2),\ \varepsilon(f) = f(e)\ {\rm and}\ S(f) (u) = f(u^{-1})\] for $f \in \mathbb{C}[U^-]$ and $u, u_1, u_2 \in U^-$, where $e \in U^-$ denotes the identity element. It is known that this Hopf algebra $\c[U^-]$ is isomorphic to the dual Hopf algebra $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\rm gr} ^\ast$ (see, for instance, \cite[Proposition 5.1]{GLS}).
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}[{see \cite[Definition 5.30]{BK}, \cite[Definition 2.5]{KOP1}, and \cite[Sect.\ 4.2]{KOP2}}]\label{definition of perfect bases}\normalfont
A $\c$-basis ${\bf B}^{\rm low} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ is said to be ({\it lower}) {\it perfect} if there exists a bijection $\Xi^{\rm low} \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \xrightarrow{\sim} {\bf B}^{\rm low}$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \bigcup_{{\bf d} \in \z^I _{\ge 0}} {\bf B}^{\rm low} _{\bf d}$, where ${\bf B}^{\rm low} _{\bf d} \coloneqq {\bf B}^{\rm low} \cap U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\bf d}$ for ${\bf d} \in \z^I _{\ge 0}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $\Xi^{\rm low}(b_\infty) = 1$,
\item[{\rm (iii)}] for all $i \in I$, $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ and $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$, \[F_i ^{(k)} \cdot \Xi^{\rm low}(b) \in \c^\times \Xi^{\rm low}(\tilde{f}_i ^k b) + \sum_{\substack{b^\prime \in \mathcal{B}(\infty);\ {\rm wt}(b^\prime) = {\rm wt}(\tilde{f}_i ^k b),\\ \varepsilon_i (b^\prime) > \varepsilon_i (\tilde{f}_i ^k b)}} \c \Xi^{\rm low}(b^\prime),\] where $\c^\times \coloneqq \c \setminus \{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, we always impose the following $\ast$-stability condition on a perfect basis:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (iv)}] $({\bf B}^{\rm low})^{\ast}={\bf B}^{\rm low}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{prop}[{\cite[Proposition 3.10]{FO}}]\label{p:*_property}
The equality $\Xi^{\rm low}(b)^\ast =\Xi^{\rm low}(b^\ast)$ holds for each $b\in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$.
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{ex}\label{e:perfect_global}\normalfont
Lusztig \cite{Lus_can, Lus_quivers, Lus1} and Kashiwara \cite{Kas2} constructed a specific $\mathbb{Z}[q^{\pm 1}]$-basis $\{G_q ^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\}$ of $U_{q, \mathbb{Z}}(\mathfrak{u}^-)$, called the {\it canonical basis} or the {\it lower global basis}. The specialization $\{G^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ of $\{G_q ^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\}$ at $q = 1$ is a perfect basis by \cite[Proposition 5.3.1]{Kas3} and \cite[Theorem 2.1.1]{Kas4} (see also \cite[Proposition 2.8]{FN}).
\end{ex}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{ex}\normalfont
When $\mathfrak{g}$ is simply-laced, Lusztig \cite{Lus2} constructed a specific $\c$-basis of $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$, called the {\it semicanonical basis}. This is a perfect basis by \cite[Proof of Lemma 2.4 and Sect.\ 3]{Lus2}.
\end{ex}\vspace{2mm}
For $\lambda \in P_+$, denote by $V(\lambda)$ the irreducible highest weight $\mathfrak{g}$-module with highest weight $\lambda$ with $v_\lambda \in V(\lambda)$ the highest weight vector, and by $\pi_\lambda \colon U(\mathfrak{u}^-) \twoheadrightarrow V(\lambda)$ the surjective $U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$-module homomorphism given by $u \mapsto u v_\lambda$. We set $\Xi_{\lambda}^{\rm low}(\pi_\lambda (b)) \coloneqq \pi_\lambda(\Xi^{\rm low}(b))$ for $b \in \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Proposition 3.14 (1)]{FO}}]\label{p:compatibility}
The set $\{\Xi_{\lambda}^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda)\}$ provides a $\c$-basis of $V(\lambda)$, and the element $\pi_\lambda(\Xi^{\rm low}(b))$ is identical to $0$ for $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty) \setminus \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}(\lambda)$.
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
For $w \in W$, let $v_{w\lambda} \in V(\lambda)$ denote the extremal weight vector of weight $w\lambda$. The {\it Demazure module} $V_w(\lambda)$ corresponding to $w \in W$ is the $B$-submodule of $V(\lambda)$ given by \[V_w(\lambda) \coloneqq \sum_{b \in B} \mathbb{C} b v_{w\lambda}.\] By the Borel-Weil type theorem (see \cite[Corollary 8.1.26]{Kum}), we know that the space $H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda)$ of global sections is a $B$-module isomorphic to the dual module $V_w (\lambda)^\ast \coloneqq {\rm Hom}_\mathbb{C}(V_w(\lambda), \mathbb{C})$. We consider the following condition (D) for a perfect basis ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \{\Xi^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\}$ (see also Proposition \ref{p:compatibility}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(D)] the set $\{\Xi_{\lambda}^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)\}$ is a $\c$-basis of the Demazure module $V_w(\lambda)$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{ex}\label{r:D_example}\normalfont
The specialization $\{G^{\rm low}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\}$ of the lower global basis at $q=1$ and the semicanonical basis satisfy condition (D) by \cite[Proposition 3.2.3]{Kas4} and \cite[Theorem 7.1]{Sav}, respectively.
\end{ex}\vspace{2mm}
Let ${\bf B}^{\rm up} = \{\Xi^{\rm up} (b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset \c[U^-] = U(\mathfrak{u}^-)_{\rm gr} ^\ast$ be the dual basis of ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \{\Xi^{\rm low} (b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$. Recall that $U^- \cap X(w)$ is a Zariski closed subvariety of $U^-$. Denote by $\eta_w \colon \mathbb{C}[U^-] \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(w)]$ the restriction map, and by $\Xi_w ^{\rm up} (b) \in \mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(w)]$ for $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ the image of $\Xi^{\rm up} (b) \in \mathbb{C}[U^-]$ under $\eta_w$. If ${\bf B}^{\rm low}$ satisfies condition (D), then let $\{\Xi^{\rm up} _{\lambda, w}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)\} \subset H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda) = V_w(\lambda)^\ast$ denote the dual basis of $\{\Xi^{\rm low} _\lambda(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\lambda)\} \subset V_w(\lambda)$, and set $\tau_\lambda \coloneqq \Xi^{\rm up} _{\lambda, w}(b_\lambda)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{lem}[{see the proof of \cite[Lemma 4.5]{FN}}]\label{d:iota}
The section $\tau_\lambda \in H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda)$ does not vanish on $U^- \cap X(w)$. Hence the map $H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda) \rightarrow \c[U^- \cap X(w)]$, $\tau \mapsto (\tau/\tau_\lambda)|_{(U^- \cap X(w))}$, is well-defined$;$ this map is also denoted by $\iota_\lambda$.
\end{lem}\vspace{2mm}
Since $U^- \cap X(w)$ is an open subvariety of $X(w)$, we see that the map $\iota_\lambda \colon H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda) \rightarrow \c[U^- \cap X(w)]$ is injective.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{\cite[Corollary 3.18]{FO}}]\label{vanishing}
Let ${\bf B}^{\rm up} = \{\Xi^{\rm up}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset \c[U^-]$ be the dual basis of a perfect basis satisfying condition {\rm (D)}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The following equality holds$:$ \[\c[U^- \cap X(w)] = \bigcup_{\lambda \in P_+} \iota_\lambda(H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda)).\]
\item[{\rm (2)}] The element $\Xi^{\rm up} _w(b)$ is identical to $\iota_\lambda(\Xi^{\rm up} _{\lambda, w}(\pi_\lambda(b)))$ for every $b \in \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_w(\lambda)$.
\item[{\rm (3)}] The set $\{\Xi^{\rm up} _w(b) \mid b\in\mathcal{B}_w(\infty)\}$ provides a $\mathbb{C}$-basis of $\mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(w)]$.
\item[{\rm (4)}] The element $\Xi^{\rm up} _w(b)$ is identical to $0$ unless $b \in \mathcal{B}_w (\infty)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$. It is known that the morphism $\c^r \rightarrow U^- \cap X(w)$, $(t_1, \ldots, t_r) \mapsto \exp(t_1 F_{i_1}) \cdots \exp(t_r F_{i_r}) \bmod B$, is birational. Therefore, the function field $\mathbb{C}(X(w)) = \mathbb{C}(U^- \cap X(w))$ is identified with the rational function field $\mathbb{C}(t_1, \ldots, t_r)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\label{d:valuations}\normalfont
We define two lexicographic orders $<$ and $\prec$ on $\mathbb{Z}^r$ as follows: $(a_1, \ldots, a_r) < (a_1 ^\prime, \ldots, a_r ^\prime)$ (resp., $(a_1, \ldots, a_r) \prec (a_1 ^\prime, \ldots, a_r ^\prime)$) if and only if there exists $1 \le k \le r$ such that $a_1 = a_1 ^\prime, \ldots, a_{k-1} = a_{k-1} ^\prime$, $a_k < a_k ^\prime$ (resp., $a_r = a_r ^\prime, \ldots, a_{k+1} = a_{k+1} ^\prime$, $a_k < a_k ^\prime$). The lexicographic order $<$ on $\mathbb{Z}^r$ induces a total order (denoted by the same symbol $<$) on the set of all monomials in the polynomial ring $\mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$ as follows: $t_1 ^{a_1} \cdots t_r ^{a_r} < t_1 ^{a_1 ^\prime} \cdots t_r ^{a_r ^\prime}$ if and only if $(a_1, \ldots, a_r) < (a_1 ^\prime, \ldots, a_r ^\prime)$. Let us define a map $v_{\bf i} \colon \mathbb{C}(X(w)) \setminus \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^r$ by $v_{\bf i} (f/g) \coloneqq v_{\bf i} (f) - v_{\bf i} (g)$ for $f, g \in \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r] \setminus \{0\}$, and by
\begin{align*}
&v_{\bf i}(f) \coloneqq -(a_1, \ldots, a_r)\ {\rm for}\ f = c t_1 ^{a_1} \cdots t_r ^{a_r} + ({\rm lower\ terms}) \in \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r] \setminus \{0\},
\end{align*}
where $c \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0\}$, and we mean by ``lower terms'' a linear combination of monomials smaller than $t_1 ^{a_1} \cdots t_r ^{a_r}$ with respect to the total order $<$. Similarly, we define a map $\tilde{v}_{\bf i}$ by using the lexicographic order $\prec$ on $\mathbb{Z}^r$; more precisely, we set
\begin{align*}
&\tilde{v}_{\bf i}(f) \coloneqq -(a_1, \ldots, a_r)\ {\rm for}\ f = c t_1 ^{a_1} \cdots t_r ^{a_r} + ({\rm lower\ terms}) \in \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r] \setminus \{0\},
\end{align*}
where $c \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0\}$.
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
The map $v_{\bf i}$ is a valuation, that is, it satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{align*}
&v_{\bf i}(f \cdot g) = v_{\bf i}(f) + v_{\bf i}(g),\\
&v_{\bf i}(c \cdot f) = v_{\bf i}(f),\\
&v_{\bf i}(f + g) \ge \min\{v_{\bf i}(f), v_{\bf i}(g)\}\ {\rm with\ respect\ to\ the\ lexicographic\ order}\ < {\rm unless}\ f + g = 0
\end{align*}
for $f, g \in \mathbb{C}(X(w)) \setminus \{0\}$ and $c \in \c$. Similarly, the map $\tilde{v}_{\bf i}$ is a valuation with respect to the lexicographic order $\prec$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{ex}\normalfont
If $r = 3$ and $f = t_1 t_2 + t_3 ^2 \in \mathbb{C}[t_1, t_2, t_3]$, then we have $v_{\bf i}(f) = -(1, 1, 0)$ and $\tilde{v}_{\bf i}(f) = -(0, 0, 2)$.
\end{ex}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{defi}\normalfont\label{d:Newton-Okounkov polytopes}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, and $\lambda \in P_+$. Take $v \in \{v_{\bf i}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}\}$ and $\tau \in H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda) \setminus \{0\}$. We define a subset $S(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau) \subset \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \times \mathbb{Z}^r$ by \[S(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau) \coloneqq \bigcup_{k>0} \{(k, v(\sigma/\tau^k)) \mid \sigma \in H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda ^{\otimes k}) \setminus \{0\}\},\] and denote by $C(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau) \subset \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \times \mathbb{R}^r$ the smallest real closed cone containing $S(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau)$. Let us define a subset $\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau) \subset \mathbb{R}^r$ by \[\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau) \coloneqq \{{\bf a} \in \mathbb{R}^r \mid (1, {\bf a}) \in C(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v, \tau)\};\]
this is called the {\it Newton-Okounkov polytope} of $X(w)$ associated to $\mathcal{L}_\lambda$, $v$, and $\tau$.
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
We define a linear automorphism $\omega \colon \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^r \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^r$ by $\omega(k, {\bf a}) \coloneqq (k, -{\bf a})$. Recall that $\tau_\lambda = \Xi^{\rm up} _{\lambda, w} (b_\lambda) \in H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Sect.\ 4]{Kav}}]\label{string polytopes}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, $\lambda \in P_+$, and ${\bf B}^{\rm up} = \{\Xi^{\rm up}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset \c[U^-]$ the dual basis of a perfect basis.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] Littelmann's string parametrization $\Phi_{\bf i} (b)$ is equal to $-v_{\bf i}(\Xi^{\rm up} _w (b))$ for every $b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\infty)$.
\item[{\rm (2)}] The following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{S}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \omega(S(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda)),\ \mathcal{C}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \omega(C(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda)),\ {\it and}\\
&\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = -\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Sect.\ 4]{FN}}]\label{polyhedral realizations}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W$, $\lambda \in P_+$, and ${\bf B}^{\rm up} = \{\Xi^{\rm up}(b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset \c[U^-]$ the dual basis of a perfect basis.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The Kashiwara embedding $\Psi_{\bf i} (b)$ is equal to $-\tilde{v}_{\bf i}(\Xi^{\rm up} _w (b))$ for every $b \in \mathcal{B}_w(\infty)$.
\item[{\rm (2)}] The following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \omega(S(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda)),\ \widetilde{\mathcal{C}}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = \omega(C(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda)),\ {\it and}\\
&\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\lambda, w)} = -\Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_\lambda).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{rem}\normalfont
The author and Oya \cite{FO} proved that the valuations $v_{\bf i}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}$ are also identical to ones given by counting the order of zeros along certain sequences of subvarieties of $X(w)$.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
\section{Orbit Lie algebras}
In this section, we apply the folding procedure to crystal bases. First we recall from \cite{FRS, FSS} the definition of orbit Lie algebras. Recall that $\mathfrak{g}$ is assumed to be a finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra. We further assume that $\mathfrak{g}$ is of simply-laced type. Denote by $C = (c_{i, j})_{i, j \in I}$ the Cartan matrix of $\mathfrak{g}$, where $I$ is an index set for the vertices of the Dynkin diagram. Let $\omega \colon I \rightarrow I$ be a bijection of order $L$ satisfying $c_{\omega(i), \omega(j)} = c_{i, j}$ for all $i, j \in I$; such a bijection $\omega$ is called a {\it Dynkin diagram automorphism}. It induces a Lie algebra automorphism $\omega \colon \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{g}$ of order $L$ defined by: \[\omega(E_i) = E_{\omega(i)},\ \omega(F_i) = F_{\omega(i)},\ \omega(h_i) = h_{\omega(i)}\] for $i \in I$; note that the Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{t}$ is invariant under $\omega$. Also, we define $\omega^\ast \colon \mathfrak{t}^\ast \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ by: $\omega^\ast(\lambda)(h) = \lambda(\omega^{-1}(h))$ for $\lambda \in \mathfrak{t}^\ast$ and $h \in \mathfrak{t}$. In this paper, we always impose the following orthogonality condition on $\omega$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{(O)}] $c_{i, j} = 0$\ {\rm for\ all}\ $i \neq j$\ {\rm in\ the\ same}\ $\omega$-{\rm orbit}.
\end{enumerate}
Let us fix a complete set $\breve{I} \subset I$ of representatives for the $\omega$-orbits in $I$. We set $m_i \coloneqq \min\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \mid \omega^k(i) = i\}$ for $i \in I$, and then set \[\breve{c}_{i, j} \coloneqq \sum_{0 \le k < m_j} c_{i, \omega^k(j)}\] for $i, j \in \breve{I}$. Then we can verify that the matrix $\breve{C} \coloneqq (\breve{c}_{i, j})_{i, j \in \breve{I}}$ is an indecomposable Cartan matrix of finite type (see the list below). The finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ with Cartan matrix $\breve{C}$ is called the {\it orbit Lie algebra} associated to $\omega$.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
Dynkin diagram of $\mathfrak{g}$ & Dynkin diagram of $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$\\\hline
\begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,4) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="A",
\ar@{-} "A";(40,4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{-} "B";(45,4) \ar@{.} (45,4);(50,4)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (50,4);(55,4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(64,0) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "D";(55,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\ar@{-} "E";(50,-4) \ar@{.} (50,-4);(45,-4)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (45,-4);(40,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="F"
\ar@{-} "F";(30,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="G"
\ar@{-} "G";(20,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}
& \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{-} "B";(70,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(75,0) \ar@{.} (75,0);(80,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (80,0);(85,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{=>} "D";(95,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy}\\
\begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="A",
\ar@{-} "A";(40,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{-} "B";(45,0) \ar@{.} (45,0);(50,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (50,0);(55,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(64,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(64,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{},
\end{xy} & \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{-} "B";(70,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(75,0) \ar@{.} (75,0);(80,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (80,0);(85,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{<=} "D";(95,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy}\\
\begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(39,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "C";(39,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E",
\ar@{-} "D";(49,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "E";(49,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} & \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{<=} "B";(70,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(80,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}\\
\begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (29,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(20,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(29,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(29,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} & \begin{xy}
\ar@3{<-} *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(10,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The list of nontrivial Dynkin diagram automorphisms satisfying assumption (O).}\label{table1}
\end{table}
Let $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak g})$ be the quantized enveloping algebra of $\breve{\mathfrak g}$ with generators $\breve{e}_i, \breve{f}_i, \breve{t}_i, \breve{t}_i ^{-1}$, $i \in \breve{I}$, and $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak{u}}^-)$ the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-subalgebra of $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak g})$ generated by $\{\breve{f}_i \mid i \in \breve{I}\}$. Denote by $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty)$ the crystal basis of $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak{u}}^-)$, by $\breve{b}_\infty \in \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty)$ the element corresponding to $1 \in U_q(\breve{\mathfrak u}^-)$, and by $\tilde{e}_i, \tilde{f}_i \colon \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \cup \{0\}$, $i \in \breve{I}$, the Kashiwara operators. Then, the crystal basis $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty)$ is realized as a specific subset of $\mathcal{B}(\infty)$; we recall this realization, following \cite{NS1, NS2, Sag}. The Dynkin diagram automorphism $\omega$ induces a $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-algebra automorphism $\omega \colon U_q(\mathfrak{g}) \xrightarrow{\sim} U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ of order $L$ defined by: \[\omega(e_i) = e_{\omega(i)},\ \omega(f_i) = f_{\omega(i)},\ \omega(t_i) = t_{\omega(i)}\] for $i \in I$; remark that $\omega$ preserves $U_q(\mathfrak{u}^-)$. We see from \cite[Sect.\ 3.4]{NS1} that this automorphism induces a natural bijection $\omega \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{omega negative part}
\omega \circ \tilde{e}_i = \tilde{e}_{\omega(i)} \circ \omega\ {\rm and}\ \omega \circ \tilde{f}_i = \tilde{f}_{\omega(i)} \circ \omega
\end{equation}
for all $i \in I$. Let us define operators $\tilde{e}^\omega _i, \tilde{f}^\omega _i \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\infty) \cup \{0\}$ for $i \in I$ by:
\begin{equation}\label{omega Kashiwara operator}
\tilde{e}^\omega _i = \prod_{0 \le k < m_i} \tilde{e}_{\omega^k(i)}\ {\rm and}\ \tilde{f}^\omega _i = \prod_{0 \le k < m_i} \tilde{f}_{\omega^k(i)};
\end{equation}
note that the operators $\tilde{e}_{i}, \tilde{e}_{\omega(i)}, \ldots, \tilde{e}_{\omega^{m_i -1}(i)}$ (resp., $\tilde{f}_{i}, \tilde{f}_{\omega(i)}, \ldots, \tilde{f}_{\omega^{m_i -1}(i)}$) commute with each other by assumption (O); these operators $\tilde{e}^\omega _i, \tilde{f}^\omega _i$ are called the $\omega$-{\it Kashiwara operators}. Let $\breve{\mathfrak{t}} \subset \breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ be a Cartan subalgebra, $\{\breve{\alpha}_i \in \breve{\mathfrak{t}}^\ast \mid i \in \breve{I}\}$ the set of simple roots, $\{\breve{h}_i \in \breve{\mathfrak{t}} \mid i \in \breve{I}\}$ the set of simple coroots, and then set $\mathfrak{t}^0 \coloneqq \{h \in \mathfrak{t} \mid \omega(h) = h\}$ $(\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0 \coloneqq \{\lambda \in \mathfrak{t}^\ast \mid \omega^\ast(\lambda) = \lambda\}$. As in \cite[Sect.\ 2]{FRS}, we obtain $\mathbb{C}$-linear isomorphisms $P_\omega \colon \mathfrak{t}^0 \xrightarrow{\sim} \breve{\mathfrak{t}}$ and $P_\omega ^\ast \colon \breve{\mathfrak{t}}^\ast \xrightarrow{\sim} (\mathfrak{t}^0)^\ast \simeq (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ such that
\begin{align*}
P_\omega ^{-1}(\breve{h}_i) = \frac{1}{m_i} \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} h_{\omega^k(i)},\ P_\omega ^\ast(\breve{\alpha}_i) = \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} \alpha_{\omega^k(i)},\ {\rm and}\ (P_\omega ^\ast(\breve{\lambda}))(h) = \breve{\lambda}(P_\omega(h))
\end{align*}
for $i \in \breve{I}$, $\breve{\lambda} \in \breve{\mathfrak{t}}^\ast$, and $h \in \mathfrak{t}^0$. We denote by $\breve{W}$ the Weyl group of $\breve{\mathfrak g}$, and set \[\widetilde{W} \coloneqq \{w \in W \mid \omega^\ast \circ w = w \circ \omega^\ast\ {\rm on}\ \mathfrak{t}^\ast\}.\] Then we see from \cite[Sect.\ 3]{FRS} that there exists a group isomorphism $\Theta \colon \breve{W} \xrightarrow{\sim} \widetilde{W}$ such that $\Theta(\breve{w}) = P_\omega ^\ast \circ \breve{w} \circ (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}$ on $(\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ for all $\breve{w} \in \breve{W}$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{\cite[Theorem 3.4.1]{NS1}}]\label{orbit infinity}
Let \[\mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \coloneqq \{b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty) \mid \omega(b) = b\}\] denote the fixed point subset by $\omega$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The set $\mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \cup \{0\}$ is stable under the $\omega$-Kashiwara operators $\tilde{e}_i ^\omega, \tilde{f}_i ^\omega$ for all $i \in I$.
\item[{\rm (2)}] There exists a unique bijective map $P_\infty \colon \mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \cup \{0\}$ such that
\begin{align*}
P_\infty(b_\infty) = \breve{b}_\infty,\ P_\infty \circ \tilde{e}_i ^\omega = \tilde{e}_i \circ P_\infty,\ {\it and}\ P_\infty \circ \tilde{f}_i ^\omega = \tilde{f}_i \circ P_\infty
\end{align*}
for all $i \in \breve{I}$.
\item[{\rm (3)}] The equality \[P_\infty(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^0(\infty)) = \breve{\mathcal{B}}_w(\infty)\] holds for every $w \in \breve{W}$, where $\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^0(\infty) \coloneqq \mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \cap \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
For $i \in \breve{I}$ and $b \in \mathcal{B}^0(\infty)$, we set \[\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b) \coloneqq \max\{a \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0} \mid (\tilde{e}^\omega _i)^a b \neq 0\}.\] The properties of $P_\infty$ in Proposition \ref{orbit infinity} (2) imply the equality \[\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b) = \varepsilon_i (P_\infty(b))\] for every $i \in \breve{I}$ and $b \in \mathcal{B}^0(\infty)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}\label{folding of epsilon}
The equality \[\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b) = \varepsilon_{\omega^k(i)}(b)\] holds for every $i \in \breve{I}$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$, and $b \in \mathcal{B}^0(\infty)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Although this is proved in \cite[Lemma 2.3.2]{NS2}, we give a proof for the convenience of the reader. By replacing $\breve{I}$ if necessary, we may assume that $k = 0$. Since $(\tilde{e}^\omega _i)^a = \tilde{e}_{\omega^{m_i -1}(i)} ^a \cdots \tilde{e}_{\omega(i)} ^a \tilde{e}_i ^a$ for $a \in \z_{\ge 0}$ by assumption (O), the condition $(\tilde{e}^\omega _i)^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)}b \neq 0$ implies that $\tilde{e}_i^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)}b \neq 0$. Suppose, for a contradiction, that $\tilde{e}_i^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1}b \neq 0$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde{e}_{\omega^k(i)} ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1}b &= \tilde{e}_{\omega^k(i)} ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} \omega^k(b)\quad({\rm since}\ b \in \mathcal{B}^0(\infty))\\
&= \omega^k(\tilde{e}_i ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} b)\quad({\rm by\ equation}\ (\ref{omega negative part}))\\
&\neq 0,
\end{align*}
from which we deduce by assumption (O) that \[\tilde{e}_{\omega^k(i)} ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} \cdots \tilde{e}_{\omega(i)} ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} \tilde{e}_i ^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} b \neq 0\] for any $0 \le k \le m_i -1$; this contradicts the equality $(\tilde{e}_i ^\omega)^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1} b = 0$. Therefore, the equality $\tilde{e}_i^{\varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)+1}b = 0$ holds, which implies that $\varepsilon_i (b) = \varepsilon_i ^\omega(b)$. This proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
Note that $\breve{P} \coloneqq (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}(P \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0) \subset \breve{\mathfrak{t}}^\ast$ is identical to the weight lattice for $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$. For $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$, we have a natural bijective map $\omega \colon \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda)$, induced by the $\mathbb{Q}(q)$-algebra automorphism $\omega \colon U_q(\mathfrak{g}) \xrightarrow{\sim} U_q(\mathfrak{g})$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{omega highest weight module}
\omega \circ \tilde{e}_i = \tilde{e}_{\omega(i)} \circ \omega\ {\rm and}\ \omega \circ \tilde{f}_i = \tilde{f}_{\omega(i)} \circ \omega
\end{equation}
for all $i \in I$ (see \cite[Sect.\ 3.2]{NS1} and \cite[Sect.\ 3]{Sag}). Here we recall that $\pi_\lambda \colon \mathcal{B}(\infty) \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ is the canonical map induced from the natural surjection $U_q(\mathfrak{u}^-) \twoheadrightarrow V_q(\lambda)$. If we set \[\mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \coloneqq \{b \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \mid \omega(b) = b\},\] then it is easily checked that $\pi_\lambda(\mathcal{B}^0(\infty)) = \mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$. For $\breve{\lambda} \in (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}(P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0)$, let $\breve{V}_q(\breve{\lambda})$ denote the irreducible highest weight $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak g})$-module with highest weight $\breve{\lambda}$, $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda})$ the crystal basis of $\breve{V}_q(\breve{\lambda})$ with $b_{\breve{\lambda}} \in \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda})$ the highest element, and $\tilde{e}_i, \tilde{f}_i \colon \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda}) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda}) \cup \{0\}$, $i \in \breve{I}$, the Kashiwara operators.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{\cite[Proposition 3.2.1]{NS1}}]\label{compatibility with lambda}
Let $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The set $\mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ is stable under the $\omega$-Kashiwara operators $\tilde{e}_i ^\omega, \tilde{f}_i ^\omega \colon \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda) \cup \{0\}$ for all $i \in I$, defined in the same way as $\omega$-Kashiwara operators for $\mathcal{B}(\infty)$.
\item[{\rm (2)}] There exists a unique bijective map $P_\lambda \colon \mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \cup \{0\} \rightarrow \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda}) \cup \{0\}$ such that
\begin{align*}
P_\lambda(b_\lambda) = b_{\breve{\lambda}},\ P_\lambda \circ \tilde{e}_i ^\omega = \tilde{e}_i \circ P_\lambda\ {\it and}\ P_\lambda \circ \tilde{f}_i ^\omega = \tilde{f}_i \circ P_\lambda
\end{align*}
for all $i \in \breve{I}$, where $\breve{\lambda} \coloneqq (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}(\lambda)$.
\item[{\rm (3)}] The following diagram is commutative$:$
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \ar[d]_-{P_\infty} \ar[r]^-{\pi_\lambda} & \mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \cup \{0\} \ar[d]_-{P_\lambda} \\
\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \ar[r]^-{\pi_{\breve{\lambda}}} & \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda}) \cup \{0\},}
\end{align*}
where $\pi_{\breve{\lambda}}$ is the map induced from the natural surjective map $U_q(\breve{\mathfrak{u}}^-) \twoheadrightarrow \breve{V}_q(\breve{\lambda})$.
\item[{\rm (4)}] The equality \[P_\lambda(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^0(\lambda)) = \breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\breve{\lambda})\] holds for all $w \in \breve{W}$, where $\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^0(\lambda) \coloneqq \mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \cap \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\lambda)$ and $\breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\breve{\lambda}) \subset \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda})$ is the corresponding Demazure crystal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{rem}\normalfont
The composite maps $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \xrightarrow{P_\infty ^{-1}} \mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ and $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\breve{\lambda}) \xrightarrow{P_\lambda ^{-1}} \mathcal{B}^0(\lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ are identical to the maps arising from a similarity of crystal bases (see \cite[Sect.\ 5]{Kas5}). This similarity is a variant of what we consider in Section 6.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
It is easily seen that $\omega \circ \ast = \ast \circ \omega$ on $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$, which implies the same equality on $\mathcal{B}(\infty)$. Hence it follows that $\mathcal{B}^0(\infty)^\ast = \mathcal{B}^0(\infty)$. We denote by $\ast \colon \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \rightarrow \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty)$ Kashiwara's involution on $\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty)$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{\cite[Theorem1]{NS2}}]\label{compatible with Kashiwara's involution}
The following diagram is commutative$:$
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{\mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \ar[d]_-{P_\infty} \ar[r]^-{\ast} & \mathcal{B}^0(\infty) \ar[d]_-{P_\infty} \\
\breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty) \ar[r]^-{\ast} & \breve{\mathcal{B}}(\infty).}
\end{align*}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
The following is an immediate consequence of Propositions \ref{folding of epsilon} and \ref{compatible with Kashiwara's involution}.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{folding of epsilon ast}
The equality \[\varepsilon_i(P_\infty(b)^\ast) = \varepsilon_{\omega^k(i)} (b^\ast)\] holds for all $i \in \breve{I}$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$, and $b \in \mathcal{B}^0(\infty)$.
\end{cor}\vspace{2mm}
Let $\{s_i \mid i \in I\} \subset W$ (resp., $\{s_i \mid i \in \breve{I}\} \subset \breve{W}$) be the set of simple reflections. If we take a reduced word ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ for $w \in \breve{W}$, then we have \[\Theta(w) = \Theta(s_{i_1}) \cdots \Theta(s_{i_r}) = s_{i_{1, 1}} \cdots s_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}} \cdots s_{i_{r, 1}} \cdots s_{i_{r, m_{i_r}}},\] where we set $i_{k, l} \coloneqq \omega^{l-1}(i_k)$ for $1 \le k \le r$ and $1 \le l \le m_{i_k}$. It is easily verified that this is a reduced expression for $\Theta(w)$; we denote by $\Theta({\bf i})$ the corresponding reduced word $(i_{1, 1}, \ldots, i_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, i_{r, 1}, \ldots, i_{r, m_{i_r}})$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{Key corollary 1}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$. Define an $\mathbb{R}$-linear injective map $\Upsilon_{\bf i} \colon \mathbb{R}^r \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}}$ by$:$ \[\Upsilon_{\bf i}(a_1, \ldots, a_r) = (\underbrace{a_1, \ldots, a_1}_{m_{i_1}}, \ldots, \underbrace{a_r, \ldots, a_r}_{m_{i_r}}).\] Then, the equalities \[\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Phi_{\bf i}(b)) = \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b))\ {\it and}\ \Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Psi_{\bf i}(b)) = \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b))\] hold for all $b \in \breve{\mathcal{B}}_w(\infty)$. In particular, the following equalities hold$:$ \[\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Phi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_w(\infty))) = \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}^0 _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)),\ {\it and}\ \Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Psi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_w(\infty))) = \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}^0 _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)).\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We take $b \in \breve{\mathcal{B}}_w(\infty)$, and write $\Phi_{\bf i} (b)$ as $(a_1, \ldots, a_r)$. We will show that \[\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b)) = (\underbrace{a_1, \ldots, a_1}_{m_{i_1}}, \ldots, \underbrace{a_r, \ldots, a_r}_{m_{i_r}}).\] It follows by assumption (O) and Proposition \ref{folding of epsilon} that \[\varepsilon_{i_{1, k}}(\tilde{e}_{i_{1, k-1}} ^{a_1} \cdots \tilde{e}_{i_{1, 1}} ^{a_1} b) = \varepsilon_{i_{1, k}}(b) = a_1\] for all $1 \le k \le m_{i_1}$ (see also the proof of Proposition \ref{folding of epsilon}). Therefore, the following equality holds: \[\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b)) = (\underbrace{a_1, \ldots, a_1}_{m_{i_1}}, \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i}_{\ge 2})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b'))),\] where ${\bf i}_{\ge 2} \coloneqq (i_2, \ldots, i_r)$ and $b' \coloneqq \tilde{e}_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}} ^{a_1} \cdots \tilde{e}_{i_{1, 1}} ^{a_1} b$. Moreover, by induction on $r$, we deduce that \[\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i}_{\ge 2})}(P_\infty ^{-1}(b')) = (\underbrace{a_2, \ldots, a_2}_{m_{i_2}}, \ldots, \underbrace{a_r, \ldots, a_r}_{m_{i_r}}).\] From these, we obtain the assertion for $\Phi_{\bf i}$. The assertion for $\Psi_{\bf i}$ is shown similarly by using Corollary \ref{folding of epsilon ast} instead of Proposition \ref{folding of epsilon}.
\end{proof}
If $b \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$ satisfies $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b) = \Upsilon_{\bf i}(a_1, \ldots, a_r)$ for some $(a_1, \ldots, a_r) \in \z_{\ge 0} ^r$, then it is easily seen that $b \in \mathcal{B}^0 _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$. Hence we obtain the following.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{corollary slice upsilon}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$. Then the following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Phi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\infty))) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)) \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\},\ {\it and}\\
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Psi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\infty))) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)) \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\}.
\end{align*}
\end{cor}\vspace{2mm}
Similarly, we obtain the following (see Proposition \ref{compatibility with lambda} (3), (4)).
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{polytopes as slices}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$, and $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$. Then the following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Phi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\breve{\lambda}))) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\lambda)) \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\},\ {\it and}\\
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Psi_{\bf i}(\breve{\mathcal{B}}_{w}(\breve{\lambda}))) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\lambda)) \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\},
\end{align*}
where $\breve{\lambda} \coloneqq (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}(\lambda)$.
\end{cor}\vspace{2mm}
By the definitions of Littelmann's string polytopes and Nakashima-Zelevinsky's polytopes, we obtain the following as an immediate consequence of Corollary \ref{polytopes as slices}.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{c:folding of polytopes(crystal)}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$, and $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$. Then the following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\Delta_{\bf i} ^{(\breve{\lambda}, w)}) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \Delta_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))} \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\},\ {\it and}\\
&\Upsilon_{\bf i}(\widetilde{\Delta}_{\bf i} ^{(\breve{\lambda}, w)}) = \{(a_{k, l})_{1 \le k \le r, 1\le l \le m_{i_k}} \in \widetilde{\Delta}_{\Theta({\bf i})} ^{(\lambda, \Theta(w))} \mid a_{k, 1} = \cdots = a_{k, m_{i_k}},\ 1 \le k \le r\},
\end{align*}
where $\breve{\lambda} \coloneqq (P_\omega ^\ast)^{-1}(\lambda)$.
\end{cor}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{rem}\normalfont
Corollary \ref{c:folding of polytopes(crystal)} is naturally extended to string polytopes for generalized Demazure modules, defined in \cite{Fuj}.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
\section{Fixed point Lie subalgebras}
In this section, we prove our main result. Let us consider the fixed point Lie subalgebra by $\omega$ \[\mathfrak{g}^\omega \coloneqq \{x \in \mathfrak{g} \mid \omega(x) = x\}.\] Define $E_i ^\prime, F_i ^\prime, h_i ^\prime \in \mathfrak{g}^\omega$ and $\alpha^\prime _i \in (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ for $i \in \breve{I}$ by \[E_i ^\prime \coloneqq \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} E_{\omega^k(i)},\ F_i ^\prime \coloneqq \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} F_{\omega^k(i)},\ h_i ^\prime \coloneqq \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} h_{\omega^k(i)}\ {\rm and}\ \alpha_i ^\prime \coloneqq \frac{1}{m_i} \sum_{0 \le k < m_i} \alpha_{\omega^k(i)}.\] We set $c^\prime _{i, j} \coloneqq \langle \alpha_j ^\prime, h_i ^\prime \rangle$ for $i, j \in \breve{I}$. Then, it is easily checked that $\breve{c}_{i, j} = c^\prime _{j, i}$ for all $i, j \in \breve{I}$; namely, the matrix $C^\prime \coloneqq (c^\prime _{i, j})_{i, j \in \breve{I}}$ is the transpose of $\breve{C}$. In particular, the matrix $C^\prime$ is an indecomposable Cartan matrix of finite type.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see \cite[Proposition 8.3]{Kac}}]
The fixed point Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak g}^\omega$ is the simple Lie algebra with Cartan matrix $C^\prime$ and Chevalley generators $E_i ^\prime, F_i ^\prime, h_i ^\prime$, $i \in \breve{I};$ in particular, the orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak g}$ associated to $\omega$ is the (Langlands) dual Lie algebra of ${\mathfrak g}^\omega$.
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
Recall that $G$ is the connected, simply-connected simple algebraic group with ${\rm Lie}(G) = \mathfrak{g}$. The Lie algebra automorphism $\omega \colon \mathfrak{g} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{g}$ induces an algebraic group automorphism $\omega \colon G \xrightarrow{\sim} G$ such that $\omega(\exp(x)) = \exp(\omega(x))$ for all $x \in \mathfrak{g}$. It is known that the fixed point subgroup \[G^\omega \coloneqq \{g \in G \mid \omega(g) = g\}\] is a connected simple algebraic group with ${\rm Lie}(G^\omega) = \mathfrak{g}^\omega$; note that $G^\omega$ is a Zariski closed subgroup of $G$. In addition, we see by Table 1 in Section 4 and a case-by-case argument that $G^\omega$ is simply-connected. Since the fixed point subgroup $(U^-)^\omega \coloneqq U^- \cap G^\omega$ is a Zariski closed subgroup of $U^-$, the coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega]$ is a quotient of $\mathbb{C}[U^-]$; denote by $\pi^\omega \colon \mathbb{C}[U^-] \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega]$ the quotient map. We set $B^\omega \coloneqq B \cap G^\omega$, and consider the full flag variety $G^\omega/B^\omega$. Let $\iota^\omega \colon G^\omega/B^\omega \hookrightarrow G/B$ denote the natural injective map. Since $\omega(B) = B$, the automorphism $\omega \colon G \xrightarrow{\sim} G$ induces a variety automorphism $\omega \colon G/B \xrightarrow{\sim} G/B$, and the image of $\iota^\omega$ is identical to the fixed point subvariety $(G/B)^\omega$. In addition, the map $\iota^\omega$ induces a $\c$-linear isomorphism from the tangent space of $G^\omega/B^\omega$ at $e \bmod B^\omega$ to that of $(G/B)^\omega$ at $e \bmod B$, where $e \in G^\omega$ ($\subset G$) is the identity element; note that both of these tangent spaces are identified with the Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$ generated by $\{F_i ^\prime \mid i \in \breve{I}\}$. Therefore, the map $\iota^\omega \colon G^\omega/B^\omega \rightarrow (G/B)^\omega$ is an isomorphism of varieties (see, for instance, \cite[Sect.\ 5]{Spr}). Here we note that since $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$ is the (Langlands) dual Lie algebra of $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$, the Weyl group $\breve{W}$ of $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ is identified with that of $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$. We consider the Schubert variety $X(w) \subset G^\omega/B^\omega \simeq (G/B)^\omega$ corresponding to $w \in \breve{W}$; this is identified with a Zariski closed subvariety of $X(\Theta(w))$. Let us regard $(U^-)^\omega$ as an affine open subvariety of $G^\omega/B^\omega$, and take the intersection $(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)$ in $G^\omega/B^\omega$ for $w \in \breve{W}$; this intersection is identified with a Zariski closed subvariety of $U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))$. Let $\pi^\omega _w \colon \mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))] \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)]$ be the restriction map for $w \in \breve{W}$. We take a reduced word ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ for $w \in \breve{W}$, and regard the coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)]$ as a $\mathbb{C}$-subalgebra of the polynomial ring $\mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$ by the following birational morphism:
\[\c^r \rightarrow (U^-)^\omega \cap X(w),\ (t_1, \ldots, t_r) \mapsto \exp(t_1 F_{i_1} ^\prime) \cdots \exp(t_r F_{i_r} ^\prime).\]
Since $\Theta({\bf i}) = (i_{1, 1}, \ldots, i_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, i_{r, 1}, \ldots, i_{r, m_{i_r}})$ is a reduced word for $\Theta(w) \in W$, the coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))]$ is regarded as a $\mathbb{C}$-subalgebra of the polynomial ring $\mathbb{C}[t_{k, l} \mid 1 \le k \le r,\ 1 \le l \le m_{i_k}]$ by the following birational morphism:
\begin{align*}
\c^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}} \rightarrow U^- \cap X(\Theta(w)),\ (t_{1, 1}, \ldots, t_{r, m_{i_r}}) \mapsto \exp(t_{1, 1} F_{i_{1, 1}}) \cdots \exp(t_{r, m_{i_r}} F_{i_{r, m_{i_r}}}).
\end{align*}
Also, under the inclusion map $(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w) \hookrightarrow U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))$, we have \[\exp(tF_{i_k} ^\prime) \mapsto \exp(tF_{i_{k, 1}}) \cdots \exp(tF_{i_{k, m_{i_k}}})\] for $t \in \c$ and $1 \le k \le r$. Hence we obtain the following.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{lem}\label{polynomial folding}
Define a surjective map $\pi^\omega _{\bf i} \colon \mathbb{C}[t_{k, l} \mid 1 \le k \le r,\ 1 \le l \le m_{i_k}] \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$ by $\pi^\omega _{\bf i}(t_{k, l}) \coloneqq t_k$ for $1 \le k \le r$ and $1 \le l \le m_{i_k}$. Then the following diagram is commutative$:$
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{\mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))] \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d]^-{\pi^\omega _w} & \mathbb{C}[t_{k, l} \mid 1 \le k \le r,\ 1 \le l \le m_{i_k}] \ar[d]^-{\pi^\omega _{\bf i}}\\
\mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)] \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r].}
\end{align*}
\end{lem}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{defi}\normalfont
Define a $\mathbb{C}$-algebra homomorphism $\Delta \colon U(\mathfrak{u}^-) \rightarrow U(\mathfrak{u}^-) \otimes U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ by $\Delta(x) = x \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes x$ for $x \in \mathfrak{u}^-$.
\end{defi}\vspace{2mm}
Let us consider a perfect basis ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \{\Xi^{\rm low} (b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ that satisfies the following positivity conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[${\rm (P)}_1$] the element $F_i \cdot \Xi^{\rm low} (b)$ belongs to $\sum_{b^\prime \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)} \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \Xi^{\rm low} (b^\prime)$ for every $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$ and $i \in I$;
\item[${\rm (P)}_2$] the element $\Delta(\Xi^{\rm low} (b))$ belongs to $\sum_{b^\prime, b'' \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)} \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \Xi^{\rm low} (b^\prime) \otimes \Xi^{\rm low} (b'')$ for every $b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{rem}\normalfont
In the paper \cite{FO}, the author and Oya used a perfect basis that satisfies slightly weaker positivity conditions; in it, positivity conditions are imposed only on certain coefficients of $\Delta(\Xi^{\rm low} (b))$.
\end{rem}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{ex}\normalfont
Recall that $\mathfrak{g}$ is of simply-laced type. In this case, Lusztig proved that the specialization of the lower global basis at $q=1$ satisfies positivity conditions ${\rm (P)}_1, {\rm (P)}_2$ by using the geometric construction of the lower global basis \cite[Theorem 11.5]{Lus_quivers}.
\end{ex}\vspace{2mm}
\begin{lem}\label{l:positivity lemma}
Let ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \{\Xi^{\rm low} (b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ be a perfect basis satisfying ${\rm (P)}_1, {\rm (P)}_2$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] The perfect basis ${\bf B}^{\rm low}$ satisfies condition {\rm (D)} in Section {\rm 3}.
\item[{\rm (2)}] The element $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b^\prime)$ belongs to $\sum_{b'' \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)} \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b'')$ for all $w \in \breve{W}$ and $b, b^\prime \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty);$ in addition, the coefficient of $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b'')$ is not equal to $0$ if $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b'') = \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b) + \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b^\prime)$ or if $\Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b'') = \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b) + \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b^\prime)$.
\item[{\rm (3)}] The coefficient of $t_{1, 1} ^{a_{1, 1}} \cdots t_{r, m_{i_r}} ^{a_{r, m_{i_r}}}$ in $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b) \in \mathbb{C}[t_{k, l} \mid 1 \le k \le r,\ 1 \le l \le m_{i_k}]$ is a nonnegative real number for all $w \in \breve{W}$, $b \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$, and $a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Parts (1), (3), and the first assertion of part (2) are proved in a way similar to \cite[Propositions 4.3, 4.7 and Corollary 4.6 (2)]{FO}. The second assertion of part (2) follows from general properties of valuations (see \cite[Sect.\ 6]{Kav}).
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{Key proposition 1}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$, and ${\bf B}^{\rm low} = \{\Xi^{\rm low} (b) \mid b \in \mathcal{B}(\infty)\} \subset U(\mathfrak{u}^-)$ a perfect basis satisfying ${\rm (P)}_1, {\rm (P)}_2$. Define an $\mathbb{R}$-linear surjective map $\Omega_{\bf i} \colon \mathbb{R}^{m_{i_1} + \cdots + m_{i_r}} \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{R}^r$ by$:$ \[\Omega_{\bf i}(a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}}) = (a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}}).\] Then the following equalities hold for all $b \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$$:$
\begin{align*}
&v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) = \Omega_{\bf i}(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))),\ {\it and}\\
&\tilde{v}_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) = \Omega_{\bf i}(\tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We prove the assertion only for $v_{\bf i}$ and $v_{\Theta({\bf i})}$; the proof of the assertion for $\tilde{v}_{\bf i}$ and $\tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ is similar. We imitate the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.1]{FO}. We write $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b) = (a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}})$ for $b \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$, and proceed by induction on $r = \ell(w)$ and $a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}}$.
We first consider the case $b \in \mathcal{B}_{s_{i_{1, 1}} \cdots s_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}}}(\infty)$, which includes the case $r = 1$. In this case, there exist $a_1, \ldots, a_{m_{i_1}} \in \z_{\ge 0}$ such that $b = \tilde{f}_{i_{1, 1}} ^{a_1} \cdots \tilde{f}_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}} ^{a_{m_{i_1}}} b_\infty$. Then it follows by the definition of $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ and assumption (O) in Section 4 that
\begin{align*}
-v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) &= \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b)\quad({\rm by\ Proposition}\ \ref{string polytopes}\ (1))\\
&= (a_1, \ldots, a_{m_{i_1}}, 0, \ldots, 0).
\end{align*}
Hence we deduce by the definition of $v_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ that $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b) = c t_{1, 1} ^{a_1} \cdots t_{1, m_{i_1}} ^{a_{m_{i_1}}} + ({\rm other\ terms})$ for some $c \in \c \setminus \{0\}$, where ``other terms'' means a linear combination of monomials of degree $a_1 + \cdots + a_{m_{i_1}}$ that are not equal to $t_{1, 1} ^{a_1} \cdots t_{1, m_{i_1}} ^{a_{m_{i_1}}}$. Here, Lemma \ref{l:positivity lemma} (3) implies that $c \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}$, and that the coefficients of the ``other terms'' are also positive real numbers. Therefore, we see from Lemma \ref{polynomial folding} that $\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) = c^\prime t_1 ^{a_1 + \cdots + a_{m_{i_1}}} + ({\rm other\ terms})$ for some $c^\prime \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}$, where ``other terms'' means a linear combination of monomials in $\mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$ of degree $a_1 + \cdots + a_{m_{i_1}}$ that are not equal to $t_1 ^{a_1 + \cdots + a_{m_{i_1}}}$. This implies by the definition of $v_{\bf i}$ that
\begin{align*}
v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) &= -(a_1 + \cdots + a_{m_{i_1}}, 0, \ldots, 0)\\
&= \Omega_{\bf i}(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))).
\end{align*}
We next consider the case $r \ge 2$ and $a_{1, 1} = \cdots = a_{1, m_{i_1}} = 0$. In this case, $b$ is an element of $\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w_{\ge 2})}(\infty)$, where $w_{\ge 2} \coloneqq s_{i_2} \cdots s_{i_r}$. By the definition of $v_{\Theta({\bf i})}$, the equalities $a_{1, 1} = \cdots = a_{1, m_{i_1}} = 0$ imply that $t_{1, 1}, \ldots, t_{1, m_{i_1}}$ do not appear in $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)$, and hence that $t_1$ does not appear in $\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) \in \mathbb{C}[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$. From these, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) &= (0, v_{{\bf i}_{\ge 2}}(\pi^\omega _{w_{\ge 2}}(\Xi_{\Theta(w_{\ge 2})} ^{\rm up}(b))))\\
&= (0, \Omega_{{\bf i}_{\ge 2}}(v_{\Theta({\bf i}_{\ge 2})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w_{\ge 2})} ^{\rm up}(b))))\quad({\rm by\ the\ induction}\ ({\rm on}\ r)\ {\rm hypothesis})\\
&= \Omega_{\bf i}(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))),
\end{align*}
where ${\bf i}_{\ge 2} \coloneqq (i_2, \ldots, i_r)$ is a reduced word for $w_{\ge 2}$.
Finally, consider the case $(a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}) \neq (0, \ldots, 0)$ and $b \notin \mathcal{B}_{s_{i_{1, 1}} \cdots s_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}}}(\infty)$. We set $b_1 \coloneqq \tilde{f}_{i_{1, 1}} ^{a_{1, 1}} \cdots \tilde{f}_{i_{1, m_{i_1}}} ^{a_{1, m_{i_1}}} b_\infty$ and $b_2 \coloneqq \tilde{f}_{i_{2, 1}} ^{a_{2, 1}} \cdots \tilde{f}_{i_{r, m_{i_r}}} ^{a_{r, m_{i_r}}} b_\infty$. Then it follows by the definition of $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ that $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b_1) = (a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}, 0, \ldots, 0)$ and $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(b_2) = (0, \ldots, 0, a_{2, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}})$; here we have used assumption (O) in Section 4. Hence Proposition \ref{string polytopes} (1) implies that
\begin{align*}
v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) &= -(a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}})\\
&= -(a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{1, m_{i_1}}, 0, \ldots, 0) -(0, \ldots, 0, a_{2, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}})\\
&= v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1)) + v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2)).
\end{align*}
Also, we deduce from the induction (on $a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}}$) hypothesis that
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i}\left(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1)) + v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))\right)\\
=\ &\Omega_{\bf i}\left(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1))\right) + \Omega_{\bf i}\left(v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))\right)\\
=\ &v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1))) + v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2)))\\
=\ &v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2)))\\
&({\rm since}\ v_{\bf i}\ {\rm is\ a\ valuation\ and}\ \pi^\omega _w\ {\rm is\ a}\ \c\mathchar`-{\rm algebra\ homomorphism}).
\end{align*}
From these, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{Key inequalities 1}
v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))) = \Omega_{\bf i} (v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))).
\end{align}
Here, by Lemma \ref{l:positivity lemma} (2), we have
\begin{align}\label{folded expansion 1}
\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2) = \sum_{b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)} C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_3)
\end{align}
for some $C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \in \r_{\ge 0}$, $b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$, with $C_{b_1, b_2} ^{(b)} \neq 0$. By applying $\pi^\omega _w$ to (\ref{folded expansion 1}), we obtain
\begin{align}\label{folded expansion 2}
\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2)) = \sum_{b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)} C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_3)).
\end{align}
Since $C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \in \r_{\ge 0}$ for all $b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$, Lemmas \ref{polynomial folding} and \ref{l:positivity lemma} (3) imply that no cancellations of monomials occur in the sum on the right-hand side of (\ref{folded expansion 2}). Therefore, we deduce by the definition of $v_{\bf i}$ that
\begin{align*}
-v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))) = \max\{-v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_3))) \mid b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty),\ C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \neq 0\},
\end{align*}
where ``max'' means the maximum with respect to the lexicographic order $<$ in Definition \ref{d:valuations}. Since $C_{b_1, b_2} ^{(b)} \neq 0$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Key inequalities 2}
-v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) \le -v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))).
\end{align}
Now, by the definition of $v_{\Theta({\bf i})}$ together with the equality $-v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) = (a_{1, 1}, \ldots, a_{r, m_{i_r}})$, the monomial $t_{1, 1} ^{a_{1, 1}} \cdots t_{r, m_{i_r}} ^{a_{r, m_{i_r}}}$ appears in the polynomial $\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b) \in \c[t_{1, 1}, \ldots, t_{r, m_{i_r}}]$. Since $C_{b_1, b_2} ^{(b)} \neq 0$ and $C^{(b_3)} _{b_1, b_2} \in \r_{\ge 0}$ for all $b_3 \in \mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)}(\infty)$, we see by Lemmas \ref{polynomial folding} and \ref{l:positivity lemma} (3) that the monomial \[t_1 ^{a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{1, m_{i_1}}} \cdots t_r ^{a_{r, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}}}\] appears in the polynomial $\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b)) \in \c[t_1, \ldots, t_r]$, which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Key inequalities 3}
\begin{aligned}
-\Omega_{\bf i} (v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) &= (a_{1, 1} + \cdots + a_{1, m_{i_1}}, \ldots, a_{r, 1} + \cdots + a_{r, m_{i_r}})\\
&\le -v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By combining (\ref{Key inequalities 1}), (\ref{Key inequalities 2}), and (\ref{Key inequalities 3}), we conclude that \[\Omega_{\bf i} (v_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) = v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b))) = v_{\bf i}(\pi^\omega _w(\Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_1) \cdot \Xi_{\Theta(w)} ^{\rm up}(b_2))).\] This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
Denote by $P^\prime \subset (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ the subgroup generated by $\varpi_i ^\prime \coloneqq \frac{1}{m_i}\sum_{0 \le k < m_i} \varpi_{\omega^k(i)}$, $i \in \breve{I}$. Since the set $\{h_i ^\prime \mid i \in \breve{I}\}$ is regarded as the set of simple coroots of $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$, the subgroup $P^\prime$ is identified with the weight lattice for $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$; in particular, an element $\lambda \in P \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ gives an integral weight $\hat{\lambda}$ for $\mathfrak{g}^\omega$. Recall that for $w \in \breve{W}$, the Schubert variety $X(w) \subset G^\omega/B^\omega \simeq (G/B)^\omega$ is identified with a Zariski closed subvariety of $X(\Theta(w))$. The inclusion map $X(w) \hookrightarrow X(\Theta(w))$ induces a $B^\omega$-module homomorphism $H^0(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}) \rightarrow H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}})$ (denoted also by $\pi^\omega _w$) for $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$. Now we define $\mathbb{C}$-linear injective maps $\iota_\lambda \colon H^0(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}[U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))]$ and $\iota_{\hat{\lambda}} \colon H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}[(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)]$ as in Lemma \ref{d:iota}. The following is an immediate consequence of the definitions.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}\label{fixed point lambda proposition}
For $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ and $w \in \breve{W}$, the following diagram is commutative$:$
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{\c[U^- \cap X(\Theta(w))] \ar[r]^-{\pi^\omega _w} & \c[(U^-)^\omega \cap X(w)]\\
H^0(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}) \ar@{^{(}->}[u]^-{\iota_\lambda} \ar[r]^-{\pi^\omega _w} & H^0(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}})\ar@{^{(}->}[u]^-{\iota_{\hat{\lambda}}}.}
\end{align*}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
From this, we obtain the following by Propositions \ref{vanishing} (2), \ref{fixed point lambda proposition}, and Theorem \ref{Key proposition 1}.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{inclusion property}
The following equalities hold$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i}(\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda)) \subset \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}),\ {\it and}\\
&\Omega_{\bf i}(\Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda)) \subset \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}).
\end{align*}
\end{cor}\vspace{2mm}
The following is the main result of this paper.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{thm}\label{surjectivity}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in \breve{W}$, and $\lambda \in P_+ \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$. Then the maps
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i} \colon \Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda) \rightarrow \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}})\ {\it and}\\
&\Omega_{\bf i} \colon \Delta(X(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_\lambda, \tilde{v}_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_\lambda) \rightarrow \Delta(X(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, \tilde{v}_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}})
\end{align*}
are surjective.
\end{thm}\vspace{2mm}
In order to prove this theorem, we consider a pair $((\mathfrak{g}, \omega \colon I \rightarrow I), (\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime \colon I^\prime \rightarrow I^\prime))$ of a simply-laced simple Lie algebra and its Dynkin diagram automorphism. We assume that these satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[${\rm (C)}_1$] the fixed point Lie subalgebra $(\mathfrak{g}^\prime)^{\omega^\prime}$ is isomorphic to the orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ associated to $\omega$; this condition implies that the index set $\breve{I}$ for $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ is identified with the index set $\breve{I}^\prime\ (= \breve{(I^\prime)})$ for $(\mathfrak{g}^\prime)^{\omega^\prime}$;
\item[${\rm (C)}_2$] if we set $m_i \coloneqq \min\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \mid \omega^k(i) = i\}$, $i \in \breve{I}$, and $m_i ^\prime \coloneqq \min\{k \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0} \mid (\omega^\prime)^k(i) = i\}$, $i \in \breve{I}^\prime$, then the product $m_i \cdot m_i ^\prime$ is independent of the choice of $i \in \breve{I} \simeq \breve{I}^\prime$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}\begin{rem}\normalfont
Since the orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak g}$ associated to $\omega$ is the (Langlands) dual Lie algebra of the fixed point Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak g}^\omega$, a pair $((\mathfrak{g}, \omega), (\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime))$ satisfies conditions ${\rm (C)}_1$ and ${\rm (C)}_2$ if and only if a pair $((\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime), (\mathfrak{g}, \omega))$ satisfies these.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
The following three figures give the list of nontrivial pairs satisfying conditions ${\rm (C)}_1$ and ${\rm (C)}_2$:
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& A_{2n-1}\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,4) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="B",
\ar@{-} "B";(35,4) \ar@{.} (35,4);(40,4)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (40,4);(45,4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(54,0) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "D";(45,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\ar@{-} "E";(40,-4) \ar@{.} (40,-4);(35,-4)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (35,-4);(30,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="F"
\ar@{-} "F";(20,-4) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[rd]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} & \\
B_n\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(65,0) \ar@{.} (65,0);(70,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (70,0);(75,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{=>} "D";(85,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[ru]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} & & \ar@{-}[ld]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} C_n\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(65,0) \ar@{.} (65,0);(70,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (70,0);(75,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{<=} "D";(85,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy},\\
& \ar@{-}[lu]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} D_{n+1}\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{-} "B";(35,0) \ar@{.} (35,0);(40,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (40,0);(45,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(54,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(54,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{},
\end{xy}&
}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& E_6\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (40,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(21,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "C";(21,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\ar@{-} "D";(11,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "E";(11,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[rd]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} & \\
F_4\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{=>} "B";(70,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(80,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[ru]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} & & \ar@{-}[ld]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} F_4\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="B"
\ar@{<=} "B";(70,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(80,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy},\\
& \ar@{-}[lu]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} E_6\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (20,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(39,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "C";(39,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}="E",
\ar@{-} "D";(49,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "E";(49,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}&
}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& D_4\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (21,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(30,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(21,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(21,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[rd]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} & \\
G_2\ \begin{xy}
\ar@3{->} *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(10,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[ru]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} & & \ar@{-}[ld]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} G_2\ \begin{xy}
\ar@3{<-} *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(10,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}.\\
& \ar@{-}[lu]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} D_4\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (29,0) *++!D{} *\cir<3pt>{};
(20,0) *++!D!R(0.4){} *\cir<3pt>{}="C",
\ar@{-} "C";(29,4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(29,-4) *++!L{} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}&
}
\end{align*}
By this list and Table \ref{table1} in Section 4, we obtain the following.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}
For a simply-laced simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ with a Dynkin diagram automorphism $\omega$, there exists a simply-laced simple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$ with a Dynkin diagram automorphism $\omega^\prime$ such that $((\mathfrak{g}, \omega), (\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime))$ satisfies conditions ${\rm (C)}_1$ and ${\rm (C)}_2$.
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
For simplicity, we consider only the pair $(A_{2n-1}, D_{n+1})$; we note that all the arguments below carry over to the other pairs. Denote the Weyl group of type $A_{2n-1}$ by $W^{A_{2n-1}}$, the Schubert variety of type $A_{2n-1}$ by $X^{A_{2n-1}}(w)$, and so on. We identify $\breve{I} \coloneqq \{1, \ldots, n\}$ with the set of vertices of the Dynkin diagram of type $B_n$, and also with that of type $C_n$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
B_n\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(65,0) \ar@{.} (65,0);(70,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (70,0);(75,0) *++!D{n-1} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{=>} "D";(85,0) *++!D{n} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy}\hspace{-1mm},\\ C_n\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (50,0) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{};
(60,0) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}="C"
\ar@{-} "C";(65,0) \ar@{.} (65,0);(70,0)^*!U{}
\ar@{-} (70,0);(75,0) *++!D{n-1} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{<=} "D";(85,0) *++!D{n} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy}\hspace{-1mm}.
\end{align*}
Note that the Weyl group $W^{B_n}$ is isomorphic to the Weyl group $W^{C_n}$. As we have seen in Section 4, the Weyl group $W^{B_n}\ (\simeq W^{C_n})$ is regarded as a specific subgroup of $W^{A_{2n-1}}$ (resp., of $W^{D_{n+1}}$); let $\Theta \colon W^{B_n} \hookrightarrow W^{A_{2n-1}}$ (resp., $\Theta' \colon W^{B_n} \hookrightarrow W^{D_{n+1}}$) be the inclusion map. Take a reduced word ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in \breve{I}^r$ for $w \in W^{B_n} \simeq W^{C_n}$. The reduced word ${\bf i}$ induces a reduced word $\Theta({\bf i})$ (resp., $\Theta'({\bf i})$) for $\Theta(w)$ (resp., for $\Theta'(w)$); see Section 4. By Corollary \ref{Key corollary 1} and Theorem \ref{Key proposition 1}, we obtain the following diagrams; we denote the map $\Omega_{\bf i} \colon \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{A_{2n-1}} _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)) \rightarrow \Phi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{C_n} _w(\infty))$ by $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}$, the map $\Upsilon_{\bf i} \colon \Phi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{B_n} _w(\infty)) \rightarrow \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{A_{2n-1}} _{\Theta(w)}(\infty))$ by $\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}$, and so on.
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{A_{2n-1}} _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)) \ar@{->}[rd]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}} & \\
\Phi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{B_n} _w(\infty)) \ar@{^{(}->}[ru]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}} & & \ar@{^{(}->}[ld]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}} \Phi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{C_n} _w(\infty)),\\
& \ar@{->}[lu]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B}} \Phi_{\Theta'({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{D_{n+1}} _{\Theta'(w)}(\infty))&
}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& \Psi_{\Theta({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{A_{2n-1}} _{\Theta(w)}(\infty)) \ar@{->}[rd]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}} & \\
\Psi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{B_n} _w(\infty)) \ar@{^{(}->}[ru]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}} & & \ar@{^{(}->}[ld]^-{\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}} \Psi_{\bf i} (\mathcal{B}^{C_n} _w(\infty)).\\
& \ar@{->}[lu]^-{\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B}} \Psi_{\Theta'({\bf i})} (\mathcal{B}^{D_{n+1}} _{\Theta'(w)}(\infty))&
}
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{surjectivity}]
We give a proof of the assertion only for the map \[\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \colon \Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}} (\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{\lambda}) \rightarrow \Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}});\] the proofs for the other cases are similar. Because
\begin{align*}
&\Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}}(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{2\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{2\lambda}) = 2\Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}}(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{\lambda})\ {\rm and}\\
&\Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{2\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{2\hat{\lambda}}) = 2\Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}),
\end{align*}
it suffices to prove that the map
\begin{equation}\label{goal of surjectivity}
\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \colon \Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}}(\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{2\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{2\lambda}) \rightarrow \Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{2\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{2\hat{\lambda}})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
is surjective. By the definitions of $\Omega_{\bf i}$ and $\Upsilon_{\bf i}$, we see that $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A} (a_1, \ldots, a_r) = (a_1 ^\prime, \ldots, a_r ^\prime)$ and $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D} (a_1, \ldots, a_r) = (a'' _1, \ldots, a'' _r)$ for $(a_1, \ldots, a_r) \in \r^r$, where
\begin{equation}\label{explicit description of composite}
\begin{aligned}
&a_k ^\prime \coloneqq \begin{cases}
2a_k\quad(i_k = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
a_k\quad\ (i_k = n),
\end{cases}\\
&a'' _k \coloneqq \begin{cases}
a_k\quad\ (i_k = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
2a_k\quad(i_k = n)
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for $k = 1, \ldots, r$. From these, it follows that the composite map $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A} \circ \Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}$ is identical to $2 \cdot {\rm id}_{\r^r}$. This implies that the map \[\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A} \circ \Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D} \colon \Delta(X^{C_n} (w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}) \rightarrow \Delta(X^{C_n} (w), \mathcal{L}_{2\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{2\hat{\lambda}})\] doubles each of the coordinates, and hence is surjective. Therefore, the map \eqref{goal of surjectivity} is also surjective. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}\normalfont
Consider the case $n = 2$:
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix{
& A_3\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (45,4) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{};(54,0) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}="D"
\ar@{-} "D";(45,-4) *++!U{3} *\cir<3pt>{}="E"
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[rd]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} & \\
B_2\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{=>} (75,0) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{}="C";(85,0) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy} \ar@{-}[ru]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} & & \ar@{-}[ld]^-{\substack{{\rm orbit}\\{\rm Lie\ algebra}}} C_2\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{<=} (75,0) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{}="C";(85,0) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}
\end{xy}.\\
& \ar@{-}[lu]^-{\substack{{\rm fixed\ point}\\{\rm Lie\ subalgebra}}} D_3\ \begin{xy}
\ar@{-} (45,0) *++!D{1} *\cir<3pt>{}="C";(54,4) *++!D{2} *\cir<3pt>{}
\ar@{-} "C";(54,-4) *++!U{3} *\cir<3pt>{},
\end{xy}&
}
\end{align*}
Set ${\bf i} \coloneqq (1, 2, 1) \in \breve{I}^3$; this is a reduced word for $w \coloneqq s_1 s_2 s_1 \in W^{B_2} \simeq W^{C_2}$. By the definitions of $\Theta$ and $\Theta'$, we have $\Theta({\bf i}) = (1, 3, 2, 1, 3)$ and $\Theta'({\bf i}) = (1, 2, 3, 1)$. Then, it follows from \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit} that
\begin{align*}
&\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^{A_3}(\infty)) = \{(a_1, \ldots, a_5) \in \z_{\ge 0} ^5 \mid a_3 \ge a_4,\ a_3 \ge a_5\},\\
&\Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{B_2}(\infty)) = \{(a_1, a_2, a_3) \in \z_{\ge 0} ^3 \mid a_2 \ge a_3\},\\
&\Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{C_2}(\infty)) = \{(a_1, a_2, a_3) \in \z_{\ge 0} ^3 \mid 2 a_2 \ge a_3\},\\
&\Phi_{\Theta'({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta'(w)} ^{D_3}(\infty)) = \{(a_1, \ldots, a_4) \in \z_{\ge 0} ^4 \mid a_2 + a_3 \ge a_4\}.
\end{align*}
In addition, the maps $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \colon \r^5 \twoheadrightarrow \r^3$, $\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A} \colon \r^3 \hookrightarrow \r^5$, $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \colon \r^4 \twoheadrightarrow \r^3$, and $\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D} \colon \r^3 \hookrightarrow \r^4$ are given by
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}(a_1, \ldots, a_5) \coloneqq (a_1 + a_2, a_3, a_4 + a_5),\ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}(a_1, a_2, a_3) \coloneqq (a_1, a_1, a_2, a_3, a_3),\\
&\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B}(a_1, \ldots, a_4) \coloneqq (a_1, a_2 + a_3, a_4),\ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}(a_1, a_2, a_3) \coloneqq (a_1, a_2, a_2, a_3).
\end{align*}
Through the map $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}$, the conditions $a_3 \ge a_4,\ a_3 \ge a_5$ for $\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^{A_3}(\infty))$ correspond to the condition $2 a_2 \ge a_3$ for $\Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{C_2}(\infty))$; hence we see that $\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}(\Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^{A_3}(\infty))) = \Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{C_2}(\infty))$. Similarly, we observe that the following equalities hold:
\begin{align*}
&\Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B}(\Phi_{\Theta'({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta'(w)} ^{D_3}(\infty))) = \Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{B_2}(\infty)),\\
&\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}(\Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{B_2}(\infty))) = \{(a_1, \ldots, a_5) \in \Phi_{\Theta({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta(w)} ^{A_3}(\infty)) \mid a_1 = a_2,\ a_4 = a_5\},\\
&\Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}(\Phi_{\bf i}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{C_2}(\infty))) = \{(a_1, \ldots, a_4) \in \Phi_{\Theta'({\bf i})}(\mathcal{B}_{\Theta'(w)} ^{D_3}(\infty)) \mid a_2 = a_3\}.
\end{align*}
Take $\lambda \in P_+ ^{A_3} \cap (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ and set $\lambda_i \coloneqq \langle\lambda, h_i ^{A_3}\rangle$ for $i = 1, 2, 3$. The condition $\lambda \in (\mathfrak{t}^\ast)^0$ implies that $\lambda_1 = \lambda_3$. By the definition of $\hat{\lambda}$, it follows that $\langle\hat{\lambda}, h_1 ^{C_2}\rangle = 2 \lambda_1 = 2 \lambda_3$ and $\langle\hat{\lambda}, h_2 ^{C_2}\rangle = \lambda_2$. Therefore, we see from Proposition \ref{string polytopes} (2) and \cite[Sect.\ 1]{Lit} that $-\Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}} (\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{\lambda})$ (resp., $-\Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}})$) is given by the following conditions:
\begin{align*}
&(a_1, \ldots, a_5) \in \r_{\ge 0} ^5,\ a_3 \ge a_4,\ a_3 \ge a_5,\ a_5 \le \lambda_1,\ a_4 \le \lambda_1,\\
&a_3 \le \lambda_2 + a_4 + a_5,\ a_2 \le \lambda_1 + a_3 - 2a_5,\ a_1 \le \lambda_1 + a_3 -2a_4\\
({\rm resp.},\ &(a_1, a_2, a_3) \in \r_{\ge 0} ^3,\ 2 a_2 \ge a_3,\ a_3 \le 2 \lambda_1,\ a_2 \le \lambda_2 + a_3,\ a_1 \le 2 \lambda_1 + 2a_2 -2a_3).
\end{align*}
Hence it follows that \[\Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C}(\Delta(X^{A_{2n-1}} (\Theta(w)), \mathcal{L}_{\lambda}, v_{\Theta({\bf i})}, \tau_{\lambda})) = \Delta(X^{C_n}(w), \mathcal{L}_{\hat{\lambda}}, v_{\bf i}, \tau_{\hat{\lambda}}).\]
\end{ex}\vspace{2mm}
\section{Relation with similarity of crystal bases}
In this section, we study the relation of the folding procedure discussed in Sections 4, 5 with a similarity of crystal bases.
First we review (a variant of) a similarity property of crystal bases, following \cite[Sect.\ 5]{Kas5}. Let $\mathfrak{g}, I, P, \{\alpha_i, h_i \mid i \in I\}$ be as in Section 2, and take $m_i \in \z_{>0}$ for every $i \in I$. We set $\tilde{\alpha}_i \coloneqq m_i \alpha_i$, $\tilde{h}_i \coloneqq \frac{1}{m_i} h_i$ for $i \in I$, and denote by $\widetilde{P} \subset P$ the set of those $\lambda \in P$ such that $\langle\lambda, \tilde{h}_i\rangle \in \mathbb{Z}$ for all $i \in I$. We impose the following condition on $\{m_i \mid i \in I\}$:
\[\tilde{\alpha}_i \in \widetilde{P}\ {\rm for\ all}\ i \in I.\]
Then, it is easily seen that the matrix $(\langle \tilde{\alpha}_j, \tilde{h}_i\rangle)_{i, j \in I}$ is an indecomposable Cartan matrix of finite type. Let $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$ be the corresponding simple Lie algebra. Note that the set $\widetilde{P}$ is identified with the weight lattice for $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$. Let us write $\mathcal{B}(\infty)$ for $\mathfrak{g}$ as $\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{g}}(\infty)$, $\mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ for ${\mathfrak g}$ as $\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{g}}(\lambda)$, and so on.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}[{see the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Kas5}}]\label{similarity existence}
There exists a unique map $S_\infty \colon \mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{g}^\prime}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{g}}(\infty)$ satisfying the following conditions$:$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $S_\infty (b_\infty ^{\mathfrak{g}^\prime}) = b_\infty ^{\mathfrak{g}}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $S_\infty (\tilde{X}_i b) = \tilde{X}_i ^{m_i} S_\infty (b)$ for all $i \in I$, $b \in \mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{g}^\prime}(\infty)$, and $X \in \{e, f\}$, where $S_\infty(0) \coloneqq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}\vspace{2mm}
If $\mathfrak{g}$ is of type $B_n$ and $(m_1, \ldots, m_{n-1}, m_n) = (1, \ldots, 1, 2)$, then $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$ is the simple Lie algebra of type $C_n$. Conversely, if $\mathfrak{g}$ is of type $C_n$ and $(m_1, \ldots, m_{n-1}, m_n) = (2, \ldots, 2, 1)$, then $\mathfrak{g}^\prime$ is the simple Lie algebra of type $B_n$. Hence we obtain the following.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{cor}\label{similarity existence B,C}
The following hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (1)}] There exists a unique map $S_\infty ^{B, C} \colon \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}^{C_n}(\infty)$ satisfying the following conditions$:$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $S_\infty ^{B, C}(b_\infty ^{B_n}) = b_\infty ^{C_n}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $S_\infty ^{B, C}(\tilde{X}_i b) = \begin{cases}
\widetilde{X}_i ^2 S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)\quad(i = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
\widetilde{X}_n S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)\quad(i = n)
\end{cases}$\\
for all $b \in \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty)$ and $X \in \{e, f\}$, where $S_\infty ^{B, C}(0) \coloneqq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (2)}] There exists a unique map $S_\infty ^{C, B} \colon \mathcal{B}^{C_n}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty)$ satisfying the following conditions$:$
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $S_\infty ^{C, B}(b_\infty ^{C_n}) = b_\infty ^{B_n}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $S_\infty ^{C, B}(\tilde{X}_{i}b) = \begin{cases}
\widetilde{X}_i S_\infty ^{C, B}(b)\quad(i = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
\widetilde{X}_n ^2 S_\infty ^{C, B}(b)\quad(i = n)
\end{cases}$\\
for all $b \in \mathcal{B}^{C_n}(\infty)$ and $X \in \{e, f\}$, where $S_\infty ^{C, B}(0) \coloneqq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}\vspace{2mm}
It is easily seen that the composite map $S_\infty ^{C, B} \circ S_\infty ^{B, C}$ is identical to the map $S_2 ^{B} \colon \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty)$ given by the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $S_2 ^{B}(b_\infty ^{B_n}) = b_\infty ^{B_n}$,
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $S_2 ^{B}(\tilde{X}_i b) = \tilde{X}_i ^2 S_2 ^{B}(b)$ for all $i \in I$, $b \in \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty)$, and $X \in \{e, f\}$, where $S_2 ^B(0) \coloneqq 0$,
\item[{\rm (iii)}] $\varepsilon_i(S_2 ^{B}(b)) = 2 \varepsilon_i(b)$ and $\varphi_i(S_2 ^{B}(b)) = 2 \varphi_i(b)$ for all $i \in I$ and $b \in \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty);$
\end{enumerate}
see also \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Kas5}. Similar result holds for the composite map $S_\infty ^{B, C} \circ S_\infty ^{C, B} \colon \mathcal{B}^{C_n}(\infty) \rightarrow \mathcal{B}^{C_n}(\infty)$. Recall that the Weyl group of type $B_n$ is isomorphic to that of type $C_n$. By conditions (i) and (ii) in Corollary \ref{similarity existence B,C} (1) (resp., (2)), it follows that \[S_\infty ^{B, C}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{B_n}(\infty)) \subset \mathcal{B}_w ^{C_n}(\infty)\ {\rm (resp.,}\ S_\infty ^{C, B}(\mathcal{B}_w ^{C_n}(\infty)) \subset \mathcal{B}_w ^{B_n}(\infty))\] for all $w \in W^{B_n} \simeq W^{C_n}$.
\vspace{2mm}\begin{prop}\label{p:last proposition}
Let ${\bf i} = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) \in I^r$ be a reduced word for $w \in W^{B_n} \simeq W^{C_n}$. Then the following equalities hold for all $b \in \mathcal{B}^{B_n} _w(\infty)$ and $b^\prime \in \mathcal{B}^{C_n}_w(\infty)$$:$
\begin{align*}
&\Phi_{\bf i}(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)) = \Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A}(\Phi_{\bf i}(b)),\ \Phi_{\bf i}(S_\infty ^{C, B}(b^\prime)) = \Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D}(\Phi_{\bf i} (b^\prime)),\ {\it and}\\
&\Psi_{\bf i}(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)) = \Omega_{\bf i} ^{A, C} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{B, A} (\Psi_{\bf i} (b)),\ \Psi_{\bf i}(S_\infty ^{C, B}(b^\prime)) = \Omega_{\bf i} ^{D, B} \circ \Upsilon_{\bf i} ^{C, D} (\Psi_{\bf i} (b^\prime)).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove the assertion only for $S_\infty ^{B, C}$; the proof of the assertion for $S_\infty ^{C, B}$ is similar. By equation (\ref{explicit description of composite}) in the proof of Theorem \ref{surjectivity}, it suffices to prove that
\begin{align*}
&\varepsilon_i(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)) = \begin{cases}
2\varepsilon_i (b)\quad(i = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
\varepsilon_i (b)\quad\ (i = n),\end{cases}\\
&\varepsilon_i(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)^\ast) = \begin{cases}
2\varepsilon_i (b^\ast)\quad(i = 1, \ldots, n-1),\\
\varepsilon_i (b^\ast)\quad\ (i = n)\end{cases}
\end{align*}
for all $b \in \mathcal{B}^{B_n}(\infty)$. The assertion for $\varepsilon_i(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)^\ast)$ follows immediately from the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Kas5}. We will prove the assertion for $\varepsilon_i(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b))$. If $i = n$, then this is obvious by condition (ii) in Corollary \ref{similarity existence B,C} (1). For $i = 1, \ldots, n-1$, we see by condition (ii) in Corollary \ref{similarity existence B,C} (1) that \[\tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)}S_\infty ^{B, C}(b) = S_\infty ^{B, C}(\tilde{e}_i ^{\varepsilon_i(b)}b) \neq 0.\] Suppose, for a contradiction, that $\tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)+1}S_\infty ^{B, C}(b) \neq 0$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)+1}S_2 ^{B}(b) &= \tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)+1}S_\infty ^{C, B} \circ S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)\\
&= S_\infty ^{C, B}(\tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)+1}S_\infty ^{B, C}(b))\quad({\rm by\ condition\ (ii)\ in\ Corollary}\ \ref{similarity existence B,C}\ {\rm (2)})\\
&\neq 0,
\end{align*}
which contradicts condition (iii) for $S^{B} _2$ above. Therefore, the equality $\tilde{e}_i ^{2 \varepsilon_i(b)+1}S_\infty ^{B, C}(b) = 0$ holds. From these, we deduce that $\varepsilon_i(S_\infty ^{B, C}(b)) = 2\varepsilon_i(b)$. This proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\normalfont
Proposition \ref{p:last proposition} is naturally extended to an arbitrary pair $((\mathfrak{g}, \omega), (\mathfrak{g}^\prime, \omega^\prime))$ satisfying conditions ${\rm (C)}_1$ and ${\rm (C)}_2$ in Section 5.
\end{rem}\vspace{2mm}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
Relativistic heavy ion collisions at the RHIC and LHC
have produced a very hot and dense pocket of nuclear matter, known as quark gluon plasma (QGP) \cite{Gyulassy:2004zy}.
Many experimental studies have been done in order to characterize the important properties of such matter produced
under extreme conditions of temperature and density. The transport coefficients for strongly interacting matter are essential theoretical
inputs for hydrodynamic evolution that are critical tools to analyze the heavy ion collision data \cite{Gale:2013da,Schenke:2011zz,Heinz:2013}.
In relativistic hydrodynamic simulations
the shear and bulk viscosity coefficients influence various observables like the flow coefficients, the transverse momentum
distribution of produced particles. Indeed, a finite but very small shear viscosity to entropy ratio ($\eta/s$)
was necessary to explain elliptic flow data that stimulated extensive theoretical studies of this ratio for strongly interacting
matter.
The transport coefficient viz. shear viscosity ($ \eta $), in principle, can be estimated directly using the Kubo formulation~\cite{kubo}. However,
given that QCD is strongly coupled for energies accessible in heavy ion collision experiments, this task is complicated. Further, lattice simulations at finite chemical potentials have been challenging and are limited only to small baryon chemical potential. This has lead to attempts
to estimate shear viscosity in various effective models~\cite{Sasaki:2008fg,Dobado:2008vt,Chakraborty:2010fr,Plumari:2012ep, Zhuang:1995uf,Wiranata:2012br, Ghosh:2014yea} involving different approximation schemes.
These include relaxation time approximations to the Boltzmann equation~\cite{Danielewicz:1984ww,Khvorostukhin:2010aj,Heckmann:2012wqa, Ghosh:2013cba,Deb:2016myz,Jaiswal:2015mxa}, Kubo formalism of evaluating equilibrium correlation functions~\cite{Defu:2005hb,Iwasaki:2007iv,Alberico:2007fu,Qin:2014dqa,Lang:2013lla,Lang:2015nca,Ghosh:2015mda},
transport simulation of Boltzmann equation~\cite{Xu:2007ns,Marty:2013ita,Puglisi:2014sha,Plumari:2012ep}, the perturbative QCD methods~\cite{Heiselberg:1994vy,Arnold:2000dr,Arnold:2003zc,Hidaka:2008dr,Chen:2013tra, Greif:2014oia,Hattori:2016cnt,Hattori:2016lqx}, as well as lattice methods~\cite{Meyer:2007ic,Meyer:2009jp}.
Another key transport coefficient is the electrical
conductivity ($\sigma_{el}$) of the
strongly interacting matter. This enters in the hydrodynamic evolution of quark gluon matter where charge
relaxation also plays an important role. It is also observed that the electrical conductivity of QGP influences significantly
the soft photon production through a realistic hydrodynamic simulation~\cite{Yin:2013kya} as well as in low mass dilepton enhancement~\cite{Akamatsu:2011mw}. Further, it also suggested that the electrical conductivity can be extracted from charge dependent flow parameters
from asymmetric heavy ion collisions~\cite{Hirono:2012rt}.
The longitudinal static electric conductivity $\sigma_{el}$
represents the linear response of the electrically charged particle diffusion current density $ \bf J $ to an applied external electric field $ \bf E $, i.e.,
${\bf J}= \sigma_{el} {\bf E } $.
After evaluating the induced electric current one can calculate the proportionality coefficient $ \sigma_{el} $.
Electrical conductivity can be derived from the Green-Kubo formula
and is related to the correlation function for a system in thermal equilibrium, i.e., $ \sigma_{\rm{el}} =\beta V\langle \vec{J}(t=0)\cdot\vec{J}(t=0)\rangle\cdot \tau$ ~\cite{green,kubo}.
Experimentally, it has been observed that very strong electric and magnetic field is created
in non-central heavy ion collision at the RHIC and LHC in the early stage (1-2 fm/c) of the collision~\cite{Tuchin:2013ie,Hirono:2012rt}.
The produced large electrical field affects the medium and its effect depends on the $ \sigma_{el} $ of the medium.
Electrical conductivity is responsible for the production of electric
current in the early stage of the collision. It is of fundamental importance for the strength of chiral magnetic
effect~\cite{Fukushima:2008xe}, a signature of CP-violation of the
strong interaction.
Recently, electric conductivity has been studied by different groups~\cite{Arnold:2000dr,Arnold:2003zc,Gupta:2004,Aarts:2007wj,Buividovich:2010tn,Ding:2010ga,Burnier:2012ts,Brandt:2012jc,Amato:2013naa,Cassing:2013iz,Steinert:2013fza,Puglisi:2014pda,Finazzo:2013efa,Mitra:2016zdw,Srivastava:2015via}.
It is related to the soft dilepton production rate ~\cite{Moore:2006qn} and the magnetic field diffusion in the medium ~\cite{Baym:1997gq,Fernandez-Fraile2006}. $ \sigma_{el} $ helps us to compare the effective cross sections of a medium's constituents among several theories, including lattice gauge theory ~\cite{Gupta:2004,Aarts:2007wj,Buividovich:2010tn,Ding:2010ga,Burnier:2012ts,Brandt:2012jc,Amato:2013naa,Aarts:2014nba,Astrakhantsev:2017nrs}, transport models ~\cite{Cassing:2013iz,Steinert:2013fza}, and Dyson-Schwinger calculations \cite{Qin:2013aaa}.
It can also be computed on the lattice from the correlation function. Thus, the study of transport coefficients is of great interest to measure the properties of strongly interacting matter.
One of the important observations
of HICs is that the parton system generated at the early stage of the collisions
has a strong anisotropy in momentum space due to the
different expanding rate of the longitudinal and transverse directions~\cite{Romatschke:2003ms}.
In HICs the longitudinal expansion is much faster than the transverse expansion, which causes
the medium to become much colder in the longitudinal
direction than the transverse direction, {\em i.e.},
$k_{\perp}\gg k_{z}\sim 1/\tau$ and a local momentum anisotropy
appears \cite{Baier:plb502}.
Anisotropy causes the parton system produced to be
unstable with respect to the chromomagnetic plasma modes~\cite{Romatschke:2003ms}
that facilitate one to isotropize the system~\cite{Arnold:2004ti,Mrowczynski:1993qm}.
In recent years the study of anisotropic plasma has received much interest due to the fact that the QGP, which has a local momentum-space anisotropy, is subject to the chromo-Weibel instability
\cite{Romatschke:2003ms,Arnold:2004ti,Strickland:2007fm,Mrowczynski:2000ed,
Randrup:2003cw,Arnold:2003rq,Romatschke:2004jh,Mrowczynski:2004kv,
Rebhan:prl94,Arnold:2005vb,Rebhan:2005re,Romatschke:2005pm,Schenke:2006xu,
Schenke:2006fz,Manuel:2006hg,Bodeker:2007fw,Romatschke:2006nk,
Romatschke:2006wg,Dumitru:2005gp,Dumitru:2006pz,Rebhan:2008uj}.
The effects of these instabilities are not very clear, but
they are very important for the QGP evolution at the RHIC or LHC.
In recent years, the effect of anisotropy has also been studied to investigate the properties of
quarkonium states ~\cite{Dumitru:2007hy,Dumitru:2009ni,Burnier:2009yu,Dumitru:2009fy,Margotta:2011ta,Thakur:2012eb,Thakur:2013nia}. It will be interesting to study its effects on the properties of the QGP system.
Thus, it is important to include the momentum-space anisotropic effects in
the calculation of transport coefficients.
In this context the ratio $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ has gained attention recently in the heavy ion phenomenology~\cite{Puglisi:2014pda}. It is quite natural to expect that QGP is a good conductor due to deconfinement of the color charges. But a small value of the ratio $\eta/s$ indicates large scattering rates that can largely damp the conductivity especially due to chargeless gluons. Our main purpose in this work is to estimate the ratio $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ for the isotropic as well as anisotropic QGP phase by solving a Boltzmann kinetic equation in relaxation time approximation (RTA). We use the quasiparticle model \cite{Peshier:2002ww,Bannur:2006ww,Srivastava:2010xa,Peshier:1999ww}, which provides a reasonable transport and thermodynamical behavior of the QGP phase.
We organize the paper as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:Shear viscosity}, we calculate the shear viscosity and entropy density in anisotropic medium using the relativistic kinetic theory.
In Sec. \ref{sec:Electrical Conductivity}, we calculate the electrical conductivity in the anisotropic QGP medium using the Boltzmann equation in RTA.
In Sec. \ref{sec:Quasiparticle and Bag Model}, we discuss the distribution function in the quasiparticle as well as in the ideal case. Finally, in Sec. \ref{sec:results and discussions} we discuss our results regarding shear viscosity, entropy density, and electrical conductivity. We compare our results with the lattice as well as other phenomenological calculations and give the conclusion drawn from our work.
\section{Shear viscosity and Entropy density}
\label{sec:Shear viscosity}
The relativistic Boltzmann transport (RBT) equation has been used to calculate the shear viscosity and entropy density.
The Boltzmann transport equation for a single particle distribution function $ f(x,k) $ can be written as~\cite{Groot}
\begin{equation}
k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} f(x,k)=C[f],
\label{boltzmann1}
\end{equation}
where $ C[f] $ is a collision term. The shear viscosity, $ \eta $, is admissible when the equilibrium distribution $ f^{0} $ varies in space and the velocity gradient is non-zero ($ \partial_{i}u_{i}\neq 0 $).
The stress energy tensor ($ T^{\mu\nu} $) is shifted by a small amount that is proportional to this velocity gradient.
\begin{equation}
\Delta T^{\mu\nu}=T^{\mu\nu}-T_{(0)}^{\mu\nu},
\end{equation}
where $ T_{(0)}^{\mu\nu} $ is the energy-momentum tensor for the system in local equilibrium~\cite{Hosoya:1983xm}.
\begin{equation}\label{key}
T_{(0)}^{\mu\nu}=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3E}k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\left\{ g_{f}f^{0}(x,k) +g_{f}\bar{f}^{0}(x,k)+g_{b}b^{0}(x,k)\right\},
\end{equation}
and $ T^{\mu\nu} $ is
\begin{equation}
T^{\mu\nu}=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3E}k^{\mu}k^{\nu}\left\{ g_{f}f(x,k) +g_{f}\bar{f}(x,k)+g_{b}b(x,k)\right\};
\end{equation}
here $ f(x,k)( {\bar f(x,k)} $) and $ b(x,k) $ are the distribution functions for quarks (antiquarks) and gluons. $ g_{f} $ and $ g_{b} $ are the degeneracy factors for quarks and gluons.
Therefore, $ \Delta T^{\mu\nu} $ becomes
\begin{equation}
\Delta T^{\mu\nu}=\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3E}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} \left\{ g_{f}\delta f(x,k) +g_{\bar{f}}\delta \bar{f}(x,k)
+ g_{b}\delta b(x,k)\right\}.
\label{deltaT}
\end{equation}
In relaxation time approximation, $ C[f] $ in Eq. (\ref{boltzmann1}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
C[f]=-\frac{k^{\mu}u_{\mu}}{\tau_{f}} (f-f^{0}),
\end{equation}
where $ f^{0} $ is the equilibrium distribution function for quarks. Assuming that the distribution function ($f$) is not very far from its equilibrium distribution ($ f^{0} $). Thus, $f$ can be taken as $f=f^{0}+\delta f $ and
in this approximation Eq. (\ref{boltzmann1}) becomes
\begin{equation}
k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} f(x,k) = -\frac{k^{\mu}u_{\mu}}{\tau_{f}} \delta f.
\label{RBT0}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for antiquarks and gluons having equilibrium distribution functions, $\bar {f^{0}} $ and $ b^{0} $, Eq. (\ref{boltzmann1}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} \bar {f}(x,k) = -\frac{k^{\mu}u_{\mu}}{\tau_{\bar {f}}} \delta \bar {f},\\
k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} b(x,k) = -\frac{k^{\mu}u_{\mu}}{\tau_{b}} \delta b.
\label{RBT00}
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting $ \delta f,\delta \bar {f} $ and $ \delta b $ from Eqs. (\ref{RBT0})-(\ref{RBT00}) into
Eq.(\ref{deltaT}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta T^{\mu\nu}&=&-\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3E}\frac{k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}{k.u}\bigg\{ g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}k^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}f(x,k)+ g_{f}\tau_{{}_{\bar{f}}}k^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}\bar{f}(x,k)
+ g_{{}_b}\tau_{{}_b}k^{\alpha}\partial_{\alpha}b(x,k)\bigg\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \tau_{f} ( \tau_{\bar{f}}) $ and $ \tau_{b}$ are the relaxation time for quarks (antiquarks) and gluons respectively. Momentum density, $ T^{0i} $, is small in a local Lorentz frame
and the space-space component of energy momentum tensor $\Delta T^{ij} $ depends linearly on the gradients of local three velocity as~\cite{Hosoya:1983xm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta T^{ij}&=&\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3E}k^{i}k^{j}\frac{1}{T}\Bigg[ \bigg\{g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})
+ g_{f}\tau_{{}_{\bar{f}}}\bar{f}^{0}(1-\bar{f}^{0})
+ g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}b^{0}(1+b^{0})\bigg\}
\Bigg\{ \bigg\{E{\left(\frac{\partial k}{\partial \epsilon}\right)}_{n}\nonumber\\
&-&{\bf k}^{2}/3E\bigg\}\partial_{l}u^{l}
-\frac{k^{k}k^{l}}{2E}W_{kl}\Bigg\}
+\bigg\{g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})
+ g_{{\bar{f}}}\tau_{{}_{\bar{f}}}\bar{f}^{0}(1-\bar{f}^{0})\bigg\}
\times\left(\frac{\partial k}{\partial n}\right){\epsilon}\partial_{l}u^{l}\Bigg],
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \varepsilon $ and $ n $ are the energy density and number density. The shear $ \eta $ and bulk $ \zeta $ viscosities (we do not discuss the bulk viscosity, $\zeta $) are defined as
\begin{equation}
\Delta T^{ij}=-\zeta\delta_{ij}\partial_{k}u^{k}-\eta W_{ij}\label{etaeq},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
W_{ij}=\partial_{i}u^{j}+\partial_{j}u^{i}-\frac{2}{3}\delta_{ij}\partial_{k}u^{k}
\end{equation}
We can calculate the proportionality constant, $ \eta $,
at zero chemical potential using Eq. (\ref{etaeq}) for the isotropic medium as
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{iso}&=&\frac{1}{15T}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{k^{4}}{E^{2}}\large\{ 2g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})+g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}b^{0}(1+b^{0})\large\},
\end{eqnarray}
where the equilibrium distribution functions for quark, $ f^{0} $, and gluon, $ b^{0} $, at $ \mu=0 $ can be written as :
\begin{equation}
f^{0}(x,{\bf k};T)=\frac{1}{e^{\sqrt{({\bf k}^{2}+m^{2})}/T}+1},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
b^{0}(x,{\bf k};T)=\frac{1}{e^{\sqrt{({\bf k}^{2}+m^{2})}/T}-1}.
\end{equation}
At finite chemical potential ($ \mu \neq 0 $), the
distribution function is different for quarks and antiquarks.
\begin{equation}
f^{0}({\bar f^{0}})=\frac{1}{e^{(E\pm\mu)/T}+1},
\end{equation}
where $ E^{2}=k^{2}+m^{2} $ and the -(+) sign is for quarks (antiquarks).\\
Shear viscosity at $ \mu\neq 0 $
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{iso}&=&\frac{1}{15T}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{k^{4}}{E^{2}}\large\{ g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})+g_{\bar{f}}\tau_{{}_{\bar{f}}}{\bar{f}}^{0}(1-{\bar{f}}^{0})
+g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}b^{0}(1+b^{0})\large\}.
\end{eqnarray}
As we discussed earlier we are considering the anisotropic QGP medium for our calculation. The hot QCD plasma due to expansion and non-zero viscosity, exhibits a local anisotropy in momentum space that is given by~\cite{Romatschke:2003ms}
\begin{equation}
{\bf\tilde{k}}^{2} = \mathbf{k}^{2} + \xi(\mathbf{k}.\mathbf{\hat{n}})^{2},
\end{equation}
where $ \xi $ is the anisotropic parameter and generically defined as follows~\cite{Romatschke:2003ms}:
\begin{equation}
\xi=\frac{\langle {\bf k}_{T}^{2}\rangle}{2\langle k_{L}^{2}\rangle}-1,
\end{equation}
where ${ k}_{L}$ and ${\mathbf k}_{T}$
are the components of momentum parallel and perpendicular to the direction of anisotropy, $ {\mathbf n} $, respectively.
The distribution function of quarks in an anisotropic system takes the following form at $\mu=0$,
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm{aniso}} (x,{\bf k};T)=\frac{1}{e^{(\sqrt{{\bf k}^{2}
+ \xi({\bf k}.{\bf n})^{2}+ m^{2}})/T}+1}.
\label{anisof3}
\end{equation}
and the distribution function for the gluon in anisotropic medium can be written as:
\begin{equation}
b_{\rm{aniso}} (x,{\bf k};T)=\frac{1}{e^{(\sqrt{{\bf k}^{2}
+ \xi({\bf k}.{\bf n})^{2}+ m^{2}})/T}-1},
\label{anisob3}
\end{equation}
For small $ \xi $ limit ($\xi < 1$), Eqs. (\ref{anisof3}) and (\ref{anisob3}) can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm{aniso}} (x,{\bf k};T)=f^{0}-\frac{\xi}{2E_{f}T}e^{E_{f}/T}{f^{0}}^{2}({\bf {k\cdot n}})^{2},
\label{anisob2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
b_{\rm{aniso}} (x,{\bf k};T)=b^{0}-\frac{\xi}{2E_{b}T}e^{E_{b}/T}{b^{0}}^{2}({\bf {k\cdot n}})^{2},
\label{anisof2}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf {k\cdot n}} =k\sin\theta\sin\phi\sin\alpha+k\cos\theta\cos\alpha$. $ \alpha $ is the angle between $ {\mathbf n} $ and the z-axis.
Nonequilibrium corrections can be computed by expanding the distribution function around equilibrium \cite{Groot}.
For the anisotropic distribution function, Eq. (\ref{anisof3}), the expression for shear viscosity, $ \eta $, becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{aniso}&=&\frac{g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}}{15T\pi^2}\int dk \frac{k^{6}}{E_{f}^{2}}\left\{ f^{0}(1-f^{0})\right\}+\frac{g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}}{30T\pi^2}\int dk \frac{k^{6}}{E_{b}^{2}}\left\{ b^{0}(1+b^{0})\right\}
-\frac{g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}}{45T\pi^2}\xi\int dk \frac{k^{8}}{E_{f}^{2}}\nonumber\\
&\times&\Bigg\{ f^{0}(1-f^{0})
\frac{1} {2E_{f}T}-\frac{(f^{0})^2}{E_{f}T}\Bigg\}
-\frac{g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}}{90T\pi^2}\xi\int dk \frac{k^{8}}{E_{b}^{2}}\Bigg\{ b^{0}(1+b^{0})\frac{1}{2E_{b}T}
+\frac{(b^{0})^2}{E_{b}T}\Bigg\}.
\end{eqnarray}
and at finite chemical potential ($ \mu\neq 0 $)
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{aniso}&=&\frac{1}{30T\pi^2}\int dk \frac{k^{6}}{E_{f}^{2}}\bigg\{ g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})+g_{\bar{f}}\tau_{{}_{\bar{f}}}{\bar{f}}^{0}(1-{\bar{f}}^{0}\bigg\}
+\frac{g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}}{30T\pi^2}
\int dk \frac{k^{6}}{E_{b}^{2}}\left\{ b^{0}(1+b^{0})\right\}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{90T\pi^2}\xi
\int dk \frac{k^{8}}{E_{f}^{2}}\Bigg\{ g_{f}\tau_{{}_f}\bigg( f^{0}(1-f^{0})\frac{1} {2E_{f}T}
-\frac{(f^{0})^2}{E_{f}T}\bigg)+g_{\bar{f}}\tau_{\bar{f}}\bigg({\bar{f}}^{0}(1-{\bar{f}}^{0})\frac{1} {2E_{f}T}-\frac{({\bar{f}}^{0})^2}{E_{f}T}\bigg)\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{g_{b}\tau_{{}_b}}{90T\pi^2}\xi
\int dk \frac{k^{8}}{E_{b}^{2}}
\Bigg\{ b^{0}(1+b^{0})\frac{1}{2E_{b}T}
+\frac{(b^{0})^2}{E_{b}T}\Bigg\}.\,\, \, \,\,\, \, \,
\end{eqnarray}
In kinetic theory, the entropy density for isotropic medium at $ \mu=0 $ can be written as~\cite{Hosoya:1983xm}
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{iso}&=&-\frac{g_{f}}{\pi^{2}}\int k^{2} dk \left\{ (1-f^{0})\log(1-f^{0})+f^{0}\log f^{0} \right\}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{g_{b}}{2\pi^2}\int k^{2} dk \left\{ (1+b^{0})\log(1+b^{0})-b^{0}
\log b^{0}\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
and at $ \mu \neq 0 $
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{iso}&=&-\frac{g_{f}}{2\pi^{2}}\int k^{2} dk (1-f^{0})\log(1-f^{0})+f^{0}\log f^{0}+(f^{0}\rightarrow \bar{f^{0}})\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{g_{b}}{2\pi^2}\int k^{2} dk (1+b^{0})\log(1+b^{0})
-b^{0}
\log b^{0}.\, \, \,
\end{eqnarray}
For the anisotropic medium at $ \mu=0 $ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{aniso}&=&-\frac{g_{f}}{\pi^{2}}\int k^{2} dk \left\{ (1-f^{0})\log(1-f^{0})+f^{0}\log f^{0} \right\}
+\frac{g_{b}}{2\pi^2}\int k^{2} dk \big\{ (1+b^{0})\log(1+b^{0})\nonumber\\
&-& b^{0}
\log b^{0}\big\}
-\xi\frac{g_{f}}{6\pi^{2}E_{f}T}\int k^{4} dk f^{0}
(1-f^{0})\log\frac{(1-f^{0})}{f^{0}}
-\xi\frac{g_{b}}{12\pi^2E_{b}T}\int k^{4} dk b^{0}\nonumber\\
&\times&(1+b^{0})\log\frac{(1+b^{0})}{b^{0}},
\end{eqnarray}
and at $ \mu \neq 0 $ as
\begin{eqnarray}
s_{aniso}&=&-\frac{g_{f}}{2\pi^{2}}\int k^{2} dk \left\{ (1-f^{0})\log(1-f^{0})+f^{0}\log f^{0} \right\}+(f^{0}\rightarrow \bar{f^{0}})\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{g_{b}}{2\pi^2}\int k^{2} dk \big\{ (1+b^{0})\log(1+b^{0})\
-b^{0}\log b^{0}\big\}
-\xi\frac{g_{f}}{6\pi^{2}E_{f}T}\int k^{4} dk f^{0}
(1-f^{0})\log\frac{(1-f^{0})}{f^{0}}\nonumber\\
&+&\xi(f^{0}\rightarrow \bar{f^{0}})
-\xi\frac{g_{b}}{12\pi^2E_{b}T}\int k^{4} dk b^{0}
(1+b^{0})\log\frac{(1+b^{0})}{b^{0}}
.\, \, \, \,\, \, \,\, \,
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Electrical Conductivity}
\label{sec:Electrical Conductivity}
The electric conductivity ($ \sigma_{el} $) represents the response of the system to an applied electric field. According to Ohm's law $ \sigma_{el} $ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\bf J= \sigma_{el} \bf E,
\end{equation}
where the proportionality coefficient $ \sigma_{el} $ is the electrical conductivity. We start our calculation from the four current ($ J^{\mu} $),
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\mu}= \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2 \pi)^3E} k^{\mu}\lbrace q g_{f}f(x,k)- {\bar q} g_{\bar{f}}{\bar f(x,k)}\rbrace,
\label{current}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ q $ and ${\bar q} $ are the charge for quarks and antiquarks.
For the case when the chemical potential is zero ($ \mu=0 $), Eq. (\ref{current}) takes the following form:
\begin{equation}
J^{\mu}= 2q_{f} g_{f} \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2 \pi)^3E} k^{\mu}f(x,k).
\end{equation}
In the presence of some external disturbance, $ J^{\mu}=J_{0}^{\mu} + \Delta J^{\mu}$, where
\begin{equation}
\Delta J^{\mu}= 2q_{f} g_{f} \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2 \pi)^3E} k^{\mu} \delta f(x,k).
\label{delj}
\end{equation}
One can obtain the $ \delta f(x,k) $ by using the RBT
equation as given in Sec. \ref{sec:Shear viscosity}. In the presence of the external field that is not directly related with the momentum, the RBT equation can be written in RTA as follows~ \cite{Yagi, Cercignani},
\begin{equation}
\label{Boltzmann_eq}
k^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} f(x,k) + q F^{\alpha\beta}k_{\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial k^{\alpha}} f(x,k) = -\frac{k^{\mu}u_{\mu}}{\tau} \delta f,
\end{equation}
where $F^{\alpha\beta}$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor. As we are only interested in the electric field
components of the field strength tensor ($F^{\alpha\beta}$), we take only
$ F^{0i}=-{\bf E}~ $ and $~ F^{i0}={\bf E} $. Thus,
the RBT equation [Eq. \ref{Boltzmann_eq}] becomes
\begin{equation}
q\left( k_0 {\bf E} \cdot \frac{\partial f^{0}}{\partial {\bf k}} + {\bf E}\cdot {\bf k} \frac{\partial f^{0}}{\partial k^0} \right) = -\frac{k^0}{\tau} \delta f.
\label{RBT1}
\end{equation}
After solving Eq. (\ref{RBT1}) for the anisotropic distribution function, $ f_{aniso} $ [Eq. \ref{anisof3}]
and substituting $ \delta f $ in Eq. (\ref{delj}),
we obtain the expression for $\sigma_{el}$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{aniso}} (\mu_q=0) &=& \frac{1}{3\pi^2 T} \sum_f
g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2} \int dk \frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2}
\tau_{{}_f} f^{0}(1-f^{0})
+\xi \frac{1}{6 \pi^2 T} \sum_f g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2}
\int dk\frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2}
\tau_{{}_f}f^{0}(1-f^{0})\nonumber\\
&-&\xi \frac{1}{18 \pi^2 T} \sum_f g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2}
\int dk\frac{{\bf k}^6}{E_{f}^2}
\tau_{{}_f}\bigg[f^{0}(1-f^{0})
\left(\frac{1}{E_{_{f}}^2}+\frac{1}{E_{f} T}\right)-\frac{2}{E_{f}T}(f^{0})^2\bigg].
\label{siganiso1}
\end{eqnarray}
For $ \xi=0 $, the above expression reduces to
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{iso}} = \frac{1}{3\pi^2 T} \sum_f
g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2} \int dk \frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2}
\tau_{{}_f} f^{0}(1-f^{0}).
\label{sigiso}
\end{equation}
The electrical conductivity for
$ \mu_{q(\bar{q})} \neq 0 $
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{aniso}} (\mu_{q(\bar{q})} \neq 0)&=&\frac{1}{6\pi^2 T} \sum_f
g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2} \int dk \frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2} \left[\tau_f f^{0}(1-f^{0})+ \tau_{\bar f}{\bar f^{0}}(1-{\bar f^{0}})\right]\nonumber\\
&+&\xi \frac{1}{12 \pi^2 T} \sum_f g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2}
\int dk\frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2}
\left[\tau_f f^{0}(1-f^{0})+ \tau_{\bar f}{\bar f^{0}}(1-{\bar f^{0}})\right]\nonumber\\
&-&\xi \frac{1}{36 \pi^2 T} \sum_f g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2}
\int dk\frac{{\bf k}^6}{E_{f}^2}
\bigg[\left[\tau_f f^{0}(1-f^{0})+ \tau_{\bar f}{\bar f^{0}}(1-{\bar f^{0}})\right]\nonumber\\
&\times&\left(\frac{1}{E_{_{f}}^2}+\frac{1}{E_{f} T}\right)-\frac{2}{E_{f}T}(f^{0})^2
-\frac{2}{E_{f}T}(\bar f^{0})^2\bigg].
\label{siganiso}
\end{eqnarray}
For $ \xi=0 $, the above expression reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{iso}} (\mu_q\neq 0) &=&\frac{1}{6\pi^2 T} \sum_f
g_{{}_f} q_{{}_f}^{2} \int dk \frac{{\bf k}^4}{E_{f}^2}\left[\tau_f f^{0}(1-f^{0})+ \tau_{\bar f}{\bar f^{0}}(1-{\bar f^{0}})\right].
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Quasiparticle Model}
\label{sec:Quasiparticle and Bag Model}
\subsection{Effective masses and relaxation times}
In the quasiparticle model,
all the quarks (antiquarks) have both the thermal, $m_{th}$, and the bare mass, $m_{i0}$, and hence the total effective mass can be written as
~\cite{Peshier:2002ww,Bannur:2006ww,Srivastava:2010xa}
\begin{equation}
m_{i}^{2}=m_{i0}^{2}+\sqrt{2}m_{i0}m_{th,i}+m_{th,i}^{2}.
\label{mth1}
\end{equation}
The thermal mass, $m_{th}$, which arises due to the interaction of quarks (antiquarks) with the constituents of the medium, can be expressed as~\cite{Peshier:2002ww,Peshier:1999ww,Braaten:1991gm}
\begin{equation}
m_{th,i}^{2}=\frac{g^{2}(T)T^{2}}{6}\left(1+\frac{\mu_{i}^{2}}{\pi^{2}T^{2}}\right),
\label{mth}
\end{equation}
where $g^{2}$ is the QCD running coupling constant up to two-loop order that is dependent
on both the temperature ($ T $) and chemical potential ($ \mu $)~\cite{Bannur:2006js,Zhu:2009zzi},
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{S}(T)&=&\frac{g^{2}(T)}{4 \pi}=\frac{6 \pi}{\left(33-2 N_{f}\right)\ln \left(\frac{T}{\Lambda_{T}}\sqrt{1+a\frac{\mu_{q}^{2}}{T^2}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times&\left(1-\frac{3\left(153-19 N_f \right)}{\left(33-2 N_f\right)^2}\frac{\ln \left(2 \ln \frac{T}{\Lambda_T}\sqrt{1+a\frac{\mu_{q}^{2}}{T^2}} \right)}{\ln \left(\frac{T}{\Lambda_{T}}\sqrt{1+a\frac{\mu_{q}^{2}}{T^2}}\right) }\right),\, \, \, \, \, \, \,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\Lambda_{T}$ is the QCD scale parameter and the parameter $ a $ is equal to $\frac{1}{\pi^{2}}$~.\\
The $ \tau_{f} $ is the relaxation time for quarks, antiquarks, and gluons [Eqs. (\ref{sigiso}) and (\ref{siganiso1})] that can be calculated by using the following expressions in Ref.~\cite{Hosoya:1983xm} for the massless case
\begin{equation}
\tau_{q(\bar{q})}=\frac{1}{5.1 T\alpha_{s}^{2} \log \left(\frac{1}{\alpha_{s}}\right)\left(1+0.12 (2 N_{f}+1)\right)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tau_{g}=\frac{1}{22.5 T \alpha_{s}^{2} \log \left(\frac{1}{\alpha_{s}}\right)\left(1+0.06 N_{f}\right)},
\label{tau}.
\end{equation}
Note that we have used the relaxation time for the massless case for simplicity. Our results do not change much for the massive particles case as well. Further, as shown in Ref.~\cite{Berrehrah:2013mua}, it is clear that the effect of the massive quark is small in the estimation of the scattering cross-sections. Thus, it results in a negligible effect on the relaxation time estimation. Here the results for the dissipative coefficients remain qualitatively unchanged.
In the {\em ideal case}, partons are treated as particles having rest mass only and interact weakly.
Thus, the distribution function of the ideal case contains only the rest mass term while the distribution function of the quasiparticle model (QPM) contains the rest as well as thermal mass [Eq. \ref{mth1}].
Here we take the rest mass of the quarks, $ m _0 =8$~MeV, for two light quarks $ u $ and $ d $ and $ m _0 =80$~MeV, for the strange quark~\cite{Srivastava:2010xa}.
\section{Results and Discussions}\label{sec:results and discussions}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{firstpaper.eps}
\caption{Variation of $\sigma_{el}/T$ with respect to $T/T_c$ for isotropic (solid line) and anisotropic QGP (i.e., $ \xi=0.2,0.4,0.6 $ etc) in the present calculation. Comparison with a different lattice result is also shown.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig1}, we have shown the variation of the ratio of electrical conductivity to temperature ($\sigma_{\rm{el}}/T$) with respect
to $ T/T_c $ at zero chemical potential for both the anisotropic [Eq. \ref{siganiso1}] and isotropic [Eq. \ref{sigiso}] medium. Here we take $ T_c=180 $ MeV as the critical temperature corresponding to the quark-hadron phase transition. We found that $\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{iso}}/T$ increases monotonically with an increase in temperature. This shows that near the critical temperature, the system is electrically less conductive than at the higher temperatures. The QCD plasma becomes opaque to transport any electrical charge at the time of phase transition. In the case of anisotropic plasma, we have observed that as the $ \xi $ increases from $0.0$ to $0.6$, the $\sigma_{\rm{el}}^{\rm{aniso}}/T$ increases for all the values of temperature. This suggests that momentum anisotropy causes the system to behave electrically more conductively.
We have compared our model results with the corresponding
dynamical quasiparticle model (DQPM) results (green points)~\cite{Cassing:2013iz} as well as with the data points from various lattice calculations~\cite{Amato:2013naa,Ding:2010ga,Aarts:2007wj,Gupta:2004}.
From Fig. \ref{fig1} we found that DQPM results overestimate the value of
$\sigma_{\rm{el}}/T$ as compared to our model results and lattice results. Since the lattice results are distributed over a wide range, we cannot say the exact
status of any model.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{quasi_bag.eps}
\caption{Variation of $\sigma_{el}/T$ with respect to $T/T_c$ for anisotropic QGP ($ \xi=0.4 $) in the quasiparticle model (quarks having thermal mass) and the ideal case (no thermal mass for quarks). Different data points from the lattice are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig1}.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig2} demonstrates the comparison between the ideal case and quasiparticle model for both the isotropic and anisotropic medium. We found that $\sigma_{aniso}/T$ is more with the ideal case calculation as compared to the quasiparticle model calculation and the ratio increases with the anisotropy. This gives the possible hint to the role of thermal mass in the electrical conductivity of QCD plasma.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{entropy_comp_lattice.eps}
\caption{Entropy density normalized by $T^{3}$ with respect to $T/T_c$ for isotropic (solid line) and anisotropic (dashed line) QGP in the present calculation. Symbols represent the lattice data taken from~\cite{Borsanyi:2010cj}}.
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig3} shows the variation of $s/T^{3}$ with respect to $T/T_c$ at zero chemical potential. The solid line represents the QPM results for the isotropic case and the dashed line represents the anisotropic case. The data points in the figure are the lattice results taken from~\cite{Borsanyi:2010cj}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig3} there is a smooth rise in entropy density in the vicinity of critical temperature $ T_c $ that supports a crossover type of phase transition. The increase in entropy is more in the presence of anisotropy. Here we have taken the anisotropic parameter, $ \xi=0.4 $. The plot suggests that the momentum anisotropy generates additional entropy in the system.\\
Shear viscosity is an important quantity to quantify the properties of QCD plasma. In isotropic plasma, shear viscosity has only one contribution, which comes from the collisional mode. However in anisotropic QGP, anomalous viscosity also arises due to momentum-space anisotropy along with collisional viscosity. The total viscosity of any system is dominated by the contribution that has a lower value. This anomalous viscosity may give the medium the character of a nearly perfect fluid even at moderately weak coupling.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{eta_s_ratio_lattice.eps}
\caption{(color online) Variation of shear viscosity to entropy ratio, $ \eta/s $, with respect to $T/T_c$ for isotropic (solid line) and anisotropic (dashed line) QGP in the present calculation. Different lattice data results are shown by various symbols.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig5} we have shown the variation of shear viscosity to entropy density ratio, $ \eta/s $, with $T/T_c$ at zero chemical potential. From the figure we found that the $ \eta/s $ ratio first decreases and then increases monotonically with the increase in temperature. The $ \eta/s $ ratio decreases in the presence of anisotropy (dashed line) and keeps the same pattern as in the $ \xi=0 $ (solid line) case. Our results are in agreement with a few of the lattice results, which shows large uncertainties. From Fig. \ref{fig5}, it is clear that the collisional viscosity is high in comparison to anomalous viscosity generated due to momentum-space anisotropy. Consequently, it is actually the anomalous viscosity that makes the system behave as a perfect fluid and thus suggests that QCD plasma may not be very strongly interacting~\cite{bass}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{ratio_lattice.eps}
\caption{Shear viscosity $ \eta/s $ to electrical conductivity $\sigma_{el}/T$ ratio with respect to $T/T_c$ for isotropic (solid line) and anisotropic (dashed line) QGP in the present calculation. Interpolated lattice results are taken from~\cite{Puglisi:2014pda}.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig6} shows the variation of $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ with respect to $T/T_c$ at $\mu=0$. The solid line represents $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ for the isotropic case and the dashed line represents the anisotropic case. We have compared our quasiparticle model results with the interpolated lattice results taken from Ref.~\cite{Puglisi:2014pda}. We found that $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ starts from a large value near $ T=T_c $ and then decreases sharply with temperature and remains almost constant at higher temperatures. This suggests that the gluonic contribution in the total scattering cross-section is large near $T_{c}$ in comparison to the quark contribution and as the system departs from the phase transition point the contribution from quarks increases and starts to play a role. The ratio $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ decreases in the presence of anisotropy in the entire temperature range. As we know $\eta/s$ is effected by the contribution from gluon-gluon scattering and quark-quark scattering while $\sigma_{el}/T$ is effected only via quark-quark scattering. Thus, if $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ decreases due to anisotropy, it means that anisotropy causes either a reduction in the contribution from gluonic sector or an enhancement in the contribution from quark sector.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{finite_sigma_t.eps}
\caption{Variation of $ \sigma_{el}/T $ with respect to $ T/T_{c} $ at finite chemical potential for both the isotropic ($ \xi=0 $) and anisotropic ($ \xi=0.4 $) case.
}.
\label{mu1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{finite_eta_s.eps}
\caption{Variation of shear viscosity to entropy ratio, $ \eta/s $, with respect to $T/T_c$ at finite $ \mu $ for $ \xi=0 $ and $ \xi=0.4 $. }
\label{mu3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{finite_ratio.eps}
\caption{Shear viscosity $ \eta/s $ to electrical conductivity $\sigma_{el}/T$ ratio with respect to $T/T_c$ at finite $ \mu $ for $ \xi=0 $ and $ \xi=0.4 $.}.
\label{mu4}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{mu1} shows the variation of $ \sigma_{el}/T $ with respect to $ T/T_{c} $ at finite quark chemical potential, i.e., $ \mu = 0, 200$, and $300$ MeV for both isotropic ($ \xi=0 $) and anisotropic ($ \xi=0.4 $) cases.
From the figure we observe that the finite $ \mu $ effect is significantly large at lower temperatures as compared to higher temperatures.
The value of $\sigma_{el}/T $ is large at finite $ \mu $ as compared to zero chemical potential and its value increases with increase in the value of $ \mu$. This significant effect at lower temperatures is due to a sizable change in distribution function of quarks at these temperatures since the ratio $\mu/T$ is significant and as the temperature increases $\mu/T$ becomes small and therefore the role of finite chemical potential diminishes on the distribution function as well as on the electrical conductivity.
Note that we have presumed a weak dependence of relaxation time on $ \mu $ and have taken $ \tau_{q(\bar{q})} $ as given in Eq.~(\ref{tau}). The $ \mu $ dependence on transport coefficients arises solely from the $ \mu $ dependence of the distribution functions.
In Fig. \ref{mu3} we have shown the variation of $ \eta/s $ with respect to $T/T_c$ at finite $ \mu $ ({\em viz.}, $ 0, 200$, and $300$ MeV ) for $ \xi=0 $ and $ \xi=0.4 $. Similar to $ \mu=0 $ case (Fig. \ref{fig5}), we found that the $ \eta/s $ ratio first decreases and then increases monotonically with the increase in temperature at finite $ \mu $. The ratio $ \eta/s $ increases with the increase in the value of chemical potential. However, the effect of finite $ \mu$ is much less at high temperature (above $ 4T_c $).
Figure \ref{mu4} represents the effect of finite chemical potential on the ($ \eta/s $)/($\sigma_{el}/T$) ratio. We found that the ratio decreases with the increase in chemical potential. The effect of finite $ \mu $ is more pronounced at lower temperature as compared to higher temperature.
\section{Summary}
In summary, we have studied the transport coefficients, {\em viz.}, shear viscosity ($\eta$), electrical conductivity ($\sigma_{\rm{el}}$), and thermodynamic quantity entropy density ($ s $) of the QGP phase in the presence of momentum anisotropy and discussed the connection between them.
The relativistic Boltzmann kinetic equation has been solved in RTA to calculate the $\eta$ and $\sigma_{\rm{el}}$ for the QGP phase. First we revisited the expression for shear viscosity for the isotropic medium and then derived it for the anisotropic medium by introducing the momentum anisotropy in the distribution functions of quarks,antiquarks, and gluons. Similarly, we have calculated the entropy density and electrical conductivity for the anisotropic medium.
We have shown the variation of $\sigma_{\rm{el}}/T$ with respect to $ T/T_c $
for both the isotropic and anisotropic medium. We found that the conductivity increases with increase in anisotropic parameter $ \xi $.
Further, we have shown the difference arising in transport properties of QCD plasmas due to two different equations of state derived from the quasiparticle model and ideal case, respectively. We have shown the variation of entropy density with $ T/T_c $ and found a smooth rise in entropy density in the vicinity of $ T_c $ that increases in the presence of momentum anisotropy. Therefore, we can say that anisotropy generates additional entropy in the system.
We have also shown the effect of anisotropy on the $ \eta/s $ ratio (Fig.\ref{fig5}) and found that it decreases with increase in anisotropy. From this result one may infer that anomalous viscosity that arises due to momentum anisotropy makes the system behave as a perfect fluid. Our results are in agreement with a few of the lattice results, which show large uncertainties.
We have discussed the
variation of $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ with respect to $T/T_c$. We found that quark contribution in the total scattering cross-section is less near $T_{c}$ in comparison to gluon contribution and at higher temperature quark contribution increases and plays a significant role. The presence of anisotropy results in a decrease in the ratio $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ in the entire temperature range and thus provides a hint regarding the change in the contribution of the gluonic sector.
Finally, we have shown the effect of finite chemical potential, i.e., $ \mu=200$, and $300 $ MeV on $ \sigma_{el}/T $, $ \eta/s $, and $(\eta/s)/(\sigma_{el}/T)$ for both the isotropic and anisotropic cases.
Within the quasiparticle approximations the transport coefficients turn out to be larger at finite $ \mu $ as compared to their value at vanishing chemical potential.
The finite $ \mu $ effect is more significant at lower temperature as compared to higher temperature due to the sizable change in the distribution function at lower temperature as compared to higher temperature.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{s.intro}
\noindent
\medskip
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
The possibility of testing first order phase transitions (FOPT) in the early Universe
seems to be more promising after the recent discovery of gravitational waves (GW) in LIGO
experiment \cite{Caprini:2015zlo,Kudoh:2005as}. In particular, next generations of interferometers like eLISA and U-DECIGO will be also fundamentally important
to test gravitational signal produced by Coleman bubbles from FOPT. The production of GW from bubble collisions was first suggested in Refs.~\cite{Witten:1984rs,Turner:1990rc,Hogan:1986qda,Kosowsky:1991ua,Kamionkowski:1993fg}.
New experimental prospectives in GW experiments have motivated a {\it revival} of these ideas in context of new extensions of the Standard Model \cite{Schwaller:2015tja,Huang:2016odd,Artymowski:2016tme,Dev:2016feu,Katz:2016adq,Huang:2017laj,Baldes:2017rcu,Chao:2017vrq,Addazi:2016fbj}. In other words, the GW data may be used to test new models of particle physics beyond the standard model.
In particular, contrary to electroweak FOPT, the presence of FOPT from a dark sector remains practically unconstrained.
In this paper, we suggest to test/limit with GW experiments a minimal model of dark matter arising from a dark sector. Our proposal is based on the {\it dark photon} theory,
first proposed by Holdom \cite{Holdom:1985ag}. In particular, we consider a hidden sector
of a massive dark photon coupled to a massive dark fermion and a massive scalar field.
The massive scalar spontaneously breaks the hidden electromagnetic symmetry, inducing a mass term for the dark photon. Now, the hidden scalar may undergo a violent first order phase transition for a large class of its effective self-interaction potentials. The spontaneously symmetry breaking process giving mass to the dark photon is highly motivated by the strong constraints on long-range massless dark photons from orthopositronium experiments --- as first pointed out by Glashow \cite{G1,G2}.
Our paper is organized as follows: in section II we will review some basics aspects of the massive dark photon model; in section III we will discuss the phenomenology of the model in GW interferometers and laboratory physics; in section IV we will spell out conclusions and remarks.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{ \includegraphics [height=6cm,width=0.8\columnwidth]{PF.pdf}}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{We show C.L. limits from SLAC and Fermilab experiments
E137, E141, E774 \cite{116,117,119}, the electron and muon anomalous magnetic moment
$a_{\mu}$ \cite{120,121,122}, KLOE \cite{123,124}, WASA-at-COSY \cite{125},
APEX \cite{126} and MIAMI \cite{127}, BaBar \cite{116,128,129}
and supernova cooling constrains \cite{116,130,131}
---
APEX \cite{132}, HPS \cite{133}, DarkLight \cite{134},
VEPP-3 \cite{135,136}, MAMI and MESA \cite{137}
proposals are also reported. In light blue we show FOPT limits from future interferometers (eLISA, U-DECIGO and BBO \cite{Caprini:2015zlo,Kudoh:2005as,Audley:2017drz}) in the case of $\Lambda\, <\, 2.6$ TeV.}
\label{plot}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{ \includegraphics [height=7cm,width=0.9\columnwidth]{FINALGW.pdf}}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{We show the predicted region for our model in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ parameters' space. This corresponds to the intersection of the two green regions, and is put in comparison with model independent regions for eLISA, as discussed in \cite{Audley:2017drz} assuming a VEV scale $100\, {\rm GeV}$. }
\label{plot}
\end{figure}
\vspace{4cm}
\section{Dark photons model and first order phase transitions }
\noindent
Let us consider the Standard Model extension with an extra abelian (non-anomalous) gauge $U(1)$, dubbed $U'(1)$, i.e. $SU_{c}(3)\times SU_{L}(2) \times U_{Y}(1)\times U'(1)$. The SM particles are assumed to be not charged with respect to such an extra $U'(1)$. Thus this latter singles out a dark abelian sector. Let us introduce a scalar singlet field $s$ and a Dirac fermion particle $\chi$, which are supposed to have a charge with respect to $U'(1)$, while the same are not charged --- thus are singlets --- with respect to the SM gauge group. In other words, the fermion and scalar are introduced as {\it hidden} particles. The dark gauge boson, dubbed dark photon $A'_{\mu}$, associated to $U'(1)$, may mix with the SM hypercharge boson $U(1)_{Y}$ through a renormalizable kinetic mixing term $-(\varepsilon/2) F^{Y}_{\mu\nu}F'^{\mu\nu}$ --- where $F_{\mu\nu}^{Y},F'_{\mu\nu}$ are respectively the field curvatures of the gauge bosons $Y_{\mu}$ and $A'_{\mu}$. The Lagrangian of the hidden sector reads
\noindent
\begin{equation} \label{DL}
\mathcal{L}=K_{s}(s)+K_{\chi}(\chi)-\frac{1}{4}F'_{\mu\nu}F'^{\mu\nu}-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}F'^{\mu\nu}F^{Y}_{\mu\nu}+U(s,\chi)\,,
\end{equation}
where
\noindent
\begin{equation} \label{K}
K_{s}(s)+K_{\chi}(\chi)=(\mathcal{D}_{\mu}s^{\dagger})(\mathcal{D}^{\mu}s)+\bar{\chi}(i\gamma_{\mu}\mathcal{D}_{\mu}-\mu_{\chi})\chi
\end{equation}
are hidden matter kinetic terms, $\mathcal{D}^{\mu}=\partial^{\mu}+ig'A'^{\mu}$ being the covariant derivative associated to the dark photon; $U(s,\chi)$ encodes the interactions of the hidden scalar and fermion fields:
\noindent
\begin{equation} \label{UV}
U(s,\chi)=V(s)+y's\bar{\chi}\chi\,,
\end{equation}
where $y'$ is a Yukawa-like free parameter and $V(s)$ is the singlet scalar self-interaction potential. In principle, the scalar singlet may interact with the SM Higgs field via the renormalizable interaction $\lambda_{sH}(s^{\dagger}s)(H^{\dagger}H)$. Such an interaction term may certainly provide an interesting portal to dark matter. However, the $\lambda_{sH}$ cannot be $O(1)$, otherwise the scalar singlet would not be hidden. Thus we will assume that the mixing term is highly suppressed. \\
The next main assumption of our model concerns the scalar singlet self-interaction potential. We assume that $V(s)$ drives the scalar field to get a VEV $\langle s \rangle=v_{s}$. In particular, we assume a double wells potential. On the other hand, we demand that the {\it wall} dividing the minima in the radial direction in the internal field space is lower than the standard quartic potential. In this way a highly unsuppressed first order phase transition is expected in the early Universe, as we will quantify in the following section. In particular, we will assume a simple effective potential of the form
\noindent
\begin{equation} \label{UV}
V(s)=m_{s}^{2}s^{\dagger}s+\frac{1}{4}\lambda_{S}(s^{\dagger}s)^{2}+\frac{1}{\Lambda^{2}}(s^{\dagger}s)^{3}+\cdots
\end{equation}
The main consequences of such a potential are the following:
i) The potential spontaneously breaks the $U'(1)$, giving a mass term to the dark photon $m_{A'}^{2}=g'^2 \, v_{s}^{2}$, where $v_{s}^{2}=-4m_{s}^{2}/\lambda_{s}$.
ii) The potential will undergo a first order phase transition in temperature $\bar{T}\simeq v_{s}$. This may generate Coleman's bubbles, and bubbles-bubbles collisions generate a GW signal controlled by the scalar VEV-scale and the new physics scale $\Lambda$.
iii) The dark matter particle is renormalized as $m_{\chi}=\mu_{\chi}+y'v_{s}$. Eventually, we may assume that the bare mass is just zero and the dark matter mass is totally controlled by the singlet's VEV.
\section{Phenomenology}
\noindent
This simple minimal model leads to a rich phenomenology in several different channels. For instance, it allows multiple tests from particle physics experiments and gravitational waves interferometers. In the next section, we will start with a discussion of the GW signals that originate from the dark first order phase transition. Then, we will discuss how GW may test a region of parameters which may be confronted with limits from meson factories, electron-positron colliders and corrections to the magnetic moment of the electrons.
\subsection{Gravitational waves signal}
\noindent
Let us remark that the frequency of the GW signal is controlled by the VEV scale of the first order phase transition. The frequency and the intensity of the gravitational waves signal
have well known expressions, in which the model dependence enters only in the specification of the effective scalar field potential of the particular model considered\footnote{Recently, further numerical discussions
of GW productions from bubbles were shown in Refs.~\cite{Hindmarsh:2013xza,Hindmarsh:2015qta}.} \cite{Kamionkowski:1993fg}.
The peak frequency of the GW signal produced by bubble collision has a value
$$\nu_{collision}\simeq 3.5 \times 10^{-4} \left(\frac{\beta}{H_{*}}\right)\left( \frac{\bar{T}}{10\, {\rm GeV}}\right)
\left(\frac{g_{*}(\bar{T})}{10}\right)^{1/6}\, {\rm mHz},$$
with corresponding intensity
$$\Omega_{collision}(\nu_{collision})\simeq $$
$$C\mathcal{E}^{2}\left(\frac{\bar{H}}{\beta}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}\right)^{2}
\left( \frac{V_{B}^{3}}{0.24+V_{B}^{3}}\right)\left(\frac{10}{g_{*}(\bar{T})}\right).$$
In the latter relation we introduced
$C\simeq 2.4\times 10^{-6}$, $$\mathcal{E}(\bar{T})=\left[T\frac{dV_{eff}}{dT}-V_{eff}(T)\right]_{T=\bar{T}},$$
\begin{equation} \label{a}
\alpha=\frac{\mathcal{E}(\bar{T})}{\rho_{rad}(\bar{T})},\,\,\,\rho_{rad}=\frac{\pi^{2}}{30}g_{*}(T)T^{4}.
\end{equation}
In eq.~\eqref{a} $\rho_{rad}$ stands for the radiation energy density, while $\bar{T}\simeq v_{s}$ denotes the first order phase transition temperature, defined by
\begin{equation} \label{deba}
\beta=-\left[\frac{dS_{E}}{dt}\right]_{t=\bar{t}}\simeq \left[\frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d\Gamma}{dt}\right]_{t=\bar{t}},
\end{equation}
in which
$$S_{E}(T)\simeq \frac{S_{3}(T)}{T},\,\,\,\Gamma=\Gamma_{0}(T)\, {\rm exp}[-S_{E}(T)],$$
$$\Gamma_{0}(T)\sim T^{4},\,\,\,S_{3}\equiv \int d^{3}r\left(\partial_{i}s^{\dagger}\partial_{i}s+V_{eff}(s,T)\right).$$
The size of the bubble wall $\beta$, entering the definition in eq.~\eqref{deba}, is connected to the velocity of the bubble $V_{B}$ by the relation
$$d\simeq \frac{V_{B}}{\beta}.$$
The tree-level effective potential is corrected by one-loop quantum corrections and thermal field theory corrections to $$V_{tree}(s,T=0)+V_{1}(s,T),$$ in which $$V_{1}(s,T)=V_{CW}(s,T=0)+\Delta V(s,T).$$
$V_{CW}$ is the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential, while $\Delta V(s,T)$ encodes thermal field theory contributions. The effective potential with a finite temperature --- similarly to the sixth order Higgs potential case studied in \cite{Delaunay:2007wb} ---
can be approximated by
$$V_{eff}(s,T)\simeq (m_{S}^{2}+CT^{2})s^\dagger s + \frac{\lambda}{4}(s^\dagger s)^{2} +\frac{1}{\Lambda^{2}}(s^\dagger s)^{3}\,,$$
where
$$C=\frac{1}{4}\left(\pi \alpha'+\frac{m_{s}^{2}}{v_{s}^{2}}+y'^{2}-24\frac{v_{s}^{2}}{\Lambda^{2}}\right),$$
having introduced $\alpha'=g'^{2}/4\pi$.
Further contributions are expected that arise from turbulence and sonic waves generated from the bubbles' expansion into the primordial plasma. Nonetheless these would only contribute for numerical prefactors in the estimate of the scale of the new physics involved, as shown in the following considerations.
Assuming $\alpha'\!\sim\! \alpha\!\simeq\! 1/137$, the turbulence on the plasma induce by the bubble expansion may be estimated (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{Hindmarsh:2013xza,Hindmarsh:2015qta}) to have an expression $$\omega_{tur}\simeq O(1) \times 10^{-4}\left(\frac{\beta}{H_{*}}\right)\left(\frac{\bar{T}}{10\,{\rm GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{g_{*}}{10}\right)^{1/6}\,{\rm mHz},$$ $$\Omega_{tur}(\omega_{tur})\simeq O(1)\times 10^{-4}U_{T}^{5}V_{B}^{2}\left(\frac{H_{*}}{\beta}\right)^{2}\left(\frac{100}{g_{*}}\right)^{1/3},$$ where $U_{T}$ is the average ordinary and dark plasma velocity.
We left a numerical prefactor undetermined, which traces back to an order $O(1)$ prefactor in the $\alpha'$.
We can now provide few estimates of orders of magnitude. In order to have a strong GW signal reachable by eLISA, U-DECIGO and BBO $$\Lambda/v_{s}\geq 24\div 26\,,$$
assuming $\alpha',y'\sim O(1)$. In particular GW frequencies scale with $T$, while the strain amplitudes scale as the inverse of $T$. Thus $v_{s}\sim 100\, \rm GeV$ with
$\Lambda \sim 2.4\div 2.6\, {\rm TeV}$ corresponds to $\nu[Hz]\sim 10^{-1}\div 1\,{\rm mHz}$ (eLISA). The mass of the dark photon may be lowered with naturality
by the gauge coupling $g'$ of $10^{-1}\div 10^{-3}$, in the interesting regime of dark photons
${\rm MeV}\div 10\, {\rm GeV}$.
Frequencies of $10^{-2}\div 10^{-3}\,{\rm mHz}$ correspond to scales of $v_{s}\sim 1\div 10\, {\rm GeV}$). A scale $v_{s}< 1\, {\rm GeV}$ is elusive to be detected in the minimal scenario.
\subsection{Constraints on the dark photon}
\noindent
Typically, the massive dark photon may have a mass $1\div 1000 \, {\rm MeV}$. Outside this range, the dark photon is very constrained by data. For instance, for a massless dark photon the kinetic mixing is $\sqrt{\alpha'}\varepsilon<10^{-7}$ from orthopositronium data with $m_{\chi}\simeq m_{e}$ \cite{G1,G2}. Also in a mass window $1\div 50\, {\rm MeV}$ the dark photon is very constrained. On the other hand, from $m_{A'}\sim 50\div 1000\, {\rm MeV}$, $\sqrt{\alpha'}\varepsilon$ may be high as $\sqrt{\alpha'}\varepsilon\sim 10^{-3}$. In Fig.1 compared constraints are displayed.
Limits are mainly recovered from high luminosity low energy electron-positron colliders and astrophysics.
In the $1\div 1000 \, {\rm MeV}$ window of mass, the dark photon can be constrained by
GW data in the framework of our model of a dark FOPT catalyzing the generation of the dark photon mass. Fixing various levels of the cutoff scale $\Lambda$, we can then superimpose the region in dark photon mass. The free relevant parameters for this model are $(\sqrt{\alpha'}\epsilon,m_{A'},v_{A'},\Lambda)$. The strategy may be then to fix $\Lambda$, and further impose constraints on the dark photon mass in the $(m_{A},\sqrt{\alpha'}\epsilon)$ parameters' space. As a result, GW tests result to be crucially important in order to get information on the dark Higgs sector generating the dark photon mass.
\section{Conclusions and remarks}
\noindent
We discussed the possibility to test dark photon models from GW interferometers.
In particular, the dark photon mass can be connected to a Higgs mechanism that undergoes to a FOPT in early Universe. We show that for dark photons of masses $10\div 1000\, {\rm MeV}$, eLISA, U-DECIGO and BBO interferometers may detect or rule-out dark FOPT related to it.
We remark that our model leads also to an interesting phenomenology in Dark Matter direct detection experiments and new colliders. For example, a MeV-ish dark matter particle
with a massive dark photon portal may interact mostly with electrons on DAMA detectors
\footnote{See also \cite{Addazi:2015cua,Cerulli:2017jzz} for other recent discussions of DAMA signal within the framework of dark gauge sectors.} \cite{Bernabei:2007gr,Foot:2015vva,Lee:2015qva,Chen:2015pha}. So that the DAMA signal should be explained
by energy recoils to electrons despite of nuclei, avoiding any detection by detectors like
XENON and LUX --- these are not sensitive to those mass scales since electrons' signals are cut in XENON/LUX double Xenon phase experiments.
Another opportunity to detect over-GeV-ish dark photons might arise from the International Linear Collider (ILC) and Circular Electron Positron Collider (CEPC). In particular, they may be detected in missing transverse energy channels, which should be testable because of their high luminosity.
\noindent
\label{s.disc}
\noindent
\acknowledgments
\noindent
We
thank USTC University for hospitality during the preparation of this paper. We
are grateful to Arthur Kosowsky and Germano Nardini for enlightening discussions and remarks on these subjects.
AM~wishes to acknowledge support by the Shanghai Municipality, through the grant No. KBH1512299, and by Fudan University, through the grant No. JJH1512105.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{problem.pdf}
\caption{{\bf Weakly supervised action recognition and detection}: during training phase, we simply have untrimmed videos without temporal annotation and we train action models from these untrimmed videos directly; during test phase, the learned action models could be applied to action recognition (WSR) and detection (WSD) in untrimmed videos.}
\label{fig:problem}
\end{figure}
Action recognition in videos has attracted extensive research attention in the past few years, and much progress has been made in computer vision community, on both aspects of hand-crafted representations~\cite{Laptev05,WangS13a,WangQT13,WangQT16} and deeply-learned representations~\cite{KarpathyTSLSF14,SimonyanZ14,TranBFTP15,TSN2016ECCV}. In general, action recognition is usually cast as a classification problem, where each action instance is manually trimmed from a long video sequence during the training phase, and the learned action model is exploited for action recognition in trimmed clips (e.g., HMDB51~\cite{KuehneJGPS11} and UCF101~\cite{Soomro12}) or untrimmed videos (e.g., THUMOS14~\cite{THUMOS14} and ActivityNet~\cite{HeilbronEGN15}). Although these precise temporal annotations could relieve the difficulty of learning action models, it may be difficult to adapt to large-scale action recognition in more realistic and challenging scenario due to several reasons. First, annotating temporal duration for each action instance is expensive and time-consuming. Meanwhile, huge numbers of videos on Youtube website are temporally untrimmed by nature, and trimming videos in such scale would be impractical. More importantly, unlike object boundary, there might even be no sensible definition about the exact temporal extent of actions~\cite{SatkinH10,SchindlerG08}. Thus, these temporal annotations may be subjective and not consistent across different persons.
To overcome the above limitations of using trimmed videos for training, we introduce a more efficient setting of directly learning action recognition models from untrimmed videos, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:problem}. In this new setting, only the video-level action label is available during training, and the goal is to learn the models from untrimmed videos, which could be applied to new videos to perform action recognition or detection. As we do not have precise temporal annotations of action instances in training, we call this new problem as {\em weakly supervised action recognition (WSR) and detection (WSD)}.
Without the requirement of exact temporal annotations of action instances, the setup of WSR and WSD would greatly reduce the human efforts in building large-scale datasets.
However, this weakly supervised setting also poses new challenges in that our learning algorithm needs to not only learn the visual patterns for each action class, but also automatically reason the temporal locations of possible action instances. Therefore, to deal with the problems of WSR and WSD, the designed method should consider these two aspects at the same time.
In this work, we address the challenges of the WSR and WSD problems by proposing a new end-to-end architecture, called {\em UntrimmedNet}. Without temporal annotations of action instances, our UntrimmedNet directly takes an untrimmed video as input and simply exploits its video-level label to learn the network weights. Considering the requirements mentioned above, in a nutshell, our UntrimmedNet is mainly composed of two components, namely a {\em classification module} and a {\em selection module}, which handle the problems of learning action models and detecting action instances, respectively. The outputs of the classification and selection modules are fused to yield the prediction results of untrimmed videos, which can be exploited to tune the UntrimmedNet parameters in an end-to-end manner.
Specifically, our UntrimmedNet starts with generating clip proposals, which may contain action instances, by using uniform or shot based sampling. Then, these clip proposals are fed into UntrimmedNet for feature extraction. Based on these clip-level representations, the classification module aims to predict the classification scores for each clip proposal, while the selection module tries to select or rank those clip proposals. In practice, the design of classification module is based on a standard Softmax classifier and the selection module is implemented with two alternative mechanisms: {\em hard selection} and {\em soft selection}. For hard selection, a top-$k$ pooling method is utilized to determine the most $k$ discriminative clips, and for soft selection, an attention weight is learned to rank the importance of different clips. Finally, the results of classification and selection modules are fused with an weighted summation multiplication to produce the untrimmed video-level prediction. With this video-level prediction and the global video label, we are able to jointly optimize the components of classification modules, selection modules, and feature extraction networks using the standard back propagation algorithm.
We perform experiments on two challenging untrimmed video datasets, namely THUMOS14~\cite{THUMOS14} and AcitivityNet~\cite{HeilbronEGN15}, to examine the UntrimmedNet on the tasks of weakly supervised action recognition (WSR) and detection (WSD). Although our UntrimmedNet does not employ the temporal annotations of action instances, it obtains superior performance for action recognition and comparable performance for action detection, when compared with the state-of-the-art methods that use strong supervision for training.
\section{Related Work}
{\bf Deep learning for action recognition.}
Since the breakthrough~\cite{KrizhevskySH12} in image classification with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)~\cite{lecun-98} at ILSVRC 2012~\cite{RussakovskyDSKS15}, several works have been trying to design effective deep network architectures for action recognition in videos~\cite{KarpathyTSLSF14,SimonyanZ14,TranBFTP15,FeichtenhoferPZ16,TSN2016ECCV,Wang0T15}. Karpathy \emph{et al.}~\cite{KarpathyTSLSF14} first tested deep networks on a large-scale dataset (Sports-1M) and achieved lower performance than traditional features~\cite{WangS13a}. Simonyan \emph{et al.}~\cite{SimonyanZ14} designed two stream CNNs containing spatial and temporal nets by explicitly exploiting pre-trained models and optical flow calculation. Tran \emph{et al.}~\cite{TranBFTP15} investigated 3D CNNs~\cite{JiXYY13} on the realistic and large-scale video datasets. Meanwhile, several works~\cite{Ng15,varol,DonahueJ2015,TSN2016ECCV} tried to model long-term temporal information for action understanding. Ng \emph{et al.}~\cite{Ng15} and Donahue \emph{et al.}~\cite{DonahueJ2015} utilized recurrent neural networks (LSTM) to capture the long range dynamics for action recognition. Wang \emph{et al.}~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} designed a sparse sampling strategy to model the entire video information with average aggregation. In addition, several deep learning methods have been proposed for action proposal generation and detection~\cite{GkioxariM15,Wang0TG16,MaSS16,EscorciaHNG16,GemertJGS15,ShouWC16}. Our UntrimmedNets differ to those deep networks in that the UntrimmedNets take the untrimmed videos as inputs and only require weak supervision to guide model training, while those previous architectures all uses the trimmed clips for training.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{untrimmednet.pdf}
\caption{{\bf Pipeline of learning from untrimmed videos}: our UntrimmedNets start with clip proposal generation, where we sample a set of short clips from the continuous untrimmed videos. Then, these clip proposals are separately fed into pre-trained networks for feature extraction. After this, a classification module is designed to perform action recognition for each clip proposal independently, and a selection module is proposed to detect or rank important clip proposals. Finally, the outputs of classification module and selection module are combined to yield the video-level prediction.}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}
{\bf Weakly supervised learning in videos.}
Weakly supervised learning was extensively studied in object recognition and detection~\cite{BilenV16,CinbisVS17,DurandTC16,OquabBLS15}, and there were several works adapting this method to learn action models from videos~\cite{LaptevMSR08,DuchenneLSBP09,BojanowskiBLPSS13,BojanowskiLBLPSS14,HuangFN16,KuehneRG16,gan2016webly,gan2016you}. The {\bf first} type of weak supervision is movie script, which provides uncertain temporal annotations of action instances. For example, Laptev \emph{et al.}~\cite{LaptevMSR08} proposed to learn action models from movie scripts for action recognition, and Duchennel \emph{et al.}~\cite{DuchenneLSBP09} tried to localize action instances in movies with the help of scripts. Compared with our work, movie script supervision show two differences: (1) movie scripts are usually aligned with frames and so they can provide approximate temporal annotations of instance, while our weak supervision does not provide any temporal information about action instances, (2) movie script supervision only applies to movie videos while our method applies to all kinds of videos. The {\bf second} type of weak supervision is a ordered list of action classes occurring in the videos. For instance, Bojanowski \emph{et al.}~\cite{BojanowskiLBLPSS14} proposed a discriminative clustering method for weakly supervised action labeling, and Huang \emph{et al.}~\cite{HuangFN16} adapted the framework of Connectionist Temporal Classification~\cite{GravesFGS06} from speech recognition to weakly supervised action labeling. Our UntrimmedNet differs from them in that our weak supervision contains no any order information on the containing action instances.
\section{Learning from Untrimmed Videos}
In this section we introduce the pipeline of learning from untrimmed videos. First, we describe the methods of generating clip proposals for UntrimmedNets. Second, we give a detailed description on the architecture design of UntrimmedNet. Finally, we present the learning algorithm to tune the parameters of UntrimmedNet in an end-to-end manner.
\subsection{Clip sampling}
\label{sec:sampling}
An action instance usually describes the continuous and coherent motion pattern with a specific intention, which may last for a few seconds and contain no shot changes. However, an untrimmed video often exhibits extremely complex motion dynamics, action instances may only occupy small portions of it. Therefore, our UntrimmedNet starts with generating short clips from the untrimmed videos, which could serve as action proposals for UntrimmedNet training.
Formally, given an untrimmed video $V$ with the duration of $T$ frames, our method generates a set of clip proposals $C = \{c_i\}_{i=1}^N$, where $N$ is the number of proposals and $c_i = (b_i, e_i)$ denote the beginning and ending location of the $i^{th}$ proposal $c_i$. We design two simple yet effective methods to generate proposals: {\em uniform sampling} and {\em shot-based sampling}.
{\bf Uniform sampling.} Under the assumption that an action instance may have a relatively short duration, we propose to divide the long video into $N$ clips with equal duration, i.e., $b_i = \frac{i-1}{N} T + 1 $ and $e_i = \frac{i}{N} T$. This sampling method ignores the continuous and consistent properties of action instances and is prone to generating imprecise proposals.
{\bf Shot-based sampling.} It is expected each action instance focuses on the consistent motion within a single shot. We present a sampling method based on shot change detection. Specifically, we extract the HOG features for each frame and calculate the HOG feature difference between adjacent frames. Then, we use the absolute value of this difference to measure the change of visual content and if it is larger than a threshold, a shot change would be detected. After this, in each shot, we propose to sample shot clips of fixed duration of $K$ frames in a sequential manner ($K$ set to 300 in practice), which helps to break down shots with very long durations. Suppose we have a shot denoted by $s_i = (s_i^b, s_i^e)$, where $(s^b_i, s^e_i)$ represents the beginning and ending locations of this shot, we produce proposals from this shot as $C(s_i) = \{ (s_i^b + (i-1) \times K, s_i^b + i \times K)\}_{i: s^b_i+ i \times K < s_i^e}$. Finally, we merge all these clip proposals from different shots for UntrimmedNet training.
\subsection{UntrimmedNets}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline}, the architecture of UntrimmedNet is composed of a feature extraction module, a classification module, and a selection module. These different components are all designed to be differentiable and render the UntrimmedNet to be trainable in an end-to-end manner.
{\bf Feature extraction module.} After proposal generation, these shot clips are fed into deep networks for feature extraction. These feature representations are utilized to describe the clip visual content and passed to the next layers for action recognition. Formally, given a video $V$ with a set of clip proposals $C=\{c_i\}_{i=1}^N$, we extract the representation as $\phi(V; c) \in \mathbb{R}^D$ for each clip proposal $c$. Our UntrimmedNet is a general framework for weakly supervised action recognition and detection, and does not depend on the choice of feature extraction network. In the experiments, we try out two architectures: Two-Stream CNN~\cite{SimonyanZ14} with deeper architecture~\cite{IoffeS15} and Temporal Segment Network~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} with the same architecture. More details will be described in Section~\ref{sec:exp}.
{\bf Classification module.} In the classification module, we aim to classify each clip proposal $c$ into the predefined action categories based on the extracted features $\phi(c)$. Suppose we have $C$ action classes, we learn a linear mapping $\mathbf{W}^c \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times D}$ to transform the feature representation $\phi(c)$ into a $C$-dimensional score vector $\mathbf{x}^c(c)$, i.e., $\mathbf{x}^c(c) = \mathbf{W}^c \phi(c)$, where $C$ is the number of action categories and $\mathbf{W}^c$ are the model parameters. This score vector can be also passed through a softmax layer as follows:
\begin{equation}
\bar{x}^c_i (c) = \frac{\exp(x^c_i(c))}{\sum_{k=1}^C \exp(x^c_k(c))},
\label{equ:softmax1}
\end{equation}
where $x^c_i(c)$ denotes the $i^{th}$ dimension of $\mathbf{x}^c(c)$. For clarity, we use the notation $\mathbf{x}^c(c)$ to denote the {\em original} classification score of clip proposal $c$ and $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^c(c)$ to represent the {\em softmax} classification score. There is a slight difference between those two types of classification scores. The original classification score $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^c(c)$ encodes the raw class activation and its response is able to reflect the degree of containing a specific action class. In the case of containing no action instance, its value could be very small for all classes. However, the softmax classification score $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^c(c)$ undergoes the normalization operation, turning its sum into 1. If there is an action instance in this clip, this softmax score could encode information of action class distribution. But for the case of background clips, this normalization operation may amplify noisy activations and its response may not encode the visual information correctly.
{\bf Selection module.} The selection module aims to select those clip proposals of most probably containing action instances. Here we design two kinds of selection mechanisms for this goal: {\em hard selection} based on the principle of multiple instance learning (MIL)~\cite{DietterichLL97} and {\em soft selection} based on the attention-based modeling~\cite{MnihHGK14,XuBKCCSZB15}. As we shall see in experiments, those two selection method can both well handle the problem of weakly supervised learning.
In the hard selection method, we try to identify a subset of $k$ clip proposals (instances) for each action class. Inspired by the idea of multiple instance learning, we choose top $k$ instances with the highest classification scores and then average among these selected instances. It should be noted that here we use the original classification score as its value is able to correctly reflect the likelihood of containing certain action instances. Formally, let us use $x^s_i(c_j) = \delta(j\in S_i^k)$ to encode the selection choice for class $i$ and instance $c_j$, where $S_i^k$ is the set of indices of clip proposals with the highest $k$ classification scores for class $i$.
In the soft selection method, we want to combine the classification scores of all clip proposals and learn an importance weight to rank different clip proposals. Intuitively, these clip proposals are not all relevant to the action class and we could learn an attention weight to highlight the discriminative clip proposals and suppress the background clip proposals. Formally, for each clip proposal, we learn this attention weight based on the feature representation $\phi(c)$ with a linear transformation, i.e., $x^s(c) = \mathbf{w}^{sT} \phi(c)$, where $\mathbf{w}^s \in \mathcal{R}^D$ is the model parameter. Then the attention weights of different clip proposals are passed through a softmax layer and compared with each other as follows:
\begin{equation}
\bar{x}^s(c_i) = \frac{\exp(x^s(c_i))}{\sum_{n=1}^N \exp(x^s(c_n))},
\label{equ:softmax2}
\end{equation}
where $x^s(c)$ denotes the {\em original} selection score of clip proposal $c$ and $\bar{x}^s(c)$ is the {\em softmax} selection score. It should be noted that, in the classification module, the softmax operation (Eq. (\ref{equ:softmax1})) is applied to the classification scores of different action classes, for each clip proposal separately, while in the selection module, this operation (Eq. (\ref{equ:softmax2})) is performed across different clip proposals. In spite of sharing a similar mathematical formulation, these two softmax layers are designed for the purpose of classification and selection, respectively.
{\bf Video prediction.} Finally, we are able to produce the prediction score $\bar{\mathbf{x}}^p(V) $ for the untrimmed video $V$ by combining the classification and selection scores. Specifically, for hard selection, we simply average the selected top-$k$ instances as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
x^p_i(V) & = \sum_{n=1}^N x^s_i(c_n) x^c_i(c_n), \\
\bar{x}^p_i(V) & = \frac{\exp(x^r_i(V))}{\sum_{k=1}^C \exp(x^r_k(V))}, \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $x^s(c_n)$ and $x^c(c_n)$ are the hard selection indicator and classification score for clip proposal $c_n$, respectively. As our hard selection module is based on the original classification score, we need to perform a softmax operation to normalize the aggregated video-level score.
In the case of soft selection, as we have learned an attention weight to rank those clip proposals, we simply employ a weighted summation to combine the scores of the classification and selection modules, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weighted_combine}
\bar{\mathbf{x}}^p(V) = \sum_{n=1}^N \bar{x}^s(c_n) \bar{\mathbf{x}}^c(c_n).
\end{equation}
Here, different from hard selection, we use the softmax classification score for each clip proposal, as this normalized score would make attention weight learning easier and more stable. Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:weighted_combine}) forms a convex combination of probability vectors. Hence no further normalization is required.
\subsection{Training}
After the introduction of UntrimmedNet architecture in the previous subsection, we turn to discuss how to optimize the model parameters. The components of feature extraction, classification module, and selection module are implemented with feed-forward neural networks that are all differentiable with model parameters. Therefore, following training methods of strongly supervised architecture (e.g., Two-Stream CNNs), we employ the standard back propagation method with cross-entropy loss:
\begin{equation}
\ell(\mathbf{w}) = \sum_{i=1}^M \sum_{k=1}^C y_{ik} \log \bar{x}^p_k(V_i),
\end{equation}
where $y_{ik}$ is set to 1 if video $V_i$ contains action instances of $k^{th}$ category, and to 0 otherwise, $M$ is the number of training videos. A weight decay rate of 0.0005 is enforced during the training. In the case of video containing action instances from multiple classes, we first normalize the label vector $\mathbf{y}$ with its $\ell_1$-norm~\cite{WeiXHNDZY14}, i.e. $\bar{\mathbf{y}} = \mathbf{y} / \|\mathbf{y}\|_1$, and then use this normalized label vector $\bar{\mathbf{y}}$ to calculate cross-entropy loss.
\section{Action Recognition and Detection}
\label{sec:rd}
Having introduced UntrimmedNet for directly learning from untrimmed videos, we now turn to describing how to exploit these learned models for action recognition and detection in untrimmed videos.
{\bf Action recognition.} As our UntrimmedNets are built on the two stream CNNs~\cite{SimonyanZ14} or temporal segment networks~\cite{TSN2016ECCV}, the learned models can be viewed as snippet-level classifiers. Following the recognition pipeline of previous methods~\cite{SimonyanZ14,TSN2016ECCV,xiong2016cuhk}, we perform snippet-wise evaluation for action recognition in untrimmed videos. In practice, we sample a single frame (or 5 frame stacking of optical flow) every 30 frames. The recognition scores of sampled frames are aggregated with top-$k$ pooling (k set to 20) or weighted sum to yield the final video-level prediction.
{\bf Action detection.} Our UntrimmedNet with soft selection module not only delivers a recognition score, but also outputs an attention weight for each snippet. Naturally, this attention weight could be exploited for action detection (temporal localization) in untrimmed videos. For more precise localization, we perform test every 15 frames and keep the prediction score and attention weight for each frame. Based on the attention weight, we remove background by thresholding (set to 0.0001) on it. Finally, after removing background, we produce the final detection results by thresholding (set to 0.5) on the classification score.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
In this section we describe the experimental results of our method. First, we introduce the evaluation datasets and the implementation details of our UntrimmedNets. Then, we perform exploration studies to determine important configurations of our approach. Finally, we examine our method on weakly supervised action recognition (WSR) and action detection (WSD), and compare with the state-of-the-art methods.
\subsection{Datasets}
We evaluate our UntrimmedNet on two large datasets, namely THUMOS14~\cite{THUMOS14} and ActivityNet~\cite{HeilbronEGN15}. These two datasets are suitable to evaluate our method as they provide the original untrimmed videos. It should be noted that these two datasets also have temporal annotations of action instances for training data, but {\bf we do not use these temporal annotations when training our UntrimmedNets}.
The {\bf THUMOS14} dataset has 101 classes for action recognition and 20 classes for action detection. It is composed of four parts: training data, validation data, testing data, and background data. To verify the effectiveness of our UntrimmedNet on learning from untrimmed videos, we mainly use the validation data (1,010 videos) to train our models and the test data (1,574 videos) to evaluate their performance. The {\bf ActivityNet} dataset is a recently introduced benchmark for action recognition and detection in untrimmed videos. We use the ActivityNet release 1.2 for our experiments. In this release, the ActivityNet consists of 4,819 videos for training, 2,383 videos for validation, and 2,480 videos for testing, of 100 activity classes. We perform two kinds of experiments: 1) learning UntrimmedNets on the training data and testing it on the validation data, 2) learning UntrimmedNets on the combination of training and validation data and submitting testing results to the evaluation server. The {\bf evaluation metric} is based on mean average precision (mAP) for action recognition on these two datasets. For action detection, we follow the standard evaluation metric by reporting mAP values for different intersection over union (IoU) values on the dataset of THUMOS14.
\subsection{Implementation details}
We use the video extension version~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} of the Caffe toolbox~\cite{JiaSDKLGGD14} to implement the UntrimmedNet. We choose two successful deep architectures for feature extraction in our UntrimmedNet, namely Two Stream CNNs~\cite{SimonyanZ14} and Temporal Segment Network~\cite{TSN2016ECCV}. The two networks are both based on two stream inputs (RGB and Optical Flow) and Temporal Segment Network is equipped with segmental modeling (3 segments) to capture long-range temporal information. Following the Temporal Segment Network, the input to the spatial stream is 1 RGB frame and the temporal stream takes 5-frame stacks of TVL1 optical flow. We choose the Inception architecture~\cite{IoffeS15} with Batch Normalization for the UntrimmedNet design and we initialize UntrimmedNet parameters of both streams with pre-trained models from ImageNet~\cite{DengDSLL009} with the method introduced in ~\cite{TSN2016ECCV}. The UntrimmedNet parameters are optimized with the mini-batch stochastic gradient algorithm, where the batch size is set to 256 and the momentum to 0.9. The initial learning rate is set to 0.001 for the spatial stream and decreases every 4,000 iterations by a factor of 10, and the whole training stops at $10,000$ iterations. For the temporal stream, we set the initial learning rate to 0.005, which is decreased every 6,000 iterations by a factor of 10, and it stops training at $18,000$ iterations. As the training set size of THUMOS14 and ActivityNet is relatively small, we use high dropout ratios (0.8 for the spatial stream and 0.7 for the temporal stream) and common data augmentation techniques including cropping augmentation and scale jittering.
\subsection{Exploration studies}
In this subsection, we focus on the exploration studies to determine the important setups of UntrimmedNet. Specifically, we perform investigation on the THUMOS14 dataset, where we train the UntrimmedNet on the validation data and conduct evaluation on the testing data. In all these experiments, we report performance of both hard selection and soft selection
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.495\linewidth]{tmp2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.495\linewidth]{tmp3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of different clip proposal sampling methods on the THUMOS14 dataset.}
\label{fig:sampling}
\end{figure}
{\bf Clip sampling.} We design two simple sampling method in Section~\ref{sec:sampling}. We start our experiments by comparing these two proposal sampling methods. In this study, we use the two stream CNNs for feature extraction in the UntrimmedNet and seven clips are randomly sampled from each video. The numerical results are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:sampling}. From the results, we see that both sampling methods can give good performance for UntrimmedNet training and the shot based sampling is able to yield better performance (71.6\% vs. 70.2\% for the soft selection module). We ascribe the better performance of shot based sampling to the fact that shot detection is able to automatically detect the action boundary and is more natural for video temporal segmentation than uniform segmentation. In the remaining experiments, we choose the shot based proposal sampling by default.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{tmp4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{tmp5-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of different architectures for feature extraction on the THUMOS14 dataset.}
\label{fig:feature}
\end{figure}
{\bf Feature extraction.} An important component in our UntrimmedNet is feature extraction as the classification and selection modules both depend on feature representations. In this experiment, we choose two networks, namely two stream CNNs~\cite{SimonyanZ14} and temporal segment networks~\cite{TSN2016ECCV}, and sample seven clip proposals per video during the training phase. The experimental results are reported in Figure~\ref{fig:feature}, and we observe that the temporal segment networks consistently outperform the original two stream CNNs for both hard and soft selection modules, due to their long-term modeling over the entire clip (74.2\% vs. 71.6\% for the soft selection module). Therefore, we choose the temporal segment networks for feature extraction in the remaining experiments.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{tmp0-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{tmp1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Performance of UntrimmedNets with different numbers of clip proposal per video on the THUMOS14 dataset.}
\label{fig:proposal_num}
\end{figure}
{\bf Number of proposals.} Another important parameter in the design of UntrimmedNet is the number of clip proposals sampled from each video. As the GPU memory is limited, we need to strike a balance between the number of sampled clip proposals per video and the number of videos per batch. According to our experiment, on average, we generate 40 clip proposals for each video on the THUMOS14 dataset and 20 clip proposals for each video on the ActivityNet dataset. In our experiment, we set the number of sampled clip proposals per video to 5, 7, 9. In the hard selection module, we set the parameter $k$ in top-$k$ pooling as $\lfloor \frac{N}{2} \rfloor$, where $N$ is the number of sampled clip proposals. The experimental results are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:proposal_num} and we see that for separate streams, the performance slightly varies when the number of sampled proposals changes, but the performance of two stream networks is quite stable for the hard selection module. For the soft selection module, the values 7 and 9 show a small advantage over 5 and therefore, to keep a balance between accuracy and efficiency, we fix the number of sampled proposal to 7 in the remaining experiments.
\subsection{Evaluation on WSR}
\begin{table}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & THUMOS14 & ActivityNet (a) & ActivityNet (b) \\
\hline
\hline
TSN (3 seg)~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} & 67.7\% & 85.0\% & 88.5\%\\
TSN (21 seg) & 68.5\% & 86.3\% & 90.5\% \\
\hline
UntrimmedNet (hard) & 73.6\% & {\bf 87.7\%} & {\bf 91.3\%} \\
UntrimmedNet (soft) & {\bf 74.2\%} & 86.9\% & 90.9\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Effectiveness of selection module on the problem of weakly supervised action recognition (WSR). On the THUMOS14 dataset, we train UntrimmedNet on the validation data and evaluate on the test data. For the setting (a) of ActivityNet, we train UntrimmedNet on the training videos and test on the validation videos. For the setting (b) of AcitivtyNet, we train on the train+val videos and evaluate on the test server. ``hard'' and ``soft'' in UntrimmedNet rows refer to hard and soft selection modules.}
\label{tbl:result1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|lr|lr|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{THUMOS14} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{ActivityNet} \\
\hline
\hline
iDT+FV~\cite{WangS13a} & 63.1\% & iDT+FV~\cite{WangS13a} & 66.5\%$^*$ \\
Two Stream~\cite{SimonyanZ14} & 66.1\% & Two Stream~\cite{SimonyanZ14} & 71.9\%$^*$ \\
EMV+RGB~\cite{ZhangWWQW16} & 61.5\% & C3D~\cite{TranBFTP15} & 74.1\%$^*$ \\
Objects+Motion~\cite{JainGS15} & 71.6\% & Depth2Action~\cite{ZhuN16} & 78.1\%$^*$ \\
TSN (3 seg)~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} & 78.5\% & TSN (3 seg)~\cite{TSN2016ECCV} & 88.8\%$^*$ \\
\hline
\hline
UntrimmedNet (hard) & 81.2\% & UntrimmedNet (hard) & {\bf 91.3\%} \\
UntrimmedNet (soft) & {\bf 82.2\%} & UntrimmedNet (soft) & 90.9\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Comparison of our UntrimmedNet with other state-of-the-art methods on the datasets of THUMOS14 and AcitivtyNet (v1.2) for action recognition. For ActivityNet, we train the models on train+val videos and evaluate on the test server. $^*$ indicates using strong supervision for training. }
\label{tbl:result_sota}
\end{table}
After the exploration study on different configurations, we turn to the investigation of UntrimmedNet on the problem of weakly supervised action recognition (WSR) on the datasets of THUMOS14 and ActivityNet in this subsection.
{\bf Effectiveness of selection module.} We first examine the effectiveness of leveraging selection modules in UntrimmedNets for learning from untrimmed videos. In order to study the setting of learning from untrimmed videos, we use the validation data for training on the THUMOS14 dataset, and use the untrimmed videos without temporal annotations for training on the ActivityNet dataset.
We choose two baseline methods to compare: the standard temporal segment network with the average aggregation function (TSN), which is the state-of-the-art action recognition method, and TSN with more segments, which uses more segments during training. The numerical results are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:result1}. From these results, we first see that our UntrimmedNet equipped with a hard or soft selection module outperforms the original TSN frameworks on both datasets. Furthermore, for the sake of a fair comparison with our UntrimmedNet, we increase the segment number of TSN to 21, which is equal to the number of segments in our UntrimmedNet ($3 \times 7$), and we see that increasing the segment numbers indeed contributes to improving the recognition performance. But the performance of TSN with 21 segments is still below that of our UntrimmedNet, which indicates that explicitly designing selection modules for learning from untrimmed videos is effective.
{\bf Comparison with the state of of the art.} After a separate study on the effectiveness of selection modules on WSR, we now compare the UntrimmedNet with other state-of-the-art methods on those two challenging datasets. To get a fair comparison with other methods, we use the training and validation videos to learn UntrimmedNets on the THUMOS14 dataset. As its training data (UCF101) is already trimmed, we simply use the whole video clips as proposals to train our UntrimmedNet. On the dataset of ActivityNet, we combine the training and validation videos to train our models and report the performance on the testing videos. It is worth noting that other methods all use strong supervision (i.e. temporal annotation and video labels), while our UntrimmedNet only uses weak supervision (i.e. only video labels)
We compare with several previous successful action recognition methods, which previously achieved the state-of-the-art performance on these two datasets, including improved trajectories (iDT+FV)~\cite{WangS13a}, two stream CNNs~\cite{SimonyanZ14}, 3D convolutional networks (C3D)~\cite{TranBFTP15}, temporal segment networks (TSN)~\cite{TSN2016ECCV}, Object+Motion~\cite{JainGS15}, and Depth2Action~\cite{ZhuN16}. The numerical results are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:result_sota}. We see that our UntrimmedNets outperform all these previous methods. Our best performance is 3.7\% above that of other methods on the THUMOS14 dataset and 2.5\% on the ActivityNet dataset. This superior performance of UntrimmedNet justifies the importance of jointly learning classification and selection modules. Furthermore, we are only using weak supervision and have obtained better performance than those methods relying on strong supervision, which could be explained by the fact that our UntrimmedNet could well utilize useful context information in the whole untrimmed videos rather than only learning from trimmed activity clips.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\resizebox{1.\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc}
\hline
IoU ($\alpha$) & $\alpha$= 0.5 & $\alpha$ = 0.4 & $\alpha$ = 0.3 & $\alpha$ = 0.2 & $\alpha$ = 0.1 \\
\hline
Oneata {\em et al.}~\cite{OneataVS14}$^*$ & 14.4 & 20.8 & 27.0 & 33.6 & 36.6 \\
Richard {\em et al.}~\cite{Richard_2016_CVPR}$^*$ & 15.2 & 23.2 & 30.0 & 35.7 & 39.7 \\
Shou {\em et al.}~\cite{ShouWC16}$^*$ & 19.0 & 28.7 & 36.3 & 43.5 & 47.7 \\
Yeung {\em et al.}~\cite{YeungRMF16}$^*$ & 17.1 & 26.4 & 36.0 & 44.0 & 48.9 \\
Yuan {\em et al.}~\cite{Yuan_2016_CVPR}$^*$ & 18.8 & 26.1 & 33.6 & 42.6 & 51.4 \\
\hline
UntrimmedNet (soft) & 13.7 & 21.1 & 28.2 & 37.7 & 44.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{1mm}
\caption{Comparison of our UntrimmedNet with other state-of-the-art methods on the datasets of THUMOS14 for action detection. $^*$ indicates using strong supervision for training.}
\label{tbl:det2}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\center
\vspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Rafting_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{FrontCrawl_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{BandMarching_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Triplejump_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Shovelingsnow_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_high_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_high_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_high_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_high_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_low_4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_low_3-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_low_2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\hspace{-1.5mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.121\linewidth]{Playingharmonica_low_1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Visualization of attention weights on the test data of THUMOS14 and AcitivtyNet. {\bf The left four frames are with the highest attention weights and the right four frames are with the lowest attention weights.} The above three videos are from THUMOS14 test data with action categories of Rafting, FrontCrawl, BandMarching, and the below three videos are from ActivityNet test data with action classes of TripleJump, ShovelingSnow and PlayingHarmonica.}
\label{fig:det1}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Evaluation on WSD}
After evaluation on the problem of weakly supervised action recognition (WSR), we turn to the problem of weakly supervised action detection (WSD) in this subsection. Specifically, we explore the performance of our UntrimmedNet with soft selection module on this problem.
{\bf Qualitative results.} We first visualize the some examples of learned attention weights on the test data of THUMOS14 and ActivityNet. These examples are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:det1}. In this illustration, each row describes one video, where the first 4 images show frames with highest attention weights while the last 4 images are frames with lowest weights. We see that our selection module is able to automatically highlight important frames and to avoid irrelevant frames corresponding to static background or non-action poses.
{\bf Quantitative results.} We also report the performance of action detection on the THUMOS14 dataset, based on the standard intersection over union (IoU) criteria~\cite{THUMOS14}. We simply try a simple detection strategy by thresholding on the attention weights and detection scores as described in Section~\ref{sec:rd}, and aim to illustrate that the learned models with UntrimmedNets could also be applied to action detection. In the future, we may try more advanced detection methods and post-processing techniques. We compare our detection results with other state-of-the-art methods in Table~\ref{tbl:det2}. We notice although our UntrimmedNets simply employ the weak supervision of video-level labels, we can still achieve comparable performance to that of strongly supervised methods, which demonstrates the effectiveness of UntrimmedNets on learning from untrimmed videos.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:con}
In this paper we have presented a novel architecture, called {\em UntrimmedNet}, for weakly supervised action recognition and detection, by directly learning action models from untrimmed videos. As demonstrated on two challenging datasets of untrimmed videos, our UntrimmedNet achieves better or comparable performance for action recognition and detection, when compared with those strongly supervised methods. The superior performance of UntrimmedNet may be ascribed to its advantages of the joint design of classification and selection modules, and optimizing these model parameters in an end-to-end manner.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is partially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant VarCity, the Toyota Research Project TRACE-Zurich, the Big Data Collaboration Research grant from SenseTime Group (CUHK Agreement No. TS1610626), and Early Career Scheme (ECS) grant (No. 24204215).
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
The galaxy population can be thought of as bimodal, with star forming late-type galaxies populating the so-called blue cloud and passive early-type galaxies preferentially found in the red sequence \citep{Blanton2003, Kauffmann2003, Kauffmann2004, Baldry2004,Balogh2004, Brinchmann2004}.
This bimodality is strongly correlated with the environment, with many studies pointing out a well established morphology-density relation holding in both clusters and the field: the higher the projected surface density of galaxies within an area, the higher is the fraction of early types and the lower is the fraction of late types \citep[e.g.][]{Dressler1980, Dressler1997, Baldry2004, Fasano2015}. This piece of evidence indicates a role of the environment in shaping galaxy properties.
The detection of a conspicuous population of star forming galaxies in the core of rich and dense clusters at z$\sim$0.5, but absent today \citep{Butcher1984}, was the first discovery of a strong decline in star formation with time. Subsequently, several studies \citep[e.g.][]{Poggianti1999,Cooper2008} have shown the influence of high density environments
on the formation and evolution of galaxies.
In an evolutionary scenario in which clusters form and grow through the accretion of field galaxies, these findings suggest that there should be some active mechanisms able to halt the star formation in infalling galaxies.
Several authors proposed many different mechanisms able to shut down star formation in high-density regions; examples include ram-pressure stripping \citep{Gunn1972}, high speed galaxy encounters \citep[galaxy harassment; ][]{Moore1996}, galaxy-galaxy mergers \citep{Mihos1994}, and removal of the warm and hot halo gas \citep[strangulation; ][]{Larson1980, Balogh2000}.
Recently, \citet{Dressler2013} proposed that cluster galaxies could be transformed via group pre-processing, during the fall-in group phase.
Valuable insights to understand how the star-forming
population turns passive can be obtained by studying galaxies that appear to have intermediate properties and may be in the act of transitioning between the two main galaxy populations.
This transition can occur on different time scales depending on the main process inducing the transformations \citep{Wetzel2013, Mok2013, Schawinski2014, Wheeler2014, Vulcani2015, Paccagnella2016}. However, a clear picture describing the reasons why galaxies turn into passive following different paths and the properties of these galaxies is still lacking.
\citet{Dressler1982}, investigating cluster galaxies at intermediate redhsifts, found a large number of spectra showing strong Balmer absorption lines and no emission and called them post-starburst galaxies. These features are typical of stellar populations in which star formation had ended abruptly within the last 1-1.5 Gyr and therefore should have been affected by some of the aforementioned processes.
Since then, extensive spectrophotometric modeling \citep{Couch1987,Newberry1990,Poggianti1996,Abraham1996, Poggianti1997,Bekki2001,Poggianti2004} has found that the presence of strong hydrogen lines in absorption and the concomitant absence of emission lines, indicating no ongoing star formation, can be explained roughly decomposing the spectra into a combination of K giant star (or early type galaxy) spectrum and an A star spectrum, Such decomposition is at the origin of the name "k+a", often used to describe post-starburst galaxies.
In general, A type stars - i.e. new born stars formed within the last 1 Gyr whose spectra are characterized by strong Balmer absorption lines - dominate the light of a galaxy about 0.5 Gyr after star formation stopped and leave their signature on the spectra visible for 1-1.5 Gyr. In contrast, O and B stars - more massive stars that die very quickly and emit the energetic photons able to ionize the gas and produce emission lines - have no or very little contribution.
This combination can appear as a result of a star-bursting episode observed shortly after the star formation has stopped (for those galaxies with the strongest Balmer lines), or as a consequence of normal star formation that has been abruptly ended. Moreover, since A type stars have known lifetimes, the evolution of this population can be used as a quenching clock.
The reason why post-starburst galaxies underwent an episode of star formation that was abruptly stopped is still matter of debate; any of the mentioned quenching mechanisms acting on a short time scale could trigger a starburst and cease star formation, producing a k+a spectra.
Important hints for solving this matter come from the study of the galaxy environments as different quenching mechanisms play different roles in different environments.
Galaxy mergers could be the dominant mechanism in the field at low-z, where recent studies found a significant fraction of post starburst galaxies \citep{Bekki2001, Quintero2004, Blake2004,Goto2005, Hogg2006,Mahajan2013}, but they are less effective in clusters, due to the high velocity dispersions.
The origin of k+a galaxies in clusters is more probably related to the interaction of the infalling population with the hot and dense intra cluster medium (ICM).
Indeed, as suggested by \citet{Dressler1982, Couch1987, Dressler1992, Poggianti1999,Tran2003,Tran2004,Tran2007, Poggianti2009}, the interaction of a gas rich galaxy with the hot high-pressure ICM via ram-pressure stripping might trigger a starburst and then clear the disk of neutral gas stopping star formation.
The most striking evidence for this is perhaps in the Coma cluster, where the position of young post-starburst galaxies is strongly correlated with strong X-ray temperature gradients \citep{Poggianti2004}.
While this picture is corroborated by observations of high and intermediate redshift clusters \citep{Poggianti1999,Muzzin2014}, in the local Universe several works \citep[e.g.][]{Blake2004, Goto2005} found that post starburst galaxies prefer low density environments and thus asses that cluster specific processes are not likely to be the dominant source of fast quenching. Nonetheless, the few studies that investigated the fraction and properties of the local post-starburst cluster population \citep[e.g.][]{Caldwell1997,Poggianti2004, Fritz2014} found evidence of truncated star formation in a significant fraction of cluster members.
A complete census of post-starburst galaxies in clusters and a homogeneous comparison with the field population is however still lacking. The main reasons are the paucity of the cluster samples studied and the different selection criteria adopted in these studies that do not allow fair intra-sample comparisons. In addition, local post starburst galaxies are often selected without constraints on the H$\alpha$ line, to allow for direct comparisons with high redshift samples, where generally the spectral coverage does not allow to reach the H$\alpha$ emission. However, as shown by \citet{Goto2003} and \citet{Blake2004}, such selections suffer from high levels ($\approx 50\%$) of contamination from H${\alpha}$ emitting galaxies.
However, most E+A galaxies at low redshift are located in the field and represent a very low fraction of the overall galaxy population (0.2 per cent; Zabludoff et al. 1996). The rarity of E+A galaxies at low redshift means that samples can only be constructed from large galaxy redshift surveys. As a result, very few local (v < 5000 km s−1) examples of field E+As are known.
In this work, we exploit a sample of galaxies in clusters drawn from the WIde-field Nearby Galaxy-cluster Survey (WINGS) \citep{Fasano2006, Moretti2014}, and OmegaWINGS surveys \citep[]{Gullieusik2015, Moretti2017}. The combination of the two projects allows us to study the properties of $\sim 10000$ member galaxies in an homogeneous sample at $0.04<z<0.07$.
This dataset is unique, as none of the other low-z surveys investigate a large sample of clusters and cluster galaxies in such detail. Thanks to the wide area covered by OmegaWINGS ($\sim 1 deg ^2$), we can investigate cluster members well beyond the cluster virial radius and link clusters with the surrounding population and the field that have been proved to be essential for understanding galaxy transformations \citep[][]{Lewis2002, Pimbblet2002, Treu2003, Moran2007,Marziani2016}.
We investigate the occurrence and properties of post starburst galaxies in 32 clusters and compare them to those of passive and star forming galaxies.
Trends are investigated as a function of both clustercentric distance and global cluster properties, i.e. cluster velocity dispersion and X-ray luminosity. Aim of this analysis is to shed light on the processes acting on these galaxies and the time scale needed to transform from one type to the other.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:dataset} presents the dataset and the main galaxy properties; Sec. \ref{sec:class} summarizes the spectroscopic classification; Sec. \ref{sec:datasample} presents the data sample. Section \ref{sec:results} presents our results, focusing on the analysis of the post starburst galaxy population and comparing it to the complementary samples of star-forming and passive galaxies. Morphologies, spatial distributions, and dependencies on global cluster properties are inspected.
Finally, we discuss our results in Sec. \ref{sec:disc} and conclude in Sec. \ref{sec:conc}.
Throughout the paper, we adopt a \citet{Salpeter1955} initial mass function in the mass range 0.15-120 M$_{\odot}$. The cosmological constants assumed are $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and H$_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
\section{Dataset and galaxy properties}\label{sec:dataset}
We base our analysis on the WIde-field Nearby Galaxy-cluster Survey (WINGS) \citep{Fasano2006, Moretti2014}, a multi-wavelength survey of 76 clusters of galaxies with $0.04<z<0.07$ X-ray selected from ROSAT All Sky Survey data \citep{Ebeling1996,Ebeling1998,Ebeling2000}, and from its recent extension, OmegaWINGS, that includes new observations for 46 of these clusters (\citealt{Gullieusik2015,Moretti2017}). The cluster samples cover a wide range of velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{cl}\sim$500-1300 km/s) and X-ray luminosity ($L_X\sim 0.2-5 \times 10^{44}$ erg/s).
The WINGS survey is mainly based on optical B, V imaging \citep{Varela2009} that covers a $34^{\prime}\times34^{\prime}$ field of view, corresponding to at least about a clustercentric distance of 0.6$R_{200}$. R$_{200}$ is defined to be the radius delimiting a sphere with interior mean density 200 times the critical density and is used as an approximation for the cluster virial radius. The survey has been complemented by a spectroscopic survey for a subsample of 48 clusters, obtained with the spectrographs WYFFOS@WHT and 2dF@AAT \citep{Cava2009}, by a near-infrared (J, K) survey for a subsample of 28 clusters obtained with WFCAM@UKIRT \citep{Valentinuzzi2009}, and by U broad-band and H$\alpha$ narrow-band imaging for a subsample of 17 clusters, obtained with wide-field cameras at different telescopes (INT, LBT, Bok) \citep{Omizzolo2014}.
OmegaWINGS extends the WINGS survey in terms of cluster spatial coverage: OmegaCAM/VST imaging in the u, B, and V bands have been obtained for 45 fields covering 46 WINGS clusters over an area of $\sim$1~deg$^2$ \citep{Gullieusik2015}, thus allowing us to investigate trends well beyond the virial radius and connect clusters with the surrounding population and the field. The spectroscopic follow-up has been obtained for a subsample of 33 clusters with the 2dFdr@AAT \citep{Moretti2017}.
The target selection was similar for the two surveys \citep[]{Cava2009, Moretti2017}. It was based on the available optical B, V photometry \citep{Varela2009,Gullieusik2015} and aimed at maximizing the chances of observing galaxies at the cluster redshift without biasing the cluster sample.
Targets were selected to have a total magnitude brighter than $V=20$, excluding only those well above the color-magnitude sequence with $B-V > 1.20$. These criteria minimize the contamination from background galaxies and include all galaxies on and below the red sequence up to $z\sim 0.08$.
Combining the data of the two surveys, the final spectroscopic sample consists of 22674 spectra in 60 clusters \citep{Moretti2017}.
To measure spectroscopic redshifts, we adopted a semi-automatic method, which involves the automatic cross-correlation technique and the emission lines identification, with a very high success rate ($\approx$ 95\% for the whole sample, see \citealt{Cava2009} and \citealt{Moretti2017}. The mean redshift z$_{cl}$ and the rest frame velocity dispersion $\sigma_{cl}$ of each cluster were derived using the biweight robust location and scale estimators \citep{Beers1990} and applying an iterative 3$\sigma$ clipping.
Galaxies were considered cluster members if they lie within 3$\sigma_{cl}$ from the cluster redshift.
R$_{200}$ was computed from $\sigma_{cl}$ following \citet{Poggianti2006} and used to scale the distances from the Brightest Cluster Galaxy (BCG).
The spectroscopic catalog has been corrected for both geometrical and magnitude incompleteness, using the ratio of number of spectra yielding a redshift to the total number of galaxies in the parent photometric catalog, calculated both as a function of V magnitude and radial projected distance from the BCG.
Galaxy properties have been derived by fitting the fiber spectra with SINOPSIS (SImulatiNg OPtical Spectra wIth Stellar population models), a spectrophotometric model fully described in \citet{Fritz2007, Fritz2011,Fritz2014}.
It is based on a stellar population synthesis technique that reproduces the observed optical galaxy spectra.
All the main spectrophotometric features are reproduced by summing the theoretical spectra of simple stellar populations of 12 different ages (from 3 $\times 10^6$ to approximately 14$\times 10^9$ years).
The code provides estimates of star formation rates (SFRs), stellar masses ($M_*$), both observed and absolute model magnitudes and measures of observed equivalent widths (EWs) for the most prominent spectral lines, both in absorption and in emission.
Magnitudes were computed by convolving the filters response curves with the spectrum.
Due to the configuration of the 2dFdr spectrograph, which is a dual-beam system with two arms overlapping around 5700 \AA, for each object observed with this instrument we obtained two spectra, hereafter called red and blue, which are spliced into the full final spectrum. Despite the quite extended overlap, the region of the spliced spectrum often results quite noisy, due to normalization issues.
While none of the lines used in our analysis (see sect.\ref{sec:class}) fall in the spliced region, the SFRs and mass estimates in such region might be significantly affected by noise, therefore, we fit the continuum only on the blue part of the spectra, ranging from about 3600 \AA{} to 5700 \AA.
Hereafter, we will use stellar masses locked into stars, including both those that are still in the nuclear-burning phase, and remnants such as white dwarfs, neutron stars and stellar black holes.
We note the SINOPSIS is fed with fiber spectra,\footnote{ Fibers are centered on the source emission profile with an accuracy that is equal or better than 0.1$^{\prime\prime}$ \citep[see][]{Gullieusik2015}.} therefore all the galaxy properties suffer from aperture effects. The fiber diameters were 2.16$^{\prime\prime}$ (AAT) and 1.6$^{\prime\prime}$ (WHT), therefore the spectra cover only the central 1.3 to 2.8 kpc of our galaxies depending on the cluster redshift, (see \citet{Cava2009} for details), which correspond to approximately half the typical effective diameter of WINGS galaxies.\footnote{ Effective radii were computed with GASPHOT by \citet{DOnofrio2014}; the median value of the circularized effective radius is $\sim$1.7$\pm$0.2 kpc.}
To recover the galaxy-wide integrated properties, all the derived quantities have been scaled from the fiber to the total magnitude, using the ratio of total to aperture fluxes.
For the WINGS sample, morphological types were derived from V-band images using MORPHOT, an automatic tool for galaxy morphology, purposely devised in the framework of the WINGS project \citep{Fasano2012}. MORPHOT extends the classical CAS classification using 20 different morphological diagnostics and assigns a morphological type (MORPHOT type, T$_M$) to each galaxy from -6 (cD) to 11 (irregulars). The morphological classification of the OmegaWINGS sample is currently underway (Fasano et al. in prep.).
For our purposes, one of us (G.F.) visually classified the morphologies of the post starburst galaxies in our sample (see \S\ref{sec:datasample}) that are not in the original WINGS sample, by inspecting the V-band images.
In the following, we will consider three main morphological classes: ellipticals ($-5\leq\textrm{T}_M<-4.25$), S0s ($-4.25\leq\textrm{T}_M\leq 0$) and late-types ($\textrm{T}_M>0$).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Cluster sample: global properties}
\label{tab_gp}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Cluster} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{z} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{N$_{mem}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_{cl}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{R$_{200}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{log(L$_X$)}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{km s$^{-1}$} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Mpc} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$} \\
\hline\\
A1069 & 0.0651 & 130 & 695 $\pm 55$ & 1.67 & 43.98\\
A151 & 0.0538 & 248 & 738 $\pm 32$ & 1.78 & 44.0 \\
A1631a & 0.0465 & 369 & 760 $\pm 29$ & 1.84 & 43.86\\
A168 & 0.0453 & 141 & 547 $\pm 38$ & 1.32 & 44.04\\
A193 & 0.0484 & 101 & 764 $\pm 58$ & 1.85 & 44.19\\
A2382 & 0.0639 & 322 & 698 $\pm 30$ & 1.67 & 43.96\\
A2399 & 0.0577 & 291 & 730 $\pm 35$ & 1.75 & 44.0 \\
A2415 & 0.0578 & 194 & 690 $\pm 38$ & 1.66 & 44.23\\
A2457 & 0.0587 & 249 & 680 $\pm 37$ & 1.63 & 44.16\\
A2717 & 0.0498 & 135 & 544 $\pm 47$ & 1.32 & 44.0 \\
A2734 & 0.0618 & 220 & 781 $\pm 49$ & 1.88 & 44.41\\
A3128 & 0.0603 & 480 & 839 $\pm 29$ & 2.02 & 44.33\\
A3158 & 0.0594 & 357 & 1024 $\pm 37$ & 2.46 & 44.73\\
A3266 & 0.0596 & 678 & 1319 $\pm 40$ & 3.17 & 44.79\\
A3376 & 0.0463 & 263 & 845 $\pm 42$ & 2.04 & 44.39\\
A3395 & 0.0507 & 369 & 1206 $\pm 55$ & 2.91 & 44.45\\
A3528 & 0.0545 & 262 & 1017 $\pm 46$ & 2.45 & 44.12\\
A3530 & 0.0549 & 275 & 674 $\pm 39$ & 1.62 & 43.94\\
A3556 & 0.048 & 359 & 669 $\pm 35$ & 1.62 & 43.97\\
A3558 & 0.0486& 442 & 1003 $\pm 34$ & 2.42 & 44.8 \\
A3560 & 0.0491 & 283 & 840 $\pm 35$ & 2.03 & 44.12\\
A3667 & 0.0558 & 386 & 1011 $\pm 42$ & 2.43 & 44.94\\
A3716 & 0.0457 & 327 & 849 $\pm 27$ & 2.05 & 44.0 \\
A3809 & 0.0626 & 244 & 554 $\pm 38$ & 1.33 & 44.35\\
A3880 & 0.058 & 216 & 688 $\pm 56$ & 1.66 & 44.27\\
A4059 & 0.049 & 229 & 752 $\pm 38$ & 1.82 & 44.49\\
A500 & 0.0682 & 227 & 791 $\pm 44$ & 1.89 & 44.15\\
A754 & 0.0545 & 338 & 919 $\pm 37$ & 2.22 & 44.9 \\
A85 & 0.0559 & 172 & 982 $\pm 55$ & 2.37 & 44.92\\
A957x & 0.0451 & 92 & 640 $\pm 47$ & 1.55 & 43.89\\
A970 & 0.0589 & 214 & 844 $\pm 49$ & 2.03 & 44.18\\
IIZW108 & 0.0486 & 171 & 612 $\pm 38$ & 1.48 & 44.34\\
\hline\end{tabular}
\\
\end{center}
\tablecomments{Columns: (1) cluster name, (2) cluster mean redshift, (3) number of member galaxies (used to compute mean redshift and velocity dispersion as explained in the text), (4) cluster velocity dispersion with errors, (5) R$_{200}$ in Mpc, (6) logarithm of the X-ray luminosity (from \citet{Ebeling1996}). }
\end{table}
\section{The spectral classification}\label{sec:class}
Focus of this paper is the characterization of the properties of galaxies showing different features on their spectra, therefore we rely on the measure of the EWs provided by SINOPSIS. We convert the observed EWs in rest frame values, simply dividing the measurements by $(1+z)$ and we adopted the usual convention of identifying emission lines with negative values of the EWs and absorption lines with positive ones.
\citet{Fritz2007} found that both absorption and emission lines are reliably measured by SINOPSIS in spectra with S/N$>$3, calculated across the whole spectral range. In spectra with S/N$<$3, noise can be misinterpreted as an emission. This happens especially for the [OII] emission line, which is located in a spectral range where the hydrogen lines of the Balmer series (in absorption) crowd. It is hence possible that a peak between two such absorption lines is misinterpreted as an [OII] emission. In spectra with $S/N\leq 3$, the EW of the [OII] is $\geq -2$\AA, and we use this value as threshold above which measurements are considered unreliable.
In our sample, the average S/N, calculated for the whole spectral range, is $\sim12$. $2\%$ of the spectra have $S/N<$3, therefore they are only a negligible fraction.
Based on the spectral classification originally proposed by \citet{Dressler1999} and \citet{Poggianti1999} and more recently updated by \citet{Fritz2014}, we subdivide our sample into three classes, according to the rest frame EWs of [OII] and H$\delta$, which are good indicators of current and recent star formation. When the [OII] is not detected, the equivalent width of [OIII] and H$\beta$ are also used.
Differently from \citet{Fritz2014}, our spectral classification exploits also the information on the H$\alpha$ line: all spectra showing H$\alpha$ in emission are directly classified as emission line galaxies, regardless of the other lines.
In this way we obtain a more robust classification, ensuring that there is no current star formation, in both the passive and post-starburst samples.
The detailed description and the physical interpretation of this classification is discussed by \citet{Poggianti1999,Poggianti2009} and \citet{Fritz2014}.
Briefly, spectra with any of the aforementioned emission lines belong to galaxies in which the star formation is taking place, and will thereafter be called emission line galaxies (EML).
Spectra with no emission lines, including H${\alpha}$, are divided based on the strength of H$\delta$: $k$ spectra, normally found in passively evolving elliptical galaxies, resembling those of K-type stars, with weak H$\delta$ in absorption (H$\delta$<3 \AA), and $k+a$ and $a+k$ spectra, displaying a combination of signatures typical of both K and A-type stars with strong H$\delta$ in absorption (respectively $3<$ H$\delta<8 \AA$ and H$\delta>8 \AA$). The former (k-type) will be thereafter called passive galaxies (PAS), the latter (both $k+a$ and $a+k$) post starburst galaxies (PSB).
We note that, among the PSBs, the strength of H${\delta}$ is indicative of the initial condition associated with the main quenching event. Indeed an
H${\delta}> 6$ \AA{} can be explained only if a burst of star formation involving high mass fractions (10-20\%) happened prior to the sudden quenching. Galaxies showing this feature are caught in an early phase of transition \citep{Goto2004}.
In contrast, spectra with a moderate H${\delta}$ line could be both the result of the truncation of star formation in a normal star forming galaxy (thus no burst is required) or a late stage of evolution of the proper post-starburst galaxies. Broadly speaking, while all PSB galaxies with strong H${\delta}$ will later turn into PSBs with moderate H${\delta}$, the opposite is not true. Therefore, we will sometimes discuss also the strong PSB (H${\delta}> 6$ \AA{}, hereafter sPSB) separately.
The automatic classification has been visually confirmed. Upon inspection, we noticed that in a number of cases the code had mis-identified emission lines (oxygen forbidden lines and H$\beta$), measuring noise rather than real emission.
The [OII] emission line, by coincidence, is located in a critical region of our spectra, being in the shortest wavelength regime covered by the spectrograph that often result quite noisy \citep[see][]{Smith2004}.
Moreover, we found that, in most cases, the H${\beta}$ and [OIII] emissions were mis-identified in spectra showing only one emission line.
We visually inspected all the spectra where only one emission line was detected and, if necessary, changed the galaxy spectral type.
Furthermore, we checked all the $k+a$ and $a+k$ candidates and excluded those with undetected emission lines, remeasured the H${\delta}$ EW for those with an automatic measure higher than 5 \AA{} or with a comparable uncertainty.
As already discussed in the previous section, we note that due to the limited size of the fiber diameter, we classify galaxies based on the spectra targeting only the central region of galaxies. The aperture bias could in principle lead to a misclassification of galaxies that may have remaining star-formation activity outside the fiber.
\section{DATA SAMPLE}\label{sec:datasample}
One of the main focus of this paper is the occurrence of PSB galaxies as a function of clustercentric distance; in particular we want to investigate the role of the cluster environment also beyond the virial radius.
We therefore restrict our analysis to the clusters covered also by the OmegaWINGS observations.
Among these, only the 32 clusters with a global spectroscopic completeness higher than $\approx$ 50\% are used. The final cluster sample is presented in Table \ref{tab_gp}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Weighted spectral numbers and fractions}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ l |c c| c c| c c| c c }
\hline
\hline
Galaxy type & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{PAS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{PSB} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{sPSB} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{EML}\\
& N & \% & N & \% & N & \% & N & \% \\
\hline
Clusters & 8162 (4235) &55.7$\pm$0.4 & 1057 (560) &7.2$\pm$0.2 & 154 (80) & 1.1$\pm$0.3 & 5441 (3029) & 37.0$\pm$0.4\\
Field & 415 (225) & 19.7$\pm$0.8 & 28 (15) &1.3$\pm$0.2 &7 (3) & 0.3$\pm$0.1 & 1667 (923) & 79.0$\pm$0.9\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{5pt}
\tablecomments{Weighted Number (raw numbers in brackets) and percentage of the different spectral types for the magnitude-limited sample weighted for spectroscopic incompleteness and considering only galaxies inside 1.2R$_{200}$. The field sample has no radial limits. The proportion of PAS (k), PSB (k+a/a+k), strong PSB (\textbf{the subsample of} PSB with EW(H${\delta}>=$6) and EML galaxies are listed along with binomial errors.}
\label{tab_frac}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-330pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{COMPOSITE_SPECTRA_KA_2.eps}
\vspace{-20pt}
\caption{Rest frame composite spectrum of the post-starburst cluster sample. The inset shows a zoom in of the spectral region around H${\delta}$. \label{comp_spectra}}
\end{figure*}
Galaxies belonging to the final sample have a V magnitude brighter than 20.
In our analysis, we neglect the contribution from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN).
As pointed out by \citet{Alatalo2016}, this choice could bias our results in the sense that galaxies in which emission lines are not linked to the star formation process, but are excited by the AGN mechanism, are excluded from the post-starburst sample.
Nonetheless, \citet{Guglielmo2015}, analyzing a mass limited sample extracted from the original WINGS survey, estimated that the AGN contribution in the star forming galaxy population is approximately 1.6\% and we estimate that this fraction will not remarkably change in our sample. Thus, including these objects in the emission line galaxy population should not considerably affect our results. A more detailed analysis of emission line galaxies and their classification as star forming galaxies, transition objects and active galactic nuclei for the WINGS sample is presented by \cite{Marziani2016}.
The main sample consists of cluster members within 1.2R$_{200}$ from the BCG, a distance that is reached by almost all the selected clusters (90\%).
We exclude galaxies at larger distances (the maximum radial coverage is approximately 2 R$_{200}$ for member galaxies) because these all belong to clusters with very low velocity dispersion, so they might be a biased population non representative of the general one.
We also exclude BCGs, which are a peculiar population \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{ vonderLinden2007,Fasano2010}.
Non-cluster member galaxies with $0.035<z<0.08$ constitute our field control sample, used for reference.
The final sample consists of 7824 cluster galaxies and 1163 field galaxies \citep[respectively 14660 and 2110 galaxies, once weighted for incompleteness, see][ for a detailed explanation]{Cava2009}. The number of EML, PAS and PSB galaxies in the different environments is given in Table \ref{tab_frac} and discussed below.
\section{RESULTS}\label{sec:results}
In this section we present our results. We will first investigate the occurrence and the galaxy properties of the different spectral types (e.g. stellar masses, magnitudes, colors and morphologies), then we will investigate trends as a function of both clustercentric distance and the level of substructures in clusters.
We will also focus on the position of the galaxies on the phase space and characterize the role of global cluster properties, i.e. cluster velocity dispersion and X-ray luminosity, in driving trends.
Aim of our analysis is to shed light on the processes that induce a truncation of the star formation on short time scales and give rise to the existence of the PSB galaxies. Given our interest in this population, in Fig. \ref{comp_spectra} we show the composite spectrum of our PSBs, to visualize the main features of this population. The composite spectrum is obtained by summing the spectra of all the PSB galaxies in the cluster sample, after normalizing each spectrum by its mean value. The measured rest frame EW(H${\delta}$) is greater than 4 {}\AA, the other Balmer lines are well visible and no emission is detected.
\subsection{Properties of the different galaxy populations}
\label{sec:properties}
Table \ref{tab_frac} presents the incidence of the different spectral types in clusters and in the field.
PAS galaxies dominate the galaxy population in clusters, being 55.7$\pm$0.4\% of all galaxies, while EML galaxies are 37.0$\pm$0.4\% of all members.
In the field, the contribution of the PAS and EML populations is reversed: nearly the 80\% of field galaxies show sign of ongoing star formation, while less than 20\% are PAS.
The fraction of PSB galaxies is significantly higher in clusters than in the field: 7.2$\pm$0.2\% vs 1.3$\pm$0.2\%.
We note that our field sample might actually be biased towards galaxies belonging to filaments or structures falling into the main cluster, but we are not able to separate them.
Furthermore, there are only 15 PSBs in the field, therefore the statistics in this environment is too poor to draw any conclusion.
A more complete analysis of PSB galaxies in the field in the local universe, based on a different sample, is currently underway (Paccagnella et al in prep.).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{MASS_DISTRIBUTION_G.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{MAG_DISTRIBUTION.eps}
\caption{Number of cluster (solid) and field (dashed) galaxies in the three main spectral types as a function of stellar mass (left panel) and absolute V magnitude (right panel). Dark green histograms in the middle panels show the sPSB subsample. Arrows indicate the median value for each type. Errors are poissonian \citep{Gehrels1986}. \label{mmdist} }
\end{figure*}
The relevance of the PSB cluster population is even more striking considering their fraction relative to the active population, which includes galaxies that are (EML) or have been (PSB) star-forming within the last 2 Gyr. The PSB to active fraction gives the ``quenching efficiency" \citep[see][]{Poggianti2009} that is the efficiency in truncating the star formation in star-forming galaxies.
PSB galaxies represent 16.3$\pm$0.5\% of the cluster active population, in agreement also with the high redshift fractions derived by \cite{Poggianti2009}, while they make up for less than 2\% in the field.
Hence, clusters are far more efficient than the field in shutting off star formation in galaxies on a very short time scale.
Stellar mass and absolute V magnitude ($M_V$) weighted distributions for galaxies of the different spectral types are presented in Fig. \ref{mmdist}.
The spectral classification, going from PAS to PSB, to EML galaxies, turns out to be, in both environments, a sequence of decreasing mean galaxy mass and increasing mean $M_V$.
EML galaxies dominate the low mass/low luminosity tails of the distributions, while the contribution of the PAS population becomes more important going toward higher masses and luminosities.
In order to test if the mass and magnitude distributions of the three populations are significantly different, we perform Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. The results, comparing the distributions of PSBs to PASs and EMLs and PASs to EMLs, allow us to reject the null hypothesis that these populations are drawn from the same sample (P-values of the order of 0.0).
This picture fits the downsizing scenario \citep{Cowie1996}, in which star formation at higher redshifts was more active in more massive/luminous galaxies that are the first to turn into passive.
The distributions of the properties of PSB galaxies are intermediate between those of the PAS and EML populations. This is even clearer looking at the median values of the distributions for cluster galaxies indicated by the black arrows in Fig. \ref{mmdist} (the median masses are 9.78$\pm$0.01, 9.98$\pm$0.02 and 10.23$\pm$0.1, the median magnitudes are $-18.64\pm$0.02, $-18.52\pm$0.04, and $-19.09\pm$0.02 for EMLs, PSBs and PASs, respectively).
Field median values agree, within the standard errors, with the cluster ones, apparently indicating no strong environmental dependencies. However, we remind the reader that the field sample size does not allows us to draw solid conclusions.
The absolute magnitude distribution of PSBs peaks around M$_{V}=-18.5$, with a deficit among the brightest galaxies (M$_{V}<-20.5$) with respect to both the EML and PAS populations. These characteristics were already visible in the sample described in \cite{Fritz2014} and are similar to those of the post-starburst population in the Coma cluster \citep{Poggianti2004}.
In the cluster sample, 14$\pm$1\% of the PSB galaxies are classified as sPSB;
in the field, only 3/15 PSB galaxies are sPSB, making any conclusion statistically meaningless.
sPSB galaxies (dark green histograms in Fig. \ref{mmdist}) span a narrower range of both absolute magnitude ($M_{V}>-19$) and stellar mass ($\log M_\ast$<10.5) missing the high mass tail and luminosity. This suggests that only the least massive/luminous PSB galaxies undergo a phase of sPSB, and confirms the hypothesis that while all the sPSB galaxies will age and evolve into moderate PSB galaxies, not all PSBs have experienced the sPSB phase.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{cm_py2.pdf}
\caption{Rest-frame ($B-V$)-$V$ relation for cluster galaxies of the different spectral types. Red-solid and blue-dashed contours: number densities of PAS and EML galaxies, respectively. Green dots: PSB; black dots: sPSB. The black line represents the selection limit we adopt to select red and blue galaxies.
\label{fig:col} }
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:col} shows the absolute rest-frame color-magnitude diagram (($B-V$) vs $M_V$) for cluster galaxies of the different spectral classes.\footnote{We recall that absolute magnitudes and rest-frame colors were computed on the fiber spectrum and are given by the spectrophotometric model convolving the filters response curves with the spectrum. } To subdivide galaxies into red and blue, we consider the color-magnitude red sequence of each WINGS cluster given in \cite{Valentinuzzi2011}. We use the average value of the slope across all clusters and fix the quote 1$\sigma$ below the average red sequence. Galaxies whose color lie above
$$(B-V)_{rf}=-0.045\times V-0.035$$
(black heavy line in Fig. \ref{fig:col}) are assigned to the red sequence, the rest to the blue cloud.
As expected, most of PAS galaxies present red colors (73.3$\pm$0.5\%), while EML galaxies are preferably blue (75.2$\pm$0.6\%).
Also the majority of PSB and sPSB galaxies have red colors (73$\pm$1\% and 59$\pm$4\%, respectively), even though the fraction of PSBs with blue colors is not negligible. This finding supports the idea that fast quenching of star formation immediately brings the galaxies to the red sequence, but also that a pure color-based selection is unable to uniquely distinguish between passive, star forming and galaxies that recently interrupted their star formation. Therefore a detailed spectral analysis is necessary to recognize the different galaxy sub-populations.
According to the picture we described above, one would expect sPSB galaxies to have bluer colors than the rest of the PSBs \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Poggianti2004}. Figure 3 shows that this seems not to be the case in our sample. This results might be due to the fact that, at low redshift, most of the stars in galaxies are old, and, as soon as the star formation is switched off, the galaxy becomes quickly red as the old stars dominated the integrated light.
An alternative explanation could be the presence of dust.
As already discussed in \cite{Poggianti1999}, the assumption that the progenitors of PSB galaxies are dusty starburst objects entails that dust reddening might affect also the post-starburst class.
We tested this hypothesis by exploiting the average extinction values given by SINOPSIS and no trend with the EW of H$\delta$ was found. This result might suggests that either sPSB galaxies are not more obscured than PSBs, or that the real EW values in absence of dust obscuration should be higher and that our EW estimates have to be considered as lower limits.
\subsection{Morphologies}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Weighted morphological percentages of PSB galaxies}
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c }
\hline
\hline
\vspace{3pt}
& E & S0 & LT \\
& \% & \% & \% \\
\hline
PSB & 28$\pm$1 & 45$\pm$2 & 27$\pm$1\\
sPSB & 17$\pm$3 & 41$\pm$4 & 42$\pm$4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{5pt}
\tablecomments{Morphological percentages for the PSB and sPSB samples weighted for spectroscopic incompleteness. Errors are binomial. }\label{tab:morf}
\end{table}
The analysis of the morphologies of PSBs can shed light on the typical properties of this population.
Table \ref{tab:morf} presents the percentage of galaxies of different morphological types for the whole PSB sample.
45$\pm$2\% of the galaxies are classified as S0s, while the remaining sample is evenly divided between ellipticals (28$\pm$1\%) and late-types (27$\pm$1\%).
Considering only sPSB galaxies, while the fraction of S0s does not change within the errors (41$\pm$4\%), that of late types and elliptical does: the former represent 42$\pm$4\% of the total population, the latter 17$\pm$3\%.
Several reasons might be at the origin of such different morphological distribution between the two samples.
The larger fraction of late-types among sPSB galaxies than among PSBs agrees with the hypothesis that these are younger objects in which the original disk structure has not yet been changed.
Together with mass and luminosity distribution of sPSB galaxies (Fig. \ref{mmdist}), this morphological mix could also indicate that the process responsible for the strong burst needed to create the observed spectral features is more effective on less massive galaxies with an high fraction of gas at the moment of infalling.
As an alternative, invoking only ram pressure stripping as the main process responsible for the production of both PSB and sPSB galaxies, the observed morphologies could simply reflect the properties of the infalling population.
We remind the reader that at low redshifts, the amount of gas necessary to produce a burst of star formation as a consequence of the interaction of the galaxy with the ICM, via ram pressure stripping, is mostly located in low-mass late-type systems while more massive galaxies are mostly early-types and gas deficient \citep{Mahajan2013}.
Similarly to the analysis of galaxy colors, the analysis of the morphologies shows that the majority of PSB galaxies cannot be recognized when using just a morphological classification, but a detailed spectral analysis is necessary.
\subsection{Spatial distribution of the different spectral types}
In the previous sections, we have shown that low-z clusters host a much larger fraction of post-starburst galaxies than the field, pointing towards a cluster-specific origin of the majority of this class of objects.
To differentiate among possible quenching processes that can suddenly truncate the star formation in clusters, we now investigate the radial distribution of the different spectral classes. Overall, the clustercentric distance is a good tracer of the cluster density profile, is related with the time since infall into the cluster \citep{Goto2004}, and
is an approximate timescale sensitive to processes occurring on times of the order of a few Gyr.
Processes which quench star formation gradually, such as stangulation, would induce radial gradients while processes acting on short time scales, e.g. ram pressure stripping, are more likely to cause distinctive signatures at the radii where they are most effective.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{FRAZIONI_TIPO.eps}
\caption{Ratio of post-starburst to active galaxies (top panels) and ratio of post-starburst, passive and emission line galaxies to the total (bottom panels) as a function of $R/R_{200}$.
Points with error bars represent cluster fractions, dashed lines give the trends of the respective fractions in two bins of velocity dispersion $\sigma$ ($\sigma < 840 km/s$ -short dashed lines- and $\sigma > 840 km/s$ -long dashed lines). Errors are binomial \citep{Gehrels1986}. \label{fig:frac_type}}
\end{figure}
The bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:frac_type} shows the incidence of each galaxy population (PAS, EML, PSB) as a function of clustercentric projected distance, in units of R/R$_{200}$.
As mentioned in Sec. 4, we limit our analysis to 1.2R$_{200}$, not to bias our results towards the clusters with low values of velocity dispersion.
In agreement with previous results, \citep{Weinmann2006,vonderLinden2010, Vulcani2015} we find a pronounced relation between distance from the cluster center and the composition of the galaxy population.
PAS galaxies dominate the inner regions ($\sim$70\% at $R<0.4R_{200}$), and their fraction decreases going outward of a factor of $\sim$2.5. In contrast, the fraction of EML galaxies is $\sim 60\%$ at large clustercentric distances and rapidly declines towards the cluster center of a factor of 4.
Despite their relatively small incidence, also the fraction of PSB galaxies depends on clustercentric distance, and their trend follows that of PAS: in the cluster cores PSBs are $\sim$1.7 as numerous as PSBs in the outskirts.
The upper panel of Fig. \ref{fig:frac_type} shows the quenching efficiency ($PSB/(PSB+EML)$) as a function of the clustercentric distance.
In the cluster cores, the ratio is $\sim 35\%$, indicating that even in these regions EMLs dominate the active population. The fraction decreases of a factor of 3 from the cluster center to 0.6R$_{200}$, while it is almost constant in the outer regions ($R/R_{200}$>0.7).
Also the incidence of sPSBs (dark green symbols in the upper panel of Fig.\ref{fig:frac_type}) among the active population increases toward the center, even if with a less steep trend.
These results might arise due to the different proportions in the population mix as a function of the global environment, i.e. different cluster halo mass.
We therefore consider in Fig. \ref{fig:frac_type} two different cluster velocity dispersion bins, respectively higher (long dashed line) and lower (short dashed line) than 840 km/s,\footnote{The value 840 km/s was chosen to approximately divide the galaxy sample in 2 equally populated bins.}
and find that the trends persist and are even more pronounced in the high cluster mass bin. A more detailed analysis of the dependence of the post-starburst fraction on the cluster global properties will be discussed in \S\ref{cl_prop}.
Considering the PSBs of different morphological types, we find that overall the incidence of ellipitcals, S0s and late-types does not change with clustercentric distance, suggesting there is no morphological segregation for PSBs (plot not shown).
\subsection{Substructures}
Clusters are generally characterized by the presence of substructures \citep{Ramella2007, Biviano2002}, which implies that merging between clusters and groups is a rather common physical process of cluster formation.
This merging process has been found to affect greatly star formation histories of member galaxies and to eventually induce secondary starburst \citep[see][]{Cohen2014, Bekki1999, Bekki2010}.
The coincidence of the position of the strongest k+a galaxies and the X-ray substructures in Coma found by \cite{Poggianti2004} strengthens this scenario.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.41]{pps_pass2_abs.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.41]{pps_eml2_abs.png}
\caption{Observed stacked phase space diagram for cluster members. Clustercentric distances are in units of R$_{200}$ and the absolute value of the line-of-sight velocities with respect to the cluster recessional velocities are normalized by the velocity dispersion of the cluster. PSB galaxies are represented by green points, sPSB galaxies by black points. They are over-plotted to PAS galaxies (left panel, red contours) and to EML galaxies (right panel, blue contours). \label{pps} }
\end{figure*}
To check whether the presence of sub-structures alters the star formation in cluster galaxies, we compute the fractions of the PSB galaxies belonging to these systems.
We use the catalogs of the WINGS substructures presented by Biviano et al. (in prep.), who define substructures and assign member galaxies to potential substructures exploiting the velocity distributions of galaxies in the cluster local density peaks.
30.4$\pm$0.4\% of the member galaxies belong to substructures and, among these, 6.1$\pm$0.4\% are PSB galaxies and 0.9$\pm$0.2\% are sPSBs.
The percentage of the PSBs is slightly lower than the value found for the same population when considering the entire galaxy sample (7.2$\pm$0.2\%).
The same conclusion holds for the fraction of PSB and sPSB galaxies with respect to the active population. Thus, this type of analysis does not reveal a strong PSB enhancement in substructures.
We also investigate the fraction of PSB, PAS and EML galaxies in clusters characterized by different levels of relaxation. We use the parameter SUB defined in Biviano et al. (in prep.) that depends, among other things, on the fraction of member galaxies belonging to substructures, and consider three types of clusters: relaxed ($SUB=0$), partly relaxed ($SUB=1$) and unrelaxed ($SUB>1$).
In agreement with e.g. \citet{Cohen2015} and \citet{Biviano1997}, we find a higher/lower fraction of EML/PAS galaxies in less relaxed clusters than in more-relaxed ones (0.344$\pm$0.005/0.580$\pm$0.005; 0.408$\pm$0.0084/0.522$\pm$0.009 and 0.44$\pm$0.01/0.50$\pm$0.01 for SUB=0, SUB=1 and SUB$>1$, respectively).
Even more interestingly, the fraction of PSB galaxies also depends on the dynamical state of the cluster, following the trend of the PAS population: the PSB/PSB+EML fractions are 0.179$\pm$0.006, 0.144$\pm0.009$ and 0.12$\pm$0.01 for SUB=0, 1 and $>1$, respectively.
This is the opposite of what might be expected, if merging clusters were the most favorable environment for PSB production. Part of this trend might be due to the existence of the correlation between PSB fraction and $L_X$ (Fig.~7), as the average X-ray luminosity decreases going from more relaxed to less relaxed clusters (2.8, 2.7 and 1.3 $\times 10^{44} \, \rm erg s^{-1}$ for SUB=0, 1, $>1$). Moreover, the most unrelaxed clusters are in a sense clusters still in the formation process, in which the galaxy populations are still very similar to the unprocessed population of galaxies in the merging groups/clusters, therefore are still very rich of star-forming galaxies that have not experienced a massive cluster environment yet.
\subsection{Phase space analysis}
Many recent papers \citep{Biviano2002, Haines2013,Oman2013,Muzzin2014,Jaffe2016} have shown that galaxy populations with different dynamical histories are well separated in the so-called phase space, which links the spatial position of a galaxy in the clusters, in units of R$_{200}$, and its peculiar velocity, $\Delta v$, normalized by the velocity dispersion of the cluster $\sigma$.
Moreover, the theoretical phase-space diagram derived from cosmological simulations retains information of the epoch of accretion of a galaxy, that can therefore be estimated based on the location of the galaxy in the diagram \citep{Haines2015}.
The same is unfortunately not possible with observations, given the large uncertainties that induce the different populations to overlap on the plane.
However, it is still possible to retrieve important clues about the dynamical histories of the different galaxy populations in clusters \citep[e.g.][]{Mahajan2011,Oman2013,Muzzin2014,Hernandez-Fernandez2014, Haines2015,Jaffe2015,Jaffe2016}.
Indeed, the overall distribution of galaxies in the phase space strongly depends on the infall times: galaxies that where accreted earlier (i.e. virialized galaxies) typically occupy a triangular-shaped region while the recently accreted or infalling population permeates all projected velocities and radii.
Combining this evidence with the well-established correlation between galaxy quiescence and environment, PAS galaxies are expected to form the majority of the virialized population while EML and PSB galaxies should belong to the infall or recently accreted sample.
Figure \ref{pps} shows the projected phase space obtained combining all clusters together for the different subpopulations separately.
As expected, PAS galaxies are typically found in a triangular-shaped virialized region, which corresponds to the low velocity-low distance area, while EML galaxies are more spread in both radius and velocity.
The PSB population, as already discussed, preferentially lie at small clustercentric distances (R<0.6$R_{200}$), exhibiting anyway a non negligible spread in velocity.
A 2D K-S test rejects the hypothesis that both PSB and EML and, with a slightly less significance, PSB and PAS galaxies are drawn from the same distribution (P-values respectively of 0.0 and 0.07), suggesting indeed that these populations are in different stages of their virialization process.
The sPSB population can be better distinguished in terms of velocity rather than clustercentric distance: following the general radial trend of PSB galaxies, these galaxies have slightly higher velocities(median $\Delta v/\sigma$ of 0.67$\pm$0.02 and 0.87$\pm$0.07 for the PSB and sPSB population, respectively).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{VEL_DISP_PP.eps}
\caption{Velocity dispersion profiles ($\sigma_{LOS}(r)/\sigma$) of each galaxy population; colors refer to the different populations as described in the labels and as in Fig. \ref{fig:frac_type}. Errors are jackknife standard deviations \citep{Efron1982}. \label{fig:veldisp} }
\end{figure}
To better quantify the differences between the populations, modeling the results presented by \citet{Haines2015} for 75 simulated clusters at z$=0.0$, Fig. \ref{fig:veldisp} shows the mean normalized line of sight (LOS) velocity dispersion of each sub-population ($\sigma_{LOS}/\sigma$) in six bins of projected radial distance. The errors are obtained using the classical jackknife technique \citep{Efron1982}.
Due to the low number statistics, the sPSB sample is divided only in three bins spanning the same radial range.
By comparison with the analysis of \citet{Haines2015}, the different velocity dispersion profiles can be explained according to the dynamical evolution and accretion history of the galaxy populations.
PAS and EML galaxies are well separated, the former having low LOS-velocity dispersion at all radii with respect to the latter that displays, especially in the cluster core, higher values of $\sigma$.
These trends are best reproduced by the virialized population, which was accreted at early epochs ($z>0.4$), and by the most recently accreted and backsplash populations, respectively \citep{Gill2005}
The profile of the PSB population follows the one traced by the PAS$/$virialized population, while sPSBs have remarkably larger velocity dispersions thus belonging to the more recently accreted population.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FRAZ_LX.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{FRAZ_SIGMA.pdf}
\caption{Fraction of post-starburst galaxies as a function of the cluster X-ray luminosity (left) and velocity dispersion (right). Black points represent individual clusters, red points give the fractions in 5 equally populated bins.
Lower panels: weighted fraction of post-starburst galaxies among the whole population. Upper panels:weighted fraction of post-starburst galaxies among the active population. Errors are binomial. \label{fig:fraz_global} }
\end{figure*}
These findings well fit the scenario in which the strength of the EW(H${\delta}$) sets a time line with higher values indicating a more recent quenching event. If the sPSBs are the consequence of a star-burst prior to a sudden quenching, the violent$/$sudden event that triggers the burst seems to happen on first infall; moderate PSBs could originate in the same way but are observed longer time after quenching \citep{Poggianti2009}.
This result moves in the same direction of \cite{Muzzin2014} who, investigating the location of different classes of galaxies on the stacked phase space of clusters at z$\sim$1, found that post-starburst galaxies are commonly found at small clustercentric radii with high clustercentric velocities.
\subsection{Dependence of the spectral type fractions on cluster properties}
\label{cl_prop}
So far we have shown how the fractions of the different subpopulations
change as a function of the spatial location, both physical and dynamical, within the clusters.
We now examine if and how the fraction of PSB galaxies depends on the global properties of the clusters, such as velocity dispersion and X-ray luminosity, both proxy for the system total mass.
It is still unclear whether or not the cluster mass affects the amount of observed star formation. For example, several studies at high and intermediate redshifts \citep[e.g.][]{Finn2005,Poggianti2006} find an inverse correlation between star formation and cluster mass, while others \citep[e.g.][]{Popesso2007} assert that no such correlation exists in the nearby cluster population.
All our clusters contain galaxies belonging to all the three main spectral classes, but the population mix in each cluster is quite different.
To assess if these differences arise from a dependence on the cluster halo mass, for each cluster we compute the PSB fraction, weighted for completeness, among all galaxies and among the active population.
For this analysis, we restricted the data to an absolute magnitude limited sample. This should prevent the introduction of possible systematics related to the selection criteria of the cluster sample.
Member galaxies brighter than $M_V=-17.4$ were selected. This is the absolute magnitude corresponding to the $V=20$ apparent magnitude limit of the most distant cluster.
The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fraz_global} where the individual systems, indicated as black points, are shown as a function of velocity dispersion (left) and X-ray luminosity (right).
To mark the average trends we group the cluster sample into five bins of $\sigma$ and $L_X$ with approximately the same number of galaxies and show the results as red points.
Both fractions (PSB/all and PSB/active galaxies) increase with the mass of the system, more significantly when we consider the X-ray luminosity rather than the velocity dispersion. A Spearman test, which assesses how well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic function, performed on the unbinned data, yields a 99.8\%(99.9\%) and 98.1\%(99.3\%) probability of a correlation of the PSB/all (PSB/active) fraction with L$_{X}$ and $\sigma$ respectively.
This result is in line with the findings of \cite{Poggianti2009} for clusters in the EDisCS sample at $z\sim0.5$ even if the strength of the correlations for our sample is lower, (the Spearman test yields a 99.1\% and 99.7\% probability
of a correlation with the velocity dispersion of their PSB/all and PSB/active fractions, respectively).
In contrast, it is at odds with the analysis performed by \cite{Fritz2014} on the restricted WINGS sample. These authors did not detect correlations with either the velocity dispersion or the X-ray luminosity. Discrepancies could be due to several reasons, such as the different selection criteria for post-starburst galaxies (they did not use the information on the H$_{\alpha}$ line), the different cut in magnitude, the higher completeness or the larger area covered by our sample.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
Exploiting the capabilities of the combined WINGS and OmegaWINGS samples, in this paper we have investigated the properties and the spatial distribution of galaxies that are currently star-forming, that have recently interrupted their star formation and that are already passive in clusters at $0.04<z<0.07$. Our main focus has been on PSB galaxies, to shed light on the processes that induce galaxies to undergo this particular phase during their life.
PSB galaxies are characterized by intermediate physical properties with respect to the EML and PAS galaxies, and are thought to be in a transition phase between these two populations: both their median stellar mass and magnitudes are in between the values found for the other two populations.
As expected given the fact that they have no ongoing star formation, PSB galaxies present colors similar to the PAS galaxies, even though at faint magnitudes they can also be as blue as the EML galaxies.
Almost half of the PSBs galaxies have been classified as S0s, while the incidence of elliptical and late-type galaxies depends on the strength of the measured EW of H$\delta$: considering all PSBs, the fraction of ellipitcals and late-types is similar, considering only the sPSB, late-type galaxies dominate the population.
The fraction of PSB galaxies decreases with increasing distance, suggesting that in the core of the clusters some mechanisms are inducing galaxy transitions. The same fraction also depends on the cluster properties and it steadily increases with increasing $L_x$ and $\sigma$.
Moreover, PSBs do not concentrate as much in the low clustercentric distance-low velocity locus of the phase-space as virialized galaxies do. This, together with the fact that their velocity dispersion is quite intermediate between that of PAS and EML galaxies, especially for the sPSB galaxies, could lead to the interpretation that PSBs are a combination of galaxies with a mix of times-since infall (backsplash + virialized).
Ideally, one should define the virial, infall and backsplash classes following the orbits of the particles using cosmological simulation. This task is beyond the scope of this work but will be addressed in forthcoming papers.
\subsection{Slow and fast quenching mechanisms in clusters}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{TR_KA_M1_2.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.42]{TR_KA_M2_2.eps}
\caption{Radial distribution of transition galaxies (black) as defined by \cite{Paccagnella2016} and of PSB galaxies (green), in two bins of stellar mass. Errors are binomial.
\label{fig:ka_tr}}
\end{figure*}
As found by \citet{Poggianti2004}, \citet{Tran2007}, and \citet{Muzzin2014}, PSB galaxies have to be generated by a fast acting mechanism, given that this phase can last approximately 1-1.5 Gyr.
As already discusses in Sec.\ref{intro}, spectra showing strong Balmer absorption lines and no emission are the result of a precise combination of an old stellar population above which A-type stars signatures are well visible. These stars, formed within the last Gyr, dominate the light of a galaxy where a recent star formation activity has ended abruptly and are visible for 1-1.5 Gyr \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Poggianti2004}.
Even though this is a quite efficient channel to transform galaxies from star forming to passive, it is definitely not the only one. E.g. \citet{Patel2009, Vulcani2010, Paccagnella2016} have found a population of galaxies in transition on long time scales (few Gyr) both in the local universe and at higher redshift ($z<1$). Adopting a different approach, following the infall and orbits of galaxies in the vicinity of the 75 most massive clusters in the Millennium cosmological simulation, also \citet{Haines2015} support a slow quenching scenario, with a timescale of the order of 0.7-2 Gyr.
Seeking for objects in transition from being star forming to becoming passive, \citet{Paccagnella2016} analyzed the SFR-M$_*$ relation of local cluster galaxies in a mass-limited sample extracted from the WINGS+OmegaWINGS sample.
They identified a population of galaxies, called \textit{transition galaxies}, located 1.5$\sigma$ below the field SFR-M$_*$ relation, whose star formation histories and properties suggest that they have had a reduced SFR for the past 2-5 Gyr.
At least above the mass completeness limit, the fraction of transition galaxies strongly depends on environment, being almost negligible outside the virial radius and rising towards the center, making up for almost the 30\% of star forming galaxies inside 0.6R$_{200}$.
As concluded by the authors, these findings, together with the estimated quenching time scale, are consistent with the hypothesis that the interaction of galaxies with the intracluster medium via strangulation causes a gradual shut down of star formation.
We are now in the position of directly comparing the slow quenching channel characterized by \citet{Paccagnella2016} with the much faster one required to observe the typical post-starburst signatures. To do so, we consider only galaxies with stellar mass larger than the mass completeness limit of 10$^{9.8} M_{\odot}$ used by \citet{Paccagnella2016}. 346 PSB galaxies (650 once weighted for completeness) enter the sample, of which only 32 (56) are sPSB. Above this limit, PSBs constitute the 7.3$\pm$0.3\% of the total population and all the environmental dependencies found for the whole sample persist.
For comparison, above the same limit and the same clustercentric distance, 408 (780) galaxies have been classified by \citet{Paccagnella2016} as in transition, and they constitute 9.0$\pm$0.3\% of the entire population.
By definition, being transition galaxies selected from the star forming population, there is no object entering both samples.
Therefore transition galaxies are only slightly more numerous than PSB galaxies. Starting from the logical assumption that both populations have a common progenitor among star-forming galaxies, and if we assume that the transition phase lasts for about twice the time (of the order of $>$2 Gyr) of the PSB visibility ($\sim$1 Gyr), we conclude that the short timescale star-formation ``quenching'' channel contributes at least two times more than the long timescale one to the growth of the passive population.
Figure \ref{fig:ka_tr} investigates in detail where these two populations are found within the clusters. It shows the number of transition and PSB galaxies to the total number of galaxies, as a function of clustercentric distance. As done by \citet{Paccagnella2016}, two different mass bins are considered here, to also look for trends with stellar mass.
For $\log M_\ast<10.5$, PSB and transition galaxies present a similar anticorrelation between the fraction of PSB and transition objects and distance, even though PSB galaxies show a slightly flatter trend, being less numerous than transition galaxies in the core of the clusters and slightly more numerous outside the virial radius.
For $\log M_\ast>10.5$, at large clustercentric distances, both populations present trends similar to those at lower masses, but in the cluster cores they present a drop in number. Such drop occurs only in the cluster cores for transition galaxies, at $r<0.5R_{200}$ for PSBs. Overall, it might be primarily due to the fact that in the cluster cores massive galaxies are already mostly passive, therefore the reservoir for transitioning galaxies is poorer than at lower masses.
In addition, the different behavior seen for the two populations could be due to the visibility time-scales of the two populations, with PSBs disappearing faster than transition galaxies on the way to the cluster core.
As mentioned in \S\ref{sec:dataset}, galaxies drawn from the WINGS sample (approximately all those located within 0.6 $R_{200}$), have been morphologically classified. We can therefore compare the morphologies of PSB and transition galaxies in the core of the clusters, to look for signs of a link between galaxy morphology and time scale of quenching. We consider the mass limited samples.
Overall, among PSB galaxies, 40$\pm$2\% are ellipticals, 44$\pm$2\% are S0s and the remaining 16$\pm$2\% are late-type galaxies. Transition galaxies have a much more numerous population of S0s, with a remarkable 56$\pm$2\% at the expense of elliptical galaxies, accounting only for the 28$\pm$2\%, while 16$\pm$2\% are late-types.
No strong trends of the morphological mix with distance have been detected. However, we stress that here we are considering only galaxies in the core of the clusters, and we are not attempting to extrapolate trends at larger distances, where the morphological mix might be different. In addition, we remind the reader that this analysis is performed above the mass completeness limit of 10$^{9.8} M_{\odot}$ and that this cut excludes the vast majority of sPSB galaxies from our sample. This population have been found to have a distinct morphology from the whole population of PSB galaxies (see \S\ref{sec:properties}).
Studies regarding slow and fast quenching should necessarily follow different approaches.
As far as the post-starburst population is concerned, due to the high precision clock imposed by A-type stars lifetime, there is a general agreement on the time-scales involved \citep[see][ etc.]{ Quintero2004, Poggianti2004, Poggianti2009, Muzzin2014,Vulcani2015} and, from these, different mechanisms have been proposed.
On the other hand, an hypothesis on the physical processes causing the slow quenching of a galaxy has to be made to estimate the time scales involved.
Several authors have tried to estimate the quenching timescales of satellite galaxies through different approaches. \citet{Wetzel2013} proposed a mass dependent "delay-then-rapid" scenario in which star formation is quenched rapidly but only after a delay of 2-4 Gyr after infall. As an alternative \citet{Taranu2013} presented models where quenching occurs within a smaller radius, approximately $0.5R_{200}$, followed by an exponential decline of star formation over 3-3.5 Gyr.
\subsection{Specific processes responsible for the objects in transitions in clusters}
We found the majority of transition and PSB galaxies within the virial radius. It seems clear from our results that any of the proposed physical mechanisms (i.e. starvation or ram pressure stripping), which alter the star formation of infalling galaxies, is stronger in the central regions of the cluster, where the density and the temperature of the ICM (as well as the velocity of galaxies) reach their maxima.
By comparing the cluster crossing times and the A-stars lifetime, we could also imagine an evolutionary sequence in which some of the PSBs (the low mass ones, as discussed in sect. \ref{sec:properties}) descend from sPSB galaxies, i.e. the ram pressure starts being effective at larger distances, generating the population of sPSB, while at smaller cluster-centric distances we only see the PSB galaxies.
However, the comparison of the radial trend of the fractions of PSBs and transition galaxies does not allow to definitely ascertain whether the two populations have a different origin. Indeed, considering for example that ram pressure stripping depends, among other things, on the orbit and on the orientation of the galaxy with respect to the ICM \citep{Abadi1999}, we can depict two different scenarios in which star formation can either be suddenly shut down (on timescales of the order of $\sim$1Gyr, \citealt{Muzzin2014}) or gently and progressively depressed by ram-pressure stripping, and therefore give origin to the two observed galaxy populations.
In the first scenario, the resulting quenched population is expected to have PSB features, maintaining the original structural properties, since nothing apart from gas loss would disturb its morphology. Recall that the quenching time scale of PSB galaxies is imposed by A-type stars lifetime.
In the second scenario, ram-pressure stripping might be the main responsible also for the transition population presented in \citet{Paccagnella2016}. Nonetheless, the same population could originate also via strangulation, consistent with a gradual quenching corresponding to an exponential time scale of a 2 Gyr or more. Indeed, strangulation is expected to have the effect of removing the outer galaxy gas halo and prevent further infall of gas into the disk. On timescales of few Gyr, the star formation would thus exhaust the available gas, quenching the star formation activity.
In addition to ram-pressure stripping and strangulation, other mechanisms might play a role, even though they most likely take place at larger distances form the cluster center.
As discussed for example by \citet{Treu2003} and reviewed by \citet{Boselli2006}, quenching from gravitational interaction between galaxies (i.e. galaxy-galaxy interactions, harassment) occurs preferentially outside the virial radius, given the high velocity dispersions in the cluster cores that remarkably reduce the probability of pair interactions, with timescales of the order of some $10^{10}$ yr. Moreover, these interactions act on the stellar component, producing selective morphological transformations that we do not observe in the transition or PSB populations.
We emphasize that this does not mean that galaxy-galaxy interactions have no effect at all on cluster galaxies. These processes might eventually become important, but generally after the gas has been removed by other processes.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{sec:conc}
\label{conclusion}
In this work we have resorted to an observed magnitude limited sample of galaxies in clusters drawn from the WIde-field Nearby Galaxy-cluster Survey (WINGS) \citep{Fasano2006, Moretti2014}, and OmegaWINGS surveys \citep[]{Gullieusik2015, Moretti2017} to investigate the occurrence and the properties of galaxies of different types in 32 clusters at $0.04<z<0.07$.
We classified the galaxies according to the different features detected in their spectra (presence/absence of OII, OIII, H$\delta$ and H$\alpha$) into passive (PAS), post starburst (PSB) and emission line (EML) galaxies. We have compared stellar population properties and location within the clusters of the different spectral types to obtain valuable insights on the physical processes responsible for the star formation quenching.
The main results can be summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item For $V<20$, PAS represent $55.7\pm0.4$\% of the cluster population within 1.2 virial radii, EML represent $37.0\pm0.4$\% and PSBs $7.3\pm0.2\%$, 15\% of which show strong H$\delta$ in absorption (>6, sPSB), indication of either a very recent quenching and/or of a strong burst before quenching.
\item PSBs have stellar masses, magnitudes, colors and morphologies intermediate between PAS and EML galaxies, typical of a population in transition from being star forming to passive. Interestingly, 45\% of PSBs have S0 morphology, $28\pm1$\% are ellipticals and $27\pm1$\% are late types. Considering only sPSBs, the incidence of late-types increases to $42\pm4$\% with a corresponding drops of ellipitcals, which are only $17\pm3$\%.
\item The incidence of PSBs slightly increases from the cluster outskirts toward the cluster center and from the least toward the most luminous and massive clusters, defined in terms of $L_X$ and velocity dispersion.
\item The dynamical state of the clusters partially influences the incidence of PSBs. While the presence of substructures does not enhance the fraction of PSBs, the level of relaxation does: the fraction of PSBs is higher in relaxed clusters. At least part of this trend is due to the correlation between PSB fraction and $L_X$.
\item The phase space analysis and the velocity dispersion profiles suggest that PSBs represent a combination of galaxies with different accretion histories. Moreover, the PSBs with the strongest H$\delta$ are consistent with being recently accreted.
\end{itemize}
PSBs are thought to be galaxies generated by fast acting mechanisms and this phase is expected to last approximately 1-1.5 Gyr \citep[e.g.][]{Poggianti2004, Muzzin2014}.
Our analysis suggests that as a galaxy is accreted onto a cluster, at first its properties are not strongly affected, but when it approaches the virialized region of the cluster, processes like ram pressure stripping or other interactions induce either a burst of the star formation with a subsequent fast quenching, or simply a fast quenching. As the shut off of the star formation occurs, the galaxy changes the features in its spectrum, but variations in color and morphology require longer time scales, therefore PSBs appear with a wide range of these properties. It is important to stress that the majority of those galaxies that are truncated on a short timescale cannot be recognized based on color or color+morphology, but only by performing a detailed spectral analysis.
The fraction of PSBs is similar to the fraction of galaxies in transition on longer timescales, as defined by \citet{Paccagnella2016}, suggesting that the short timescale star-formation quenching channel, lasting less than half the timescale required to slowly quench star formation, contributes two times more than the long timescale one to the growth of the passive population, therefore processes like ram pressure stripping and interactions are more efficient than strangulation in affecting star formation, at least in clusters.
In other environments, the fraction of PSB galaxies and the processes responsible for its existence might be considerably different. \cite{Vulcani2015} have found hints of an enhanced fraction of PSB galaxies in groups compared to isolated and binary systems, but a complete characterization of the physical processes is still missing.
In a forthcoming paper (Paccagnella et al. in prep.), we will characterize the incidence of post starburst galaxies in the different environments, contrasting the properties of galaxies in clusters, groups, binary systems and isolated galaxies, to build a complete picture of the assembly of this population.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank the anonymous referee for their useful comments that helped us to improve the manuscript.
AP acknowledges financial support from the Fondazione Ing. Aldo Gini and thanks the Anglo Australian Observatory for a productive stay during which part of this work was carried out.
We acknowledge financial support from PRIN-INAF 2014 grant.
B.V. acknowledges the support from
an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (PD0028506).
This work was co-funded under the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (FP7-COFUND).
|
\section{Introduction and summary}
\label{intr}
The collection of all semigroup varieties forms a lattice with respect to class-theoretical inclusion. This lattice is denoted by \textbf{SEM}. The lattice \textbf{SEM} has been intensively studied since the beginning of 1960s. A systematic overview of the material accumulated here is given in the survey~\cite{Shevrin-Vernikov-Volkov-09}. There are a number of article devoted to an examination of special elements of different types in the lattice \textbf{SEM} (see~\cite[Section~14]{Shevrin-Vernikov-Volkov-09} or the recent survey~\cite{Vernikov-15} devoted specially to this subject). The present article continues these investigations.
In the lattice theory, special elements of many different types are considered. We recall definitions of three types of elements that appear below. An element $x$ of a lattice $\langle L;\vee,\wedge\rangle$ is called \emph{neutral} if
$$
(\forall y,z\in L)\quad (x\vee y)\wedge(y\vee z)\wedge(z\vee x)= (x\wedge y)\vee(y\wedge z)\vee(z\wedge x).
$$
It is well known that an element $x$ is neutral if and only if, for all $y,z\in L$, the sublattice of $L$ generated by $x$, $y$ and $z$ is distributive (see~\cite[Theorem~254]{Gratzer-11}). Neutral elements play an important role in the general lattice theory (see~\cite[Section~III.2]{Gratzer-11}, for instance). An element $x \in L$ is called
\begin{align*}
&\text{\emph{modular} if}&&(\forall y,z\in L)\quad y\le z\longrightarrow(x\vee y)\wedge z=(x\wedge z)\vee y,\\
&\text{\emph{cancellable} if}&&(\forall y,z\in L)\quad x\vee y=x\vee z\ \&\ x\wedge y=x\wedge z\longrightarrow y=z.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that any cancellable element is a modular one. A valuable information about modular and cancellable elements in abstract lattices can be found in~\cite{Seselja-Tepavcevic-01}, for instance.
Modular elements of the lattice \textbf{SEM} were examined in~\cite{Jezek-McKenzie-93,Shaprynskii-12,Vernikov-07}. In particular, commutative semigroup varieties that are modular elements of \textbf{SEM} are completely determined in~\cite[Theorem~3.1]{Vernikov-07}. Here we describe commutative semigroup varieties that are cancellable elements of \textbf{SEM}. In particular, we verify that, for commutative varieties, the properties of being modular and cancellable elements are equivalent.
To formulate the main result of the article, we need some notation. We denote by $F$ the free semigroup over a countably infinite alphabet. As usual, elements of $F$ are called \emph{words}. Words unlike variables are written in bold. Two parts of an identity we connect by the symbol~$\approx$, while the symbol~$=$ denotes the equality relation on $F$. Note that a semigroup $S$ satisfies the identity system $\mathbf wx\approx x\mathbf w\approx\mathbf w$ where the variable $x$ does not occur in the word \textbf w if and only if $S$ contains a zero element~0 and all values of \textbf w in $S$ are equal to~0. We adopt the usual convention of writing $\mathbf w\approx 0$ as a short form of such a system and referring to the expression $\mathbf w\approx 0$ as to a single identity. We denote by \textbf T the trivial semigroup variety and by \textbf{SL} the variety of all semilattices.
The main result of the article is the following
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}
For a commutative semigroup variety $\mathbf V$, the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textup{a)}] $\mathbf V$ is a cancellable element of the lattice $\mathbf{SEM}$;
\item[\textup{b)}] $\mathbf V$ is a modular element of the lattice $\mathbf{SEM}$;
\item[\textup{c)}] $\mathbf{V=M\vee N}$ where $\mathbf M$ is one of the varieties $\mathbf T$ or $\mathbf{SL}$, while $\mathbf N$ is a variety satisfying the identities $x^2y\approx 0$ and $xy\approx yx$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
It can be verified by fairly easy calculations that any proper subvariety of the variety \textbf W given by the identities $x^2y\approx 0$ and $xy\approx yx$ is given within \textbf W either by the identity $x^2\approx 0$ or by the identity $x_1x_2\cdots x_n\approx 0$ for some natural $n$ or by both these identities. Thus, in actual fact, Theorem~\ref{main} gives an exhaustive list of the varieties we consider.
The article consists of three sections. Section~\ref{prel} contains an auxiliary facts, while Section~\ref{proof} is devoted to verification of Theorem~\ref{main}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{prel}
\subsection{Preliminaries on lattices}
\label{prel lat}
We start with several observations dealing with cancellable or modular elements in abstract lattices.
\begin{lemma}
\label{join with neutral atom}
Let $L$ be a lattice with~$0$ and $a$ an atom and neutral element of $L$. An element $x \in L$ is cancellable if and only if the element $x \vee a$ is cancellable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\emph{Necessity.} Let $x$ be a cancellable element and $y,z\in L$. We need to verify that
$$
y\wedge(x\vee a)=z\wedge(x\vee a)\ \&\ y\vee(x\vee a)=z\vee(x\vee a)\longrightarrow y=z.
$$
If $a\le x$ then this implication is evident because $x\vee a=x$ and $x$ is cancellable. Let now $a\not\le x$. Throughout all the proof we will use the fact that the element $a$ is neutral without explicit references. We can assume without loss of generality that either $a\le y$ and $a\le z$ or $a\nleq y$ and $a\nleq z$ or $a\le y$ but $a\nleq z$.
If $a\le y$ and $a\le z$ then
\begin{align*}
\phantom{\text{and}\rule{1.7cm}{0pt}}(y\wedge x)\vee a&=(y\wedge x)\vee(y\wedge a)=y\wedge(x\vee a)\\
&=z\wedge(x\vee a)=(z\wedge x)\vee(z\wedge a)=(z\wedge x)\vee a
\end{align*}
and
$$
(y\wedge x)\wedge a=y\wedge(x\wedge a)=y\wedge 0=0=z\wedge 0=z\wedge(a\wedge x)=(z\wedge x)\wedge a.
$$
Thus, $(y\wedge x)\vee a=(z\wedge x)\vee a$ and $(y\wedge x)\wedge a=(z\wedge x)\wedge a$. The element $a$ is cancellable because it is neutral. Therefore, $y\wedge x=z\wedge x$. Further,
$$
y\vee x=(y\vee a)\vee x=y\vee(x\vee a)=z\vee(x\vee a)=(z\vee a)\vee x=z\vee x.
$$
Thus, $y\wedge x=z\wedge x$ and $y\vee x=z\vee x$. Since $x$ is cancellable, we have $y=z$.
If $a\nleq y$ and $a\nleq z$ then
\begin{align*}
y\wedge x&=(y\wedge x)\vee 0=(y\wedge x)\vee(y\wedge a)=y\wedge(x\vee a)\\
&=z\wedge(x\vee a)=(z\wedge x)\vee(z\wedge a)=(z\wedge x)\vee 0=z\wedge x.
\end{align*}
Thus, $y\wedge x=z\wedge x$. Further,
$$
(y\vee x)\wedge a=(y\wedge a)\vee(x\wedge a)=0\vee 0=(z\wedge a)\vee(x\wedge a)=(z\vee x)\wedge a.
$$
Thus, $(y\vee x)\wedge a=(z\vee x)\wedge a$. By the hypothesis,
$$
(y\vee x)\vee a=y\vee(x\vee a)=z\vee(x\vee a)=(z\vee x)\vee a.
$$
Since $a$ is neutral and every neutral element is cancellable, we have $y\vee x=z\vee x$. Taking into account that the element $x$ is cancellable, we have that $y=z$.
Finally, if $a\le y$ but $a\nleq z$ then
\begin{align*}
z\wedge x&=(z\wedge x)\vee 0=(z\wedge x)\vee(z\wedge a)=z\wedge(x\vee a)\\
&=y\wedge(x\vee a)=(y\wedge x)\vee(y\wedge a)=(y\wedge x)\vee a.
\end{align*}
Thus, $z\wedge x=(y\wedge x)\vee a$. Then $a\le z\wedge x\le z$, a contradiction.
\medskip
\emph{Sufficiency.} Let $x\vee a$ be a cancellable element and $y,z$ are elements of $L$ with $y\wedge x=z\wedge x$ and $y\vee x=z\vee x$. We have to verify that $y=z$. If $a\le x$ then the desirable conclusion is evident because $x\vee a=x$ and the element $x\vee a$ is cancellable. Let now $a\not\le x$. We note that
$$
y\vee(x\vee a)=(y\vee x)\vee a=(z\vee x)\vee a=z\vee(x\vee a),
$$
i.e., $y\vee(x\vee a)=z\vee(x\vee a)$. Since the element $x\vee a$ is cancellable, it remains to check that $y\wedge(x\vee a)=z\wedge(x\vee a)$. As in the proof of necessity, we can assume without loss of generality that either $a\le y$ and $a\le z$ or $a\nleq y$ and $a\nleq z$ or $a\le y$ but $a\nleq z$.
If $a\le y$ and $a\le z$ then
\begin{align*}
y\wedge(x\vee a)&=(y\vee a)\wedge(x\vee a)=(y\wedge x)\vee a\\
&=(z\wedge x)\vee a=(z\vee a)\wedge(x\vee a)=z\wedge(x\vee a),
\end{align*}
i.e., $y\wedge(x\vee a)=z\wedge(x\vee a)$. If $a\nleq y$ and $a\nleq z$ then
\begin{align*}
y\wedge(x\vee a)&=(y\wedge x)\vee(y\wedge a)=(y\wedge x)\vee 0=y\wedge x\\
&=z\wedge x=(z\wedge x)\vee 0=(z\wedge x)\vee(z\wedge a)=z\wedge(x\vee a),
\end{align*}
i.e., $y\wedge(x\vee a)=z\wedge(x\vee a)$ again. Finally, if $a\le y$ but $a\nleq z$ then
\begin{align*}
a&=a\vee(x\wedge a)=(y\wedge a)\vee(x\wedge a)=(y\vee x)\wedge a\\
&=(z\vee x)\wedge a=(z\wedge a)\vee(x\wedge a)=0\vee 0=0,
\end{align*}
a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{over neutral atom}
Let $L$ be a lattice with~$0$, $a$ an atom and neutral element of $L$ and $x\in L$. If, for any $y,z\in L$, the equalities $x\vee(y\vee a)=x\vee(z\vee a)$ and $x\wedge(y\vee a)=x\wedge(z\vee a)$ imply that $y\vee a=z\vee a$ then $x$ is a cancellable element.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $y,z\in L$, $x\vee y=x\vee z$ and $x\wedge y=x\wedge z$. We need to verify that $y=z$. It is evident that
$$
x\vee(y\vee a)=(x\vee y)\vee a=(x\vee z)\vee a=x\vee(z\vee a).
$$
Since the element $a$ is neutral, we have
$$
x\wedge(y\vee a)=(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge a)=(x\wedge z)\vee(x\wedge a)=x\wedge(z\vee a).
$$
In view of the hypothesis, we have that $y\vee a=z\vee a$. We can assume without loss of generality that either $y,z\ngeq a$ or $y,z\ge a$ or $y\ge a$ but $z\ngeq a$. If $y,z\ngeq a$ then we apply the fact that $a$ is neutral and have
\begin{align*}
y&=(y\vee a)\wedge y=(z\vee a)\wedge y=(z\wedge y)\vee(a\wedge y)=(z\wedge y)\vee 0\\
&=(z\wedge y)\vee(z\wedge a)=z\wedge(y\vee a)=z\wedge(z\vee a)=z,
\end{align*}
i.e., $y=z$. If $y,z\ge a$ then $y=y\vee a=z\vee a=z$. Finally, let $y\ge a$ and $z\ngeq a$. If $x\ge a$ then $x\wedge y\ge a$ and $x\wedge z\ngeq a$. Then $x\wedge y\ne x\wedge z$, contradicting the choice of $y$ and $z$. Let now $x\ngeq a$. Then $x\wedge a=0$ and $z\wedge a=0$. Since $a$ is neutral, we have that
$$
(x\vee z)\wedge a=(x\wedge a)\vee(z\wedge a)=0\vee 0=0,
$$
whence $x\vee z\ngeq a$. On the other hand, $x\vee y\ge a$. Therefore, $x\vee y\ne x\vee z$ that contradicts the choice of $y$ and $z$ again.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{modular non-cancellable}
Let $x$ be a modular but not cancellable element of a lattice $L$ and let $y$ and $z$ be different elements of $L$ such that $x\vee y=x\vee z$ and $x\wedge y=x\wedge z$. Then there is an element $x'\in L$ such that $x'\le x$, $x'\vee y=x'\vee z$, $x'\wedge y=x'\wedge z$ and $y\vee z=x'\vee y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Put $x'=x\wedge(y\vee z)$. Clearly, $x'\le x$. Note that
$$
x'\wedge y=x\wedge(y\vee z)\wedge y=x\wedge y=x\wedge z=x\wedge(y\vee z)\wedge z=x'\wedge z.
$$
It remains to verify that $x'\vee y=x'\vee z=y\vee z$. Clearly, $x'\le y\vee z$, whence $y\vee x'\le y\vee z$. Then $x\wedge(y\vee z)=x'\le y\vee x'\le y\vee z$, and therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{(y vee z)wedge x=(y vee x')wedge x}
(y\vee z)\wedge x=(y\vee x')\wedge x.
\end{equation}
Further, the equality $x\vee y=x\vee z$ implies that $z\le y\vee x$. Since $x'\le x$, we have that
$$
(y\vee z)\vee x=(y\vee x)\vee z=y\vee x=y\vee(x'\vee x)=(y\vee x')\vee x.$$
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{(y vee z)vee x=(y vee x')vee x}
(y\vee z)\vee x=(y\vee x')\vee x.
\end{equation}
Combining these observations, we have that
\begin{align*}
y\vee z={}&(x\vee(y\vee z))\wedge(y\vee z)&&\\
={}&(x\vee(y\vee x'))\wedge(y\vee z)&&\text{by }\eqref{(y vee z)vee x=(y vee x')vee x}\\
={}&(x\wedge(y\vee z))\vee(y\vee x')&&\text{because }x\text{ is modular and }y\vee x'\le y\vee z\\
={}&(x\wedge(y\vee x'))\vee(y\vee x')&&\text{by }\eqref{(y vee z)wedge x=(y vee x')wedge x}\\
={}&y\vee x'.
\end{align*}
Thus, we prove that $y\vee z=y\vee x'$. Similar arguments allow us to show that $y\vee z=z\vee x'$. Therefore, $y\vee x'=y\vee z=z\vee x'$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Preliminaries on semigroup varieties}
\label{prel sem var}
Now we return to semigroup varieties. Let \textbf X be a semigroup variety. If nilpotency index of any nil-semigroup in \textbf X is not exceeded some natural number $n$ and $n$ is the least number with such a property then $n$ is called a \emph{degree} of the variety \textbf X and is denoted by $\deg(\mathbf X)$; otherwise we put $\deg(\mathbf X)=\infty$. For a given word \textbf w, we denote by $\ell(\mathbf w)$ the length of \textbf w, and by $\con(\mathbf w)$ the \emph{content} of \textbf w, i.e., the set of all variables occurring in \textbf w. The equivalence of the claims~a) and~c) of the following lemma is verified in~\cite[Proposition~2.11]{Vernikov-08}, the implication c)~$\longrightarrow$~b) is evident, and the implication b)~$\longrightarrow$~a) follows from~\cite[Lemma~1]{Sapir-Sukhanov-81}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{fin deg}
For a semigroup variety $\mathbf V$, the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textup{a)}] $\deg(\mathbf V)\le n$;
\item[\textup{b)}] $\mathbf V$ satisfies an identity of the form $x_1x_2\cdots x_n\approx\mathbf v$ for some word $\mathbf v$ with $\ell(\mathbf v)>n$;
\item[\textup{c)}] $\mathbf V$ satisfies an identity of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{=l}
x_1x_2\cdots x_n \approx x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n
\end{equation}
for some $\ell>1$ and $1\le i\le j\le n$.\qed
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The following claim is evident.
\begin{lemma}
\label{deg of meet}
If $\mathbf X$ and $\mathbf Y$ are semigroup varieties then
$$
\deg(\mathbf{X\wedge Y})=\min\{\deg(\mathbf X),\deg(\mathbf Y)\}.\eqno{\qed}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma~2.13]{Vernikov-08}}]
\label{deg of join}
If $\mathbf X$ is a semigroup variety and $\mathbf Y$ is a nil-variety of semigroups then $\deg(\mathbf{X\vee Y})=\max\{\deg(\mathbf X),\deg(\mathbf Y)\}$.\qed
\end{lemma}
We need the following two well known and easily verified technical remarks about identities of nilsemigroups.
\begin{lemma}
\label{split}
Let $\mathbf V$ be a nil-variety of semigroups.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textup{(i)}] If the variety $\mathbf V$ satisfies an identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ with $\con(\mathbf u)\ne\con(\mathbf v)$ then $\mathbf V$ satisfies also the identity $\mathbf u\approx 0$.
\item[\textup{(ii)}] If the variety $\mathbf V$ satisfies an identity of the form $\mathbf{u\approx vuw}$ where at least one the words $\mathbf v$ and $\mathbf w$ is non-empty then $\mathbf V$ satisfies also the identity $\mathbf u\approx 0$.\qed
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The first statement of the following lemma is generally known (see~\cite[Section~1]{Shevrin-Vernikov-Volkov-09}, for instance). The second claim also is well known and is verified explicitly in~\cite[Proposition~2.4]{Volkov-05} (see also~\cite[Section~14]{Shevrin-Vernikov-Volkov-09}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{SL is neutral atom}
The variety $\mathbf{SL}$ is
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textup{(i)}] an atom of the lattice $\mathbf{SEM}$;
\item[\textup{(ii)}] a neutral element of $\mathbf{SEM}$.\qed
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\section{Proof of the main result}
\label{proof}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{main}. The implication a)~$\longrightarrow$~b) is evident, while the equivalence of the claims b) and c) is checked in~\cite[Theorem~3.1]{Vernikov-07}. It remains to prove the implication c)~$\longrightarrow$~a). Lemmas~\ref{join with neutral atom} and~\ref{SL is neutral atom} allow us to assume that $\mathbf V=\mathbf N$. Suppose that \textbf N is non-cancellable element of \textbf{SEM}. Hence there are semigroup varieties \textbf Y and \textbf Z with $\mathbf{N\vee Y}=\mathbf{N\vee Z}$, $\mathbf{N\wedge Y}=\mathbf{N\wedge Z}$ and $\mathbf{Y\ne Z}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{deg Y=deg Z}
$\deg(\mathbf Y)=\deg(\mathbf Z)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Put $\deg(\mathbf Y)=r$, $\deg(\mathbf Z)=s$ and $\deg(\mathbf N)=t$ (here $r,s,t\in\mathbb N\cup\{\infty\}$). Suppose that $r\ne s$. We can assume without any loss that $r<s$. Then Lemmas~\ref{deg of meet} and~\ref{deg of join} imply that
\begin{itemize}
\item[] if $t\ge s$ then $\deg(\mathbf{N\wedge Y})=r<s=\deg(\mathbf{N\wedge Z})$;
\item[] if $r<t<s$ then $\deg(\mathbf{N\wedge Y})=r<t=\deg(\mathbf{N\wedge Z})$;
\item[] if $t\le r$ then $\deg(\mathbf{N\vee Y})=r<s=\deg(\mathbf{N\vee Z})$.
\end{itemize}
The first and the second cases contradict the equality $\mathbf{N\wedge Y}=\mathbf{N\wedge Z}$, while the third case is impossible because $\mathbf{N\vee Y}=\mathbf{N\vee Z}$.
\end{proof}
Since the claims~b) and~c) of Theorem~\ref{main} are equivalent, \textbf N is a modular element of \textbf{SEM}. In view of Lemma~\ref{modular non-cancellable}, there is a variety $\mathbf N'$ such that
$$
\mathbf{N'\subseteq N},\,\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}=\mathbf{Y\vee Z}\text{ and }\mathbf{N'\wedge Y}=\mathbf{N'\wedge Z}.
$$
Being a subvariety of \textbf N, the variety $\mathbf N'$ satisfies the identities $x^2y\approx 0$ and $xy\approx yx$.
Since $\mathbf{Y\ne Z}$, we can assume without loss of generality that there is an identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ that holds in \textbf Y but is false in \textbf Z. If this identity is satisfied by the variety $\mathbf N'$ then it holds in $\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}$, and therefore, in \textbf Z. Thus, $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ is wrong in $\mathbf N'$. A word \textbf w is called \emph{linear} if any variable occurs in \textbf w at most once. Recall that $\mathbf N'$ satisfies the identities $x^2y\approx 0$ and $xy\approx yx$. Therefore, any non-linear word except $x^2$ equals to~0 in $\mathbf N'$. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that either $\mathbf u=x^2$ or $\mathbf u=x_1x_2\cdots x_k$ for some $k$. Lemmas~\ref{over neutral atom} and~\ref{SL is neutral atom} allow us to assume that $\mathbf Y,\mathbf{Z\supseteq SL}$. This implies that $\con(\mathbf u)=\con(\mathbf v)$. Combining the observations given above, we have that $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ is either an identity of the form $x^2\approx x^m$ for some $m\ne 2$ or an identity of the form $x_1x_2\cdots x_k\approx\mathbf v$ where $\con(\mathbf v)=\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k\}$.
\smallskip
\emph{Case} 1: $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ is an identity of the form $x^2\approx x^m$ for some $m\ne 2$. Suppose at first that $m=1$. This means that \textbf Y is a variety of bands. Then $\mathbf{Z\wedge N'}=\mathbf{Y\wedge N'}=\mathbf T$. If $\mathbf N'=\mathbf T$ then $\mathbf Y=\mathbf{Y\vee N'}=\mathbf{Z\vee N'}=\mathbf Z$, and we are done. Otherwise, $\mathbf N'$ contains the variety \textbf{ZM} of all semigroups with zero multiplication. Since $\mathbf{Z\wedge N'}=\mathbf T$, we have that $\mathbf{Z\nsupseteq ZM}$, whence the variety \textbf Z is completely regular. If \textbf Z contains a non-trivial group variety \textbf G then $\mathbf{G\subseteq Z\vee N'}=\mathbf{Y\vee N'}$. But all groups in $\mathbf{Y\vee N'}$ are trivial because this variety satisfies the identity $x^3\approx x^4$. Thus, \textbf Z is a completely regular variety without non-trivial groups, i.e., a band variety. We see that the identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ holds in \textbf Z, a contradiction.
Let now $m>2$. If $\mathbf N'$ satisfies the identity $x^2\approx 0$ then the identity $x^2\approx x^m$ holds in the variety $\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}$, and therefore, in \textbf Z. But this contradicts the choice of the identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$. Thus we can assume that the identity $x^2\approx 0$ is wrong in $\textbf N'$. Recall that a word \textbf w is called an \emph{isoterm for a variety} \textbf V if \textbf V does not satisfy any non-trivial identity of the form $\mathbf{w\approx w}'$. Lemma~\ref{split} implies that the word $x^2$ is an isoterm for the variety $\mathbf N'$. Further, Lemma~\ref{split}(ii) implies that the variety $\mathbf{N'\wedge Z}=\mathbf{N'\wedge Y}$ satisfies the identity $x^2\approx 0$. Therefore, there is a deduction of this identity from identities of the varieties $\mathbf N'$ and \textbf Z. In particular, one of these varieties satisfies a non-trivial identity of the form $x^2\approx\mathbf w$. Since $x^2$ is an isoterm for $\mathbf N'$, this identity holds in \textbf Z. Since $\mathbf{Z\supseteq SL}$, this identity has the form $x^2\approx x^k$ for some $k>2$. Let $m$ be the least number with the property that $x^2\approx x^m$ holds in \textbf Y but does not hold in \textbf Z, while $k$ the least number with the property that $x^2\approx x^k$ holds in \textbf Z.
Suppose that $k<m$. Then $m=k+j$ for some natural $j$. It is clear that the identity $x^{2+j}\approx x^{k+j}=x^m$ holds in $\mathbf N'$. Then this identity is true also in $\mathbf{Z\vee N'}=\mathbf{Y\vee N'}$. Hence $x^{2+j}\approx x^m\approx x^2$ holds in \textbf Y. Since $2+j<m$, this contradicts the choice of $m$.
Finally, let $m<k$. Then $k=m+j$ for some natural $j$. Clearly, the identity $x^{2+j}\approx x^{m+j}=x^k$ holds in $\mathbf N'$. Therefore, this identity holds in $\mathbf{Y\vee N'}=\mathbf{Z\vee N'}$. This means that \textbf Z satisfies the identities $x^{2+j}\approx x^k\approx x^2$. But $2+j<m+j=k$ and we have a contradiction with the choice of $k$.
\smallskip
\emph{Case} 2: $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ is an identity of the form $x_1x_2\cdots x_k\approx\mathbf v$ where $\con(\mathbf v)=\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_k\}$. Clearly, $\ell(\mathbf v)\ge k$. If $\ell(\mathbf v)=k$ then the identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$ has the form
$$
x_1x_2\cdots x_k\approx x_{1\pi}x_{2\pi}\cdots x_{k\pi}
$$
where $\pi$ is a non-trivial permutation on the set $\{1,2,\dots, k\}$. This identity holds in $\mathbf N'$ because $\mathbf N'$ is commutative. But this is false. Therefore, $\ell(\mathbf v)>k$. Put $\deg(\mathbf Y)=n$. Then $\deg(\mathbf Z)=\deg(\mathbf Y)=n$ by Lemma~\ref{deg Y=deg Z}. Lemma~\ref{fin deg} implies that $n\le k$. Recall that $\mathbf{Y\vee Z}=\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}$. Clearly, $\deg(\mathbf Y\vee\mathbf Z)\ge n$. Suppose at first that $\deg(\mathbf Y\vee\mathbf Z)=n$. Then
$$
\deg(\mathbf N')\le\deg(\mathbf{N'\vee Y})=\deg(\mathbf{Y\vee Z})=n.
$$
Being a nil-variety, $\mathbf N'$ satisfies the identity $x_1x_2\cdots x_n\approx 0$ in this case. Since $\ell(\mathbf v)>k\ge n$, the identity $x_1x_2\cdots x_k\approx\mathbf v$ holds in $\mathbf N'$ as well. This contradicts the choice of the identity $\mathbf{u\approx v}$.
Let now $\deg(\mathbf{Y\vee Z})>n$. Since $\deg(\mathbf Y)=n$, Lemma~\ref{fin deg} implies that \textbf Y satisfies an identity of the form~\eqref{=l} for some $\ell>1$ and $1\le i\le j\le n$. The same lemma implies that this identity is false in $\mathbf{Y\vee Z}$ because $\deg(\mathbf{Y\vee Z})=n$ otherwise. Therefore,~\eqref{=l} is wrong in \textbf Z. Analogously, there are $r>1$ and $1\le i'\le j'\le n$ such that the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{=r}
x_1x_2\cdots x_n \approx x_1x_2\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n
\end{equation}
holds in \textbf Z but does not hold in \textbf Y. We will assume without any loss that $i\le i'$.
Suppose at first that $j<j'$. Then we substitute $(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}x_{j'+1}$ into $x_{j'+1}$ in~\eqref{=l} whenever $j'<n$ or multiply~\eqref{=l} by $(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}$ on the right whenever $j'=n$. We obtain the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{r=l[r-1]}
\begin{array}{rl}
&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
\approx{}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_{j'}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}x_{j'+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the identity~\eqref{r=l[r-1]} holds in the variety $\mathbf N'$. Then it satisfies in \textbf Z as well because $\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}$. Substitute $x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}$ into $x_{i-1}$ in~\eqref{=r} whenever $i>1$ or multiply~\eqref{=r} by $(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}$ on the left whenever $i=1$. As a result, we obtain the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{l=[l-1]r}
\begin{array}{rl}
&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
\approx{}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
This identity holds in \textbf Z too. Note that the right parts of the identities~\eqref{r=l[r-1]} and~\eqref{l=[l-1]r} coincide. Indeed,
\begin{align*}
&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_{j'}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}x_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
={}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}x_i\cdots x_jx_{j+1}\cdots x_{j'}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}x_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
={}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}x_i\cdots x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}x_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
={}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{align*}
Since the variety \textbf Z satisfies the identities~\eqref{=r},~\eqref{r=l[r-1]} and~\eqref{l=[l-1]r}, this variety satisfies also the identity~\eqref{=l}. We have a contradiction.
It remains to consider the case when $j'\le j$. Suppose at first that $i=i'$ and $j=j'$. Substitute $(x_{i'}\dots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}$ into $x_{j'+1}$ in~\eqref{=l} whenever $j'<n$ or multiply~\eqref{=l} by $(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^r$ on the right whenever $j'=n$. Then we obtain the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{r=[r+l]}
x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^rx_{j+1}\cdots x_n\approx x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{r+\ell}x_{j+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{equation}
Clearly, this identity holds in $\mathbf N'$. The equality $\mathbf{Y\vee N'}=\mathbf{Z\vee N'}$ implies that it holds in \textbf Z too. Similar arguments show that \textbf Z satisfies the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{l=[r+l]}
x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\approx x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{r+\ell}x_{j+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{equation}
Combining the identities~\eqref{=r},~\eqref{r=[r+l]} and~\eqref{l=[r+l]}, we have that \textbf Z satisfies the identity~\eqref{=l}, contradicting with the choice of this identity.
Thus, either $i<i'$ or $j'< j$. Suppose without loss of generality that $i<i'$. Substitute $x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^{r-1}$ into $x_{i'-1}$ in~\eqref{=l}. We obtain the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{r=[r]l}
\begin{array}{rl}
&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
\approx{}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the identity~\eqref{r=[r]l} holds in the variety $\mathbf N'$. Besides that, it holds in \textbf Z because $\mathbf{N'\vee Y}=\mathbf{N'\vee Z}$. For an arbitrary word \textbf w, we suppose $\mathbf w^0$ to be the empty word. Let $t>0$ and $s\ge 0$. Now we multiply the identity~\eqref{=r} by the word
$$
(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^s
$$
on the left whenever $i=1$ or substitute the word
$$
x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^s
$$
into $x_{i-1}$ in~\eqref{=r} whenever $i>1$. Besides that, we multiply~\eqref{=r} by the word $(x_i\cdots x_j)^{t-1}$ on the right whenever $j=n$ or substitute the word $(x_i\cdots x_j)^{t-1}x_{j+1}$ into $x_{j+1}$ in~\eqref{=r} whenever $j<n$. Then we obtain the identity{\sloppy
}
\begin{equation}
\label{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]}
\begin{array}{rl}
&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^s(x_i\cdots x_j)^tx_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
\approx{}&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^{s+1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^{t-1}\cdot\\
&\cdot\,x_{j+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then the variety \textbf Z satisfies the identities
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
x_1x_2\cdots x_n&\stackrel{\eqref{=r}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_n\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{r=[r]l}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)\cdot\\
&&\cdot\,x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)^{\ell-2}(x_i\cdots x_j)^2\cdot\\
&&\cdot\,x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
&\hdotsfor{2}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_{i'-1}(x_{i'}\cdots x_{j'})^rx_{j'+1}\cdots x_j)(x_i\cdots x_j)^{\ell-1}\cdot\\
&&\cdot\,x_{j+1}\cdots x_n\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]}}\approx&x_1x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_i\cdots x_j)^\ell x_{j+1}\cdots x_n.
\end{array}
$$
Here we write $\mathbf{w\stackrel{\varepsilon}\approx w'}$ in the case when the identity $\mathbf{w\approx w'}$ follows from the identity $\varepsilon$. We use the identity~\eqref{(r)sl=(r)[s+1][l-1]} for the first time with $s=\ell-1$ and $t=1$, for the second time with $s=\ell-2$ and $t=2$, \dots, for the penultimate time with $s=1$ and $t=\ell-1$, finally, for the last time with $s=0$ and $t=\ell$. We prove that the identity~\eqref{=l} holds in \textbf Z, a contradiction. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{main}.\qed
\medskip
At the conclusion of the article, we formulate some open questions.
\begin{question}
\label{cancellable = modular?}
Does there exist a semigroup variety that is a modular but not a cancellable element of the lattice \textbf{SEM}?
\end{question}
A semigroup variety is called 0-\emph{reduced} if it may be given by identities of the form $\mathbf w\approx 0$ only. It is known that any 0-reduced semigroup variety is a modular element of the lattice \textbf{SEM}. This fact was noted for the first time in~\cite[Corollary~3]{Vernikov-Volkov-88} and rediscovered (in different terminology) in~\cite[Proposition~1.1]{Jezek-McKenzie-93}. In actual fact, it readily follows from~\cite[Proposition~2.2]{Jezek-81}.
\begin{question}
\label{0-reduced is cancellable?}
Is any 0-reduced semigroup variety a cancellable element of the lattice \textbf{SEM}?
\end{question}
Evidently, the negative answer to Question~\ref{0-reduced is cancellable?} immediately implies the negative answer to Question~\ref{cancellable = modular?}. An affirmative answer to Question~\ref{0-reduced is cancellable?} would also have an interesting corollary. To formulate it, we recall that an element $x$ of a lattice $L$ is called \emph{lower-modular} if
$$
(\forall\,y,z\in L)\quad x\le y\longrightarrow x\vee(y\wedge z)=y\wedge(x\vee z).
$$
Lower-modular elements of the lattice \textbf{SEM} are completely determined in~\cite{Shaprynskii-Vernikov-10}. This result easily implies that if an answer to Question~\ref{0-reduced is cancellable?} is affirmative then every lower-modular element of \textbf{SEM} is cancellable.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, we introduced a projector quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method for calculating quantum systems with both spatial and spin degrees of freedom \cite{melton}.
The approach is based on an overcomplete representation for spin variables such that the sampling is similar to the spatial variables. Given our choice of spin representation, the method involves the fixed-phase
\cite{ortiz} approximation, hence its acronym fixed-phase {\underbar s}pin-{\underbar o}rbit/{\underbar s}pin{\underbar o}r diffusion Monte Carlo (FPSODMC). This approach enabled us to carry out QMC calculations of atoms and molecules with spin-orbit
interactions in the spinor formalism including cases where
high accuracy was needed for both spin-orbit
and electron correlation effects. In a subsequent work
we explored simple cases of fixed-phase vs. fixed-node
\cite{qmcrev}
approximations in order to compare the corresponding biases in these two related possibilities \cite{melton2, melton3}. We constructed simple
cases where both fixed-phase and fixed-node conditions
were equivalent or very similar and we found comparable
biases in the total energies using the two approximations.
In this work we explore this direction further by
investigating a clear unification and smooth transition between these approaches. It has been
known for some time that the fixed-node approximation is a special
case of the fixed-phase approximation. Our method makes this
relationship explicit through the construction of
trial wave functions that in a particular limit recover
the fixed-node trial function. We use this property for
QMC fixed-phase calculations of several systems
and we directly compare the fixed-phase biases to the corresponding fixed-node biases. In addition, we
explicitly show how one can obtain the fixed-node result
as a limit of the fixed-phase calculation.
We elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of the fixed-phase approach as far as further QMC developments
are concerned.
\section{Fixed-Phase Spinor Diffusion Monte Carlo}\label{section:FPDMC}
Let us briefly outline the key notions of the FPSODMC approach: fixed-phase approximation, continuous spin
representation and the corresponding importance
sampling approach.
\subsection{Fixed-Phase Approximation }\label{section:FPDMC}
For complex wave functions
we present a brief sketch of
the fixed-phase method (FPDMC) \cite{ortiz} and its relation to the fixed-node flavor of DMC.
Let us consider the Born-Oppenheimer Hamiltonian $H=-(1/2)\nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{R})$, where $\nabla = (\nabla_1,\nabla_2, \ldots, \nabla_N)$ and $V$ denotes the electron-ion and electron-electron Coulomb interactions.
We denote spatial configurations as $\mathbf{R} = (\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{r}_N) \in \mathbb{R}^{dN}$, where $N$ is the number of particles and $d$ is dimensionality (here we assume $d=3$).
We assume a complex wave function $\Psi(\mathbf{R},\tau) = \rho(\mathbf{R},\tau)e^{i \Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau)}$ and substitute it into the imaginary-time Schr\"{o}dinger equation. For the amplitude $\rho(\mathbf{R},\tau)$ and phase $\Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau)$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rho-eqn} -\frac{\partial \rho(\mathbf{R},\tau)}{\partial \tau} &=& \left[ T_{kin} + V(\mathbf{R}) + \frac{1}{2} \left| \nabla \Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau)\right|^2\right] \rho(\mathbf{R},\tau) \nonumber \\ \\
-\frac{\partial \Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau)}{\partial \tau} &=& \left[ T_{kin}-\frac{\nabla \rho(\mathbf{R},\tau) \cdot \nabla}{\rho(\mathbf{R},\tau)} \right] \Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau)
\label{phase-eqn}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{kin}=-(1/2)\nabla^2$.
The fixed-phase approximation is given by imposing
the phase to be equal to the phase of trial or variational wave function $\Psi_T({\bf R})=\rho_T({\bf R})e^{i\Phi_T({\bf R})}$ that is independent of $\tau$
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\mathbf{R},\tau) \overset{!}{=} \Phi_T(\mathbf{R}).
\end{equation}
so that the second equation is not considered any further.
On the other hand, the stationary trial phase enables us to solve the equation for the non-negative amplitude $\rho$ and the corresponding energy eigenvalue. Clearly, both are now dependent on the trial phase through the additional potential $V_{ph}=1/2 | \nabla \Phi_T(\mathbf{R}) | ^2$.
\subsection{Fixed-phase upper bound property}
The fixed-phase approximation is variational since the repulsive potential $V_{ph}$
can only raise the energy for an approximate phase \cite{ortiz}.
This is easy to see from the energy expectation with $\rho\exp(i\Phi_T)$ that must be an upper
bound to the exact energy for
an arbitrary symmetric $\rho\geq 0$.
The accuracy of this method clearly depends on the accuracy of the trial phase and
the convergence towards the exact eigenvalue scales with the square of the difference between the exact
and approximate trial function.
\subsection{Fixed-phase as a special case of the fixed-node in general}
The fixed-phase approximation is a generalization of the more familiar fixed-node approximation, what can be demonstrated in several ways.
Let us present perhaps the simplest such construction
\cite{melton2}, where
we add a complex amplitude to a real-valued $\Psi_T(\mathbf{R})$ as follows. We denote the nodes of $\Psi_T$ as the set of configurations
\begin{equation}
\Gamma =\left\lbrace \mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{dN} | \Psi_T(\mathbf{R})=0 \right\rbrace.
\end{equation}
Now we add to $\Psi_T$ another function
(for simplicity, a nonnegative bosonic ground state of $H$)
\begin{equation}
\tilde\Psi_T = \Psi_T +i\varepsilon \Psi_B
\end{equation}
Taking the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$ leads to\cite{melton2}
\begin{equation}
V_{ph}(\mathbf{R})= V_{\infty} \delta (\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{R}_{\Gamma})
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{R}_{\Gamma} \in \Gamma$ and $V_{\infty}$ diverges as $\propto 1/\varepsilon^2$, therefore $V_{ph}$ enforces any wave function to vanish at the node $\Gamma$, i.e., it is equivalent to the fixed-node boundary condition.
\subsection{Spin Representation}\label{section:spinrep}
Let us denote one-particle spinors as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:spinor}
\chi ({\bf r},s)=\alpha\varphi^{\uparrow}({\bf r})\chi^{\uparrow}(s)
+\beta\varphi^{\downarrow}({\bf r})\chi^{\downarrow}(s)
\end{equation}
where $s$ is the coordinate of the spin projection along
the $z-$axis.
In its minimal representation
the spin variables have
discrete values $s=\pm 1/2$ so that for $S_z$ eigenstates
$\chi^{\uparrow}(1/2)=\chi^{\downarrow}(-1/2)=1$,
$\chi^{\downarrow}(1/2)=\chi^{\uparrow}(-1/2)=0$.
Clearly, the spin configuration space is non-compact
and imposes potentially large variations of important
quantities during the stochastic updates. Besides the fluctuations of various quantities of interest
(local energy, drifts, values of the wave function, etc.)
the method looses its efficiency in
the many-particle limit.
One possibility to address this obstacle is to make the spin configuration space compact and continuous, which allows for continuous evolution as well as importance sampling \cite{qmcrev, melton2}. We choose an {\em overcomplete} spin representation through the utilization of a 1D ring (i.e. a $U(1)$ representation) with the lowest pair of degenerate, orthogonal eigenstates as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l r} \langle s_j | \chi^\uparrow \rangle = e^{i s_j},\;\;\; & \langle s_j | \chi^\downarrow \rangle = e^{-i s_j} \ \end{array}
\end{equation}
where the spin variable $s_j \in [0,2\pi)$.
Clearly, the paths in this space are continuous and
resemble paths for spatial coordinates.
\subsection{Importance sampling}
Rewriting the Schr\"odinger equation in an integral form
with importance sampling by $\rho_T$ leads to the following equation for the mixed distribution $g=\rho\rho_T$
\begin{equation}
g(\mathbf{R}',t+\tau) = \int \textrm{d} \mathbf{R} \; {\rho_T(\mathbf{R}')\over \rho_T(\mathbf{R})}
G(\mathbf{R}' \leftarrow \mathbf{R},\tau)g(\mathbf{R},t)
\end{equation}
which is well-known
from the fixed-node QMC \cite{qmcrev,melton2}.
Spin variables are sampled by introducing a spin ``kinetic'' energy with a corresponding energy offset such that for all $s_i$, $i \in \{ 1,2,...,N \}$ we write
\begin{equation}
T_i^s = -\frac{1}{2\mu_s}\left[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial s_i^2} +1\right].
\end{equation}
where $\mu_s$ is an effective mass.
The full Hamiltonian then becomes $H' = H+\sum_{i=1}^N T_i^s$.
Clearly, $T_i^s \psi(\mathbf{r}_i,s_i) = 0$ due to the introduced offset so that there is no energy contribution from the spin Laplacian.
The inclusion of the spin kinetic energy leads to the following importance sampled Green's function
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:spin_space_greens} \widetilde{G}( \mathbf{X}'\leftarrow\mathbf{X};\tau)
\simeq T_{\mathbf{X'},\mathbf{X}}
e^{-\tau[ E_L(\mathbf{X}) + E_L(\mathbf{X}')-2E_T]/2}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\mathbf{X}',\mathbf{X}} &\propto& \exp\left[ \frac{-\left| \mathbf{R'}-\mathbf{R} - \tau \mathbf{v}_D^\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{R}) \right|^2}{2 \tau}\right] \nonumber \\
&&\times \exp \left[ \frac{-\left| \mathbf{S}'-\mathbf{S}-\tau_s\mathbf{v}_D^{\mathbf{S}}(\mathbf{S})\right|^2}{2\tau_s}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf X} = ({\bf r}_1, {\bf r}_2, ...,
{\bf r}_N,s_1,s_2,...,s_N) =({\bf R},{\bf S})$. Here we have introduced a spin time step $\tau_s = \tau/\mu_s$ as well as
${\bf v}_D^{\bf R} = \nabla_\mathbf{R} \ln \rho_T(\mathbf{X})$ and ${\bf v}_D^{\bf S} = \nabla_\mathbf{S} \ln \rho_T(\mathbf{X})$ which correspond to the spatial and spin drifts. The local energy is given by $E_L=\textrm{Re}[(H'\Psi_T)/\Psi_T^{*}]$ \cite{qmcrev,melton}.
Note that there are two possible limiting cases
with regard to $\tau,\tau_s$, namely, $\tau_s >>\tau$
and vice versa. If $\tau_s$ is much larger than the
spatial step the spin degrees of freedom are evolving much faster so that effectively the spins are integrated
out for each spatial step. That guarantees to
provide the fixed-phase limit and it is expected that it will lead to the largest bias.
Indeed, this is what we have observed \cite{melton2}.
The opposite limit corresponds to very slow spin evolution so that the spin configuration appears as an almost static external field for (relatively) much faster spatial evolution. In the results section we come to this point again and we show that in this mode the simulations will enable us to recover the fixed-node solutions.
\section{Trial Wave Functions}\label{section:wf}
The FPSODMC trial functions are built from spinors $\chi(\mathbf{r},s)=\alpha\varphi^{\uparrow}({\bf r})\chi^{\uparrow}(s)
+\beta\varphi^{\downarrow}({\bf r})\chi^{\downarrow}(s) $
where orbitals $\varphi^{\uparrow}, \varphi_{\downarrow}$ are calculated in spinor-based DFT, HF/DF
or correlated methods.
The full configuration space for particles is $\mathbf{X} = \{ (\mathbf{r}_1,s_1), \ldots, (\mathbf{r}_N,s_N)\} \in \mathbb{R}^{3N} \times [0,2\pi)^{N}$ and
we write the trial wave function as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_T(\mathbf{X}) = e^{U(\mathbf{R})} \sum\limits_\alpha c_\alpha \textrm{det}_\alpha \left[ \ldots, \chi_i(\mathbf{r}_k,s_k) ,\ldots \right].
\end{equation}
with $i,k=1,...,N$.
The particle correlations are explicitly approximated by the Jastrow factor $ U(\mathbf{R})$ that captures two-particle and,
possibly, higher order correlations, as customary
in QMC calculations \cite{qmcrev,acta,kolorenc,melton2}.
\subsection{From fixed-phase to fixed-nodes}
In this work we are particularly focused on the limit of vanishing spin-orbit and how
the single-reference spinor determinant simplifies
to the product of spin-up and spin-down determinants, i.e., to the usual fixed-node form.
Let us show that this is indeed what happens for our spin representation as briefly sketched earlier \cite{melton2}.
Note that our previous exposition of this aspect was not formulated precisely \cite{melton2},
so that we clarify it in detail here. For the sake of consistency with the previous paper we
consider $N$ occupied spinors that can be grouped
as $N/2$ Kramer's pairs (for simplicity assuming $N$ to be even).
We can write the Kramer's pair as
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^+ &=&(\varphi+\Delta\varphi)\chi^{\uparrow}+
(\varphi-\Delta\varphi)\chi^{\downarrow} \\
\chi^- &=& (\varphi-\Delta\varphi)\chi^{\uparrow}-
(\varphi+\Delta\varphi)\chi^{\downarrow}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\Delta\varphi$ is the spin-orbit induced splitting
of the spatial orbital $\varphi$. The block of the first four rows/columns
from the corresponding Slater determinant reads as follows
\begin{equation}
{\rm det} \left[\begin{matrix}
\chi_1^+(1) & \chi_1^+(2)& \chi_1^+(3)& \chi_1^+(4)&... \\
\chi_1^-(1) & \chi_1^-(2)& \chi_1^-(3)& \chi_1^-(4)&... \\
\chi_2^+(1)& \chi_2^+(2)& \chi_2^+(3)& \chi_2^+(4) &... \\
\chi_2^-(1) & \chi_2^-(2)& \chi_2^-(3)& \chi_2^-(4)&... \\
& ... & & & \\
\end{matrix}\right].
\end{equation}
Now we assume that the spin-orbit splitting $\Delta\varphi \to 0$ and then
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^+&=& \varphi (e^{is}+e^{-is}) \to \varphi e^{is}\\
\chi^-&=& \varphi (e^{is}-e^{-is}) \to \varphi e^{-is}
\end{eqnarray}
by elementary rearrangements (adding, subtracting rows with the same $\varphi$). Explicitly, this gives
\begin{equation}
{\rm det} \left[
\begin{matrix}
\varphi_1(1)e^{is_1} & \varphi_1(2)e^{is_2} & \varphi_1(3)e^{is_3}& \varphi_1(4)e^{is_4}&
... \\
\varphi_1(1)e^{-is_1}& \varphi_1(2)e^{-is_2}& \varphi_1(3)e^{-is_3}& \varphi_1(4)e^{-is_4}& ...
\\
\varphi_2(1)e^{is_1} & \varphi_2(2)e^{is_2}& \varphi_2(3)e^{is_3}& \varphi_2(4)e^{is_4}& ... \\
\varphi_2(1)e^{-is_1}& \varphi_2(2)e^{-is_2}& \varphi_2(3)e^{-is_3}& \varphi_2(4)e^{-is_4}& ... \\
& ... & & & \\
\end{matrix}
\right]
\end{equation}
This effectively complexifies the usual real wave function with the additional difference that the Slater
matrix is of size $N\times N$.
Clearly, for arbitrary spins variables this wave function is {\em different} from the usual
spin-up and spin-down product although in what follows we will demonstrate how to recover such the fixed-node form using
an appropriate choice for the spin coordinates.
Let us now assume that $s_i=s_1,s_3, ... $ will become the spin-up channel while $s_i=s_2,s_4, ... $ will end up being the spin-down channel. In order to reach this spin-up/down partitioning explicitly we restrict
$s_1,s_3, s_5, ...,=s$, and $s_2,s_4, ...=s' $ where $s,s'$ are distinct. Then we can write the determinant
\begin{equation}
{\rm det} \left[\begin{matrix}
\varphi_1(1)e^{is} & \varphi_1(2)e^{is'} & \varphi_1(3)e^{is} & \varphi_1(4)e^{is'} & ... \\
\varphi_1(1)e^{-is}& \varphi_1(2)e^{-is'} & \varphi_1(3)e^{-is}& \varphi_1(4)e^{-is'}& ... \\
\varphi_2(1)e^{is}& \varphi_2(2)e^{is'}& \varphi_2(3)e^{is}& \varphi_2(4)e^{is'}& ... \\
\varphi_2(1)e^{-is}& \varphi_2(2)e^{-is'}& \varphi_2(3)e^{-is}& \varphi_2(4)e^{-is'}& ... \\
& ... & & & \\
\end{matrix}\right]
\end{equation}
and eliminating elements in each odd row
\begin{equation}
{\rm det} \left[\begin{matrix}
0 & c_0\varphi_1(2) & 0 &c_0\varphi_1(4)& ... \\
\varphi_1(1)e^{-is} & \varphi_1(2)e^{-is'}& \varphi_1(3)e^{-is}& \varphi_1(4)e^{-is'}& ... \\
0 & c_0\varphi_2(2)& 0 & c_0\varphi_2(4)& ... \\
\varphi_2(1)e^{-is}& \varphi_2(2)e^{-is'} & \varphi_2(3)e^{-is}& \varphi_2(4)e^{-is'} & ... \\
& ... & & & \\
\end{matrix}\right]
\end{equation}
where
$$c_0=[e^{is'}-e^{i(2s-s')}]=e^{is}[e^{i(s'-s)}-e^{-i(s'-s)}] = 2ie^{is}\sin(s'-s).$$
Furthermore, by reshuffling the first two rows and columns and factorizing out the spins
from the determinant
we get
\begin{equation}
\propto[\sin(s'-s)]^{N/2}{\rm det} \left[\begin{matrix}
\varphi_1(1) &\varphi_1(3)& 0 & 0 & ... \\
\varphi_2(1)& \varphi_2(3)& 0 & 0 & ...\\
0 & 0 &\varphi_1(2) &\varphi_1(4)& ... \\
0& 0& \varphi_2(2)& \varphi_2(4)& ...\\
& ... & & & \\
\end{matrix}\right].
\end{equation}
After reshuffling the rest of rows and columns, the single determinant of spinors factorizes into the product of two determinants of spin-up and spin-down
block matrices. Generalization to odd $N$ with unpaired spinor(s) is straightforward. Therefore this decomposition strictly depends on the fact that
all the spins have to acquire one of the two distinct values as expected when going from continuous
to the fixed-label representation.
\subsection{Wave functions with full space-spin symmetries}
In our recent paper we have probed into the behavior of such wave functions for simple cases \cite{melton3}.
It is useful to use an example such as the
Li atom wave function to illustrate various wave function forms we consider here (assuming usual nucleus-electrons Hamiltonian without spin terms).
The full symmetry exact wave function
for the Li atom doublet is given by\cite{white}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(1,2,3) &=& |\uparrow\rangle_1 |\uparrow\rangle_2
|\downarrow\rangle_3 F(1,2,3)
\nonumber\\
&+&|\uparrow\rangle_1 |\downarrow\rangle_2
|\uparrow\rangle_3F(3,1,2) \nonumber\\
&+&
|\downarrow\rangle_1 |\uparrow\rangle_2
|\uparrow\rangle_3F(2,3,1)
\end{eqnarray}
where the function $F$ depends only on the spatial coordinates. The function $F$ is the exact, irreducible,
spatial variables-only eigenstate for the three electrons in the doublet state. Indeed, it corresponds
to the exact fixed-node solution sought after, say, in the FNDMC method.
The single-configuration trial wave function in
the fixed-node framework would look like
\begin{equation}
\Psi_T(1,2,3)=\textrm{det}^{\uparrow}_{1,2}[1s,2s]\textrm{det}^{\downarrow}_{3}[1s]
\end{equation}
where the electrons 1 and 2 are assigned as spin-up while the electron 3 is spin-down. Clearly, this is just
a projection onto the spin state
$|\uparrow\rangle_1 |\uparrow\rangle_2
|\downarrow\rangle_3
$
with the single-reference term approximating the spatial
part $F(1,2,3)$.
Our wave function with variable spins is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi &=& \textrm{det}[1s\times e^{is},1s\times e^{-is},2s\times e^{is}] \nonumber \\
&=& e^{i\Phi_1}\textrm{det}^{\uparrow}_{1,2}[1s,2s]
\textrm{det}^{\downarrow}_{3}[1s] - e^{i\Phi_2}
\textrm{det}^{\uparrow}_{3,1}[1s,2s]\textrm{det}^{\downarrow}_2[1s] \nonumber \\
&&+ e^{i\Phi_3}\textrm{det}^{\uparrow}_{2,3}[1s,2s]
\textrm{det}^{\downarrow}_1[1s].
\end{eqnarray}
It therefore results in determinantal approximations to the function $F$ with the phase factors from varying spins as coefficients.
If one chooses, $s_1 = s_2 = s$ and $s_3 = s'$, the wave function collapses to a single determinant with a spin variable dependent coefficient as described above.
Sampling both spin and position spaces enables one to evolve between the spatial wave functions with permuted
coordinates,
i.e., eventually sampling all such equivalent possibilities.
Note that the overall structure of the exact wave function and our variable spin formulation are
analogous. While in this example the variable spins
and corresponding phase factors
appear superfluous, the form becomes
fully meaningful whenever spin-dependent terms in the Hamiltonian are
switched on.
\section{Fixed-phase variable spins QMC as a general method}
In fixed-node QMC calculations with real wave functions
the node improvement is often very
challenging since any general method proposed so far appears
to have very unfavorable scaling. In several papers we have
made some progress in understanding the relations between
electron density, multiplicity of bonds and node curvatures
that appear to be related with increased fixed-node bias
\cite{rasch}.
In addition, we found relationships between nodes and eigenvalues
that show the nodes carry information
about the spectrum as presented elsewhere \cite{melton5}.
In this respect, the fixed-phase approximation opens new perspectives both in a better understanding of related issues
with regard to antisymmetry and the corresponding fermion sign problem as well as possibilities for new constructions
of more efficient approximations.
One important property of the fixed-phase approximation is that the sampled distribution $\rho$ is non-negative everywhere and, as we mentioned, generically its zero locus is
a subset of configurations
with codimension 2, i.e.,
{\em two} dimensions lower than the full configuration space.
In that case the sampling is of the configuration space is ergodic. One then solves for the bosonic ground state in a given, state-dependent potential. A simple toy example is an
atomic two-particle $^3P$ state with the wave function
$$
\Psi(1,2)=r_1r_2 g(r_1)g(r_2)[Y_{11}(1)-Y_{11}(2)]
$$
where $g$ are positive radial functions.
Its phase-generated potential is given by
$$
V_{ph}={1\over 2[(x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2]}
$$
while the corresponding non-negative amplitude $\rho(r_1,r_2)$ vanishes only at $x_1=x_2, y_1=y_2$
\cite{melton3}. This has also other consequences that make it
favorable in comparison with the fixed-node approach, namely,
the divergences of the local energy and drift are significantly
diminished making them much smoother. For example,
the drift for the importance sampled distribution given by $\nabla\ln\rho$
is smooth except at the point of vanishing $\rho$. This removes complications
around nodes of real functions such as large local energy fluctuations, non-zero probability of
crossing/re-crossing the node within a given time step, possible occurrences of stuck walkers and others, due to the
fact that $\ln \Psi_T$ is non-analytic at the node. All these difficulties can be brought under the control by decreasing the time step in the fixed-node formalism. However, here these complications are simply absent in the fixed-phase formulation by being smoothed out into the lower dimension.
We note that in low-dimensional systems or for particular symmetry constraints one can end up with
special or non-generic cases having zeros of $\rho$ with codimension 1, i.e., one dimension higher than the generic codimension 2 mentioned above. A simple example is the lowest two-particle triplet in a periodic box with the wave function
${\rm det}[1,e^{ikx}]$. This leads to
$\rho(x_1,x_2)= 2|\sin[(x_1-x_2)/2]|$ that has a $(2d-1)$-dimensional zero locus regardless of $d$, i.e., the dimensionality of the box.
The reason is that this particular state effectively behaves as having 1D nodal structure that is non-generic.
Interestingly enough, for $d>1$ this node volume is smaller than in the corresponding fixed-node wave function given by the real (or imaginary) part, ${\rm Re}\{{\rm det}[1,e^{ikx}]\}$.
This aspect is more thoroughly
investigated in our subsequent work
\cite{melton5} that explore the corresponding properties
of nodes in such cases and further generalizations.
Perhaps the most appealing and yet unexplored property is that the approximation has
a form of an additive effective many-body potential
\begin{equation}
V_{ph}=(1/2)[\nabla\Phi_T]^2
\end{equation}
so that the original Schr\"odinger equation changes to
\begin{equation}
(T+V)\Psi=E\Psi \quad \to \quad (T+V+V_{ph})\rho=E\rho
\end{equation}
This effective potential formulation offers
a clear conceptual understanding of the transformed problem
that reminds us of effective potential/field methods used in other
areas of quantum and high energy physics. It has a number of
desired properties when thinking about the solution of
the many-body problem, such
as that the solution is non-negative everywhere, the state-dependent potential $V_{ph}$ is purely repulsive (it only raises the energy) and it is explicitly and directly given by the approximate phase.
Consequently, it provides a constructive path for
improvements with the perspective that the solution
really exists, i.e., in the case of the exact
phase one obtains the exact solution/eigenstate similarly to the fixed-node approximation (that is its special case).
Interestingly, not much is known about
the phases of stationary states.
It is possible that more thorough
analysis of the corresponding
effective potentials will lead to a better
understanding as well as to better approximations
for practical calculations of realistic systems.
What follows provides the first attempts to probe
some aspects of this formulation.
\section{Results}
We calculate the total energies for the first-row atoms using both the FN and FP approximations.
For the FN calculations, we build our trial wave function from HF orbitals generated from \textsc{Gamess-US} \cite{GAMESS}.
For the FP calculations, we build our trial wave function from the one-particle spinors generated from \textsc{Dirac14} \cite{DIRAC}.
For the FN calculations, we perform a linear time step extrapolation to zero time step.
In all cases, a spatial time step of 0.001~Ha is in agreement with the zero time step limit.
Motivated by that, for all FP calculations we hold the spatial time step fixed at $\tau = 0.001$~Ha, rather than performing a spatial time step extrapolation.
We have previously studied some of the aspects of spin time steps \cite{melton,melton2}.
The analysis of total energies as function of spin time step leads to the following conclusions:
a) At large spin time step the spins are basically fully integrated out for each spatial step that is assumed to be much smaller.
Then one sees higher fixed-phase bias since the repulsive potential acts in the full configuration space unlike the fixed-node condition that applies only on the configuration subspace.
b) At very small spin steps and for small number of electrons, the propagation eventually finds the region(s)
close to the pure fixed-node wave function. Apart from small spin fluctuations the energy therefore reaches
very closely to the fixed-node solution.
In both limits and also for intermediate time step
regimes the energy is an upper bound, since the energy basically limited
from below by the fixed-node limit.
The complexified wave function and the fixed-phase only increases the energy
since it acts in full space instead of fixed-node codimension 1 hypersurface and expands the configuration
space in an ad hoc manner through the continuous spin
as we argued in previous parts.
This has also further implications that single reference wave functions will be, in general, less accurate, as we have
actually observed in calculations of several systems \cite{melton2,melton3}.
Here we are actually focused on the short spin time-step
limit that enables us to recover the fixed-node results
although the calculations are carried out in FPSODMC
setting.
As described in \S \ref{section:wf}, we initialize the spin-configurations to facilitate the decomposition into two independent determinants, as must be the case in a spin independent Hamiltonian.
As an illustration of why this is necessary, consider the N atom using HF spatial orbitals and no Jastrow factor.
The VMC energy should agree with the HF energy, within the statistical errors.
If one randomly generates the spin variables and performs a VMC calculation, the obtained energy is $-54.3341(8)$~Ha which clearly disagrees with the HF value of -54.40093 Ha.
However, if we initialize the spin variables such that $s_1 = s_3 = s_5 = s_6 = s_7 = s$ and $s_2 = s_4 = s'$ while using a very small spin time step $\tau_s$, we obtain $-54.4003(7)$~Ha, which agrees with the energy obtained via HF.
By initializing the spin variables such that the wave function properly decomposes into a product of determinants, we can use a small $\tau_s$ such that the spin variables stay close to the original configurations.
We allow the spin variables to continue to drift in order to sample the spin configuration space.
When performing FPSODMC, we vary the spin time step until the energy is saturated for a fixed spatial time step.
An example of the spin time step extrapolation is shown in Figure \ref{fig:convergence}.
For $\tau_s$ between $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-9}$, the DMC energies all agree to within the error bars.
Performing the same procedure for all atoms, we list the total energies in Table \ref{tab:total_energy}.
By comparing the FN and FP total energies to the ``exact'' energies in the non-relativistic limit (NRL)\cite{nrl}, we calculate the fixed-node/phase error as the percentage of the total as it is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:errors}.
Regardless of the approximation, the associated error decreases with atomic number subject to the choice of HF nodes/phases.
Additionally, the FN and FP approximations yield essentially identical errors.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{convergence}
\caption{FPDMC energy of the C atom with varying spin time steps $\tau_s$. The initial spin configurations were chosen to in order to decompose into a product of determinants. }
\label{fig:convergence}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{crrrr}
\hline\hline
Atom & HF & NRL\cite{nrl} & FN & FP \\
\hline
Li & $-7.43272$ & $-7.47806$ & $ -7.47794(2)$ & $ -7.47804(7) $ \\
Be & $-14.57302$ & $ -14.66736 $ & $ -14.65720(6) $ & $ -14.6574(2) $ \\
B & $-24.52906$ & $ -24.65393 $ & $ -24.64030(9) $ & $ -24.64016(8) $ \\
C & $ -37.68861$ & $ -37.84500 $ & $ -37.8300(3) $ & $ -37.8291(3) $ \\
N & $ -54.40093$ & $ -54.58930 $ & $ -54.5750(6) $ & $ -54.5754(1) $ \\
O & $ -74.80939$ & $ -75.06700 $ & $ -75.049(1) $ & $ -75.0513(1) $ \\
F & $ -99.40934$ & $ -99.73400 $ & $ -99.7164(6) $ & $ -99.7175(1) $ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Total energies in Ha for the first-row elements using FN(FP) DMC with HF nodes (phases). FN calculations are extrapolated to zero time step. FP calculations take a spatial time step of 0.001 and decrease the spin time step until the energy is unchanged. NRL is the estimated nonrelativistic exact energy.}
\label{tab:total_energy}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{errors}
\caption{Percentage error on the total energies in the fixed-node (FN) and fixed-phase (FP) extrapolated calculations.}
\label{fig:errors}
\end{figure}
It is well known that using HF nodes, Be has a significant FN error \cite{rasch}.
The ground state symmetry of Be is $^1S_0$, which is obtained with the electron configuration $1s^2 2s^2$.
Using a HF trial wave function, the nodal surface $\partial \Omega = \left\{ \mathbf{R} \in \mathbb{R}^{3N} | \Psi_T(\mathbf{R}) = 0 \right\}$ separates the configuration space into 4 nodal domains, two of which where the wave function is positive and two in which it is negative.
It is well-known that by adding just one more configuration that is related to the near-degenerate state
of the same symmetry one finds only two nodal domains
as expected for generic fermionic ground state
\cite{ceperley1991,bressanini2002,mitas2006}. Previous calculations have found that it almost completely eliminates
the fixed-node bias \cite{umrigar1988, bressanini2002}. The corresponding two-configuration trial function is given by
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_T\rangle = c_0 |1s^2 2s^2\rangle + c_1 \sum\limits_{i \in \{x,y,z\}} | 1s^2 2p_i^2\rangle
\label{eqn:multi-Be}
\end{equation}
as
With this choice of trial wave function
and full optimization all variational parameters one can reach FN result with almost zero bias \cite{umrigar1988}.
Instead we perform an optimization of this wave function with only the Jastrow parameters and expansion coefficient, keeping the HF orbitals fixed with resulting small increase in the energy compared to the nearly exact value.
Total energies are shown in Figure \ref{fig:be_csf}.
Again, by choosing the FP calculations to preserve the spin assignments of $s_1 = s_3 = s$ and $s_2 = s_4 = s'$ by using a small spin time step, the FN and FP calculations agree to within statistical uncertainty.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{be_csf}
\caption{Total energies for the Be atom with a two-configuration wave function. The bottom $x$-axis shows the real spin time step, which is linearly extrapolated to zero time step with an energy of -14.66071(5) Ha. The top $x$-axis indicates the spin time step, where with each value configurations are initialized such that $s_1 = s_3 = s$ and $s_2 = s_4 = s'$. }
\label{fig:be_csf}
\end{figure}
Thus far, we have only presented results for all-electron systems.
We also consider the FN and FP approximation when nonlocal pseudopotentials are included \cite{melton,melton2}.
We calculate the binding curve for the nitrogen dimer in the $^1 \Sigma_g$ state, using a single-reference trial wave function for each approximation built from HF spatial orbitals.
We utilize a BFD pseudopotential for N \cite{bfd}.
In order to calculate the binding curve, we first calculate the isolated N atom both in FN and FP.
Under the locality approximation \cite{mitas91}, we perform a time step extrapolation within FNDMC and obtain a total energy of $-9.7912(1)$~Ha.
Using a fixed spatial time step, we perform a spin time step extrapolation as described above to facilitate decomposition into a product of two independent determinants using FPSODMC and obtained a total energy of $-9.7917(4)$~Ha.
The dimer curve is shown in Figure \ref{fig:dimer}
and shows the binding obtained from the FN and FP methods.
The QMC data is fit to the morse potential
\begin{equation}
V(r) = D_e\left[ e^{-2a(r-r_e)} -2e^{-a(r-r_e)} \right]
\label{eqn:morse}
\end{equation}
and the vibrational frequency can be obtained via
\begin{equation}
\nu_0 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{2a^2D_e}{\mu}}
\label{eqn:frequency}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the dimer.
The FP solution for the dimer has a slightly larger bias in comparision to the FN solution,
on the order of 1~mHa across the entire binding curve.
Coupled with the {\em slightly} lower energy for the individual atom, the overall binding energy differs from the FN result by roughly $\sim$~0.1~eV, as shown in Table \ref{tab:dimer}.
For completeness, we calculated the dimer using an improved nodal surface/phase given by a trial wave function composed of PBE0 nodes at the equilibirum bond length.
At $r_e = 1.09$~\r{A}, the PBE0 nodal surface is lower in energy by only 0.0010(5)~Ha, which slightly improves the binding energy prediction to $9.654(8)$~eV.
The PBE0 phase has a more significant improvement over the HF phase, yielding a lower energy by 0.0029(5)~Ha.
The binding energy prediction becomes $9.64(1)$~eV, which is very close to the FN result.
Clearly, the differences between the methods are very small,
basically similar to variations in the fixed-node
biases for different atoms and molecular systems and choices of orbitals used in single-reference trial functions.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{dimer}
\caption{N$_2$ binding curve for the $^1\Sigma_g$ molecular state using a HF nodal surface/phase. The horizontal line indicates the experimental dissociation energy. The experimental error bar is too small to be visible on this scale.
The small increase in FP underbinding comes from a slightly smaller fixed-phase bias in the N atom and a slightly larger bias in the dimer with the HF phase. The PBE0 phase calculations lower the binding curve minimum further and make the difference with the
FN results even smaller, see text.
}
\label{fig:dimer}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Equilibrium bond lengths ($r_e$), dissociation energies ($D_e$) and vibrational frequencies ($\nu_0$) for the various approximations compared to experiment using a HF nodal surface/phase. Parameters and uncertainties are obtained from a fit to the Morse potential.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c }
\hline\hline
Method & $r_e$ (\r{A}) & $D_e$ (eV) & $\nu_0$ (cm$^{-1}$) \\
\hline
FN & 1.0895(8) & 9.616(5) & 2402(28)\\
FP & 1.0879(7) & 9.555(6) & 2396(23) \\
Expt.\cite{nist} & 1.098 & 9.758(6) & 2358.57(9) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:dimer}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}\label{section:conclusions}
In this paper we elaborate in detail on a particularly important aspect of the fixed-phase spin-orbit/spinors DMC (FPSODMC) method that we have introduced recently \cite{melton}.
We highlight some of the key aspects, in particular, how to obtain the fixed-node limit results from the fixed-phase setting both in theory and in practical calculations.
We point out the promising features of the fixed-phase
method and also show its behavior in our continuous spin formalism. We illustrate the results on first row atoms calculations.
The method enables us to write
full space-spin symmetry wave functions for Hamiltonians
with or without explicit spin terms and opens thus
possibilities for further improvements of trial wave functions.
We consider the results very encouraging since
in a straightforward manner we were able to obtain the
fixed-node results in both all-electron and effective core potential
settings as well as confirm essentially the same quality of both single and multi-reference trial wave functions.
The method opens interesting new perspectives for
many-body electronic structure calculations in complex wave function and spinor formalism
that takes into account variable nature of the spin degrees of freedom and provides new possibilities for construction
of more general trial wave
functions.
{\em Acknowledgments.}
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) under Award DE-SC0012314. For calculations we used resources at NERSC, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Most calculations have been carried out at TACC.
|
\section{Introduction}
\textcolor{black}{
This paper combines state-of-the-art algorithmic techniques from data science, machine learning, causality analysis and financial engineering to expose risks in financial markets via explicit adversarial scenarios constructed from historical data. It is more precise than traditional risk analysis via VaR and computationally more efficient than Monte Carlo simulation-based approaches. Thus, whereas it has been studied how to identify ``factors'' that negatively affect a financial asset (or portfolio) and how they are correlated, algorithms to generate a causally plausible adverse temporal trajectories of events have remained an unsurmountable challenge. Monte Carlo simulations using Bayes Network have found wide-spread use, but they do not produce an explainable framework, nor do they have attractive computational complexity. Human-expert generated scenarios can be augmented with rational explanation, but they lack consistency and scalability. Notwithstanding these challenges,
}
risk management has become a central part of world finance in the past decades
as financial regulators demand more quantitative risk assessments of financial entities. For example, the Basel Committee under International Bank of Settlements recommends that all banks maintain a minimum capital reserve.
The proposed quantitative assessments are designed and implemented to mitigate the risk of insolvency: namely, the depletion of capital of financial entity to the point that it has to stop its operations. In accounting terms, for any financial entity, its account consists of assets, liabilities and net equity, where the famous accounting identity holds: \emph{Asset} $=$\emph{Liabilities} $+$ \emph{Net Equity}. The task of quantitative risk management is to calculate the amount of equity that has to be reserved so that the net equity will not drop to negative when potential risks materialize into actual losses \cite{duffie2005risk}. In other words, this excess capital reserve serves as a `risk buffer' that will absorb potential losses and prevent the financial entity from bankruptcy. Before the catastrophic financial crisis in 2008, the risk assessments were in general statistical risk measures like Value-at-Risk \cite{manganelli2001var}. The central idea behind statistical risk measure is: we assess the statistical distribution of our portfolio or balance sheet, and estimate the statistically large adverse moves. If our capital reserve is enough to cover such losses, then we can safely assume that we are statistically free from insolvancy. Value-at-Risk is the most widely used measure, which assesses usually the worst 1\% loss. Depending on different financial entities, hedge funds, banks or clearing houses, and on different financial instruments, stocks, bonds, or derivatives in their balance sheets, the specific methods of calculating such risk measures like VaR may vary, but generally they can be reasonably estimated by methods like Monte Carlo Simulation \cite{raychaudhuri2008montecarlo}.
However, such conventional approaches became discredited when the recent events led to major financial catastrophes. For example, in the recent 2008 financial crisis, the reserves calculated the risk by using methods such as VaR which proved to be painfully inadequate. In a recent analysis of VaR before and during the financial crisis conducted by the Federal Reserve Board, the average bank profit-and-loss(PnL) did not exceed the bank VaR from December 2003 to April 2007, while the bank average PnL exceeded VaR six times from June 2007 to March 2008 \cite{FedVaRBackTest}. In other words, banks which maintained capital reserves equal to their Value-at-Risk would face on average six near bankruptcies during the crisis. What most intrigued the economists and political and social scientists, was the sheer lack of a single plausible causal explanation of these events -- which is thought to have ranged from (i) ``One eyed Scottish idiot!” (Jeremy Clarkson); (ii) ``Complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself.” \cite{Levin-CoburnReport}, Interest Rate Spreads, Emerging Markets: e.g., BRICS” -- and so on. Both the unusual abruptness and intuitive implausibility earned such scenarios the name, ``\emph{Black Swan Events\/}'' -- and many more. It also raised the question whether there is a theory of ``causality'' that can rigorously explain such events empirically from data -- we suggest that the machinery of model checking for a suitably expressive logic (e.g., PCTL Probabilistic Computational Tree Logic, a branching time propositional modal logic) provides just the right capabilities to succinctly specify and efficiently verify statements about such scenario. It derives its power from the way it combines logic, probability and reasoning about time.
More informally, these approaches could address the deeply-felt need for better regulation (and intervention) in the form of \emph{stress testing}. Stress testing refers to the analysis or simulation of the response of financial instruments or institutions, given intensely stressed scenarios that may lead to a financial crisis \cite{claessensi2013crisis}. For example, narrowly speaking, stress testing may model the response of a portfolio when Dow Jones suddenly drops by 5\%. The difference between stress testing and conventional risk management is that stress testing deliberately introduces an adversarial, albeit plausible event, which may be highly improbable but not implausible -- e.g., afore-mentioned \emph{black swan event\/} triggering an unforeseen scenario. Thus, stress testing must be capable of observing the response of financial instruments or institutions under extremely rare scenarios. Such scenarios must be deemed to be unlikely to be observed in conventional risk management, where the simpler system may fail to estimate a $99^{\rm th}$ percentile of the loss distribution, and subsequently leading to a claim that, with 99\% confidence level, a specific portfolio will perform well, giving a false sense of security.
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Our Contribution}}
Our core contribution is a stress testing method built on Suppes' causality structure and a novel algorithm to create and traverse Suppes Bayes Causal Networks (SBCN). Note that we had originally developed and applied this causality framework to study cancer progression, but had not explored its combination with ML (machine Learning), as here, for generating rare adversarial scenarios for stress testing. \textcolor{black}{ The integration of causality analysis with machine learning results in a novel and practical (albeit approximate) approach to risk analysis that is currently lacking in data science.}
This paper evolves from Rebonato's use of Bayesian Network~\cite{rebonato2010coherent} as the core modeling technique, and extends beyond his method to combine the three stress testing scenario generation methods. Our scenario generation method samples from a conditioned Bayesian Network learned from historical data that is able to capture the causality structure between risk factors and financial assets. The advantage of this method is that the clear causal structure makes interpretation of stress testing results more intuitive. The method also incorporates machine learning tools to identify scenarios that are most detrimental to specific portfolios and reduce the computational complexity of sampling.
\textcolor{black}{Our second contribution is in augmenting traditional factor models with causality analysis -- a challenging area in data science, especially, in finance and econometrics. For instance,}
after the 2008 Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis, many attempts have been taken to explore the causes of the gigantic crisis. Many attributed the crisis to very `direct' causes -- as suggested earlier, they would include: low-quality mortgage loans whose risk is concealed by securitization; derivatives like credit-default-swaps which helped support lending. Others presented more `indirect' causes: banks' capital requirements by Basel Accord, which encouraged securitization; long-term record low interest rates encouraged reckless borrowing. \cite{CrisisCause2008Dennis} People's interests in causality have grown tremendously since the crisis, since it is easier to understand cause and effects, than association or correlation, just like in natural sciences. However, causality structure is more than just cause and effects. In the explanations of the crisis mentioned above, we can already see the different, `direct' or `indirect' causes convolute together: capital requirements encouraged securitization and securitization hid risk; long-term low interest rate encouraged reckless borrowing, which led to the existence of low-quality mortgages. The past attempts admitted the `convoluted interactions' between causes, but failed to explore the actual complex causality structure. Nevertheless, the true discovery of the causality structure is crucial not only to the understanding of the interactions between causes and effects, but also to the generation of sound hypothetical scenarios. \textcolor{black}{The algorithmic framework presented here takes us one step closer to understanding various latent causal structures at play in a complex financial market.}
Our final contribution is in providing a practical and scalable implementation of financial causality analysis building on a theoretical foundation of causality with a rich and deep philosophical history. The start of modern causality theory is Scottish philosopher David Hume's regularity theory. The core of his theory is temporal priority, which means that causes always come before their effects, or in other words, causality follow a pattern of succession in time \cite{hume1793inquiry}. Following Hume, Judea Pearl's notion of intervention has laid the foundation of many modern computer algorithms for causal network inference. Intervention by Pearl implies that if we manipulate $c$ and nothing happens, then $c$ cannot be cause of $e$, but if a manipulation of $c$ leads to a change in $e$, then we may conclude that $c$ is a cause of $e$, although there might be other causes as well \cite{pearl2003causality}. Unrelatedly, Patrick Suppes proposed his notion of \emph{prima facie} cause which extends the ideas of Hume and Pearl, and this paper efficiently automates discovery of Suppes' prime facie causation to construct the causal Bayesian network of financial factors and assets.
\textcolor{black}{To iterate an earlier point, the work presented here builds on our earlier work on cancer progression, but also addresses many practical challenges -- unique to financial data -- where computational efficiency is paramount, but nontrivial.}
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Road-map:}} This paper is organized as follow. Next section describes the background and related work. The section, following immediately, addresses theoretical foundations of our method and, in particular, it shows how combining the expressivity of Suppes-Bayes Causal Networks together with classical classification approaches can effectively capture the dynamics of financial stress testing. Section $4$ provides results
describing the accuracy (specificity and sensitivity) of our algorithm for the efficient inference and traversal of SBCNs from financial data and discusses its performance in-depth; it shows on realistic simulated data how our approach is preferable in comparison to the standard Bayesian methods. Section $5$ concludes the paper.
\section{Literature Review}
\textcolor{black}{The emerging area of financial stress testing is still an embryonic field and has a relatively meager literature -- traditional data science approaches are not directly applicable; automation of the manual methods relying on domain expertise is mostly unformalized.
}
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Stress Testing Literature in Finance}} Before the financial crisis, stress testing only enjoyed interest among advanced financial practitioners like risk managers and central bankers. Nevertheless, the severity of the global financial crisis and its unexpected nature suggested that a more extensive and rigorous use of stress testing methodologies would be crucial to reduce the occurrence of similar catastrophes. \cite{StressTestMario} Stress testing first emerged as banks' internal self-assessment of their financial soundness in the early 1990s. \cite{StressTestHistoryBOE} These stress tests were small-scale tests for individual banks to assess their own trading activities and balance sheets. Later, in 1996, the Basel I Market Risk Amendment required banks to develop stress tests as part of their internal models for the calculation of capital requirements for market risk. \cite{StressTestMario} In 2004, Basel II introduced requirement for credit risk stress testing by banks. Most recently, in 2011, the Federal Reserve began Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) program which incorporated an annual bank stress test. \cite{StressTestHistoryBOE} The start of CCAR marks a nation-wide implementation of stress testing as a regular financial stability assessment. Stress testing thereby became one of the much debated topics in financial regulation and risk management.
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Stress Testing Literature in Data Science}} Recently, many different approaches have been developed to implement stress testing. In general, a stress testing procedure consists of two steps: $(i)$ \emph{generation of stress scenarios}, and $(ii)$ \emph{stress projections}. The first step generates the adversarial, albeit plausible stress scenario. The second step projects financial portfolios or banks' balance sheets onto the stress scenario and estimates the potential loss. In terms of stress scenario generation, the most direct method is the historical one, in which observed events from the past are used to test contemporary portfolios \cite{stress_testing_methods}. Some example historical scenarios used by practioners are: Black-Monday in 1987, Asian Crisis in 1997, and Financial Crisis in 2008. \cite{StressTestHistoryBOE} As an alternative, the event-based method has been proposed in order to quantify a specific hypothetical stress scenario subjectively, by domain experts, and then estimate the possible consequence of such event using macroeconomic and financial models \cite{stress_testing_methods}. To ensure a scenario is damaging to the portfolio, a portfolio-based method has been also studied in order to link scenarios directly with the portfolio \cite{stress_testing_methods}. To this extent, portfolio-based methods rely on Monte Carlo Simulation to identify the movements of risk factors that stress the given portfolio most severely.
However, all of these scenario generation methods have their own limitations. The historical approach is objective since it is based on actual events, but it is not necessarily relevant under the present conditions. The event-based hypothetical method is more relevant, but it relies intensively on expert judgment on whether a hypothetical event will be severely-damaging, albeit still plausible to occur. Sometime such judgment becomes difficult when the relationship between the underlying risk factors and the portfolio is unknown. Hypothetical methods have been blamed for their high degree of uncertainty. Practitioners sometimes find it hard to interpret the result of stress testing on hypothetical events since the probability of occurrence of the event is uncertain \cite{rebonato2010coherent}, and the construction of the hypothetical events are subjective. The portfolio-based method relies heavily on Monte Carlo Simulation, but brute force Monte Carlo Simulation is computationally inefficient especially when dealing with many risk factors. Also, portfolio-based methods are difficult to implement for nation-wide inter-bank stress testing like CCAR.
To solve this problem, Rebonato et al. proposed a sampling approach based on Bayesian networks in \cite{rebonato2010coherent}, which naturally relied on correlations, but not causation. \textcolor{black}{Our work, presented here addresses this shortcoming.}
\section{\textcolor{black}{Method}}
\textcolor{black}{The underlying stress testing method builds on several ideas from a diverse sets of fields: Finance, Machine Learning, Causal Data Science and Algorithmics; we discuss these building blocks successively.}
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Finance Theory}}
\textcolor{black}{Traditionally markets are thought to be \emph{efficient} and follow CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Models), which assumes that return of an asset may be defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
r = R_{f} \, + \, \beta_{1}(K_{m}-R_{f}) \,+\alpha,
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the return of the asset, $R_f$ the risk free return (usually measured in terms of government treasury returns) and $K_{m}$ the market factor (measured as value-weighted market portfolio, similar to stock indexes). Such a model is of little interest in terms of stress testing of a portfolio of assets as all assets are equally correlated to the market and are affected similarly by any scenario.}
For our purposes, it is more meaningful to assume that the stocks are affected differently by different econometric factors and are causally intertwined. For example, we may adopt a common stock factor model, the \emph{Fama French Five Factor Model} \cite{fama1996multifactor}, where the return of the asset is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
r = R_{f} \, + \, \beta_{1}(K_{m}-R_{f}) \, + \, \beta_{2}SMB \, \\ + \, \beta_{3}HML \, + \, \beta_{4}RMW \,+ \, \beta_{3}CMA+\alpha.
\end{equation}
In the equation,
\begin{itemize}
\item $r$ is the return of the asset;
\item $R_{f}$ is the risk free return, usually measured in terms of government treasury returns;
\item $K_{m}$ stands for market factor, measured as value-weighted market portfolio, similar to stock indexes;
\item $SMB$ (Small Minus Big) stands for company size factor, measured by return on a diversified portfolio of small stocks minus the return on a diversified portfolio of big stocks;
\item $HML$ (High Minus Low) stands for company book-to-market $(B/M)$ ratio factor, measured by difference between the returns on diversified portfolios of high and low $B/M$ stocks, where $B/M$ is the ratio between company's book value to market value;
\item $RMW$ (Robust Minus Weak) stands for company operating profitability factor, measured by the returns on diversified portfolios of stocks with robust and weak profitability and
\item $CMA$ (Conservative Minus Aggressive) stands for company investment factor, difference between the returns on diversified
portfolios of low and high investment stocks, called conservative and aggressive \cite{fama1996multifactor}.
\end{itemize}
\textcolor{black}{Consequently, the factors may be assumed to evolve temporally following embedded causal relationships. Their effects on the portfolio of stocks may be inferred by linearly regressing historical returns $r$, onto the five factors. However, we will also need to infer from data the temporal and probability-raising relations among the pairs of factors, which would indicate potentially genuine causal relations that affect the dynamics of the financial market. These provide the key ingredients of the plausible adversarial trajectories.
}
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Machine Learning Theory}}
We start with Machine Learning using Bayesian Graphical Models \cite{koller2009probabilistic}, popularly known as Bayesian networks, as a framework to assess stress testing, as previously done in this context by \cite{rebonato2010coherent}. Bayesian networks have long been used in biological modeling such as -omics data analysis, cancer progression or genetics \cite{beerenwinkel2007conjunctive,loohuis2014inferring,ramazzotti2015capri}, but their application to financial data analysis has been rare. Roughly speaking, Bayesian networks attempt to exploit the conditional independence among random variables, whether the variables represent genes or financial instruments. In this paper we adopt a variation of the traditional Bayesian networks as done in
\cite{ramazzotti2016modeling,ramazzotti2016learning},
There Mishra and his co-authors have shown how constraining the search space of valid solutions by means of a causal theory grounded in Suppes' notion of probabilistic causation \cite{suppes1970probabilistic} can be exploited in order to devise better statistical inference algorithms. Also, by accounting for Suppes' notion of probabilistic causation, we ensure not only conditional independence but also \emph{prima facie} causal relations among variables, leading us to a better definition of the actual factors leading to risk. Moreover, through a maximum likelihood optimization scheme which makes use of a regularization score, we also attempt to only retain edges in the Bayesian network (graphically depicted as a directed acyclic graph, DAG) that correspond to only genuine causation, while eliminating all the spurious causes
\cite{caravagna2015algorithmic}.
Yet, given the inferred network, we can sample from it to generate plausible scenarios, though not necessarily adversarial or rare. In the case of stress testing, it is crucial to also account for rare configurations, for this reason, we adopt auxiliary tools from machine learning to discover random configurations that are both unexpected and undesired.
Here, we expand the concept sketched above, starting with a background discussion of our framework, by describing the adopted Bayesian models and causal theories and we then show how classification -- proviso an inferred causal model like SBCN is available -- can effectively guide stress testing simulations.
\subsubsection{Traditional Bayesian networks}
Informally, Bayesian networks are defined as a directed acyclic graph (DAG) $G = (V, E)$, in which each node $\in V$ represents a random variable to which is associated a conditional probability table, and each arc $\in E$ models a binary dependency relationship. The nodes induce an overall joint distribution that can be written as a product of the conditional distributions associated with each variable \cite{koller2009probabilistic}. In this paper, without any loss of generality, we restrict our attention to Bernoulli random variables with support in $\{0,1\}$. Specifically, we will consider as inputs for our analyses a dataset $D$ of $m$ observations over $n$ Bernoulli variables; we refer to the next subsections for a detailed description of the meaning of such variables. More details about Bayesian networks may be found in \cite{koller2009probabilistic}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{images/example_bayesian_network}
\caption{Example of graphical structure of a Bayesian network with $4$ random variables.}
\label{fig:example_bayesian_network}
\end{figure}
Let us now consider as an example the Bayesian network shown in Figure \ref{fig:example_bayesian_network}, where $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are $4$ random variables \textcolor{black}{(e.g., an econometric factor's value relative to a threshold)}
represented by four nodes, and the dependencies among the nodes are modeled by directed arcs.
\textcolor{black}{Thus, a pertinent network could encode certain binary relations, such as correlations or causality, among Fama French Factors such as
$K_{m}$ (market factor, akin to stock indexes), $S$
(SMB, for company sizes), $H$ (HML,for company book-to-market $(B/M)$ ratio), $R$, (RMW, for company operating profitability), and $C$ (CMA, for company investment factor). The graph is defined by $V = \{K_m, S, H, R, C\}$ and $E \subseteq V \times V$.
}
Loosely speaking, the link $A \rightarrow B$ indicates that the knowledge of $A$ (the parent) influences the probability of $B$ (the child), or $A$ and $B$ are statistically dependent. Furthermore, for node $B$, node $A$ is called $B$'s parent and nodes $C$ and $D$ are called $B$'s children. More precisely, in the conditional probability tables related to the afore mentioned Bayesian network, the rows for node $B$ specifies how the knowledge of $A$ affects the probability of $B$ being observed. For example, let $A$ and $B$ be both binary random variables with support over $\{0,1\}$. Table \ref{table:example_conditional_probability_table} specifies the distribution of $B$ under the condition of $A$, and we can see clearly the effect of the parent on the child in this example.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | p{=1.0cm} | p{3.2cm} | p{3.2cm} | }
\hline
& \textbf{A = 0} & \textbf{A = 1} \\
\hline
\textbf{B = 0} & $P(B=0|A=0)=0.3 $ & $P(B=0|A=1)=0.4$\\
\hline
\textbf{B = 1} & $P(B=1|A=0)=0.7$ & $P(B=1|A=1)=0.6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example of conditional probability table of node $B$ having node $A$ is unique parent.}
\label{table:example_conditional_probability_table}
\end{table}
One of the most significant feature of Bayesian network is the notion of \emph{conditional independence}. Simply speaking, for any node $X$ in a Bayesian network, given the knowledge of node $X$'s parents, $X$ is conditionally independent of all nodes that are not its children, or all its predecessors \cite{koller2009probabilistic}. For example, in the Bayesian network in Figure \ref{fig:example_bayesian_network}, node $C$ is conditionally independent of node $A$, when conditioned on node $B$ being fixed. The possibility of exploiting conditional dependencies when computing the induced distribution of the Bayesian network is a powerful property since it simplifies the conditional probability table tremendously. For example, the conditional probability table of node $C$, will not contain entries $P(C | A, B)$ since $P(C | A, B) = P(C | B)$, or node $C$ is independent of $A$ conditioned on $B$: $A \perp C | B$.
In the context of stress testing, Rebonato \cite{rebonato2010coherent} suggests a subjective approach to constructing Bayesian networks. After carefully selecting a set of random variables as the nodes of the network, Rebonato proposes to subjectively connect the variables and assign the relevant conditional probability tables with the help of risk managers or other experts. Then with the inferred Bayesian network, reasoning about stressed events or simulation can be conducted. Please see \cite{rebonato2010coherent} for details.
\subsubsection{\textcolor{black}{Suppes-Bayes Causal Networks \& Our Approach}}
Our framework builds upon many of Rebonato's intuitions but exploits our recent works on causality to address all the key problems, of which the subjective approach falls short. The subjective approach is handy under the condition of expert knowledge of the causal relationships of some variables. However, such reliance becomes unnatural when experts are confronted with random variables that are clearly beyond their expertise: for example, the relationship of unemployment and stock market performance, or more simply, the relationship of a pair of arbitrarily chosen stocks. Therefore, instead of completely abandoning the role of data in the construction of Bayesian network, here we adopt statistical inference algorithms that can learn both the structure and the conditional probability table of the Bayesian network from the data, which, in turn, can be further augmented by expert knowledge if deemed necessary.
Thus, unlike \cite{rebonato2010coherent}, our stress testing approach builds on the foundation of Suppes-Bayes Causal Networks (SBCNs), which are not only more strictly regularized than the general Bayesian networks but also enjoys many other attractive features such as interpretability and refutability. SBCNs exploit the notion of probabilistic causation, originally proposed by Patrick Suppes \cite{suppes1970probabilistic}.
In \cite{suppes1970probabilistic}, Suppes described the notion of \emph{prima facie causation}. A prima facie causal relation between any event $u$ and its effect $v$ is verified when the following two conditions hold: $(i)$ \emph{temporal priority} (TP), i.e., a cause happens before its effect and $(ii)$ \emph{probability raising} (PR), i.e., the presence of the cause raises the probability of observing its effect.
\begin{definition}[Probabilistic causation,~\cite{suppes1970probabilistic}] \label{def:praising}
For any two events $u$ and $v$, occurring respectively at times $t_u$ and $t_v$, under the mild assumptions that $0 < \Probab{u}, \Probab{v} < 1$, the event $u$ is called a \emph{prima facie cause} of $v$ if it occurs \emph{before} and \emph{raises the probability} of $v$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
(TP) \quad t_u < t_v \\
(PR) \quad \Pcond{v}{u} > \Pcond{v}{\~ u}\qquad
[\mbox{also} \equiv \Pcond{v}{u} > \Probab{v}.]
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{where ${\~ u} \equiv \neg u$ is the Boolean complement of $u$ and corresponds to the event ``not $u$.''
Our reformulation\footnote{Note that:
$\Pcond{v}{u} > \Pcond{v}{\~ u} \equiv$
$\Pcond{v}{u}\Probab{u} + \Pcond{v}{u}(1 - \Probab{u}) > \Pcond{v}{u}\Probab{u} + \Pcond{v}{\~ u} (1 - \Probab{u})$
$\equiv \Pcond{v}{u} > \Probab{v}.$
} follows straightforward logic.
}
\end{definition}
The mathematical underpinnings of Probabilistic Causation are easily expressible in the logic below, which also allows efficient model checking in general. Thus enumerating complex \emph{prima facie} causes from data or probabilistic state transition models becomes feasible.
Thus, starting with a discrete time Markov chain (DTMC)\footnote{\textcolor{black}{A DTMC is a sequence of random variables following the Markov property, i.e., the probability distribution of future states only depends upon the present state \cite{markov1954algorithm}.}} -- a directed graph with a set of states, $S$, it is endowed (via labeling functions) with the atomic propositions true within them. It is possible to make the labeling probabilistic, so that one may express that ``high market optimism'' may be false due to the fact that an adverse election results may be revealed with some small probability (e.g., depending on the status of a certain investigation). The states are related pairwise by the transition probability. We also have an initial state from which we can begin a path (trajectory) through the system. Each state has at least one transition to itself or another state in $S$ with a non-zero probability.
\textcolor{black}{A general framework for causality analysis is provided by model checking algorithms in PCTL (Probabilistic Computational Tree Logic) and has been explored in details by Mishra and his students~\cite{kleinberg2009temporal}. We start with a brief discussion on how Suppes' prima-facie causality can be formulated in PCTL, but then develop an efficient, albeit simplified, approach to financial stress testing using factor-models and SBCN (with pair-wise causality represented as edges in a graphical model) -- originally introduced by Mishra and his colleagues as a simplification. See \cite{kleinberg2009temporal,caravagna2015algorithmic,bonchi2015exposing}} More general, and computationally expensive (though tractable), approaches using PCTL will be explored in future research.
\begin{definition}[Probabilistic Computational Tree Logic, PCTL~\cite{ciesinski2004probabilistic}] \label{def:PCTL}
The types of formulas that can be expressed in PCTL are path
formulas and state formulas. State formulas express properties that must hold within a state, determined by how it is labeled with certain atomic propositions, while path formulas refer to sequences of states along which a formula must hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item All atomic propositions are state formulas.
\item If $f$ and $g$ are state formulas, so are
\(\neg f \mbox{ and } f \wedge g. \)
\item If $f$ and $g$ are state formulas, and $t$ is a nonnegative integer or $\infty$, then
\(
f {\sf U}^{\leq t} g
\)
is a path formula.
\item If $f$ is a path formula and $0 \leq p \leq 1$, then
\(
[f]_{>p}
\)
is a state formula.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\textcolor{black}{The syntax and the logic builds on standard propositional Boolean logic, but extends with various modes: the key operator is the metric ``until'' operator:
\(
f {\sf U}^{\leq t} g:
\)
here, use of ``until'' means that one formula $f$ must hold at every state along the path until a state where the second formula $g$ becomes true, which must happen in less than or equal to
$t$ time units. Finally, we can add probabilities to these ``until''-like path formulas to make state formulas. Path quantifiers analogous to those in CTL may be defined by:
\({\sf A}f \equiv [f]_{\geq 1}\) [Inevitably $f$];
\({\sf E}f \equiv [f]_{> 0}\) [Possibly $f$];
\({\sf G}f \equiv f {\sf U}^{\leq \infty} {\sf false}\)[Globally $f$], and
\({\sf F} f \equiv {\sf true} {\sf U}^{\leq \infty} f
\) [Eventually $f$]. Formal semantics of the PCTL formul\ae\ may be found in~\cite{hansson1994logic}.}
\textcolor{black}{One can then say event $f$ ``probabilistic causes'' $g$, iff
\[
f \mapsto_{\geq p}^{\leq t} g \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\sf AG}\; (f \rightarrow {\sf F}_{\leq p}^{\leq t} g),
\]
for some suitable hyper-parameters $p$ probability and $t$ duration. Additional criteria (e.g., regularization) are then needed to separate spurious causality from the genuine ones -- as shown below. SBCN, thus, provides a vastly simplified, and yet practical, approach to causality, especially when explicit time is not recorded in the data.}
The notion of \emph{prima facie} causality was fruitfully exploited for the task of modeling cancer evolution in \cite{loohuis2014inferring,ramazzotti2015capri,caravagna2015algorithmic}, and the SBCNs were finally described for the first time in \cite{bonchi2015exposing} but, many of the basic ideas are already implicit in\cite{caravagna2015algorithmic}.
\begin{definition}[Suppes-Bayes Causal Network] \label{def:scn}
\emph{Let us consider an input cross-sectional dataset $D$ of $n$ Bernoulli variables and $m$ samples, the Suppes-Bayes Causal Network $SBCN = (V,E)$ subsumed by $D$ is a directed acyclic graph such that the following requirements hold:}
\item \emph{\textbf{[Suppes' constraints]} for each arc $(u \to v) \in E$ involving a prima facie relation between nodes $u,v \in V$, under the mild assumptions that $0 < \Probab{u}, \Probab{v} < 1$}:
$$
\Probab{u} > \Probab{v} \quad \text{and} \quad \Pcond{v}{u} > \Pcond{v}{\neg u} \,.
$$
\item \emph{\textbf{[Sparsification]} let $E'$ be the set of arcs satisfying the Suppes' constraints as before; among all the subsets of $E'$, the set of arcs $E$ is the one whose corresponding graph maximizes the likelihood of the data and of a certain regularization function $R(f)$:}
$$
E = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_{E \subseteq E', G =(V,E)} (LL(D | G) - R(f)) \,.
$$
\end{definition}
Intuitively, the advantage of SBCNs over general Bayesian networks is the following. First, with \emph{Temporal Priority\/}, SBCN accommodates the time flow among the nodes. There are obvious cases where some nodes occur before the other and it is generally natural to state that nodes that happen later cannot be causes (or parents) of nodes that happen earlier. Second, when learning general Bayesian networks, arcs $A \rightarrow B$ and $A \leftarrow B$ may sometimes be equally acceptable, resulting in an undirected arc $A-B$ (this situation is called \emph{Markov Equivalence\/} \cite{koller2009probabilistic}). For SBCNs, such a situation does not arise because of the temporal flow being irreversible.
Third, because of the two constraints on the causal links, the SBCN graph is generally more sparse (has fewer edges) than the graph of general Bayesian networks with the final goal of disentangling spurious arcs, e.g., due to spurious correlations \cite{pearson1896mathematical}, from genuine causalities.
\subsection{Machine Learning and Classification}
Even if SBCNs typically yield sparser DAGs than when we use Bayesian networks, the relations modeled involve both positive and negative financial scenarios, but only in the latter financial stress may arise. Thus, the extreme events which are of key relevance for stress testing are still rare in the data and unlikely to be simulated in naively generated stress scenarios by sampling from the SBCN directly. Therefore, in this work we improve this basic model with several key ideas of classic machine learning, namely, feature classification. Recall that, in stress testing, we wish to target the unlikely, but risky scenarios. Specifically, when generating random sample from an SBCN to obtain possible scenarios, each node in the SBCN can take any value in its support according to its conditional probability table, generating different branches of scenarios. To narrow down the search space, we can classify each possible branch as leading to \emph{profitable} or \emph{lossy} scenarios, and if, the branch is classified as profitable, then random sampling is guided to very likely avoid that branch, thus focusing on events and causal relations that can be adversarial and risky, though uncommon. In this way, computation can be reduced significantly to discover the extreme events (see the next Sections for details).
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{An efficient Implementation}}
The algorithm below, Algorithm~\ref{algo:sbcn}, encapsulates the earlier discussions.
Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} summarizes the inference approach adopted via SBCN. Given the above inputs, Suppes' constraints are verified (Lines $3$-$8$) to first construct a DAG. Then, the likelihood fit is performed by gradient ascent (Lines $9$-$20$), an iterative optimization technique that starts with an arbitrary solution to a problem (in our case an empty graph) and then attempts to find a better solution by incrementally visiting the neighborhood of the current one. If the new candidate solution is better than the previous one, it is considered in place of it. The procedure is repeated until the stopping criterion is matched.
In our implementation, the Boolean variable $=!${\it StoppingCriterion} is satisfied (Line $11$) in two situations: $(i)$ the procedure stops when we have performed a sufficiently large enough number of iterations or, $(ii)$ it stops when none of the solutions in $G_{neighbors}$ is better than the current $G_{fit}$, where $G_{neighbors}$ denotes all the solutions that are derivable from $G_{fit}$ by removing or adding at most one edge.
\newpage
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Learning the SBCN \cite{bonchi2015exposing}}
\label{algo:sbcn}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE{Inputs: $D$ an input dataset of $n$ Bernoulli variables and $m$ samples, and $r$ a partial order of the variables}
\STATE{Output: $SBCN(V,E)$ as in Definition $2$}
\STATE{\textbf{[Suppes' constraints]}}
\FORALL{pairs $(v,u)$ among the $n$ Bernoulli variables}
\IF{$r(v) \leq r(u)$ \AND $\Pcond{u}{v} > \Pcond{u}{\neg v}$}
\STATE{add the arc $(v,u)$ to $SBCN$.}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE{\textbf{[Likelihood fit by hill climbing]}}
\STATE{Consider $G(V,E)_{fit} = \emptyset$.}
\WHILE{$!StoppingCriterion()$}
\STATE{Let $G(V,E)_{neighbors}$ be the neighbor solutions of $G(V,E)_{fit}$.}
\STATE{Remove from $G(V,E)_{neighbors}$ any solution whose arcs are not included in $SBCN$.}
\STATE{Consider a random solution $G_{current}$ in $G(V,E)_{neighbors}$.}
\IF{$score_{REG}(D,G_{current})>score_{REG}(D,G_{fit})$}
\STATE{$G_{fit} = G_{current}$.}
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\STATE{$SBCN = G_{fit}$.}
\RETURN $SBCN$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
For more information about the algorithm, also refer to \cite{ramazzotti2015capri,bonchi2015exposing}.
\subsection{\textcolor{black}{Our Contribution}}
\textcolor{black}{In this section we have shown how we integrated our earlier works on causality theory to produce an efficient implementation of a financial stress testing framework. However, since the implementation involves several hyper-parameters and different methods for regularization, the final embodiment requires additional empirical studies, which we describe earlier. For this purpose, tested and optimized it rigorously with a carefully selected synthetic financial model.
}
\section{\textcolor{black}{Results}}
\textcolor{black}{Next we describe our extensive comparative studies aimed at evaluating the statistical power of the frameworks that encompass the approaches of Rebonato (BNs) and ones proposed here (SBCNs) to perform stress testing. The other manual (expert-driven) approaches are out of the scope of this comparative studies for obvious reasons.}
Thus, the primary engines for stress testing are built with the generative models, which for our purposes are chosen to be one of of two kinds: Bayes Net (BN) or Causal Net (SBCN), but expected to behave differently based on the methods of model regularization: BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) or AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) -- further constrained with or without bootstrapping.
Thus constructed, the resulting stress testing algorithms may be investigated for performance, while paying specific attention to the problem of false discoveries (positive or negative). These results are succinctly visualized using ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics). The data used for the analysis are simulated, as explained later.
We summarize in Figure \ref{fig:summary_results_learning} the results of this analysis by interpolating and then smoothing out some kinks\footnote{Because of the data sparsity, the interpolation does not always lead to a smooth monotonic curves. } in order to obtain an ROC Space, whose $x$ axis represent the False Positive Rate and $y$ axis the True Positive Rate. ROC Space depicts the performance of the different methods we discussed on different sample sizes. By examining the plot, one can conclude that AICs generally have high true positive rates but also high false positive rates, as a result of its less stringent complexity penalty. In contrast, BICs generally have smaller false positive rates, but its true positive rates are also lower. Comparing the algorithms with and without bootstrapping, one can notice that the bootstrap procedure shifts the curves to the left. Still, the best performance lies in the data with the assumption of sparse relationships. Based on these results, we can conclude that with Bootstrapping and the assumption of sparse relationships, our algorithm is capable of recovering accurately the causal relationships in the data.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{images/ROCSpace4}
\caption{Performance in the ROC Space, depicts the trade-offs between false positive rates and true positive rates. The better results lie in the upper-left corner of the graph where false positive rate is low and true positive rate is high.}
\label{fig:summary_results_learning}
\end{figure}
\textcolor{black}{In order to provide further insights into these results, we describe in greater details: $(i)$ our simulation model that allows us to test the inferred results against the ground truth, $(ii.a)$ false-discovery analysis, $(ii.b)$ influence of information criteria (AIC and BIC) and $(ii.c)$ influence of bootstrapping. Finally, we describe the effect of Machine Learning in trajectory generation and projection from SBCN.}
\subsection{Training Data: Simulation and Evaluation with SBCN}
To assess the performance of the algorithm to infer the SBCNs and the quality of inferred Bayesian networks, a set of training data is developed with embedded causal relationships~\footnote{The vacuous case of ``no causality'' was not explored as it is not meaningful in the context of SBCN; this case was relegated to more general model checking approaches based on PCTL.}. If the algorithms, after `learning' a model from the training data, are capable of accurately recovering the causal relationships embedded in them, then comparable accuracy is to be expected on real data.
To simulate the training data, we adopt the stock factor model, the \emph{Fama French Five Factor Model} \cite{fama1996multifactor}, introduced earlier.
To simulate the training data with embedded causal relationship, we linearly regress historical returns $r$, onto the five factors, and obtain the distribution of each factor coefficient and the empirical residual. We notice that a key characterization of an SBCN is an underlying temporal model of the causal relatas implicit in the network, namely the temporal priority between any pair of factors (represented by nodes of the SBCN) which are involved in a causal relationship. Therefore, the five factors described in our generative model are lagged with respect to the historical returns to comply with the temporal priority. Thus,
\begin{equation}
r_{i,t} = \sum_{i,j} \beta_{i,j}f_{j,t-\mbox{lag}} + \epsilon,
\end{equation}
\textcolor{black}{where $f_{j, \cdot}$ is the $j$th factor's value at a time, properly ``lagged.''}
Then, the simple training data is simulated by randomly drawing the factor coefficients $\beta_{i,j}$ and residuals $\epsilon$ from the distribution we obtained from the linear regression, and apply these coefficients and residuals on a set of new factor data. Such historical data consists of daily series of five factors and returns of $10$ portfolios also constructed by Fama French, and of $10,000$ days. We use the first $5,000$ for regression and the other $5,000$ for simulation.
In reality, many factors will present causal relationships among themselves. For example, some factors do not directly influence the asset, but affect the asset indirectly by its impact on other factors. Therefore, the simulated training data can be complicated by embedding spurious relationships also among factors. We linearly regress some factors on the other factors and simulate the training data in the same way. The choice of factors is arbitrary. In this paper, as an example, we regress the other four factors $SML$, $HML$, $RMW$ and $CMA$ on the market factor $K_{m}$.
Therefore, the causal relationships which are described in the simulated training data can be simplified as shown in Figure \ref{fig:simulated_causal_relationships}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{images/simulated_causal_relationships}
\caption{Example of causal relationships described in the simulated training data.}
\label{fig:simulated_causal_relationships}
\end{figure}
Next we show results on $100$ independent random simulations generated on networks of $15$ nodes, i.e., $10$ stocks and $5$ factors with the generative model discussed in the previous Section. Each node represents a Bernoulli random variable taking binary values in $\{0,1\}$, where $1$ represents the stock or factor going up and $0$, the stock or factor going down. Specifically, the input of our learning task is a dataset $D \in \{0,1\}^{n\times m}$, an $n \times m$ binary matrix. Starting with such an input, we attempted to experiment with our learning algorithms previously described in \cite{ramazzotti2015capri} and \cite{bonchi2015exposing}. In particular, as in \cite{bonchi2015exposing}, we lacked explicitly observed time in the data, which are only cross-sectional. To overcome this problem we gave as a further input to our algorithm a topological ranking $r$ providing information about the temporal priority among the nodes. In interpreting these experiments, we set ranking as a proxy of time precedence among the factors influencing the stocks, i.e., in our model factors can cause stock moves but not the other way around. \textcolor{black}{This strategy results in removal of implausible spurious arcs going from stocks to factors, but without affecting any genuine constraints in the arcs among factors or among stocks.}
\subsubsection{The Problem of False Discovery}
We first tested the performance of Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} on a training data of $10$ portfolios, $5$ factors and $5,000$ observations. On such settings, the algorithm was capable of recovering almost the whole set of embedded causal relationships with only $13$ false negatives, roughly, $33\%$ of total arcs; however, the number of false positives were unacceptably larger, reaching around $49\%$ of the total causal arcs obtained, thus requiring more attention to how the model was regularized.
The explanation for this trend can be found in how the algorithm implements the regularization via Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) \cite{schwarz1978estimating}, that is:
\[
BIC = k\cdot\ln(N) - 2\ln(L),
\]
where $k$ is the number of arcs in the SBCN (i.e. number of causal relationships), $n$ is the number of observations of the data, and $L$ is the likelihood. The algorithm searches for the Bayesian network that minimizes the BIC.
For large number of observations, the maximum likelihood optimization ensures that asymptotically all the embedded relationships are explored and the most likely solution is recovered. However, maximum likelihood is known to be susceptible to over-fitting \cite{koller2009probabilistic}, especially when, as in our case, it deals with small sample size in the training data. Furthermore, in the training data, all the portfolios are assumed to depend on the same five factors, although with different coefficients, but very likely some portfolios will have very similar coefficients, resulting in co-movements across the portfolios. This co-movement will often induce correlations that affect the probability raising and thus the spurious prima facie causal relations, making these settings an interesting, and yet a very hard test case. See Figure \ref{fig:simulated_spurious_relationships}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{images/simulated_spurious_relationships}
\caption{The figure simplifies the true causal relationships (on the left), and the spurious relationships (on the right) emerging from the simulated data.}
\label{fig:simulated_spurious_relationships}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Sample Size and Information Criterion}
To reduce the spurious causalities, we recall some intrinsic properties of the information criteria. The Bayesian Information Criterion $BIC = k\cdot\ln(N) - 2\ln(L)$, not only maximizes the likelihood, but also penalizes the complexity of the model by the term $k\cdot\ln(N)$. For small sample sizes, BIC is generally biased towards simple models because of the penalty. However, for large sample size, BIC is willing to accept complex models. For additional discussion, see the details in \cite{koller2009probabilistic}.
In our simulations we adopted a sample size of $5,000$ which is considerably large relative to the degree of freedom of the score function, thus inducing BIC to infer a relatively complex model with a number of unnecessary spurious arcs. Counter-intuitively, we could improve the solutions by using smaller sized data and letting the complexity penalty take a bigger effects in BIC score. This strategy also addresses the non-stationarity in the data, an endemic problem for financial data. Following this intuition, we performed further experiments by reducing the original sample size of $5,000$ samples, which describes around $10$ years of data, in turn to $250$ and $500$, and we observed a significant reduction in the number of false positives, to $38\%$ and $40\%$ of total arcs respectively. However, at the same time, because of smaller sample size, the number of false negatives inevitably increased to more than $50\%$ of total arcs.
To reconcile this dilemma, we next considered an alternative information criterion, the AIC, Akaike Information Criterion \cite{akaike1998information}, defined as in the following:
\[
AIC = 2k - \ln(L).
\]
We notice that for AIC, the coefficient of $k$ is set to $2$, leading to definitely smaller factor than $\ln(N)$ of BIC when the sample size $N$ is large. For this reason, AIC supports the trend of accepting more complex models for given sample sizes than BIC. Applying AIC, the number of false negatives typically decreases, while the number of false positive gets larger.
\subsubsection{Improving Model Selection by Bootstrapping}
So far we have described the different characteristics of two state-of-the-art likelihood scores while aiming to minimize the number of resulting false positive and false negative arcs in the inferred model. Specifically, we showed a trade-off where, because of their characteristics, the best results on large sample sizes is obtained using BIC, while for small sample sizes AIC is more effective, but neither of the two regularization schemes display a satisfactory trend. To improve their performance, we then examined a bootstrap \cite{efron1981nonparametric} procedure for model selection.
The idea of bootstrap is the following: we first learn the structure and parameters of the SBCN as before, but we perform subsequently a re-sampling procedure where we sample with repetitions data from the dataset in order to generate a set of \emph{bootstrapped datasets}, e.g., $100$ times, and then we calculate the relative confidence level of each arc in the originally inferred SBCN, by performing the inference from each of the bootstrapped dataset and counting how many times a given arc is retrieved. In this way, we obtained a confidence level for any arc in the SBCN.
We once again tested such an approach on our simulations and we observed empirically that the confidence level of spurious arcs are typically smaller than the confidence level for true causal relations. Therefore, a simple method of pruning the inferred SBCN to constrain for a given minimum confidence level is here applied. Such a threshold reflects the number of false positives that we are willing to include in the model, with higher thresholds ensuring sparser models. Here, we test our approach by requiring a minimum confidence level of $0.5$, i.e., any valid arc must be retrieved at least half of the times.
We now conclude our analysis by showing in Tables \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_bn} and \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes} the contingency tables resulting from our experiments both for Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} \textsc{(Table \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes})} and for the standard likelihood fit method to infer Bayesian Networks (Table \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_bn}):
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | p{1.1cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | }
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{BIC}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{BICBoot}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{AIC}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{AICBoot}} \\
\hline
\textbf{Sample} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} \\
\hline
250 & 50.4 & 94.9 & 31.9 & 95.3 & 57.0 & 89.5 & 39.3 & 95.2 \\
\hline
500 & 51.8 & 94.7 & 45.6 & 96.6 & 61.6 & 93.5 & 51.5 & 98.7 \\
\hline
1000 & 55.2 & 93.5 & 47.6 & 94.5 & 63.7 & 85.5 & 50.4 & 95.2 \\
\hline
2500 & 60.3 & 90.3 & 54.8 & 99.9 & 68.4 & 85.7 & 62.4 & 99.8 \\
\hline
3500 & 62.5 & 84.2 & 58.0 & 94.3 & 69.5 & 85.7 & 63.7 & 96.8 \\
\hline
5000 & 66.6 & 80.9 & 65.6 & 85.7 & 71.8 & 85.7 & 70.7 & 85.7 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contingency Table of the Performances by standard Bayesian Networks of Different Information Criteria and Sample Sizes.}
\label{table:results_exp_contincency_table_bn}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ | p{1.1cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | p{0.45cm} | }
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{BIC}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{BICBoot}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{AIC}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textbf{AICBoot}} \\
\hline
\textbf{Sample} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} & \textbf{FP} & \textbf{FN} \\
\hline
250 & 37.6 & 67.7 & 24.7 & 83.3 & 42.8 & 40.1 & 27.9 & 51.5 \\
\hline
500 & 39.6 & 52.3 & 36.8 & 55.9 & 43.7 & 38.5 & 40.9 & 39.0 \\
\hline
1000 & 43.1 & 39.1 & 40.7 & 47.8 & 47.9 & 37.6 & 43.9 & 38.0 \\
\hline
2500 & 52.2 & 50.8 & 45.1 & 50.8 & 57.1 & 28.5 & 50.2 & 38.6 \\
\hline
3500 & 48.7 & 33.3 & 48.7 & 33.3 & 58.8 & 28.5 & 57.1 & 28.5 \\
\hline
5000 & 48.7 & 33.3 & 47.5 & 33.3 & 57.1 & 14.3 & 53.8 & 19.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Contingency Table of the Performances by Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} of Different Information Criteria and Sample Sizes.}
\label{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes}
\end{table}
Table \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes} presents the results in terms of false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN) by Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} with the various methods on the training data with different information criteria, sample sizes, and whether Bootstrapping is applied. The trade-off between false positive rates and false negative rates usually is case-specific. We observe that, in general, the objective of such an approach is to correctly and precisely recover the true distribution underlying the training data. For this reason, unless differently specified for specific uses, there is not an overall preference toward either lower false positive or lower false negative. Therefore, we evaluate our methods by considering the sum of both false positive and false negative rates. This metric is biased toward a combination of relatively low FP and FN rather than the combination of very low FP and high FN and so on. By analyzing the results shown in Table \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes}, we can clearly observe a trend where AIC with Bootstrapping on small sample datasets (i.e., $250$) and BIC with Bootstrapping on large sample datasets (i.e., $5,000$) produces the best results, which is in agreement with the discussion of the previous Section. Also, we observe that both for AIC without any bootstrapping on sample sizes of $250$ and BIC without any bootstrapping on sample size of $5,000$, the false positive rates are reduced without a significant increase in the false negative rates.
We conclude by pointing out the significant increase in performance (both in terms of FP and FN) when using SBCNs in place of standard BNs (compare Tables \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_bn} and \ref{table:results_exp_contincency_table_suppes}).
\subsubsection{Assumption of Sparse Relationships}
The resulting false positive rate may still seem relatively high. But, one important assumption is worth mentioning. In the training data, such high false positive rate derives from the fact that portfolios are dependent on the $5$ common factors, which very likely will induce co-movements. However, in the real data, such nested dependencies do not always occur, while a feature of sparse relationships appears frequently, and portfolios depend on distinctively small sets of factors. This assumption of sparsity can significantly improve the performance of the algorithm.
To implement the assumption of sparsity, we deviate from the original Fama French five factor model. For simplicity, we generate data with sparse relationships using a random linear model with $10$ factor variables and $20$ stock variables. With $30\%$ probability, each stock variable is dependent linearly on one of the $10$ factor variables, so on average, each stock variable will be dependent on $3$ factor variables, which will likely be distinct from the dependent factor variables of other stock variables. Then we sample factor variable data from a normal distribution and compute the corresponding stock data using the linear model.
Implementing this sparsity on a new set of purely random training data we obtain with Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} much better results, and, e.g., following the BIC with Bootstrapping method mentioned above, we obtain on small sample size ($250$ samples) $18.1\%$ false positive and $39.2\%$ false negative rates, while on large sample size ($2,500$ samples), we obtain $50.2\%$ false positive and $38.6\%$ false negative rates.
\subsection{Practical Stress Testing}
In this Section we present how to assess stress testing scenarios given the inferred Suppes-Bayes Causal Network and we present the results on the simulated data.
\subsubsection{Risk Management by Simulations}
After the inference of the SBCN, we perform Monte Carlo Simulation in the same way as conventional risk management, by drawing large number of samples to discover the worst $5\%$ scenarios as the value at risk (VaR). Nevertheless, here in stress testing, we are targeting the most extreme events, which have very low but nonzero probability of occurrence. Thus, they still can occur, for example, the $2008$ financial crisis or the most recent market reactions to \emph{BREXIT}. Therefore, when drawing samples from the network, we would like to reject the normal scenarios, and place more importance on the extreme events. To achieve this goal, when conducting random sampling, we classify each possible branch as profitable or risky, and if the branch is classified as profitable, then we will avoid that branch.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{images/risk_classification_sbcn}
\caption{Risk classification in our SBCN.}
\label{fig:risk_classification_sbcn}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:risk_classification_sbcn} represents a simple binary classification where for this factor only {\tt Factor.i} with value $0$ is considered risky and, hence, this scenario is the only one to be sampled. In this way, we target the extremely risky events and reduce computation. But, unlike conventional risk management, this approach does not allow us to estimate the probability of occurrence of the sampled extreme events, therefore we will not conclude a value at risk with certain confidence level.
The simple binary classification with certain features is a standard machine learning problem. Here we explore a simple solution of such a task based on decision trees \cite{safavian1990survey}. A decision tree is a predictive models that maps features of an object to a target value of the object. Here, the features are the factors of interest, and the target value is whether the portfolio is prone to profit or loss. To perform classification, we first draw $1,000$ sample trajectories from the inferred SBCN. Then we construct a simple portfolio, which is long on all the stocks in the SBCN by the same amount, and calculate the Profit and Loss (P/L) of each observation. Here however, because the underlying SBCN depicts binary variables, exact Profit and Loss (P/L) statistics cannot be obtained. Instead, since the toy portfolio is long on all stocks by the same amount, the ratio of stocks that goes up is an approximate measure of risk. Of course, for continuous Bayesian network, Profit and Loss can be calculated directly. In the next step, we sort this measure, and denote the bottom-most $100$ scenarios as risky, and the rest as profitable. The $100$ `risky' scenarios contain at least $7$ stocks that fall. Then we consider $1,000$ samples each of them labeled as `risky' or `profitable.' In our experiments, we used the R `tree' package \cite{tree_r_package}.
Using the SBCN learned from the simulated training data, we obtain the following decision tree shown in Figure \ref{fig:decision_tree_sbcn}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{images/decision_tree_sbcn}
\caption{Decision tree obtained from the SBCN.}
\label{fig:decision_tree_sbcn}
\end{figure}
In the decision tree of Figure \ref{fig:decision_tree_sbcn}, $S$ denotes factor $SMB$; $M$ denotes Market $K_{m}$; $H$ denotes $HML$; $R$ denotes $RMW$ and $C$ denotes $CMA$. Here we show only the left part of the entire computed decision tree, the subtree with $S=1$ is omitted, since the entire subtree with $S=1$ is classified as `Profitable,' which is not of interest for stress testing. In the tree, we identify two paths that are classified as `Risky.' Path $S=0$, $M=0$, $H=0$, $R=0$, $C=0$ and Path $S=0,M=0,H=0,R=0,C=1$. The paths classified are intuitive, since our example portfolio is long with equal amount invested over all $10$ stocks. Since $10$ stocks are generally positively dependent on the factors, most factors with $0$ values will likely induce a `Risky' path. For more complicated portfolios and real factors, such intuition cannot be easily found so we have to rely on the result of classification.
\subsubsection{Scenario Generation and Results}
Given the tree of Figure \ref{fig:decision_tree_sbcn}, we then used the {\tt bnlearn} R package \cite{scutari2009learning} to sample from the SBCN. Given the network, we can simulate random scenarios, however, we wish not to simulate all of them, which will prove to be inefficient, but following the informations provided by the classification tree we choose the configurations which are likely to indicate risk to drive our sampling. For instance, we may pick the first path in the tree, which is $S=0$, $M=0$, $H=0$, $R=0$, $C=0$, and constrain the distribution induced by the SBCN. In order to avoid sampling the scenarios which are not in accordance with the path, we adjust the conditional probability table of the SBCN. Since we want paths with all five factors taking value 0, we set the conditional probability of these five factors taking value $1$ to $0$, and the conditional probability of factors taking value $0$ to $1$. In this way, the undesirable paths will be unlikely to be simulated, while the intrinsic distribution of how factors affect the stocks is still modeled. More sophisticated implementation based on this intuition are possible: e.g., using branch-and-bound, policy valuation, tree-search, etc, but we will leave this to future research.
Comparing the results of the simulations using the original SBCN and the one taking into account the decision tree, we show the distribution of the risk measure, the number of stocks that go up in the Figure \ref{fig:distributions_stocks_sbcn}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{images/Result}
\caption{Distribution of Number of Stocks Going Up.}
\label{fig:distributions_stocks_sbcn}
\end{figure}
The number of stocks going up from $100$ samples generated by the original SBCN is roughly evenly distributed. At the same time, the $100$ samples generated by the modified SBCN contain no scenarios with more than $5$ stocks going up, and $84$ out of the $100$ samples have at most $1$ stock going up. We can clearly see that the modified SBCN places far more importance on the stressed scenarios, and in turn confirms the result of the classification algorithm by the decision tree. In this way, computational complexity involved in generating stressed scenarios can be improved tremendously. This kind of computational efficiency issues will be more critical when we move from a simple Bernoulli random variable to multi-categorical variables or continuous random variable. Therefore, with the same computing power, the modified SBCN makes it possible to generate more stressed scenarios, and observe how portfolios or other assets respond to stressed factors.
\section{Conclusion}
In summary, in this paper we develop a novel framework to perform stress testing combining Suppes-Bayes Causal Networks and machine learning classification. We learn SBCNs from data using Algorithm \ref{algo:sbcn} and assess the quality of the learned model by switching information criteria based upon sample sizes and bootstrapping. We then simulate stress scenarios using SBCNs, but reduce computation by classifying each branch of nodes in the network as `profitable' or `risky' using classification trees. For simplicity, the paper implements SBCNs with Bernoulli variables and simulates data using Fama French's Five Factor Model, but the logic of the problem is easily extended to deal with more practical situations. First of all, the SBCNs can accommodate more complicated variables (nodes). In addition to the factor based portfolios considered here, other factor models, or directly other financial and economic factors like foreign exchange rates, can also be included, and the accuracy of the model can ensure that the true causal relationships among the factors are discovered. In practice, variables like stock prices are continuous, thus, one can easily extend to these situations by adopting a hybrid SBCN, where the variables can take either discrete or continuous values, making it possible to represent precisely the values of the variables we are interested in.
To use the model, the role of experts is still important. After learning the SBCN from data and applying classification, we can identify a number of stressed scenarios. However, we expect that some of these to be unacceptable for various unforeseen reasons, e.g., as those known to domain experts. These scenarios may be thought of as highly stressed with respect to the corresponding portfolio but they could prove to be less useful in practice. Therefore, experts can select from the identified stressed scenarios only the plausible ones, and discard the ones deemed to be flawed. Even in this case, we can perform simulations following the selected stressed trajectories in the SBCN and observe the reactions of the portfolios in these stressed scenarios of interest, and thus adjust the portfolios based on the reactions. Another direct usage of our approach is when experts have a particular candidate stress scenario in mind, which can be justified a priori; in this case one can skip the process of classification and directly adjust the SBCN {\em mutatis mutandis\/}. Therefore, simulations of the adjusted SBCN will also offer the reactions of the portfolio to this particular stressed scenario.
We believe, based on our empirical analysis, that we have devised an efficient automated stress testing method using machine learning and causality analysis in order to solve a critical regulatory problem, as demonstrated by the algorithm's ability to recover the causal relationships in the data, as well as its efficiency, in terms of computation and data usage. \textcolor{black}{We plan to test our algorithms on real data to compare against human experts in a commercial setting, and based on our promising results with the simulated data, we are confident that the resulting platform will find a significant fraction (if not all) of the adversarial scenarios.}
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction.}\label{sec:s0}
This paper deals with the following parabolic problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t+(-\D^s_{p}) u&=& \dyle \l \frac{u^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}} &
\text{ in } \O_{T}=\Omega \times (0,T) , \\
u&\ge& 0 &
\text{ in }\Omega, \\
u&=&0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0)&=&u_0(x)& \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\O$ is a bounded domain and
$$ (-\D^s_{p})\, u(x,t):=P.V\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}} \,
\frac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p-2}(u(x,t)-u(y,t))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\ dy,$$
is the non local $p$ laplacian operator. Problem \eqref{eq:def} is related to the following Hardy-Sobolev inequality .
\begin{Theorem} \label{S-Hardy}(Fractional Hardy-Sobolev inequality)
Let $N>1$ and $0<s<1$. Assume that $1\le p<\frac{N}{s}$, then for all $u \in W^{s,p}(\ren)$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{hardy}
\frac 12 \iint_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\ge \L_{N,p,s}\irn
\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{ps}}dx
\end{equation}
where the constant $\L_{N,p,s}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{LL}
\L_{N,p,s}=\int_0^1
\s^{ps-1}|1-\sigma^{\frac{N-ps}{p}}|^{p}K(\sigma)d\s
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{kkk}
K(\sigma)=\dint\limits_{|y'|=1}\dfrac{dH^{n-1}(y')}{|x'-\s
y'|^{N+ps}}=2\frac{\pi^{\frac{N-1}{2}}}{\beta(\frac{N-1}{2})}\int_0^\pi
\frac{\sin^{N-2}(\xi)}{(1-2\sigma \cos
(\xi)+\sigma^2)^{\frac{N+ps}{2}}}d\xi.
\end{equation}
The constant $\L_{N,p,s}$ is optimal and not achieved.
\end{Theorem}
We refer to \cite{FS} and the references therein for the proof. See too \cite{AB} and \cite{AM}.
For $p=2$ and $s=1$ the problem \eqref{eq:def} was studied in \cite{BG}. The authors proved existence and
nonexistence results related to the fact that $\l\le \L_{N,2}$ or
$\l>\L_{N,2}$, respectively. The nonlocal case has been studied in \cite{AMPP}. The authors by proving a suitable Harnack inequality, analyzed the optimal relation between integrability of the data and the spectral value $\lambda$. Moreover they proved the existence of a critical exponent $q_+(\lambda,s)$ depending only on $\l$ such that existence holds for a semilinear problem if and only if the power $q<q_+(\lambda)$.
For $p\neq 2$ and $s =1$, the problem was first widely analyzed in \cite{GP}. In \cite{AP}, the authors studied some qualitative and quantitative properties of the weak solutions. In \cite{DGP}, the authors studied a more general class of operator and in particular complete the previous study showing that if $\frac{2N}{N+1}\le p<2$, the problem has a distributional solution far from the origin. This fact was proved using a class of the Caffarelli-Khon-Nirenberg inequality that holds for any degenerate radial potential in the local case, see \cite{CKN}.
We quote here the recent result in \cite{AABP} where the authors proved the existence of entropy solution for all data in $L^1$ but without the Hardy potential. Such problem has not finite speed of propagation property, that can be immediately extended to problem \eqref{eq:def}.
To study the problem \eqref{eq:def} in the fractional setting, $s<1$, there appear some challenging difficulties with respect to the local case, that must be solved. Precisely the fractional version of some local results in \cite{DGP} need a deep analysis in the nonlocal framework to reach results on existence.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec2} we give some auxiliary results
related to fractional Sobolev spaces and some functional inequalities. We present also some algebraic inequalities that will be used to overcame the lost of the possibility of \textit{integration by part} for the nonlocal operator. In an Appendix, we give a detailed proof of this algebraic inequality.
To deal with the case $\frac{2N}{N+s}\le p<2$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$, as it was proved in \cite{DGP} in the local case, we need to consider fractional Sobolev spaces with very degenerate potential. In this case and as it was observed in \cite{AB}, on the contrary to the case of singular potential, we need to use a new approach to define the fractional Sobolev spaces. Hence in subsection \ref{degenerate} we define such natural spaces where the solution will live and we give some connection with the spaces defined in \cite{AB}.
In Section \ref{sec3} we will consider the case $\l\le \L_{N,p,s}$,
in this case we prove the existence of a global solution that is in a suitable energy space.
The case $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$ and $p<2$ is studied in Section \ref{singular}. According to the value of $p$, we prove the existence of a solution that is in a suitable fractional Sobolev space. If $\frac{2N}{N+s}\le p<2$, that is the more delicate case, we are able to prove the existence of a solution far from the origin which is, modulo a suitable weight, in a fractional weighted Sobolev space.
The question of extinction in finite time is analyzed in Section \ref{singg}.
According to smallness condition on $u_0$, we prove the finite time extension properties. The same property is proved if we add \textit{a concave} potential of $u$ as a reaction term in \eqref{eq:def}.
In the last section we consider the case $p>2$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$. Since the finite speed propagation properties does not hold in the nonlocal case, we are able to show that problem \eqref{eq:def} has non nonnegative solution in an appropriate sense. This result can be extended to large class of nonlinearities and can be seen as non local version of the results obtained in \cite{GP} and \cite{AP1}.
\section{Preliminaries and functional setting}\label{sec2}
Let us begin by stating some preliminaries tools about fractional Sobolev spaces and their properties that we will use systematically in this paper.
We refer to \cite{DPV} and \cite{Adams} for more details.
Assume that $s\in (0,1)$ and $p>1$. Let $\O\subset \ren$, then the fractional Sobolev
spaces $W^{s,p}(\Omega)$, is defined by
$$
W^{s,p}(\Omega)\equiv
\Big\{ \phi\in
L^p(\O):\int_{\O}\dint_{\O}|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^pd\nu<+\infty\Big\}
$$
where $d\nu=\dyle\frac{dxdy}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}$. It is clear that $W^{s,p}(\O)$ is a Banach space endowed with the following norm
$$
\|\phi\|_{W^{s,p}(\O)}=
\Big(\dint_{\O}|\phi(x)|^pdx\Big)^{\frac 1p}
+\Big(\dint_{\O}\dint_{\O}|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^pd\nu\Big)^{\frac
1p}.
$$
In the same way we define the space $W^{s,p}_{0} (\O)$ as
the completion of $\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\O)$ with respect to the
previous norm.
If $\O$ is bounded regular domain, we
can endow $W^{s,p}_{0}(\O)$ with the equivalent norm
$$
||\phi||_{W^{s,p}_{0}(\O)}=
\Big(\int_{\O}\dint_{\O}\dfrac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}{dxdy}\Big)^{\frac
1p}.
$$
The next Sobolev inequality is proved in \cite{DPV}.
\begin{Theorem} \label{Sobolev}(Fractional Sobolev inequality)
Assume that $0<s<1, p>1$ satisfy $ps<N$. There exists a positive constant $S\equiv S(N,s,p)$ such that for all
$v\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\ren)$,
$$
\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\,dxdy\geq S
\Big(\dint_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|v(x)|^{p_{s}^{*}}dx\Big)^{\frac{p}{p^{*}_{s}}},
$$
where $p^{*}_{s}= \dfrac{pN}{N-ps}$.
\end{Theorem}
To treat the case $\l=\L_{N,p,s}$, we need the next improved Hardy-Sobolev inequality obtained in \cite{AB} and \cite{AM}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{impro}
Let $p>1$, $0<s<1$ and $N>ps$. Assume that $\Omega\subset
\mathbb{R}^N$ is a bounded domain containing the origin, then for all $1<q<p$, there
exists a positive constant $C=C(\Omega, q, N, s)$ such that for
all $u\in \mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Omega)$,
\begin{equation}\label{sara}
\frac 12\iint_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\,
\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\,dx\,dy - \Lambda_{N,p,s}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}} \frac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\geq C
\int_{\Omega}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+qs}}\,dx\,dy.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Now, for $w\in W^{s,p}(\ren)$, we set
$$
(-\Delta)^s_{p} w(x)={ P.V. }
\dint_{\ren}\dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p-2}(w(x)-w(y))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}{dy}.
$$
It is clear that for all $w, v\in W^{s,p}(\ren)$, we have
$$
\langle (-\Delta)^s_{p}w,v\rangle
=\dfrac 12\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p-2}(w(x)-w(y))(v(x)-v(y))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}{dxdy}.
$$
If $w, v\in W^{s,p}_0(\O)$, we have
$$
\langle (-\Delta)^s_{p}w,v\rangle
=\dfrac 12\iint_{D_\O}\dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p-2}(w(x)-w(y))(v(x)-v(y))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}{dxdy},
$$
where $D_{\O}=\ren\times \ren\setminus \mathcal{C}\O\times
\mathcal{C}\O$.
The next Picone inequality will be useful to prove the non existence result for $p>2$.
\begin{Theorem}(Picone inequality)\label{pic}
Let $w\in W^{s,p}_0(\O)$ be such that $w>0$ in $\O$. Assume
that $(-\Delta)^s_{p}w = \nu$ with $\nu\in L^1_{loc}(\ren)$ and
$\nu\gneqq 0$, then for all $\psi\in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\O)$, we
have
$$
\frac 12
\iint_{D_\O}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy\ge \io
\frac{(-\Delta)^s_{p}w }{w^{p-1}}|\psi|^p dx.
$$
\end{Theorem}
We refer to \cite{BPV} and \cite{AB} for a complete proof and other application of the Picone inequality.
We define now the corresponding parabolic spaces.
The space $L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ is defined as the set of function $\phi$ such that
$\phi\in L^p(\O_T)$ with $||\phi||_{L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))}<\infty$ where
$$
||\phi||_{L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))}=\Big(\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}|\phi(x,t)-\phi(y,t)|^pd\nu\,dt\Big)^{\frac
1p}.
$$
It is clear that $L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ is a Banach spaces.
In the case where the data $(f,u_0)\in L^2(\O_T)\times L^2(\O)$, then we can deal with energy solution, more precisely we have the next definition.
\begin{Definition}\label{energy}
Assume $(f,u_0)\in L^2(\O_T)\times L^2(\O)$, then we say that $u$ is an energy solution to problem \eqref{eq:def} if $u\in L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))\cap \mathcal{C}([0,T], L^p(\O))$, $u_t\in L^{p'}(0,T; W^{-s,p'}_0(\O))$, where $W^{-s,p'}_0(\O)$ is the dual space of $W^{s,p}_0(\O)$ and for all $v\in L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{lll}
&\dyle\int_0^T\langle u_t, v\rangle dt +\dfrac 12\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U(x,y,t)(v(x,t)-v(y,t))d\nu\ dt\\
&\dyle=\l\iint_{\O_T} \frac{|u|^{p-2}u}{|x|^{ps}}v dx\,dt
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
and $u(x,.)\to u_0$ strongly in $L^2(\O)$ as $t\to 0$ where
$$
U(x,y,t)\equiv |u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p-2}(u(x,t)-u(y,t)).
$$
\end{Definition}
Notice that the existence of energy solution follows using classical argument for monotone operator as in \cite{Lio}.
Before closing this section, we recall some useful algebraic inequalities which will be used throughout the paper. The proof
follows using suitable rescaling arguments.
\begin{Lemma}\label{algg}
Assume that $p\ge 1$, $(a, b) \in (\re^+)^2$ and $\a>0$, then there exist $c_1, c_2,c_3, c_4>0$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{alge1}
(a+b)^\a\le c_1a^\a+c_2b^\a,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{alge3}
|a-b|^{p-2}(a-b)(a^{\a}-b^{\a})\ge c_3|a^{\frac{p+\a-1}{p}}-b^{\frac{p+\a-1}{p}}|^p.
\end{equation}
In the case where $\a\ge 1$, then under the same conditions on $a,b,p$ as above, we have
\begin{equation}\label{alge2}
|a+b|^{\a-1}|a-b|^{p}\le c_4 |a^{\frac{p+\a-1}{p}}-b^{\frac{p+\a-1}{p}}|^p.
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
The next algebraic inequality is new and can be seen as an extension of the {\it integration by part formula} when using a product as a test function in the local case. The proof is given in the Appendix.
\begin{Lemma}\label{real11}
There exist two positive constants $C_1<1<C_2$ such that for all $a_1,a_2\in \re$ and for all $b_1,b_2\ge 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{alge4}
|a_1-a_2|^{p-2}(a_1-a_2)(a_1b_1-a_2b_2)\ge C_1 |a_1b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-a_2b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p-C_2(\max\{|a_1|, |a_2|\})^p|b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p.
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
\subsection{Fractional Sobolev space associated to degenerate potential}\label{degenerate}
To analyze the regularity of solution to problem \eqref{eq:def} when $p<2$, we need to develop some weighted Sobolev type inequalities with degenerate potential. In the local case and as it was proved in \cite{DGP}, this type of estimate was a consequence of the well known Caffarelli-Khon-Nirenberg inequalities proved for a large class of weights that cover all the radial degenerate potentials.
As in \cite{AB} and \cite{AM}, setting
$$
W^{s,p}_\b(\ren)\dyle := \Big\{ \phi\in
L^p(\ren,\frac{dx}{|x|^{2\beta}}):\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dxdy}{|x|^\beta|y|^\beta}<+\infty\Big\},
$$
then for $-ps<\beta<\frac{N-ps}{2}$, the space $W^{s,p}_\b(\ren)$ is a Banach space endowed with the norm
$$
\|\phi\|_{W^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)}=
\Big(\dint_{\ren}\frac{|\phi(x)|^pdx}{|x|^{2\beta}}\Big)^{\frac 1p}
+\Big(\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dxdy}{|x|^\beta|y|^\beta}\Big)^{\frac
1p}.
$$
As a consequence the next weighted Sobolev inequality is proved.
\begin{Theorem} \label{Sobolev1}(Weighted fractional Sobolev inequality)
Assume that $0<s<1$ and $p>1$ are such that $ps<N$. Let
$-ps<\beta<\dfrac{N-ps}{2}$, then there exists a positive constant $S(N,s,\beta)$ such that for all
$v\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\ren)$,
\begin{equation}\label{sobolev00}
\dint_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\dint_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\frac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}\,
\frac{dy}{|y|^{\beta}}\geq S(N,s,\beta)
\Big(\dint_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)|^{p_{s}^{*}}}{|x|^{2\beta\frac{p_{s}^{*}}{p}}}\Big)^{\frac{p}{p^{*}_{s}}},
\end{equation}
where $p^{*}_{s}= \dfrac{pN}{N-ps}$.
\end{Theorem}
Hence we can define $D^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)$ as
the completion of $\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\ren)$ with respect to the norm
$$
\|\phi\|_{D^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)}=\Big(\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dxdy}{|x|^\beta|y|^\beta}\Big)^{\frac
1p}.
$$
It is clear that the following weighted Hardy inequality
\begin{equation}\label{IngL1}
2\Upsilon(\g)\dint\limits_{\re^N} \dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{ps+2\beta}}\,dx
\leq\dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{ga}
\Upsilon(\g)=\dint\limits_1^{+\infty}K(\sigma)(\sigma^\g-1)^{p-1}\left(\sigma^{N-1-\beta-\g(p-1)}-\sigma^{\beta+ps-1}\right)\,d\sigma.
\end{equation}
holds for all $u\in D^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)$.
Notice that $\Upsilon(\g)$ is well defined if $-ps<\beta<\frac{N-ps}{2}$. In this case $\Upsilon(\g)>0$.
If $\beta\le -sp$, then $\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\ren)\nsubseteqq W^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)$. To see that we fix $\phi\in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0(B_{4}(0))$ such that $0\le \phi\le 1$ and $\phi=1$ in $B_1(0)$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dyle \iint_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}} \dfrac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dxdy}{|x|^\beta|y|^\beta} &\ge & \dint_{\ren\backslash B_{4}(0)}\dint_{B_1(0)}\dfrac{1}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dxdy}{|x|^\beta|y|^\beta}\\
&\ge & \dint_{\ren\backslash B_{4}(0)}\dfrac{1}{(|y|+4)^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}
\dint_{B_1(0)}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^\beta}\\
&\ge & C(N-\beta)\dint_{\ren\backslash B_{4}(0)}\dfrac{1}{(|y|+4)^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\beta\le -ps$, then $\dint_{\ren\backslash B_{4}(0)}\dfrac{1}{(|y|+4)^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}=\infty$.
\
Thus to deal with degenerate weight we need to adapt new approach.
Let $-\infty<\a<\frac{N-ps}{2}$ and define the space
$$E_\a(\ren)=\bigg\{u: |x|^\a u\in D^{s,p}(\re^N)\,\,\text{ i.e:} \iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{||x|^\a u(x)-|y|^\a u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy< \infty \bigg\}.$$
Using The classical Sobolev inequality we conclude that $E_\a(\ren)$ is a Banach space and
$$
S
\Big(\dint_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(x)|^{p_{s}^{*}}|x|^{p^*_s\a} \Big)^{\frac{p}{p^{*}_{s}}}\le \iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{||x|^\a u(x)-|y|^\a u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy,
$$
that can be seen as a Caffarelli-Khon-Nirenberg inequality.
The main result of this subsection is the following.
\begin{Theorem}
Assume that $-ps<\beta<\frac{N-ps}{2}$, then $W^{s,p}_\b(\re^N)=E_\a(\ren)$ with $\a=-\dfrac{2\b}{p}$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove the main result we have just to show the existence of $C_1,C_2>0$ such that for all $u\in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\ren)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{spa}
C_1\|u\|_{E_\a(\ren)}\le \|u\|_{W^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)}\le C_2\|u\|_{E_\a(\ren)}.
\end{equation}
Let us begin by proving the first inequality. In this case the proof follows using closely the computations in \cite{AB}. For the reader convenience we include here all details. In what follows, we denote by $C_1, C_2,... $ any positive constants that are independent of $u$ and can change from one line to another.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{vvv}
w(x)=|x|^{-\alpha}=|x|^{\frac{2\b}{p}}, v(x)= \dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)},
\end{equation}
then
$$
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}|x|^\beta|y|^\beta}=\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\, \dfrac{1}{(w(x)w(y))^{\frac{p}{2}}}
$$
and
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\, \dfrac{1}{(w(x)w(y))^{\frac{p}{2}}} &= & \dfrac{\big|(v(x)-v(y))-v(y)w(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})\big|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
&\equiv & f_{1}(x,y).
\end{array}
$$
In the same way we have
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\, \dfrac{1}{(w(x)w(y))^{\frac{p}{2}}} & = & \dfrac{\big|(v(y)-v(x))-v(x)w(x)(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}-\dfrac{1}{w(x)})\big|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
&\equiv & f_2(x,y).
\end{array}
$$
It is clear that
$$\dyle\iint_{\re^{2N}}f_1(x,y)\,dx\,dy=\iint_{\re^{2N}}f_2(x,y)\,dx\,dy,$$
and
$$\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^\b}\dfrac{dy}{|x|^\b}=
\frac 12\iint_{\re^{2N}}f_1(x,y)\,dx\,dy+\frac 12\iint_{\re^{2N}}f_2(x,y)\,dx\,dy.$$
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
&f_{1}(x,y)\geq
\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}} \times\\
& \Big[ \dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}-p
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^{p-2}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\big\langle
v(x)-v(y),
w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})\big\rangle\\
&+C(p)\dfrac{|w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})
|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\Big],
\end{eqnarray*}
using Young inequality, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&f_{1}(x,y)\geq \left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}} \times\\
& \Big[ C_1\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}
-C_2\dfrac{|w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\Big]
\end{eqnarray*}
with $C_1,C_2>0$ independent of $u$. In a symmetric way, we reach that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&f_{2}(x,y)\geq \left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}} \times\\
& \Big[ C_1\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}
-C_2\dfrac{|w(x)v(x)(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}-\dfrac{1}{w(x)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\Big].
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus we get the existence of positive constants $C_1, C_2, {C_3}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}\ge {C_1}\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\Big[\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}
+\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Big]dxdy\\
&-\dyle {C_2}\iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|dxdy\\
&-\dyle{C_3}\iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(x)v(x)(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}-\dfrac{1}{w(x)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $
\Big[\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}
+\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Big]\ge 1,
$
we get
\begin{equation}\label{new4}
\begin{array}{lll}
&\dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\le
C_1\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}\\
&+\dyle C_2\iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|dxdy\\
&+C_3\dyle\iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(x)v(x)(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}-\dfrac{1}{w(x)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Define
$$
g_1(x,y)=\left(\dfrac{w(y)}{w(x)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(x)v(x)(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}-\dfrac{1}{w(x)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}
$$
and
$$
g_2(x,y)=\left(\dfrac{w(x)}{w(y)}\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\dfrac{|w(y)v(y)(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}-\dfrac{1}{w(y)})|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}},
$$
then
$ \dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}} g_1(x,y)dxdy=\iint_{\re^{2N}} g_2(x,y)dxdy.$ Hence we have just to estimate the first integral. Taking into consideration the definition of $v$ and $w$ given in \eqref{vvv}, it holds
$$
g_1(x,y)=\dfrac{|u(x)|^p\Big||x|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}-|y|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}\Big|^p}{|x|^{3\beta}|y|^{\beta}|x-y|^{N+ps}}.
$$
Therefore, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
I\equiv \iint_{\re^{2N}} g_1(x,y)dxdy &=&
\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{3\beta}}
\Big(\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{\Big||x|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}-|y|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}\Big|^p}{|y|^{\beta}|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy\Big)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, we follow closely the radial computations as \cite{FV} and \cite{G}. We set $r=|x|$ and $\rho=|y|$, then $x=rx', y=\rho y'$ with $|x'|=|y'|=1$, thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
I=\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{3\beta}} \Big[
\dint\limits_0^{+\infty}\dfrac{|r^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}-\rho^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}|^p\rho^{N-1}}{\rho^{\beta}}\left(
\dint\limits_{|y'|=1}\dfrac{dH^{n-1}(y')}{|r x'-\rho y'|^{N+ps}}
\right) \,d\rho\Big]dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\s=\frac{\rho}{r}$, hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
I=\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{2\beta+ps}}
\Big[
\dint\limits_0^{+\infty}|1-\s^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}|^p\s^{N-1-\beta}K(\s)\,d\s\Big]dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Notice that $K(\frac{1}{\xi})=\xi^{N+ps}K(\xi)$ for $\xi>0$, thus
$$\dint\limits_0^{+\infty}|1-\s^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}|^p\s^{N-1-\beta}K(\s)\,d\s=
\dint_1^\infty(\s^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}-1)^p(\s^{N-1-\beta}+\s^{ps-1-\beta})K(\s)\,d\s
$$
Taking into consideration the behavior of $K$ near $1$ and $\infty$, we conclude that $$\dint\limits_0^{+\infty}|1-\s^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}|^p\s^{N-1-\beta}K(\s)\,d\s= C_3\in (0, \infty).$$ Thus
$$
\iint_{\re^{2N}}
g_1(x,y)dxdy=C_3\dint\limits_{\re^N}
\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{2\beta+ps}}dx.
$$
Now, using the fractional weighted Hardy inequality given in \eqref{IngL1}, we reach that
\begin{equation}\label{new3}
\iint_{\re^{2N}} g_1(x,y)dxdy \leq C_4
\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{new3} and
\eqref{new4}, it holds
\begin{equation}
\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\le
C_1\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}
\end{equation}
and then $\tilde{C}\|u\|_{E_\a(\ren)}\le \|u\|_{W^{s,p}_\beta(\ren)}$ with $\tilde{C}>0$.
\
We deal now with the second inequality in \eqref{spa}.
Notice that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}=\frac{1}{2} \dfrac{\big|(u(y)-u(x))-\dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)}(w(y)-w(x))\big|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\Big[\dfrac{1}{(w(x))^{p}}+\dfrac{1}{(w(y))^{p}}\Big]\\
& \ge C_1\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}
\Big[\dfrac{1}{(w(x))^{p}}+\dfrac{1}{(w(y))^{p}}\Big]\\
&-{C_2}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(y)-w(x)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)}|^p-{C_3}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(y)}{w(y)}|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since
$$\Big[\dfrac{1}{(w(x))^{p}}+\dfrac{1}{(w(y))^{p}}\Big]\ge \dfrac{1}{(w(x))^{\frac p2}}\dfrac{1}{(w(y))^{\frac p2}}\equiv \dfrac{1}{|x|^{\b}|y|^{\b}},$$
then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\ge C_1\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}|x|^{\b}|y|^{\b}}\\
&-{C_2}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(y)-w(x)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)}|^p-{C_3}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(y)}{w(y)}|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{RR}
\begin{array}{lll}
& C_1\dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p\:dxdy}{|x-y|^{N+ps}|x|^{\b}|y|^{\b}}\le \dint_{\re^N}\dint_{\re^N} \dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\\ \\
&+{C_2}\dyle \iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(y)-w(x)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)}|^pdxdy\\ \\ &+\dyle {C_3}\iint_{\re^{2N}}\left(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}\right)^{p} \dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}|\dfrac{u(y)}{w(y)}|^pdxdy.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
As in the first case, setting
$$
\tilde{g}_1(x,y)=\left(\dfrac{1}{w(y)}\right)^{p}|\dfrac{u(x)}{w(x)}|^p \dfrac{|w(y)-w(x)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}
$$
and
$$
\tilde{g}_2(x,y)=\left(\dfrac{1}{w(x)}\right)^{p}|\dfrac{u(y)}{w(y)}|^p \dfrac{|w(x)-w(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}},$$
it holds that $\dyle\iint_{\re^{2N}} \tilde{g}_1(x,y)dxdy=\iint_{\re^{2N}} \tilde{g}_2(x,y)dxdy$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\iint_{\re^{2N}} \tilde{g}_1(x,y)dxdy &=&\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{2\beta}}
\Big(\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{\Big||x|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}-|y|^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}\Big|^p}{|y|^{2\beta}|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy\Big)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, as in the first case,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\iint_{\re^{2N}} \tilde{g}_1(x,y)dxdy =C_4\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{2\beta+ps}}dx=C_4\dint\limits_{\re^N}\dfrac{|v(x)|^p}{|x|^{ps}}dx
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_4=\dint_0^{+\infty}|1-\s^{\frac{2\beta}{p}}|^p\s^{N-1-2\beta}K(\s)\,d\s=C<\infty.$
Now, using fractional Hardy inequality in Theorem \ref{S-Hardy}, for $v$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{new03}
\iint_{\re^{2N}} g_1(x,y)dxdy \leq C_5
\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{RR} and \eqref{new03}, we reach that
$$\iint_{\re^{2N}}\dfrac{|v(x)-v(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\ge
C\iint_{\re^{2N}}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\dfrac{dx}{|x|^{\beta}}
\dfrac{dy}{|y|^\beta}.
$$
Hence we conclude.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For $\O\subset \ren$, a bounded regular domain, we define the space $E_{\a,0}(\O)$ as the completion of $\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\O)$ with respect to the norm
$$
||\phi||_{E_{\a,0}(\O)}=\bigg(\iint_{D_\O}\dfrac{||x|^\a \phi(x)-|y|^\a \phi(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}.
$$
Following the same computations as above we can prove that if $-ps<\beta<\frac{N-ps}{2}$, then $W^{s,p}_{\b,0}(\O)=E_{\a,0}(\O)$ with $\a=-\dfrac{2\b}{p}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Existence Results: $\l\le \L_{N,p,s}$ }\label{sec3}
Recall that we are considering nonnegative solution to problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defsec1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t+(-\D^s_{p}) u&=&\dyle \l \frac{u^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}} &
\text{ in } \O_{T}=\Omega \times (0,T) , \\
u&\ge& 0 &
\text{ in }\ren\times (0,T), \\
u&=&0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0)&=&u_0(x)& \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\l\le \L_{N,p,s}$ and $u_0\in L^2(\O)$ with $u_0\gneqq 0$. Define $u_{0n}=T_n(u_0)$, starting with $u_{00}\equiv 0$, for $n\ge 1$, we consider $u_n$ as the unique nonnegative solution to the following approximated problem
\begin{equation}\label{pro:lineal1}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{nt}+(-\D^s_{p})u_n &=&\l\dfrac{u^{p-1}_{n-1}}{|x|^{ps}+\frac{1}{n}}& \mbox{ in }\O_T,\\
u_n&=&0 &\mbox{ in
} (\ren\backslash\O)\times (0,T),\\
u_n(x,0)&=&u_{0n}(x) & \mbox{ in }\O.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The existence of $u_n$ follows using classical arguments for monotone operator as in \cite{Lio}. It is clear that $u_n\gneqq 0$ and $\{u_n\}_n$ is monotone in $n$. As a consequence we get the first existence result.
\begin{Theorem}
Assume that $\l<\L_{N,p,s}$ and $u_0 \in L^2(\O)$, then the problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} has global solution $u$ such that $u\in L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))\cap \mathcal{C}([0,T], L^p(\O))$, $u_t\in L^{p'}(0,T; W^{-s,p'}_0(\O))$ and $u(x,.)\to u_0$ strongly in $L^2(\O)$ as $t\to 0$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using $u_n$ as a test function in \eqref{pro:lineal1}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{2}_ndx+ \frac{1}{2}\iint_{D_{\O}}\dfrac{|u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy \ dx\le \l\io\dfrac{|u_n|^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{equation*}
Using the Hardy-Sobolev inequality we obtain
$$\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega }u^{2}_n(x,T)dx+ \Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\l}{\L_{N,p,s}}\Big)\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}\dfrac{|u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy \ dx\,dt\le \frac{1}{2}||u_0||^2_2.$$
Hence we get the existence of a measurable function $u$ such that $u_n\uparrow u$ a.e in $\O_T$, $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $L^p(0,T;W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ and
$\dfrac{|u_n|^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}\to \dfrac{|u|^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}$ strongly in $L^1(\O_T)$. Now the rest of the proof follows by using classical compactness arguments.
\end{proof}
In the case where $\l=\L_{N,p,s}$ we can use the improved Hardy-Sobolev inequality given in \eqref{impro}, in this case we can prove the next Theorem.
\begin{Theorem}
Assume that $\l=\L_{N,p,s}$ and $u_0 \in L^2(\O)$, then the problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} has a global solution $u$ such that
$$
\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}\dfrac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx \ dy dt-\L_{N,p,s}\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{|u|^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}dxdt\le \frac{1}{2}||u_0||^2_2.
$$
Moreover, $u\in L^{q}(0,T; W^{s,q}_0(\O))\cap \mathcal{C}([0,T], L^2(\O))$ for all $q<p$.
\end{Theorem}
\section{Existence Results: $p<2$ and $\l> \L_{N,p,s}$ }\label{singular}
Let consider now the more interesting case, $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$ and $p<2$. According to the value of $p$, we will prove that problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} has a solution.
\subsection{The case $1<p< \frac{2N}{N+2s}$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$}
The main result of this subsection is the following one.
\begin{Theorem}\label{th0}
Assume that $1<p< \frac{2N}{N+2s}$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$. Let $u_0\in L^2(\O)$, then problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} has global solution $u\in L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Setting $ W_n(x)=\dfrac{1}{|x|^{ps}+\frac{1}{n}}$, then using a suitable iteration arguments we can prove that the problem
\begin{equation}\label{aprr}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{t}+(-\D^s_{p}) u&=& \l W_n(x) u^{p-1} & \text{ in } \O_{T},\\
u(x,t)&=& 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0)&=&u_{0n}(x) & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
has a bounded minimal nonnegative solution $u_n$. Using $u_n$ as a test function in \eqref{aprr} and by H\"older and Young inequalities, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
& \dint_{\O}u^2_n(x,T)\ dx + \dint_{0}^T \iint_{D_\O}\dfrac{|u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\,dx dy\ dt\\ &=
\dint_{\O}u^2_{0n}(x)\ dx + \l \iint_{\O_T} W_n(x) u^p_n(x,t)\,dx dt\\
& \le \dint_{\O}u^2_{0}(x)\ dx + \l \int_{0}^T \Big(\dint_{\O} |W_n(x)|^{2/(2-p)}\,dx\Big)^{(2-p)/2} \times \Big(\dint_{\O}u^2_n(x,t)\,dx\Big)^{p/2} dt \\
& \le \dint_{\O}u^2_{0}(x)\ dx + \l \Big( \frac{2-p}{2} \iint_{\O_T}|W_n(x)|^{2/(2-p)}\,dx dt+\frac{p}{2} \iint_{\O_T}u^2_n(x,t)\,dx dt\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
Calling $$y_n(T)\equiv \dint_{\O} |u_n(x,T)|^{2}\,dx$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\b_n(T) & = & \dint_{\O}|u_{0}(x)|^{2}\ dx + \l \frac{2-p}{2} \iint_{\O_T}|W_n(x)|^{2/(2-p)}\,dx dt\\
&\le & C\bigg(\dint_{\O}|u_{0}(x)|^{2}\ dx+ \iint_{\O_T}\Big(\frac{1}{|x|^{\frac{2ps}{2-p}}}\Big)^{2/(2-p)}\,dx\,dt\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $1<p<2N/(N+2s)$, then $\b_n(T)\le C(T+1)$. Thus
$$y_n(T) \leq \b_n(t) + \l \frac{p}{2} \dint_{0}^T y_n(s) ds,$$
and, as a consequence of Gronwall inequality, we reach that
\begin{equation}
\dint_{\O} |u_n(x,T)|^{2}\,dx \leq \b_n(T) + \dint_{0}^T \b_n(s) e^{\a s} ds,
\end{equation}
where $\a=\a(\l,p)>0$. Thus
$$
\dint_{\O}u^2_n(x,T)\ dx + \dint_{0}^T \iint_{D_\O}\dfrac{|u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}\,dx dy\ dt\le C(T)
$$
and
$$
\iint_{\O_T} W_n(x) u^p_n(x,t)\,dx dt\le C(T).
$$
Hence we get the existence of a measurable function $u$ such that $u_n\uparrow u$ a.e in $\O_T$, $u_n\rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $L^{p}(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ and $u_t\in L^{p'}(0,T; W^{-s,p'}_0(\O))$. It is not difficult to show that $u$ is globally defined in the time and that $u$ solves problem \eqref{eq:defsec1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case $\l >\l_{N,p,s}$ and $2 > p \geq 2N/(N+2s)$}
We begin by investigating the existence of a nonnegative selfsimilar solution for the Cauchy problem in the whole $\ren$.
We set $V(x,t)=t^{\a}F(x)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{time}
V_t=\a t^{\a-1}F(r) \mbox{ and } (-\D^s_{p})V(x,t)=t^{\a(p-1)}\dyle\int_{\ren} \dfrac{|F(x)-F(y)|^{p-2}(F(x)-F(y))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy.
\end{equation}
Setting $\a=\frac{1}{p-2}$, it holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{good}
& \a F(x) +\dyle \int_{\ren} \,\dfrac{|F(x)-F(y)|^{p-2}(F(x)-F(y))}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dy=\l\frac{|F(x)|^{p-2}F(x)}{|x|^{ps}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us search $F$ in the form $F(x)= F(|x|)=A|x|^\g$,
then \eqref{good} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{hh}
\a A r^\g + A^{p-1}r^{\g(p-1)-ps}\int_0^\infty\,|1-\sigma^\g|^{p-2}(1-\sigma^\g)\sigma^{N-1}K(\sigma) d\sigma=\l A^{p-1}r^{\g(p-1)-ps}
\end{equation}
where, as in \eqref{kkk},
$$
K(\s)=\dint\limits_{|y'|=1}\dfrac{dH^{n-1}(y')}{|x'-\s
y'|^{N+ps}}.
$$
Assume that $\g= \frac{-ps}{2-p}$, then $\gamma<0$ and $\g=\g(p-1)-ps$. Hence by \eqref{hh} we obtain that
$$A^{p-2}=\dfrac{\a}{\Psi(\g)+\l }\equiv B,$$
where $$\Psi(\g)=\int_0^\infty\,|\sigma^\g-1|^{p-2}(\sigma^\g-1)K(\sigma)\sigma^{N-1} d\sigma.$$
Let $\bar{\gamma}=-\gamma$, then $\bar{\gamma}>0$ and
$$\Psi(\gamma)=\int_0^\infty\,|1-\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}}|^{p-2}(1-\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}})K(\sigma)\sigma^{-\bar{\gamma}(p-1)+N-1} d\sigma\equiv \Psi_1(\bar{\gamma}).$$
Therefore,
$$B=\dfrac{1}{(2-p)(\Psi_1(\bar{\gamma})+\l) }$$ and then
$$
V(x,t)=B^{\frac{1}{p-2}}\Big(\dfrac{t}{|x|^{ps}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2-p}}.
$$
Notice that, in the local, for $\l>\L_{N,p,1}$, the positivity of $B$ follows using a simple algebraic inequality. The situation is more complicated in the nonlocal case and some fine computations are needed.
Since
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TT}
\Psi_1(\bar{\gamma}) & = & \int_0^\infty\,|1-\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}}|^{p-2}(1-\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}})K(\sigma)\sigma^{-\bar{\gamma}(p-1)+N-1} d\sigma=\dyle \int_0^1 + \int_1^\infty\\
&= & I_1+I_2,
\end{eqnarray}
then taking into consideration that $K(\frac{1}{\xi})=\xi^{N+ps}K(\xi)$ for $\xi>0$ and using the change of variable $\xi=\frac{1}{\sigma}$ in $I_2$,
there results that
\begin{equation}\label{psi11}
\Psi_1(\bar{\g})=\dint\limits_1^{\infty}K(\sigma)(\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}}-1)^{p-1}\left(\sigma^{ps-1}-\sigma^{N-1-\bar{\g}(p-1)}\right)\,d\sigma.
\end{equation}
Let us begin by proving the next Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{intt}
Assume that $1<p<2$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$ then $B>0$
\end{lemma}
To prove Lemma \ref{intt} we need the next result( see Lemma 3.1 in \cite{AB}).
\begin{Proposition}\label{prop1}
Let
$$
\Theta(\eta)=\dint\limits_1^{+\infty}K(\sigma)(\sigma^\eta-1)^{p-1}\left(\sigma^{N-1-\eta(p-1)}-\sigma^{ps-1}\right)\,d\sigma,
$$
where $\eta\ge 0$ and $\eta<\frac{N-ps}{p-1}$, then we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Theta(0)=0$ and $\Theta(\frac{N-ps}{p})=\L_{N,p,s}=\max\limits_{\eta\ge 0}\Theta(\eta)$.
\item For all $0<\l<\L_{N,p,s}$, then there exist $\rho_1,\rho_2$ such
that $0<\eta_1<\frac{N-ps}{p}<\eta_2$ and $\Theta(\eta_1)=\Theta(\eta_2)=\l$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}
{\bf Proof of Lemma \ref{intt}.}
We have just to show that $(\Psi_1(\bar{\gamma})+\l)>0$. We split our work in two cases according to the value of $p$.
{\em The first case: $\frac{2N}{N+s}\le p<2$.}
In this case we have $ps\ge N-\bar{\gamma}(p-1)$, thus using \eqref{psi11} we get easily that $\Psi_1(\bar{\g})\ge 0$. Hence $B>0$ and the result follows in this case.
{\em The second case: $p<\frac{2N}{N+s}$.}
This the more delicate case. It is clear that $\bar{\gamma}<\frac{N-ps}{p-1}$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{psi110}
\Psi_1(\bar{\g})=-\dint\limits_1^{\infty}K(\sigma)(\sigma^{\bar{\gamma}}-1)^{p-1}\left(\sigma^{N-1-\bar{\g}(p-1)}-\sigma^{ps-1}\right)\,d\sigma<0.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{psi110} we have $\Psi_1(\bar{\g})=-\Theta(\bar{\g})\ge -\L_{N,p,s}$. Since $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$ by Proposition \ref{prop1}, we reach that
$\l+\Psi_1(\bar{\g})>\l-\L_{N,p,s}>0$. Hence we conclude. \cqd
\
It's easy to see that self-Similar solution obtained above is a super solution in the distribution sense to problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} if and only if $p<\frac{2N}{N+s}$. It is clear that $\frac{V^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}}\in L^1(\O_T)$. Hence in this case, using monotony argument we get the next existence result.
\begin{Theorem}\label{sing1}
Assume that $\frac{2N}{N+2s}<p<\frac{N}{N+s}$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$. Let $u_0$ be such that $u_0(x)\le \frac{C}{|x|^{\frac{ps}{2-p}}}$, then problem \eqref{eq:defsec1} has global entropy solution $u$ such that $u\le V$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq1}
\int_0^T\iint_{\O\times \O}\dfrac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+qs}}d\nu\ dt\le M
\end{equation}
for all $q<p_2=\frac{N(p-1)+ps}{N+s}$.
\end{Theorem}
In the case where $p\ge \frac{2N}{N+s}$, then $V\notin L^1(B_\d(0)\times (0,T))$ for any $\d>0$. However we can show that in this case we have a solution away from the origin and that solution is in a suitable fractional Sobolev space with degenerate weight. This is the main goal of the next computations.
Let us define the next weighted parabolic Sobolev space.
$$\Upsilon_\a=\bigg\{u: |x|^\a u\in L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))\cap C^0([0,T];L^2(\O)), |x|^{\a(p-1)} u_t\in L^{p'}(0,T; W^{-s,p'}_0(\O)) \bigg\}.$$
Notice that if $u\in \Upsilon_\a$, then $u\in L^p(0,T, E_0(\O))$, we refer to the Subsection \ref{degenerate} for some useful properties of the space $E_{\a, 0}(\O)$.
Then we have the next theorem.
\begin{Theorem}
Assume that $\l >\L_{N,p,s}$ and $\frac{2N}{N+s}\le p<2$. Suppose that $u_0\in L^2(|x|^\a dx, \O)$ for some $\a>\frac{2s}{2-p}-\frac{N}{p}$. Then there exists a function $u\in \Upsilon_\a$ which is a solution to \eqref{eq:defsec1} away from the origin. Moreover for all $v\in \Upsilon_\a$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{distt}
\begin{array}{lll}
&-\dyle\int_0^T\langle v_t, |x|^{p\a} u\rangle dt +\dfrac 12\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U(x,y,t)(|x|^{p\a} v(x,t)-|y|^{p\a} v(y,t))d\nu\ dt\\
&\dyle=\l\iint_{\O_T} \frac{u^{p-1}|x|^{p\a} v}{|x|^{ps}} dx\,dt.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof} Recall that $u_n$ is the unique solution to the approximated problem \eqref{pro:lineal1}.
Let $w(x)=|x|^{p\a}$ where $\a>\frac{2s}{p-2}-\frac{N}{p}$ and define
$$
U_n(x,y,t)=|u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)|^{p-2}(u_n(x,t)-u_n(y,t)).
$$
Using $wu_n$ as a test function in \eqref{pro:lineal1}, it follows that
$$\int_{\O}u_{nt}wu_ndx+\int_{\O}(-\D^s_{p})u_n\,w u_ndx=\l\int_{\O}\dfrac{u^{p-1}_{n-1}u_n}{|x|^{ps}+\frac{1}{n}}w dx.$$
Integrating in the time and using the fact that the sequence $\{u_n\}_n$ is increasing in $n$, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O}u^2_{n}(x,T)w(x)dx +\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U_n(x,y,t)(u_n(x,t)w(x)-u_n(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt\\
&\le \dyle \l\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{(u_n(x,t)w^{\frac 1p}(x))^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O}u^2_{0}(x)w(x)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using inequality \eqref{alge4}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
& U_n(x,y,t)(u_n(x,t)w(x)-u_n(y,t)w(y))\ge\\ & C_1|u_n(x,t)w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-u_n(y,t)w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}-C_2(u^p_n(x,t)+u^p_n(y,t))|w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{last000}
\begin{array}{lll}
&\dyle\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O}u^2_{n}(x,T)w(x)\,dx+C_1\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}|u_n(x,t)w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-u_n(y,t)w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu\ dt\\
&\le \dyle C_2 \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}(u^p_n(x,t)+u^p_n(y,t))|w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu\ dt\\
& \dyle +\l\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{(u_nw^{\frac 1p})^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O}u^2_{0}(x)w(x)dx.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Let us analyze the term $\dyle\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}(u^p_n(x,t)+u^p_n(y,t))|w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu dt$. Using symmetric arguments we get
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
& \dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}(u^p_n(x,t)+u^p_n(y,t))|w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu dt\\
&=\dyle 2\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}u^p_n(x,t)|w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu dt\equiv 2J.
\end{array}
$$
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{dege0}
J\le C\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^p_nw}{|x|^{ps}}dxdt.
\end{equation}
Since $\Omega$ is a bounded domain, then $\Omega\subset\subset B_R(0)$, hence
$$
J \le \int_0^T\int_{B_R(0)}u^p_{n}(x,t)\irn ||x|^{\a}-|y|^{\a}|^{p}d\nu dt.
$$
We set $r=|x|$ and $\rho=|y|$, then $x=rx', y=\rho y'$.
where $|x'|=|y'|=1$. Therefore we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
J &\le & \int_0^T\int_{B_R(0)}u^p_{n}(x,t)|x|^{-ps}\int_0^{\infty}|r^{\a}-(r\s)^{\a}|^p\sigma^{N-1}
\left(\dint\limits_{|y'|=1}\dfrac{dH^{n-1}(y')}{|x'-\s
y'|^{N+ps}} \right)d\s\,dx\,dt\\
&\le & \int_0^T\int_{B_R(0)}u^p_{n}(x,t)|x|^{p\a-ps}\int_0^{\infty}|1-\s^{\a}|^p\sigma^{N-1}
K(\s)d\s \,dx\,dt\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Setting $C=\dyle\int_0^{\infty}|1-\s^{\a}|^p\sigma^{N-1} K(\s)d\s$, taking into consideration the behavior of $K$ near to $1$ and $\infty$, we can prove that $C<\infty$. Hence, since $u_n=0$ in $(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T)$, we get
$$
J\le C\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^p_nw}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt
$$
and the claim follows.
Now, as $p<2$, using Young inequality,
$$
\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^p_nw}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt\le C_3 \iint_{\O_T}u^2_nw(x)dx\,dt +C_4\iint_{\O_T}|x|^{p\a-\frac{2ps}{2-p}}\,dx\,dt.
$$
Since $\a>\frac{2s}{2-p}-\frac{N}{p}$, it holds that $\dyle\iint_{\O_T}|x|^{p\a-\frac{2ps}{2-p}}\,dx\,dt\le C_5 T$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{dege2}
\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^p_nw}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt \le C_3 \iint_{\O_T}u^2_n(x,t)w(x)\,dx\,dt +C T.
\end{equation}
Going back to \eqref{last000}, by \eqref{dege0} and \eqref{dege2}, we reach that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O}u^2_{n}(x,T)w(x)dx +C_1\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}|u_n(x,t)w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-u_n(y,t)w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu\ dt\\
&\le \dyle C_2 \iint_{\O_T}u^2_n(x,t)w(x)\,dx\,dt +C_3T+C_4.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using Gronwall Lemma we obtain that $\int_{\O}u^2_{n}(x,T)w(x)dx\le C(T)$ and then
$$
\int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}|u_n(x,t)w(x)^{\frac{1}{p}}-u_n(y,t)w(y)^{\frac{1}{p}}|^{p}d\nu\ dt\le C(T).
$$
We set $\tilde{u}_n=w(x) u_n$, then $\{\tilde{u}_n\}_n$ is increasing in $n$ and bounded in the space $L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$. Hence we get the existence of a measurable function $u$ such that $u_n\uparrow u$ a.e. in $\O$, $u=0$ in $(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T)$ and $\tilde{u}_n\rightharpoonup w(x)u$ weakly in $L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$. Let $U(x,y,t)=|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p-2}(u(x,t)-u(y,t))$, then $U_n\to U$ a.e. in $D_{\O}\times (0,T)$.
Let us show that $u$ satisfies \eqref{distt}. Let $v\in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\O_T)$, using $wv$ as a test function in the approximating problem \eqref{pro:lineal1} and integrating in the time, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&-\dyle\int_0^T\int_{\O}v_t u_{n}(x,t)w(x)\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}v(x,T)u_n(x,T)w(x)dx\\
&+\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U_n(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt\\
&=\dyle \l\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^{p-1}_{n-1}wv}{|x|^{ps}+\frac 1n}\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}u^2_{n0}(x)v(x,0)w(x)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Taking into consideration the previous estimates, we get easily that, as $n\to \infty$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&-\dyle\iint_{\O_T}v_t u_{n}(x,t)w(x)\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}v(x,T)u_n(x,T)w(x)dx\to \\
& -\dyle\iint_{\O_T}v_t u(x,t)w(x)\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}v(x,T)u(x,T)w(x)dx
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^{p-1}_{n-1}wv}{|x|^{ps}+\frac 1n}\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}u^2_{n0}(x)v(x,0)w(x)dx\to \\
& \dyle \iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{u^{p-1}wv}{|x|^{ps}}\,dx\,dt+\int_{\O}u^2_{0}(x)v(x,0)w(x)dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let us prove that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U_n(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt\to \\
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt.
\end{eqnarray*}
Define
$$\tilde{u}_n=|x|^\a u_n,\,\, \tilde{u}=|x|^\a u,\,\,\, \tilde{v}=|x|^\a v,$$
$$
\tilde{U}_n(x,y,t)=|\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t)|^{p-2}(\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t)), $$ $$\tilde{U}(x,y,t)=|\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t)|^{p-2}(\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))
$$
and
$$
\tilde{V}(x,y,t)=|\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t)|^{p-2}(\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t)).
$$
Using the previous estimates on $\{u_n\}_n$, we have $\tilde{u}_n, \tilde{u}, \tilde{v}\in L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$, $\{\tilde{u}_n\}_n$ is bounded in $L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$ and $\tilde{u}_n\rightharpoonup \tilde{u}$ weakly in $L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$.
We have
$$
U_n(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))=J_n(x,y,t)+L_n(x,y,t),
$$
where
$$
J_n(x,y,t)=\tilde{U}_n(x,y,t)(\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t))
$$
and \begin{eqnarray*}
& L_n(x,y,t)=\\
&\bigg|(\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg((\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg)\\
& \times \bigg((\tilde{v}_n(x,t)-\tilde{v}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}_n(y,t)\bigg)-J_n(x,y,t).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using a duality argument we reach that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}J_n(x,y,t)d\nu\ dt\to \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}J(x,y,t)d\nu\ dt\mbox{ as }n\to \infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
We deal now with $L_n$. It is clear that $L_n\to L_n$ a.e in $D_\O\times (0,T)$, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
&L(x,y,t)=\\
& \bigg|(\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg((\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}(y,t)\bigg)\\
& \times \bigg((\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg)-J(x,y,t).
\end{eqnarray*}
It is clear that
$$
|L_n(x,y,t)|\le L_{n1}(x,y,t)+L_{n2}(x,y,t),
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
& L_{n1}(x,y,t)=\\
& \Bigg\|\bigg|(\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg((\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg)\\
&-\bigg|\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg(\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg)\Bigg\|\\
& \times\bigg|\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{n2}(x,y,t) &=&\bigg|(\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}\\
& \times & \bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{n2}(x,y,t) &\le &\bigg|\tilde{u}_n(x,t)-\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}\times\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|\\
&+& \bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}\times \bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|\\
&\le & L_{n21}(x,y,t)+L_{n22}(x,y,t).
\end{eqnarray*}
We claim that $\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|\in L^p(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|^pd\nu\ dt\le\\
&\dyle \int_0^T\io \dfrac{|\tilde{v}(y,t)|^p}{|y|^{p\a(p-1)+ps}}\int_{\ren}\frac{\bigg||y|^{\a(p-1)}-|x|^{\a(p-1)}\bigg|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy\,dt.
\end{eqnarray*}
We set $r=|x|, \rho=|y|$, then $x=rx', y=\rho y'$
where $|x'|=|y'|=1$. For $\sigma=\dfrac{r}{\rho}$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|^pd\nu\ dt\\
&\le \dyle \iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{|\tilde{v}(y,t)|^p}{|y|^{p\a(p-1)+ps}}\int_0^\infty \bigg||y|^{\a(p-1)}-(\s|y|)^{\a(p-1)}\bigg|^p \s^{N-1}K(\s) d\s\, dy\, dt \\
&\le \dyle \iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{|\tilde{v}(y,t)|^p}{|y|^{ps}}\int_0^\infty \bigg|1-\s^{\a(p-1)}\bigg|^p \s^{N-1}K(\s)\, d\s\, dy\,dt \\
&\le \dyle C\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{|\tilde{v}(y,t)|^p}{|y|^{ps}}\,dy\, dt,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$$
C=\int_0^\infty \bigg|1-\s^{\a(p-1)}\bigg|^p \s^{N-1}K(\s) d\s<\infty.
$$
Since $\tilde{v}\in L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$, using the Hardy inequality, it follows that $\dyle\iint_{\O_T}\dfrac{|\tilde{v}(y,t)|^p}{|y|^{ps}}\,dy\, dt<\infty$ and then the claim follows.
Therefore $L_{n21}$ converges strongly in $L^1(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$. In the same way we can prove that $L_{n22}$ converge strongly in $L^1(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$. Hence using the Dominated convergence theorem we obtain that $L_{n2}$ converges to $L_2$ strongly in $L^1(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{2}(x,y,t) &=&\bigg|(\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}\\
& \times & \bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^{\a(p-1)})\tilde{v}(y,t)\bigg|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, since $p<2$, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{n1}(x,y,t) &\le & C\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}
\times \bigg|(\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t))\bigg|,
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\tilde{v}\in L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_0(\O))$, then using the same computations as in the previous claim, we reach that $\bigg|(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-1}\in L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$. Therefore using the Dominated convergence theorem it follows that $L_{n1}\to L_1$ converges to $L_1(x,y,t)$ strongly in $L^1(D_\O\times (0,T),d\nu\ dt)$ where
\begin{eqnarray*}
& L_{1}(x,y,t)=\\
&\Bigg\|\bigg|(\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg((\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t))+(1-(\frac{|x|}{|y|})^\a)\tilde{u}_n(y,t)\bigg)\\
&- \bigg|\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t)\bigg|^{p-2}
\bigg(\tilde{u}(x,t)-\tilde{u}(y,t)\bigg)\Bigg\|\\
& \times \bigg|(\tilde{v}(x,t)-\tilde{v}(y,t))\bigg|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Combining the above estimates, we conclude that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U_n(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt\to \\
&\dyle \int_0^T\iint_{D_{\O}}U(x,y,t)(v(x,t)w(x)-v(y,t)w(y))d\nu\ dt.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence $u\in \Upsilon_\a$ satisfies \eqref{distt}. It is clear that $u$ is a distributional solution to \eqref{eq:defsec1} in $\O\backslash \{0\}\times (0,T)$.
\end{proof}
\section{The singular case $p<2$: Further properties of the solutions. }\label{singg}
In this section we suppose that $p<2$, our main goal is to get natural condition on the data in order to show the existence or non existence of finite time extinction. The first result in this direction is the following.
\begin{Theorem}\label{exis2}
Assume that $\l<\L_{N,p,s}$ and define $u$ to be the minimal solution to the problem
\begin{equation}\label{propa}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t+(-\D^s_{p}) u & = & \l\dfrac{u^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}} & \text{ in } \O_{T}, \\
u & \ge & 0 & \text{ in }\ren\times (0,T), \\
u & = & 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0) & = & u_0(x) & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
then we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\frac{2N}{N+2s}\le p<2$ and $u_0\in L^2(\O)$, there exists a finite time $T^*(N,p,|\O|,\L_{N,p,s},||u_0||_2)\equiv T^*\ge ||u_0||^{2-p}_2
|\O|^{\frac{p}{2}-1+\frac{ps}{N}}$ such that $u(.,t)\equiv 0$ for $t\ge T^*$.
\item if $1<p<\frac{2N}{N+2s}$ and $u_0 \in L^{\nu+1}(\O)\cap L^{2}(\O)$ with $\nu+1=\frac{N(2-p)}{ps}$, there exists $C(N,p,s)>0$ such that
if $\l<C(N,p,s)$, then $u( .,t) \equiv 0$ for all $t\geq T^*$ where $T^*=T^*(\l,C, u_0)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
We follow closely the arguments used in \cite{AP}. Using $u$ as a test function in \eqref{propa}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{2}dx+ \frac{1}{2}\iint_{D_{\O}}\dfrac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx \ dy= \l\int_{\Omega }\dfrac{|u|^{p}}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{equation*}
By Sobolev and Hardy inequalities, we reach that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{2}dx+\frac{C(S,\L_{N,p,s})}{2} \left( \int_{\Omega }\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p^{\ast }_s}dx\right) ^{\frac{p}{p^\ast_s }}\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
Since $\frac{2N}{N+2s}<p<2$, then $p^*_s>2$, thus by H\"older inequality, we obtain
$$\int_{\O}u^2(x,t)dx\le C(\O)\bigg(\int_{\O}\mid u^{p^*_s}(x,t)|\ dx\bigg)^{\frac{2}{p^*_s}}.$$
Thus
$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\parallel u(x,t)\parallel^2_2+c(\L_{N,p,s}) |\O|^{\frac{p}{p^*_s}-\frac{p}{2}}\parallel u(x,t)\parallel^p_2\le 0.
$$
As a conclusion we reach that
$$\parallel u(x,T)\parallel_2\le \parallel u_0\parallel_2\Big(1- \frac{(2-p)c(\L_{N,p,s})|\O|^{\frac{p}{p^*_s}-\frac{p}{2}}T}{\parallel u_0\parallel^{2-p}_2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2-p}}
$$
Hence if $T<T^*$, $u(x,T)=0$ and the result follows.
Assume that $1<p<\frac{2N}{N+2s}$, using an approximation argument, we can take $u^{\nu}$ as test function in \eqref{propa}, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\dyle \frac{1}{\nu+1}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{\nu+1}dx+\frac{1}{2}\iint_{D_{\O}}|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|^{p-2}(u(x,t)-u(y,t))(u^\nu(x,t)-u^\nu(y,t))d\nu\\
& = \dyle\l\int_{\Omega }\dfrac{u^{p-1+\nu}}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, by inequality\eqref{alge3}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\nu+1}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{\nu+1}dx+\frac{C}{2}\iint_{D_{\O}}|u^{\frac{p+\nu-1}{p}}(x,t)-u^{\frac{p+\nu-1}{p}}(y,t)|^{p}\,d\nu\le \l\int_{\Omega }\dfrac{u^{p-1+\nu}}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{equation*
Using now Hardy inequality
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\nu+1}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{\nu+1}dx+(\frac{C}{2}-\frac{\l}{\L_{N,p,s}})\iint_{D_{\O}}|u^{\frac{p+\nu-1}{p}}(x,t)-u^{\frac{p+\nu-1}{p}}(y,t)|^{p}\, d\nu\le 0.
\end{equation*
Assume that $\l<\dfrac{C\L_{N,p,s}}{2}$, hence by using Sobolev inequality, we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\nu+1}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega }u^{\nu+1}dx+C(\L_{N,p,s})\left( \int_{\Omega }u^{\frac{\left( \nu+p-1\right) }{p}p^{\ast }_s}dx\right) ^{\frac{p}{p^{\ast }_s}}\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
Recall that $\nu=\frac{N(2-p)-ps}{ps}$, then $\frac{\nu+p-1}{p}p^{\ast }_s=\nu+1 $.\\
$$\frac{1}{\nu+1}\frac{d}{dt} ||u(x,t)||^{\nu+1}_{\nu+1}+C||u(x,t)||^{\nu+p-1}_{\nu+1} \le 0$$
Now, we get that
$$
||u(x,T)||_{\nu+1}\le ||u_0||_{\nu+1}\Big(1-\frac{C T}{\parallel u_0\parallel^{2-p}_{\nu+1}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2-p}}.
$$
Hence the result follows.
\end{proof}
Now, for the more general problem
\begin{equation}\label{concave}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t+(-\D^s_{p}) u & = & \dyle\l\frac{u^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}}+u^q &
\text{ in } \O_{T}=\Omega \times (0,T) , \\
u & \ge & 0 &
\text{ in }\ren\times (0,T), \\
u &= & 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0) & = & u_0(x) & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
where $q\le 1$, as in Theorem \ref{exis2}, we can prove that \eqref{concave} has a solution with finite time extension, more precisely we have
\begin{Theorem}\label{concave-extinction}
Assume that $p-1<q\le 1, \l <\L_{N,p,s}$ and $u_0\in L^2(\O)$. Then problem \eqref{concave} has a nonnegative
minimal solution $u\in L^p(0,T; W^{s,p}_{ 0}(\Omega))$, moreover
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $p\ge \frac{2N}{N+2s}$, then under a smallness condition
on $||u_0||_2$, there exists a finite time $T^*$ such that $u(.,t)\equiv 0$ for all $t\ge T^*$.
\item if $1<p<\frac{2N}{N+2s}$, $p-1<q\leq 1$ and $u_0 \in L^{\nu+1}(\O)\cap L^{2}(\O)$ with $\nu+1=\frac{N(2-p)}{ps}$, then there exists $C>0$ such that if $\l<C$, then $u( .,t) \equiv 0$ for all $t\geq T^*$ for some $T^*>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\
If $q<p-1$, then as in the local case, a different phenomenon appears and non extinction in finite time occurs. More precisely we have the following result.
\begin{Theorem}\label{nonexis2} Assume that $1<p<2, \l\le \L_{N,p,s}$ and let $q<p-1$, then the problem
\begin{equation}\label{non1}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll} u_t-\D^s_pu &=& \l\dfrac{u^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}}+ u^{q} & \mbox{ in } \O\times (0,T),\\
u&=&0 &\hbox{ in
\ } (\ren\backslash\O)\times (0,T),\\
u(x,0)&=& 0 & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
has a global solution $u$ such that $u(x,t)>0$ for all $t>0$ and
$x\in \O$, namely there is non finite time extinction, moreover, $u(.,t)\uparrow w$ as $t \to \infty$ where
$w$ is the unique positive solution to problem
\begin{equation}\label{elnon1}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}-\D^s
_pw&=& \l\dfrac{w^{p-1}}{|x|^{ps}}+w^q & \mbox{ in } \O, \\w&=&0 & \hbox{ in
\ } \ren\backslash\O.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
\section{The case $p>2$ and $\l>\L_{N,p,s}$: Non existence result}\label{sec:lineal01}
In \cite{GP}, for the local case, the authors proved that if $p>2$, $\l>\L_{N,p,1}$ and $u_0\ge C$ in some ball $B_\eta(0)$, then problem \eqref{propa} has non negative solution in the sense that if we consider $u_n$ to be the unique solution to problem \eqref{pro:lineal1}, then for all $\e>0$, there exists $r(\e)>0$ such that $u_n(x,t)\to \infty$ as $n\to\infty$ if $|x|<r(\e)$ and $t>\e$. This phenomenon occur since the parabolic operator has the finite speed propagation and then if $\text{Supp}(u_0)\subset \O\backslash B_\eta(0)$, then for $t$ small, the Hardy potential has non effect and then the solution can exists for small $t$.
Since in our case, the nonlocal operator has not the finite speed propagation, we will show that problem \eqref{propa} has non solution in a suitable sense.
Let us begin by the next property of the Hardy constant defined in \eqref{LL}. If $\O$ is a bounded domain such that $0\in \O$, then we define
\begin{equation}\label{LLOO}
\L_{N,p,s, \O}=\inf\limits_{u\in W^{s,p}_0(\O)}\dfrac{\frac 12 \dyle\iint_{D_\O}
\dfrac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dxdy}{\dyle\io\dfrac{|u(x)|^p}{|x|^{ps}}dx},
\end{equation}
then from \cite{AB} we have that $\L_{N,p,s,\O}=\L_{N,p,s}$ and $\L_{N,p,s,\O}$ is not achieved.
We are now in position to state the main non existence result of this subsection.
\begin{Theorem}\label{th:non}
Let $u_0\in L^1(\O)$ be such that $u_0\gneqq 0$ and $\l >\L_{N,p,s}$,
then problem \eqref{propa} has non positive solution \textit{obtained as limit of approximations} (SOLA).
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we can assume that $u_0\in L^\infty(\O)$. We argue by contradiction, suppose that problem \eqref{propa} has a solution $u\gneqq 0$ obtained as a limit of approximation. Using Monotony argument we get easily that \eqref{propa} has a nonnegative minimal SOLA solution denoted by $u$ with $u=\limit_{n\to \infty}u_n$ and $u_n$ is the unique solution to the problem
\begin{equation}\label{eq:apro11}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{nt}+(-\D^s_{p}) u_n & = & \dyle \l a_n(x)u_n^{p-1} &
\text{ in } \O_{T}=\Omega \times (0,T) , \\
u_n & \ge & 0 &
\text{ in }\ren\times (0,T), \\
u_n &= & 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u_n(x,0) & = & u_0(x) & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
where $a_n(x)=\min\{n,\dfrac{1}{|x|^{ps}}\}$. It is clear that $\{u_n\}_n$ is increasing in $n$ and $u_n\uparrow u$ a.e. in $\O_T$.
Since the finite speed propagation does not holds for $u_1$, see \cite{AABP}, then we get the existence of $0<t_1<t_2$ such that for all $x\in \O$ and for all $t\in [t_1,t_2]$ we have $u_1(x,t)>0$. In particular for $0<\rho<<1$ be chosen later such that $B_\rho(0)\subset\subset \O$, we have $u_1(x,t)>C>0$ for all $(x,t)\in \bar{B}_\rho(0)\times [t_1,t_2]$.
Let $\bar{\eta}<\rho$ to be chosen later, then all $n\ge 1$, $u_n(x,t)\ge c=\frac{C}{2}$ for all $(x,t)\in
B_{\eta}(0)\x (t_1, t_2)$.
Consider
$\psi \in C^{\infty}_0(B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)) $, using Theorem
\ref{pic}, we obtain that
$$
\frac 12
\dint\dint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}}(0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy\ge \io
\frac{(-\Delta)^s_{p} u_n }{u_n^{p-1}}|\psi|^p dx.
$$
Hence
\begin{equation*} \frac 12
\iint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy \ge \l\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)} | \psi |
^pa_n(x)dx-\int _{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)} |
\psi | ^p\frac{u_{nt}}{u^{p-1}_n}dx.
\end{equation*}
Integrating in time,
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
&\dyle \frac{(t_2-t_1)}{2}
\iint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy\\
&\ge \dyle \l(t_2-t_1)\int _{B_{\bar{\eta}}
(0)} | \psi | ^pa_n(x) dx-\frac{1}{p-2}\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}
\frac{|\psi | ^p}{u^{p-2}_n(x,t_1) }dx.
\end{array}
$$
Thus
\begin{equation}\label{uam00}
\begin{array}{lll}
& \dyle \frac{1}{2} \iint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy+
\frac{1}{(p-2)(t_2-t_1)c^{p-2}}
\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}|\psi|^pdx
\\
& \ge \dyle\l\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}
\dfrac{|\psi|^p}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Now, using H\"older and Sobolev inequalities we reach that
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
\dyle\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}|\psi|^pdx & \le & \bigg(\dyle\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}|\psi|^{p^*_s}dx\bigg)^{\frac{p}{p^*}}|B_{\bar{\eta}}(0)|^{\frac{p^*-p}{p^*_s}}\\
&\le &\dyle C\bar{\eta}^{ps}\iint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy,
\end{array}
$$
where $C$ depends only on $N,p,s$. Thus going back to \eqref{uam00} we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{uam001}
\begin{array}{lll}
& \dyle \bigg(\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{C \bar{\eta}^{ps} }{(p-2)(t_2-t_1)c^{p-2}}\bigg) \iint_{D_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}}\dfrac{|\psi(x)-\psi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+ps}}dx\,dy \ge \dyle\l\int_{B_{\bar{\eta}} (0)}
\dfrac{|\psi|^p}{|x|^{ps}}dx.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Since
$\l>\L_{N,p,s}$, then we can choose ${\bar{\eta}}<<\rho$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ccc} \dfrac{\l}{1+\frac{2 C \bar{\eta}^{ps} }{(p-2)(t_2-t_1)c^{p-2}}}\ge \L_{N,p,s}+\e,
\end{equation}
for some $\e>0$. Going back to \eqref{uam001} we reach a contradiction with the Hardy inequality. Hence we conclude.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define $v(x,t)=C(t-t_1)\log\bigg(\frac{\bar{\eta}}{|x|}\bigg)$, then $v(x,t_1)=0$ and $v$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{logg}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
v_t+(-\D^s_{p}) v & \le & \dyle\frac{C}{|x|^{ps}} &
\text{ in } B_{\bar{\eta}}(0)\times (t_1,t_2), \\
v &\le & 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus B_{\bar{\eta}}(0)) \times (t_1,t_2), \\
v(x,t_1) & = & 0 & \mbox{ in } B_{\bar{\eta}}(0).
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
Choosing $\bar{\eta}<<1$ and $C$ small and by the comparison principle we obtain that $v\le u$ in $B_{\bar{\eta}})(0)\times (t_1,t_2)$. Thus
$$\lim_{|x|\to
0}u(x,t)=\infty\,\,\forall \,\, t\in (t_1,t_2).$$
\item Following the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:non} we can show that the problem
\begin{equation}\label{nongeneral}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t+(-\D^s_{p}) u & = & \dyle\l\frac{u^{\a}}{|x|^{ps}} &
\text{ in } \O_{T}=\Omega \times (0,T) , \\
u & \ge & 0 &
\text{ in }\ren\times (0,T), \\
u &= & 0 & \text{ in }(\ren\setminus\O) \times (0,T), \\
u(x,0) & = & u_0(x) & \mbox{ in }\O,
\end{array
\right.
\end{equation}
with $p>2$, $\lambda>0$ and $\a>p-1$, has nonnegative solution \textit{obtained as limit of approximations} (SOLA).
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\section{Appendix}
We give here a detailed proof of the algebraic Lemma \ref{real11}.
{\bf Proof of Lemma \ref{real11}.}
If $(b_1,b_2)=(0,0)$ or $(a_1,a_2)=(0,0)$, then \eqref{alge4} holds trivially.
If $a_1=a_2$, then \eqref{alge4} holds for any $b_1, b_2\ge 0$ choosing $C_1\le C_2$.
Assume that $(b_1,b_2)\neq(0,0)$, $(a_1,a_2)\neq(0,0)$ and $a_1\neq a_2$.
We divide the proof in several cases.
{\bf I-The first case: $a_1>a_2\ge 0$.} We set $\delta=\dfrac{a_2}{a_1}\in [0,1)$, then in this case, \eqref{alge4} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{alge411}
(1-\d)^{p-1}(b_1- \d b_2)\ge C_1 |b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-\d b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p-C_2 |b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p.
\end{equation}
If $b_1=b_2$, then \eqref{alge411} take the form
$$
(1-\d)^{p}\ge C_1 (1-\d)^p
$$
that holds trivially since $C_1\le 1$. Thus we assume that $b_1\neq b_2$.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\emph{Sub-case 1: $b_1>b_2\ge 0$.}}
We set $\theta=(\frac{b_2}{b_1})^{\frac{1}{p}}\in [0,1)$, then \eqref{alge411} take the form
\begin{equation}\label{alge4110}
(1-\d)^{p-1}(1- \d \theta^p)\ge C_1 (1-\d \theta)^p-C_2 (1-\theta)^p.
\end{equation}
We have
$$
1-\d \theta=(1-\theta)+\theta(1-\d).
$$
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1-\d \theta)^p & = & ((1-\theta)+\theta(1-\d))^p\\
&\le & (1+\e)^{p-1}\theta^p(1-\d)^p+(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-1}(1-\theta)^p
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\e>0$ is any positive constant.
Now, using the fact that $(1-\d)\theta^p<1-\d\theta^p$, we obtain that $\theta^p(1-\d)^p\le (1-\d)^{p-1}(1-\d\theta^p)$. Therefore using Young inequality we conclude that
$$
C_1(1-\d \theta)^p\le C_1(1+\e)^{p-1}(1-\d)^{p-1}(1-\d\theta^p)+C_1(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-1}(1-\theta)^p.
$$
It is clear that we can choose $C_1<1$ depending only on $\e$ such that $C_1(1+\e)^{p-1}=1$, thus
$$
C_1(1-\d \theta)^p\le (1-\d)^{p-1}(1-\d\theta^p)+C_2(1-\theta)^p
$$
where $C_2=\max\{1, C_1(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-1}\}$ and then \eqref{alge4110} holds in this case.
\item {\emph{Sub-case 2: $b_2>b_1\ge 0$.}}
In this case we set $\theta=(\frac{b_1}{b_2})^{\frac{1}{p}}\in [0,1)$, thus
\eqref{alge411} take the form
\begin{equation}\label{alge41101}
(1-\d)^{p-1}(\theta^p-\d)\ge C_1 |\theta-\d|^p-C_2 (1-\theta)^p.
\end{equation}
We divide the proof of \eqref{alge41101} into two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Sub-sub-case i: $\theta^p>\d$.}
It is clear that $\d<\theta^p<\theta$, then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\theta-\d)^p & = & ((\theta-\theta^p)+(\theta^p-\d))^p\\
&\le & (1+\e)^{p-1}(\theta^p-\d)^p+(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-1}(\theta-\theta^p)^p\\
&\le & (1+\e)^{p-1}(\theta^p-\d)^{p-1}(\theta^p-\d) +(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-
1}\theta^p(1-\theta^{p-1})^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $1-\theta^{p-1}\le 1-\theta$ and $\theta^p-\d\le 1-\d$, then using the same hypothesis on $C_1, \e$ and $C_2$ as in the previous case, it follows that
$$
C_1(\theta-\d)^p \le (1-\d)^{p-1}(\theta^p-\d) +C_2(1-\theta)^p
$$
and then \eqref{alge41101} follows.
\item {\bf Sub-sub-case ii: $\theta^p\le \d$.} This is the more delicate case and it need some fine computations. It is clear that in this case we have to show that
\begin{equation}\label{alge411010}
C_2 (1-\theta)^p\ge C_1 |\theta-\d|^p+(1-\d)^{p-1}(\d-\theta^p).
\end{equation}
Let begin by assuming that {\textit{$\theta<\d$}}, then trivially we have $C_1 |\theta-\d|^p\le (1-\theta)^p$. Hence we have just to show that
$$
(1-\d)^{p-1}(\d-\theta^p)\le C_2 (1-\theta)^p.
$$
For $\rho\in (0, \d)$, we define the function $h$ by
$$
h(\rho)=(1-\rho)^p+(1-\d)^{p-1}\rho^p.
$$
It is clear that $h'(\rho)=p\bigg(\rho^{p-1}(1-\d)^{p-1}-(1-\rho)^{p-1}\bigg)\le 0$. Since $\theta\le \d$, we conclude that $h(\theta)\ge h(\d)$ and then we conclude that
$$
(1-\theta)^p+(1-\d)^{p-1}\theta^p\ge (1-\d)^p+(1-\d)^{p-1}\d^p.
$$
Thus
$$
(1-\theta)^p\ge (1-\d)^{p-1}(1-\d-\theta^p +\d^p).
$$
Since $p<2$, then it is not difficult to show that $1-\d+\d^p\ge \d$, therefore we reach that
$$
(1-\theta)^p\ge (1-\d)^{p-1}(\d-\theta^p)
$$
and the result follows.
Assume now that $\d\le \theta\le\d^{\frac{1}{p}}$. As above for
$\rho\in (0, \theta)$, we define the function $h_1$ by
$$
h_1(\rho)=(1-\rho)^{p-1}(\rho-\theta^p),
$$
then
\begin{eqnarray*}
h'(\rho) &= & (1-\rho)^{p-2}\bigg(1-p\rho+(p-1)\theta^p\bigg)\\
&\ge & (1-\rho)^{p-2}\bigg(1-p\rho+(p-1)\rho^p\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $p<2$, we have $(1-p\rho+(p-1)\rho^p)\ge 0$, thus $h'_1\ge 0$ and then $h_1(\d)\le h_1(\theta)$.
Hence
$$
(1-\d)^{p-1}(\d-\theta^p)\le (1-\theta)^{p-1}(\theta-\theta^p)\le (1-\theta)^p,
$$
where the last inequality follows using the fact that $2\theta\le 1+\theta^p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\
{\bf II-The second case: $a_2>a_1\ge 0$.}
It is clear that
$$
|a_1-a_2|^{p-2}(a_1-a_2)(a_1b_1-a_2b_2)=|a_2-a_1|^{p-2}(a_2-a_1)(a_2b_2-a_1b_1),
$$
thus using the result of the first case, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|a_1-a_2|^{p-2}(a_1-a_2)(a_1b_1-a_2b_2) & \ge & C_1 |a_2b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2-a_1b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1|^p-C_2(\max\{|a_2|, |a_1|\})^p|b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2-b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1|^p\\
&\ge & C_1 |a_1b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-a_2b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p-C_2(\max\{|a_1|, |a_2|\})^p|b^{\frac{1}{p}}_1-b^{\frac{1}{p}}_2|^p.
\end{eqnarray*}
and then we conclude.
\
{\bf III-The third case: $a_1, a_2\le 0$.} We set $\tilde{a}_1=-a_1$ and $\tilde{a}_2=-a_2$, then $\tilde{a}_1, \tilde{a}_2\ge 0$ and
$$
|a_1-a_2|^{p-2}(a_1-a_2)(a_1b_1-a_2b_2)=|\tilde{a}_1-\tilde{a}_2|^{p-2}(\tilde{a}_1-\tilde{a}_2)(\tilde{a}_1b_1-\tilde{a}_2b_2),
$$
then the result follows using the previous cases.
\
{\bf IV-The fourth case: $a_1<0<a_2$ or $a_2<0<a_1$.} Let assume that $a_2<0<a_1$ and define $\tilde{a}_2=-a_2$, we get
$$
|a_1-a_2|^{p-2}(a_1-a_2)(a_1b_1-a_2b_2)=(a_1+\tilde{a}_2)^{p-1}(a_1b_1+\tilde{a}_2 b_2).
$$
As in the previous case, without loss of generality we can assume that $a_1\ge \tilde{a}_2$ and $b_1\ge b_2$. Setting
$\delta=\frac{\tilde{a}_2}{a_1}, \theta=(\frac{b_2}{b_1})^{\frac{1}{p}}\in [0,1)$ then \eqref{alge4} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{alge511}
(1+\d)^{p-1}(1+\d \theta^p)\ge C_1 (1+\d \theta)^p-C_2 (1-\theta)^p.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_1(1+\d \theta)^p &\le & C_1(1+\d \theta^p-\d\theta^p+\d\theta)^p\\
&\le & C_1(1+\e)^{p-1}(1+\d\theta^p)^{p}+C_1(1+\frac{1}{\e})^{p-1}\d^p\theta^p(1-\theta^{p-1})^p\\
&\le & (1+\d)^{p-1}(1+\d\theta^p)+C_2(1-\theta)^p,
\end{eqnarray*}
where, as in the previous cases, we have used the fact that $C_1(1+\e)^{p-1}=1\le C_2$. Hence the result follows. \cqd
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Qi-Huo Wei and Ayan Chakrabarty for sharing their experimental results and helpful discussions about their measurement procedures. This research was funded in part by an ERC grant to EL and a Mobility Plus Fellowship from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education to ML.
\bibliographystyle{phaip}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Let $L/K$ be a Galois extension of number fields with group $G$. There are two ambiguous ideals in $L$, namely ideals in $L$ which are invariant under the action of $G$, whose Galois module structure has been studied extensively in the literature. The first is the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_L$ of $L$, the study of which is a classical problem; see \cite{Frohlich}. The second is the square root $A_{L/K}$ (if it exists) of the inverse different ideal $\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}$ of $L/K$, the study of which was initiated by B. Erez in \cite{Erez}. By Hilbert's formula \cite[Chapter IV, Proposition 4]{Serre}, this ideal $A_{L/K}$ exists when $|G|$ is odd, for example. Also, we note that $A_{L/K}$ is special because it is the unique ideal in $L$ (if it exists) which is self-dual with respect to the trace $\Tr_{L/K}$ of $L/K$.
\vspace{1mm}
It is natural to ask whether the Galois module structures of $\mathcal{O}_L$ and $A_{L/K}$ coincide. More specifically, suppose that $L/K$ is tame. Then, any ambiguous ideal $\mathfrak{A}$ in $L$ is locally free over $\mathcal{O}_KG$ of rank one by \cite[Theorem 1]{Ullom}. Hence, it determines a class $[\mathfrak{A}]_{\bZ G}$ in $\Cl(\bZ G)$ as well as a class $[\mathfrak{A}]$ in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$, where $\Cl(-)$ denotes locally free class group. Provided that $A_{L/K}$ exists, we ask:
\begin{question}\label{Q1} Does $[\mathcal{O}_L]_{\bZ G} = [A_{L/K}]_{\bZ G}$ hold in $\Cl(\bZ G)$?
\end{question}
\begin{question}\label{Q2} Does $[\mathcal{O}_L] = [A_{L/K}]$ hold in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$?
\end{question}
Since $A_{L/K}$ is self-dual with respect to $\Tr_{L/K}$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}$ is the dual of $\mathcal{O}_L$ with respect to $\Tr_{L/K}$ by definition, we have that
\begin{align*}[\mathcal{O}_L]_{\bZ G}= [A_{L/K}]_{\bZ G} &\mbox{ implies }[\mathcal{O}_L]_{\bZ G} = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}]_{\bZ G},\\
[\mathcal{O}_L] = [A_{L/K}]& \mbox{ implies }[\mathcal{O}_L] = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}].\end{align*}
In other words, for Questions~\ref{Q1} and~\ref{Q2} to admit an affirmative answer, the ideal $\mathcal{O}_L$ is necessarily \emph{stably self-dual} as a $\bZ G$-module and an $\mathcal{O}_KG$-module, respectively. It is then natural to also ask:
\begin{question}\label{Q3} Does $[\mathcal{O}_L]_{\bZ G} = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}]_{\bZ G}$ hold in $\Cl(\bZ G)$?
\end{question}
\begin{question}\label{Q4}Does $[\mathcal{O}_L] = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}]$ hold in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$?
\end{question}
On the one hand, a theorem of M. J. Taylor \cite{Taylor1} implies that Question~\ref{Q3} admits an affirmative answer; this fact was re-established by S. U. Chase \cite{Chase}. Using tools from \cite{Chase}, L. Caputo and S. Vinatier showed in \cite{CV} that Question~\ref{Q1} also admits an affirmative answer as long as $L/K$ is locally abelian.
\vspace{1mm}
On the other hand, both Questions~\ref{Q2} and~\ref{Q4} have never been considered in the literature. The main purpose of this paper is to show that for $K\neq\bQ$, they both admit a negative answer in general; see Theorem~\ref{thm main} below.
\subsection{Basic set-up and notation} Fix a number field $K$ as well as a finite group $G$. Let us define
\begin{align*}
R(\mathcal{O}_KG) & = \{[\mathcal{O}_L] :\text{tame $L/K$ with }\Gal(L/K)\simeq G\},\\
R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG) & = \{[\mathcal{O}_L] :\text{tame $L/K$ with }\Gal(L/K)\simeq G\mbox{ and }[\mathcal{O}_L] = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}]\},
\end{align*}
where ``sd'' stands for ``self-dual''. For $G$ of odd order, further define
\[ \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \{[A_{L/K}] :\text{tame $L/K$ with }\Gal(L/K)\simeq G\}.\]
Let us remark that both classes $[\mathcal{O}_L]$ and $[A_{L/K}]$ depend upon the choice of the isomorphism $\Gal(L/K)\simeq G$. For $K\neq\bQ$, we shall prove that even the weakened versions of Questions~\ref{Q2} and~\ref{Q4} below admit a negative answer in general; see Theorem~\ref{thm main} below.
\begin{question}\label{Q5}Does $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ hold when $|G|$ is odd?
\end{question}
\begin{question}\label{Q6}Does $R(\mathcal{O}_KG) = R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ hold?
\end{question}
In what follows, for simplicity, suppose that $G$ is abelian. We shall implicitly suppose also that $G$ has odd order whenever we write $\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. Then, the three subsets of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ in question are related to the so-called Adams operations on $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ as follows; also see \cite{Burns2} and~\cite{BurnsChinburg} for other connections between Adams operations and Galois module structures.
\vspace{1mm}
For each $k\in\bZ$ coprime to $|G|$, the \emph{$k$th Adams operation} is defined by
\[ \Psi_k\in\mbox{Aut}(\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG));\hspace{1em}\Psi_k([X]) = [X_k],\]
where $X$ denotes an arbitrary locally free $\mathcal{O}_KG$-module of rank one, and $X_k$ denotes the $\mathcal{O}_K$-module $X$ on which $G$ acts via
\[ s* x = \phi_k^{-1}(s)\cdot x \mbox{ for $s\in G$ and $x\in X$},\]
where $\phi_k$ is the automorphism on $G$ given by $\phi_k(s) = s^k$. For example, when $X = \mathcal{O}_L$, where $L/K$ is a tame and Galois extension with $h:\Gal(L/K)\simeq G$, then we have $X_k = \mathcal{O}_{L'}$, where $L'=L$ but with $h':\Gal(L'/K)\simeq G$ defined by $h' = \phi_k\circ h$; similarly when $X = A_{L/K}$. In the case that $k = -1$, we have
\begin{align*} \Psi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L]) &= [\Hom_{\mathcal{O}_K}(\mathcal{O}_L,\mathcal{O}_K)]^{-1},\\
\Psi_{-1}([A_{L/K}]) &= [\Hom_{\mathcal{O}_K}(A_{L/K},\mathcal{O}_K)]^{-1},\end{align*}
by \cite[Appendix IX, Proposition 3]{F paper}. Let $*$ denote dual with respect to $\Tr_{L/K}$. Since $\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1} = \mathcal{O}_L^*$ and $A_{L/K} = A_{L/K}^*$, we then deduce that
\[ \Psi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L]) = [\mathfrak{D}_{L/K}^{-1}]^{-1}\mbox{ and }\Psi_{-1}([A_{L/K}]) = [A_{L/K}]^{-1},\]
where the latter equality was proven in \cite[Theorem 1.2 (a)]{Tsang} as well. In the case that $|G|$ is odd and $k=2$, we further have
\[ [A_{L/K}] = [\mathcal{O}_L]\Psi_2([\mathcal{O}_L]),\]
which was shown in \cite[Theorem 1.2.4]{Tsang thesis} and is also essentially a special case of \cite[Theorem 1.4]{Burns2}.
\vspace{1mm}
Now, it is known by \cite{McCulloh} that $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is a subgroup of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. Writing the operation in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ multiplicatively, we then have well-defined maps
\begin{align*} \Xi_k : R(\mathcal{O}_KG) \longrightarrow R(\mathcal{O}_KG);&\hspace{1em}\Xi_k([X]) = [X]\Psi_k([X]),\\
\Xi_k' : R(\mathcal{O}_KG) \longrightarrow R(\mathcal{O}_KG);&\hspace{1em}\Xi_k'([X]) = [X]^{-1}\Psi_k([X]),
\end{align*}
which are in fact homomorphisms because $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is an abelian group. In addition, the above discussion implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Xi} R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \ker(\Xi_{-1})\mbox{ and }\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \Image(\Xi_2'),\end{equation}
which are hence subgroups of $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. In particular, we have a chain
\begin{equation}\label{chain} R(\mathcal{O}_KG)\supset R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG) \supset \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG) \end{equation}
of subgroups in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. From (\ref{Xi}), we deduce the following criteria which distinguish classes in these three subgroups.
\begin{prop}\label{criteria}Suppose that $G$ is abelian and let $c\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Assume that $\Psi_{-1}(c) = c$. Then, we have $c\in R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ if and only if $|c|$ divides two.
\item Assume that $|G|$ is odd and that $\Psi_2(c) = c$. Then, we have $c\in A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ only if $c^{n_G(2)}=1$, where $n_G(2)$ is the multiplicative order of $2$ mod $|G|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Part (a) follows directly from (\ref{Xi}). As for part (b), suppose that $|G|$ is odd and that $c\in A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. By (\ref{Xi}), we know that $c = d^{-1}\Psi_2(d)$ for some $d\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. This implies that
\[ \prod_{j=0}^{n_G(2)-1}\Psi_{2^j}(c) = \prod_{j=0}^{n_G(2)-1}\Psi_{2^j}(d)^{-1}\Psi_{2^{j+1}}(d) = \Psi_{2^0}(d)^{-1}\Psi_{2^{n_G(2)}}(d) = 1.\]
It follows that $c^{n_G(2)}=1$ whenever $\Psi_2(c) = c$ holds.
\end{proof}
For notation, let us also define
\[ \Psi_{\bZ} = \{\Psi_k : k\in\bZ\mbox{ coprime to }|G|\},\]
which is plainly a group isomorphic to $(\bZ/|G|\bZ)^\times$, and
\[\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \ker(\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)\longrightarrow \Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)),\]
where the map is that induced by augmentation. Our idea is to use Proposition~\ref{criteria} as well as classes in $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{\Psi_\bZ}$, namely, classes in $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ which are invariant under $\Psi_\bZ$, to answer Questions~\ref{Q5} and~\ref{Q6}.
\vspace{1mm}
Finally, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $C_n$ denote a cyclic group of order $n$, and let $\zeta_n$ denote a primitive $n$th root of unity. Given any multiplicative group $\Gamma$, write $\Gamma^n$ for the set of $n$th powers of elements in $\Gamma$.
\subsection{Statements of the main theorems} First, consider $G = C_p$, where $p$ is an odd prime. For $K\neq\bQ$, in order to answer Questions~\ref{Q5} and~\ref{Q6} in the negative, by (\ref{chain}), we must exhibit non-trivial classes in $R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$. This was done in \cite{GRRS} and a key ingredient is the inclusion
\begin{equation}\label{GRRS}
(\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ})^{(p-1)/2}\subset R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_{\bZ}}.\end{equation}
This was shown in the proof \cite[Proposition 4]{GRRS} using the characterization of $R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ due to L. R. McCulloh in \cite{McCulloh0}. Using (\ref{GRRS}), we deduce that:
\begin{prop}\label{criteria'}Let $p$ be an odd prime and let $c\in \Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $|c|$ does not divide $p-1$, then $c^{(p-1)/2}\in R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\setminus R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$.
\item If $|c|=2$ and $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$, then $c\in R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\setminus \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}Observe that $c^{(p-1)/2} \in R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ by (\ref{GRRS}). Part (a) is then clear from Proposition~\ref{criteria} (a). As for part (b), suppose that $|c|=2$. If $p\equiv-1\pmod{4}$, then $c = c^{(p-1)/2}\in R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ by Proposition~\ref{criteria} (a). If $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$ in addition, then $c \notin \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ by Proposition~\ref{criteria} (b), because in this case $2$ is a square mod $p$ but $-1$ is not, whence $n_{C_p}(2)$ is necessarily odd.
\end{proof}
Using Proposition~\ref{criteria'} and some further ideas from (\ref{GRRS}), we shall prove:
\begin{thm}\label{thm main}Suppose that $K\neq\bQ$. Then we have:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ for infinitely many odd primes $p$.
\item $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ for infinitely many odd primes $p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}We shall prove part (b) in Subsection~\ref{proof sec1}. For part (a), we may deduce it using results in \cite{GRRS} as follows. Let $p$ be an odd prime. Let $T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ denote the Swan subgroup of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$; see \cite{Ullom Swan} or \cite[Section 53]{CR} for the definition. Then, as shown in the proof of \cite[Proposition 4]{GRRS}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{T in R}
T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\subset\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}.
\end{equation}
Using Chebotarev's density theorem, it was further shown in \cite[Theorem 5 and Proposition 9]{GRRS} that $T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ contains a class of order coprime to $p-1$ for infinitely many $p$. The claim now follows from Proposition~\ref{criteria'} (a).
\end{proof}
Since the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm main} uses Chebotarev's density theorem, it does not give explicit primes $p$ satisfying the conclusion. In the special case that $K/\bQ$ is abelian with $K$ imaginary, by slightly modifying the proof, we shall give explicit primes $p$ such that $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$. See \cite{Herreng} for explicit conditions on $K$, in which $p$ is ramified, such that the $p$-rank of $T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ is at least one, so $R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ by (\ref{T in R}) and Proposition~\ref{criteria'} (a).
\begin{thm}\label{thm explicit}Suppose that $K/\bQ$ is abelian with $K$ imaginary, and let $m$ be the conductor of $K$. \hspace{-1mm}Then, we have $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ for all primes $p$ satisfying $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$ and $p\equiv-1\pmod{2m}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{example}Consider the special case when $K = \bQ(\sqrt{D})$, where $D$ is a negative square-free integer not divisible by $p$. For simplicity, let us assume that $D\not\in\{-1,-3\}$. Then, by \cite[Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.4]{Kobayashi}, we have
\[ T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\simeq \begin{cases}
C_{(p+1)/2}\mbox{ or }C_{p+1}&\mbox{if $\left(\frac{D}{p}\right)=-1$},\\
C_{(p-1)/2}\mbox{ or }C_{p-1}&\mbox{if $\left(\frac{D}{p}\right)=1$},\end{cases}\]
where $\left(\frac{\cdot}{\cdot}\right)$ denotes the Legendre symbol. From Proposition~\ref{criteria'} and (\ref{T in R}), we then deduce that
\[\label{quad eg}\begin{cases}
R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p) &\mbox{if $\left(\frac{D}{p}\right)=-1$ and $p\neq3$},\\
R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)&\mbox{if $\left(\frac{D}{p}\right)=-1$ and $p\equiv-1\hspace{-3mm}\pmod{8}$},
\end{cases}\]
where the second statement may be viewed as a refinement of Theorem~\ref{thm explicit}. To see why, note that by quadratic reciprocity, we have
\begin{equation}\label{QR}\left(\frac{2}{p}\right) = (-1)^{\frac{p^2-1}{8}},\,\ \left(\frac{-1}{p}\right) = (-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2}},\,\ \left(\frac{q}{p}\right)\left(\frac{p}{q}\right)=(-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2}\frac{q-1}{2}},\end{equation}
for any odd prime $q$. Suppose that $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$ and $p\equiv-1\pmod{2m}$, where $m$ is the conductor of $K$. Since $|D|$ divides $m$, we see that any of its prime divisor is a square mod $p$. It follows that
\[ \left(\frac{D}{p}\right) = \left(\frac{-1}{p}\right)\left(\frac{|D|}{p}\right) = -1,\mbox{ whence }R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\supsetneq \A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\]
by the above, as predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm explicit}. Let us note that not much may be deduced from Proposition~\ref{criteria'} if $\left(\frac{D}{p}\right)=1$, and that the case $D\in\{-1,-3\}$ may be dealt with analogously.
\end{example}
\vspace{-1.75mm}
Next, we return to an arbitrary abelian group $G$. Recall that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm main} (a) uses the Swan subgroup $T(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. The connect\-ion between Question~\ref{Q6} and the Swan subgroup was already observed in \cite{Chase} and \cite{Taylor2}; they both used the fact that $T(\bZ C)=1$ for all finite cyclic groups $C$ to answer Question~\ref{Q3} in the positive. We shall investigate this connection further as follows.
\vspace{1mm}
Observe that the first equality in (\ref{Xi}) implies that
\begin{equation}\label{Rsd}R(\mathcal{O}_KG)/R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)\simeq \Image(\Xi_{-1}).\end{equation}
Thus, it suffices to understand $\Image(\Xi_{-1})$. In Subsection~\ref{Swan section}, for each subgroup $H$ of $G$, we shall define a \emph{generalized Swan subgroup} $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{\Psi_\bZ}$, such that $T_G^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is the usual Swan subgroup $T(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. We shall give lower and upper bounds for $\Image(\Xi_{-1})$ in terms of these $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm Swan1}Suppose that $G$ is abelian. Let $H$ be a cyclic subgroup of $G$ and let $n$ denote its order.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We have $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{d_n(K)} \subset R(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{\Psi_{\bZ}}$, where
\[ d_n(K) = \begin{cases} [K(\zeta_n):K]/2 & \mbox{when $(\zeta_n\mapsto\zeta_n^{-1})\in\Gal(K(\zeta_n)/K)$},\\ [K(\zeta_n):K] & \mbox{when $(\zeta_n\mapsto\zeta_n^{-1})\notin\Gal(K(\zeta_n)/K)$}.\end{cases}\]
In particular, we have $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{2d_n(K)} \subset \Image(\Xi_{-1})$.
\item We have $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)\subset \Image(\Xi_{-1})$ if $n$ is odd and $\zeta_n\in K^\times$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{thm Swan2}Suppose that $G$ is abelian.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item We have $\Image(\Xi_{-1}) \subset T_{\cyc}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ if $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K) = 1$, where
\[T_{\cyc}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \prod_{\substack{H\leq G\\H\mbox{\tiny cyclic}}}T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG).\]
\item We have $\Image(\Xi_{-1})\neq1$ if $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)^{\delta(G)}\neq1$ and $\zeta_{\exp(G)}\in K^\times$, where
\[ \delta(G) = \begin{cases} 2 & \mbox{when $|G|$ is a power of two},\\ 1 & \mbox{otherwise},\end{cases}\]
and $\exp(G)$ denotes the exponent of $G$, provided that $G\neq1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
From Theorems~\ref{thm Swan1} and~\ref{thm Swan2}, as well as (\ref{Rsd}), we deduce that
\[ R(\mathcal{O}_KG) = R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)\mbox{ if and only if }\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K) = 1 \mbox{ and }T_{\cyc}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG) =1,\]
under the assumption that $G$ is an abelian group of odd order such that all $|G|$th roots of unity are contained in $K$.
\begin{example}Suppose that $G=C_p$, where $p$ is an odd prime. Applying Theorem~\ref{thm Swan1} (a) to the full group $G$, we obtain
\[ T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{d_p(K)} \subset R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ},\mbox{ where }d_p(K)\mbox{ divides }(p-1)/2,\]
and so we may regard Theorem~\ref{thm Swan1} (a) as a refinement of (\ref{GRRS}) and (\ref{T in R}). By Theorem~\ref{thm Swan2} (a), when $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)=1$, we then have a chain
\[ T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{p-1}\subset T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{2d_p(K)} \subset \Image(\Xi_{-1}) \subset T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\]
of inclusions. Let us consider a few special examples of $K$ with $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)=1$.
\vspace{1mm}
By \cite[Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.4]{Kobayashi}, we know that
\[
T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p) \simeq \begin{cases} C_{(p+1)/4}
&\mbox{if $K=\bQ(\sqrt{-1})$ and $p\equiv3\hspace{-3mm}\pmod{8}$},\\
C_{(p+1)/6}&\mbox{if $K=\bQ(\sqrt{-3})$ and $p\equiv5\hspace{-3mm}\pmod{12}$}.
\end{cases}\]
By \cite{cyclotomic}, we also know that
\[ T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\simeq C_p^{\oplus(p-3)/2}\mbox{ if $K=\bQ(\zeta_p)$ and $p\in\{3,5,7,11,13,17,19\}$}.\]
In all of the above cases, we deduce that $\Image(\Xi_{-1}) = T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$, and in particular, from (\ref{Rsd}) we see that the difference between $R(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ and $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ becomes bigger as $p$ increases.
\end{example}
\section{Comparison between $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ and $\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KG)$}
In this section, we shall prove Theorems~\ref{thm main} (b) and~\ref{thm explicit}, by using Proposition~\ref{criteria'} (b) to exhibit the existence of a class in $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\setminus\A^t(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ for infinitely many odd primes $p$.
\vspace{1mm}
In what follows, let $p$ be any odd prime. Define
\[V_p(\mathcal{O}_K) = \frac{(\mathcal{O}_K/p\mathcal{O}_K)^\times}{\uppi_p(\mathcal{O}_K^\times)},\mbox{ where }\uppi_p:\mathcal{O}_K\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_K/p\mathcal{O}_K\]
is the natural quotient map. Then, we have a surjective homomorphism
\[T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)\longrightarrow V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)^{p-1},\]
as shown in \cite[Theorem 5]{GRRS}. This, together with (\ref{T in R}), implies that:
\begin{lem}\label{lem1} If $p\equiv-1\pmod{4}$ and $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four, then $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}$ has an element of order two.
\end{lem}
In the case that $K$ is not totally real, we shall prove Theorem~\ref{thm main} (b) using Lemma~\ref{lem1}. In the case that $K$ is totally real, however, our method fails in general; see Remark~\ref{remark}. Hence, we must look for elements in $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}$ of order two lying outside of $T(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$.
\vspace{1mm}
To that end, let $\mathcal{M}(KC_p)$ denote the maximal order in $KC_p$, and for convenience, assume that $p$ is large enough so that $[K(\zeta_p):K]=p-1$. Then, we have a natural isomorphism
\[ \mathcal{M}(KC_p) \longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_K\times\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)}; \hspace{1em}\sum_{s\in C_p}\alpha_ss\mapsto \left(\sum_{s\in C_p}\alpha_s,\sum_{s\in C_p}\alpha_s\chi(s) \right),\]
where $\chi$ is a fixed non-trivial character on $C_p$. This induces an isomorphism
\[ \Cl(\mathcal{M}(KC_p)) \simeq \Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)\times\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)}).\]
In particular, we have a surjective homormorphism
\[ \Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p) \longrightarrow \Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)}),\]
such that the $\Psi_\bZ$-action on $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)$ corresponds precisely to the $\Gamma_p$-action on $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})$, where $\Gamma_p= \Gal(K(\zeta_p)/K)$. This implies that:
\begin{lem}\label{lem2}If $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}$ has an element of order two, then $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}$ also has an element of order two.
\end{lem}
To show that $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}$ contains an element of order two, we shall need the following so-called Chevalley's ambiguous class formula.
\begin{prop}\label{Chevalley}Let $F/K$ be a cyclic extension. Let $\Gamma = \Gal(F/K)$ denote its Galois group and let $N_{F/K}:F\longrightarrow K$ denote its norm. Then, we have
\[ |\Cl(\mathcal{O}_F)^{\Gamma}| = |\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)|\cdot \frac{2^r\prod\limits_{\mathfrak{p}}e_\mathfrak{p}}{[\mathcal{O}_K^\times:\mathcal{O}_K^\times\cap N_{F/K}(F^\times)][F:K]},\]
where $r$ is the number of real places in $K$ which complexify in $F/K$. Here $\mathfrak{p}$ ranges over the prime ideals in $K$ and $e_\mathfrak{p}$ is its ramification index in $F/K$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}See \cite[Chapter II, Remark 6.2.3]{Gras}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem3} If $K\neq\bQ$ is not totally imaginary, with $[K(\zeta_p):K] = p-1$, and $p$ is totally split in $K/\bQ$, then $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}$ has an element of order two.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Assume the hypothesis. Let us write $[K:\bQ] = r_1 + 2r_2$, where $r_1$ and $2r_2$, respectively, denote the number of real and complex embeddings of $K$. Applying Proposition~\ref{Chevalley} to the field $F = K(\zeta_p)$, we then obtain
\[ |\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}| = |\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)|\cdot \frac{2^{r_1}(p-1)^{r_1+2r_2-1}}{[\mathcal{O}_K^\times:\mathcal{O}_K^\times\cap N_{K(\zeta_p)/K}(K(\zeta_p)^\times)]}.\]
Indeed, we have $r = r_1$ since $K(\zeta_p)$ is totally imaginary. Further, the prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ in $K$ which ramify in $K(\zeta_p)/K$ are precisely those above $p$. Since $p$ is totally split in $K/\bQ$, there are $[K:\bQ]$ such $\mathfrak{p}$, and $e_\mathfrak{p} = [K(\zeta_p):K] = p-1$.
\vspace{1mm}
Now, by the Dirichlet's unit theorem, we know that
\[ \mathcal{O}_K^\times = \langle\ep_0\rangle\times\langle\ep_1\rangle\times\cdots\times\langle\ep_{r_1+r_2-1}\rangle,\]
where $\ep_0$ is a root of unity and $\ep_1,\dots,\ep_{r_1+r_2-1}$ are fundamental units. Hence, we have a natural surjective homomorphism
\[ \prod_{j=0}^{r_1+r_2-1} \frac{\langle\ep_j\rangle}{\langle \ep_j^{p-1}\rangle}\longrightarrow \frac{\mathcal{O}_K^\times}{\mathcal{O}_K^\times\cap N_{K(\zeta_p)/K}(K(\zeta_p)^\times)},\]
and so the order of the quotient group on the right divides
\[ n_0\cdot (p-1)^{r_1+r_2-1},\mbox{ where }n_0 = [\langle\ep_0\rangle : \langle\ep_0^{p-1}\rangle].\]
Notice that $n_0$ divides $p-1$ and that $n_0 = 2$ when $K$ is totally real. We then deduce that $|\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}|$ is divisible by
\[ \frac{2^{r_1}(p-1)^{r_1+2r_2-1}}{n_0(p-1)^{r_1+r_2-1}} = \frac{2^{r_1}(p-1)^{r_2}}{n_0} =
2^{r_1}(p-1)^{r_2-1}\left(\frac{p-1}{n_0}\right).\]
By hypothesis, we have $r_1\geq 1$, and $r_1\geq2$ when $r_2=0$. Hence, the number above is always even, and so $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_{K(\zeta_p)})^{\Gamma_p}$ has an element of order two.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm main} (b)}\label{proof sec1}
Fix an algebraic closure $K^c$ of $K$. Let $\widetilde{K}$ denote the Galois closure of $K$ over $\bQ$ lying in $K^c$ and let $K_4$ denote the field obtained by adjoining to $\widetilde{K}$ all fourth roots of elements in $\mathcal{O}_K^\times$. Notice that $K_4/\bQ$ is a Galois extension.
\vspace{1mm}
The next lemma is motivated by \cite[Proposition 9]{GRRS} and it allows us to use Chebotarev's density theorem to prove Theorem~\ref{thm main} (b).
\begin{lem}\label{lem frob}Let $\tau\in\emph{Gal}(K^c/\bQ)$ and let $f\in\mathbb{N}$ denote the smallest natural number such that $\tau^f|_K = \emph{Id}_K$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item Suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{tau1}f\mbox{ is even},\,\ \tau^f|_{K_4} = \emph{Id}_{K_4},\,\ \tau|_{\bQ(\sqrt{-1})} \neq\emph{Id}_{\bQ(\sqrt{-1})},\,\ \tau|_{\bQ(\sqrt{2})} = \emph{Id}_{\bQ(\sqrt{2})}.\end{equation}
Let $\mathfrak{P}$ be any prime ideal in $K_4(\sqrt{2})$, unramified over $\bQ$, such that
\[\emph{Frob}_{K_4(\sqrt{2})/\bQ}(\mathfrak{P}) = \tau|_{K_4(\sqrt{2})},\]
and let $p\bZ$ be the prime lying below $\mathfrak{P}$. Then, we have $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$, and the group $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four.
\item Suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{tau2}f =1,\,\ \tau|_{\widetilde{K}} = \emph{Id}_{\widetilde{K}},\,\ \tau|_{\bQ(\sqrt{-1})} \neq\emph{Id}_{\bQ(\sqrt{-1})},\,\ \tau|_{\bQ(\sqrt{2})} = \emph{Id}_{\bQ(\sqrt{2})}.\end{equation}
Let $\mathfrak{P}$ be any prime ideal in $\widetilde{K}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{2})$, unramified over $\bQ$, such that
\[\emph{Frob}_{\widetilde{K}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{2})/\bQ}(\mathfrak{P}) = \tau|_{\widetilde{K}(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt{2})},\]
and let $p\bZ$ be the prime lying below $\mathfrak{P}$. Then, we have $p\equiv-1\pmod{8}$, and the prime $p$ is totally split in $K/\bQ$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}In both parts (a) and (b), we clearly have $p\equiv -1$ (mod $8)$ because
\[p\equiv-1\hspace{-3mm}\pmod{8}\mbox{ if and only if }\begin{cases}
p\mbox{ is inert in }\bQ(\sqrt{-1})\\ p\mbox{ is split in }\bQ(\sqrt{2})
\end{cases} \]
by (\ref{QR}). In part (b), the prime $p$ is totally split in $\widetilde{K}/\bQ$ and hence in $K/\bQ$.
\vspace{1mm}
In part (a), let $\mathfrak{p}_4$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ denote the prime ideals in $K_4$ and $K$, respectively, lying below $\mathfrak{P}$. Note that $f$ is the inertia degree of $\mathfrak{p}$ over $\bQ$, and we have
\[\Frob_{K_4/K}(\mathfrak{p}_4) = \tau^f|_{K_4} = \mbox{Id}_{K_4}.\]
This means that $\mathfrak{p}$ is totally split in $K_4/K$, and so elements in $\mathcal{O}_K^\times$ reduce to fourth powers in $\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p}$. Hence, we have surjective homomorphisms
\[ V_p(\mathcal{O}_K) \longrightarrow (\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})^\times/\uppi_\mathfrak{p}(\mathcal{O}_K^\times)\longrightarrow (\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})^\times/((\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})^\times)^4,\]
where $\uppi_\mathfrak{p}:\mathcal{O}_K\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p}$ is the natural quotient map. But $(\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})^\times\simeq C_{p^f-1}$, \par\noindent and $4$ divides $p^f-1$ because $f\geq 2$ is even. It follows that the last quotient group above and in particular $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm main} (b)] Let $\sigma_c,\sigma_r:K^c\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be embeddings such that
\[\sigma_c(K)\not\subset\mathbb{R}\mbox{ and }\sigma_r(K) \subset\mathbb{R},\]
if they exist. Further, define
\[\tau_c = \sigma_c^{-1}\circ\rho \circ \sigma_c\mbox{ and }\tau_r = \sigma_r^{-1}\circ\rho \circ \sigma_r,\]
where $\rho:\mathbb{C}\longrightarrow\mathbb{C}$ denotes complex conjugation. Observe that:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $K$ is not totally real, then $\sigma_c$ exists, and $\tau_c$ satisfies (\ref{tau1}).
\item If $K$ is totally real, then $\sigma_r$ exists, and $\tau_r$ satisfies (\ref{tau2}).
\end{enumerate}
In both cases, let $p\equiv-1$ (mod $8$) be a prime given as in Lemma~\ref{lem frob}. Then, we deduce from Lemmas~\ref{lem1},~\ref{lem2}, and~\ref{lem3} that $\Cl^0(\mathcal{O}_KC_p)^{\Psi_\bZ}$ has an element of order two. The claim now follows from Proposition~\ref{criteria'} (b) and Chebotarev's density theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark}Suppose that $K$ is a real quadratic field such that its fundamental unit $\ep$ has norm $-1$ over $\bQ$. For any odd prime $p$ which is inert in $K/\bQ$, we then have $\ep^{p+1}\equiv -1$ (mod $p\mathcal{O}_K$), as shown in \cite[(1.0.1)]{IK}. Letting $n_p(\ep)$ denote the multiplicative order of $\ep$ mod $p\mathcal{O}_K$, this implies that
\[ |V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)| = \frac{|(\mathcal{O}_K/p\mathcal{O}_K)^\times|}{|\uppi_p(\mathcal{O}_K^\times)|} = \frac{p^2-1}{n_p(\ep)} = \frac{2(p+1)}{n_p(\ep)}\cdot\frac{p-1}{2}.\]
The first quotient is an odd integer by \cite[Theorem 1.3]{IK}, so then $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has odd order when $p\equiv-1$ (mod $4$). This means that we cannot use Lemma~\ref{lem frob} (a) to find primes $p\equiv-1$ (mod $8$) such that $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm explicit}} First, we need the following group-theoretic lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{group1}Let $\Gamma$ be a finite abelian $p$-group, where $p$ is a prime. Let $\Delta$ be any cyclic subgroup of $\Gamma$ whose order is maximal among all cyclic subgroups of $\Gamma$. Then, there exists a subgroup $\Delta'$ of $\Gamma$ such that $\Gamma = \Delta\times\Delta'$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}See the proof of \cite[Chapter I, Theorem 8.2]{Lang}, for example.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{group2}Let $\Gamma$ be a group isomorphic to $k$ copies of $C_n$, where $k,n\in\mathbb{N}$, and let $\Delta$ be any cyclic subgroup of order $n$. Then, there exists a subgroup $\Delta'$ of $\Gamma$ such that $\Gamma = \Delta\times\Delta'$. Moreover, for any $x\in\Gamma$, there exists a surjective homomorphism from $\Gamma/\langle x\rangle$ to $k-1$ copies of $C_n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}The first claim is a direct consequence of Lemma~\ref{group1} and plainly $\Delta'$ is necessarily isomorphic to $k-1$ copies of $C_n$. The second claim follows as well because any $x\in \Gamma$ is contained in some cyclic subgroup $\Delta$ of order $n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm explicit}] By Proposition~\ref{criteria'} (b) and Lemma~\ref{lem1}, it is enough to show that $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four.
\vspace{1mm}
Set $d = [K:\bQ]$ and note that $K\subset\bQ(\zeta_m)$ by hypothesis. First, since $K$ is imaginary, by the Dirichlet's unit theorem, we know that
\[\mathcal{O}_K^\times = \langle\ep_0\rangle\times\langle\ep_1\rangle\times\cdots\times\langle\ep_{d/2-1}\rangle,\]
where $\ep_0$ is a root of unity and $\ep_1,\dots,\ep_{d/2-1}$ are fundamental units. Now, the hypothesis $p\equiv-1$ (mod $m$) implies that $p$ is unramified in $\bQ(\zeta_m)/\bQ$ and
\[\Frob_{\bQ(\zeta_m)/\bQ}(p) = \mbox{complex conjugation}.\]
Since $K$ is imaginary, the inertia degree of $p$ in $K/\bQ$ is equal to two, and so
\[(\mathcal{O}_K/p\mathcal{O}_K)^\times\simeq\prod_{\mathfrak{p}\mid p}(\mathcal{O}_K/\mathfrak{p})^\times\simeq C_{p^2-1}\times\cdots\times C_{p^2-1}\hspace{1em}\mbox{($d/2$ copies}).\]
From Lemma~\ref{group2}, we then deduce that there is a surjective homomorphism
\[ \frac{(\mathcal{O}_K/p\mathcal{O}_K)^\times}{\uppi_p(\langle\ep_1,\dots,\ep_{d/2-1}\rangle)}\longrightarrow C_{p^2-1}.\]
Let $\delta = 2$ if $m$ is odd, and $\delta =1$ if $m$ is even. Then, the order of $\langle\ep_0\rangle$ divides $\delta m$, and we see that there are surjective homomorphisms
\[V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)\longrightarrow C_{\frac{p^2-1}{|\langle\ep_0\rangle|}} \longrightarrow C_{\frac{p^2 - 1}{\delta m}}.\]
The last cyclic group has order dividing four, because
\[\frac{p^2-1}{\delta m} = \left(\frac{p+1}{2\delta m}\right)\cdot 2(p-1),\mbox{ and }p\equiv-1\hspace{-3mm}\pmod{2\delta m}\]
by hypothesis. Thus, indeed $V_p(\mathcal{O}_K)$ has an element of order four.
\end{proof}
\section{Comparison between $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ and $R_{\sd}(\mathcal{O}_KG)$}
In this section, we shall prove Theorems~\ref{thm Swan1} and~\ref{thm Swan2}. A key ingredient is \par\noindent the characterization of $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ due to L. R. McCulloh \cite{McCulloh}, which works for all abelian groups $G$; see Subsection~\ref{char section} below. We remark that the proof of (\ref{GRRS}) given in \cite{GRRS} uses his older characterization of $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ from \cite{McCulloh0}, which works only for elementary abelian groups $G$.
\vspace{1mm}
In the subsequent subsections, except in Subsection~\ref{Swan section}, we shall assume that $G$ is abelian. We shall further use the following notation.
\begin{notation}Let $M_K$ denote the set of finite primes in $K$. The symbol $F$ shall denote either $K$ or the completion $K_v$ of $K$ at some $v\in M_K$, and
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{O}_F & = \mbox{the ring of integers in $F$},\\
F^c & =\mbox{a fixed algebraic closure of $F$},\\
\mathcal{O}_{F^c} & = \mbox{the integral closure of $\mathcal{O}_F$ in $F^c$},\\
\Omega_F & = \mbox{the Galois group of $F^c/F$}.
\end{align*}
For each $v\in M_K$, we shall regard $K^c$ as lying in $K_v^c$ via a fixed embedding $K^c\longrightarrow K_v^c$ extending the natural embedding $K\longrightarrow K_v$.
\end{notation}
\subsection{Locally free class group} The class group $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ admits an idelic description as follows; see \cite[Chapter 6]{CR}, for example.
\vspace{1mm}
Let $J(KG)$ denote the restricted direct product of $(K_vG)^\times$ with respect to the subgroups $(\mathcal{O}_{K_v}G)^\times$ for $v\in M_K$. We have a surjective homomorphism
\[j: J(KG) \longrightarrow \Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG);\hspace{1em} j(c) = [\mathcal{O}_KG\cdot c],\]
where we define
\[ \mathcal{O}_KG\cdot c = \bigcap_{v\in M_K}\left(\mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot c_v\cap KG\right).\]
This in turn induces an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{idelic description} \Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG) \simeq \frac{J(KG)}{(KG)^\times U(\mathcal{O}_KG)},\mbox{ where }U(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \prod\limits_{v\in M_K} (\mathcal{O}_{K_v}G)^\times.\end{equation}
Each component $(K_vG)^\times$ as well as $(KG)^\times$ also admit a Hom-description as follows. Write $\widehat{G}$ for the group of irreducible $K^c$-valued characters on $G$. We then have canonical identifications
\begin{align}\notag
(F^cG)^\times & = \mbox{Map}(\widehat{G}, (F^c)^\times) &(=\mbox{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}\widehat{G},(F^c)^\times)),\\\label{iden}
(FG)^\times &= \mbox{Map}_{\Omega_F}(\widehat{G},(F^c)^\times)&(=\mbox{Hom}_{\Omega_F}(\mathbb{Z}\widehat{G},(F^c)^\times)),
\end{align}
induced by the association $\alpha\mapsto(\chi\mapsto\alpha(\chi))$, where we define
\[\alpha(\chi) = \sum_{s\in G}\alpha_s \chi(s)\mbox{ for }\alpha=\sum_{s\in G}\alpha_s s.\]
Finally, we note that via (\ref{idelic description}) and (\ref{iden}), for each $k\in\bZ$ coprime to $|G|$, the $k$th Adams operation $\Psi_k$ on $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is induced by $\chi\mapsto \chi^k$ on $\widehat{G}$.
\subsection{McCulloh's characterization} \label{char section}
The characterization of $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ due to L. R. McCulloh \cite{McCulloh} is given in terms of the so-called \emph{Stickelberger transpose}. We shall recall its definition below.
\begin{definition}Let $G(-1)$ denote the group $G$ on which $\Omega_F$ acts by
\[\omega\cdot s= s^{\kappa(\omega^{-1})}\mbox{ for $s\in G$ and $\omega\in\Omega_F$},\]
where $\kappa(\omega^{-1})\in\bZ$, which is unique modulo $\exp(G)$, is such that
\[\omega^{-1}(\zeta)=\zeta^{\kappa(\omega^{-1})}\mbox{ for all $\zeta\in F^c$ with $\zeta^{\exp(G)} = 1$}.\]
Note that if $\zeta_n\in F$, then $\Omega_F$ fixes all elements in $G(-1)$ of order dividing $n$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{pair}Given $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ and $s\in G$, define
\[\langle\chi,s\rangle \in \left\{\frac{0}{|s|},\frac{1}{|s|},\dots,\frac{|s|-1}{|s|} \right\}\mbox{ to be such that }\chi(s) = (\zeta_{|s|})^{|s|\langle\chi,s\rangle}.\]
Extend this to a pairing $\langle\hspace{1mm},\hspace{1mm}\rangle:\bQ\widehat{G}\times\bQ G\longrightarrow\bQ$ via $\bQ$-linearity, and define
\[ \Theta:\bQ\widehat{G}\longrightarrow\bQ G(-1);\hspace{1em}\Theta(\psi)=\sum_{s\in G}\langle\psi,s\rangle s,\]
called the \emph{Stickelberger map}.
\end{definition}
As shown in \cite[Proposition 4.5]{McCulloh}, the Stickelberger map
preserves the $\Omega_F$-action. Set $A_{\widehat{G}} = \Theta^{-1}(\mathbb{Z}G)$. Then, applying the functor $\mbox{Hom}(-,(F^c)^\times)$ and taking $\Omega_F$-invariants yield a homomorphism
\[\Theta^t:\mbox{Hom}_{\Omega_F}(\mathbb{Z}G(-1),(F^c)^\times)\longrightarrow \mbox{Hom}_{\Omega_F}(A_{\widehat{G}},(F^c)^\times);\hspace{1em}g\mapsto g\circ\Theta.\]
This is the \emph{Stickelberger transpose} map defined in \cite{McCulloh}.
\vspace{1mm}
For brevity, define
\begin{align}\label{lambda def} \Lambda(FG)^\times&=\mbox{Map}_{\Omega_F}(G(-1),(F^c)^\times) & (=\mbox{Hom}_{\Omega_F}(\mathbb{Z}G(-1),(F^c)^\times)).\end{align}
Observe that we have a diagram
\[\begin{tikzcd}[column sep = 1.75cm, row sep = 1.75cm](FG)^\times \arrow{r}{rag} & \mbox{Hom}_{\Omega_F}(A_{\widehat{G}},(F^c)^\times)\\&\Lambda(FG)^\times,\arrow{u}[right]{\Theta^t}
\end{tikzcd}\]
where $rag$ is restriction to $A_{\widehat{G}}$ via the identification (\ref{iden}).
\vspace{1mm}
Now, let $J(\Lambda(KG))$ denote the restricted direct product of $\Lambda(K_vG)^\times$ with respect to the subgroups $\mbox{Map}_{\Omega_F}(G(-1),\mathcal{O}_{F^c}^\times)$ for $v\in M_K$. We then have the following partial characterization of $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$; see \cite{McCulloh} for the full characterization.
\begin{lem}\label{char lem1}Given $c = (c_v) \in J(KG)$, if there exists $g = (g_v)\in J(\Lambda(KG))$ such that $rag(c_v) = \Theta^t(g_v)$ for all $v\in M_K$, then $j(c) \in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}This follows directly from \cite[Theorem 6.17]{McCulloh}.
\end{proof}
For each $v\in M_K$, fix a uniformizer $\pi_v$ of $K_v$. We shall also need:
\begin{lem}\label{char lem2}Let $L/K$ be a tame and Galois extension with $\Gal(L/K)\simeq G$. Then, for each $v\in M_K$, there exists $s_v\in G$ whose order is the ramification index of $L/K$ at $v$, such that $\Xi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L]) = j(c_L)$, where $c_L = (c_{L,v}) \in J(KG)$ is defined by $c_{L,v}(\chi) = \pi_v^{\langle\chi,s_v\rangle + \langle\chi,s_v^{-1}\rangle}$ for $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ via the identification (\ref{iden}).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}We have $L = KG\cdot b$ for some $b\in L$ by the Normal Basis Theorem, and since $\mathcal{O}_L$ is locally free over $\mathcal{O}_KG$ of rank one, for $v\in M_K$, we have
\[\mathcal{O}_{K_v}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_K}\mathcal{O}_{L} = \mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot a_v\mbox{ for some }a_v\in \mathcal{O}_{K_v}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_K}\mathcal{O}_L.\]
Following the notation in \cite[Section 1]{McCulloh}, put
\[ \mathbf{r}_G(b) = \sum_{s\in G}s(b)s^{-1}\mbox{ and }\mathbf{r}_G(a_v) = \sum_{s\in G}s(a_v)s^{-1}.\]
Then, by \cite[Proposition 5.4]{McCulloh}, we may choose $a_v$ to be such that
\begin{equation}\label{resolvent of a}\mathbf{r}_G(a_v)(\chi)=\pi_v^{\langle\chi,s_v\rangle}\mbox{ for all }\chi\in\widehat{G}.\end{equation}
By \cite[Proposition 3.2]{McCulloh} and the discussion following it, there exists
\[ c=(c_v)\in J(KG)\mbox{ such that }\mathbf{r}_G(a_v) = c_v\cdot \mathbf{r}_G(b)\mbox{ and }j(c) = [\mathcal{O}_L].\]
Write $[-1]$ for the involution on $(K_v^cG)^\times$ induced by the involution $s\mapsto s^{-1}$ on $G$. Since $\mathbf{r}_G(b)\mathbf{r}_G(b)^{[-1]}\in (KG)^\times$, we then deduce that
\[\Xi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L])= j((c_vc_v^{[-1]}))= j((\mathbf{r}_G(a_v)\mathbf{r}_G(a_v)^{[-1]})).\]
The claim now follows immediately from (\ref{resolvent of a}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Generalized Swan subgroups}\label{Swan section}
Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. Following the definition of the Swan subgroup $T(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ given in \cite{Ullom Swan}, we shall define a \emph{generalized Swan subset/subgroup} associated to $H$ as follows.
\vspace{1mm}
For each $r\in\mathcal{O}_K$ coprime to $|H|$, define
\[ (r,\Sigma_H) = \mathcal{O}_KG\cdot r + \mathcal{O}_KG\cdot \Sigma_H, \mbox{ where }\Sigma_H = \sum_{s\in H} s.\]
The next proposition, which generalizes \cite[Proposition 2.4 (i)]{Ullom Swan}, shows that $(r,\Sigma_H)$ is locally free over $\mathcal{O}_KG$ of rank one and so it defines a class $[(r,\Sigma_H)]$ in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. Define
\[ T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \{[(r,\Sigma_H)]: r\in\mathcal{O}_K \mbox{ coprime to $|H|$}\}\]
to be the collection of all such classes. It follows directly from the definition that $T_G^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is equal to $T(\mathcal{O}_KG)$.
\begin{prop}\label{class in T}Let $r\in\mathcal{O}_K$ be coprime to $|H|$. For each $v\in M_K$, define
\[c_{H,r,v} = \begin{cases}1&\mbox{if $v\nmid r$},\\ r + \frac{1-r}{|H|}\Sigma_H&\mbox{if $v\mid r$},\end{cases}\]
and set $c_{H,r} = (c_{H,r,v})$. Then we have $\mathcal{O}_{K}G\cdot c_{H,r} = (r,\Sigma_H)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}For each $v\in M_K$, we need to show that
\[\mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot c_{H,r,v} = \mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot r + \mathcal{O}_{K_vG}\cdot\Sigma_H.\]
For $v\nmid r$, we have $r\in\mathcal{O}_{K_v}^\times$, and this is clear. For $v\mid r$, we have $|H|\in\mathcal{O}_{K_v}^\times$ because $r$ is coprime to $|H|$, and so
\[ \textstyle\mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot\left(r + \frac{1-r}{|H|}\Sigma_H\right) \subset \mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot r+ \mathcal{O}_{K_v}G\cdot \Sigma_H.\]
The reverse inclusion also holds because
\[ \textstyle r = \left(1 + \frac{r-1}{|H|}\Sigma_H\right)\left(r + \frac{1-r}{|H|}\Sigma_H\right)\mbox{ and }\Sigma_H = \Sigma_H\left(r + \frac{1-r}{|H|}\Sigma_H\right).\]
We then see that the claim holds.
\end{proof}
In what follows, for simplicity, let us assume that
\begin{equation}\label{ass}\mbox{$H$ is normal in $G$ and the quotient $G/H$ is abelian}.\end{equation}
Put $Q = G/H$, and let $H_1,\dots,H_q$ denote all the distinct cosets of $H$ in $G$. Notice that we have an augmentation homomorphism
\[\upepsilon:\mathcal{O}_KG\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_KQ;
\hspace{1em}\upepsilon\left(\sum_{s\in G}\alpha_ss\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{q}\left(\sum_{s\in H_i}\alpha_s\right)H_i.\]
Then, we have a fiber product diagram of rings, given by
\begin{equation}\label{fiber product diagram}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep = 1.75cm, row sep = 1.25cm]
\mathcal{O}_KG \arrow{r}{\upepsilon} \arrow[swap]{d} & \mathcal{O}_KQ \arrow{d}{\uppi}\\
\Gamma_H\arrow[swap]{r}{\overline{\upepsilon}}&\Lambda_{|H|}Q
\end{tikzcd}, \mbox{ where }
\begin{cases}\Gamma_H = \mathcal{O}_KG/(\Sigma_H),\\\Lambda_{|H|} = \mathcal{O}_K/|H|\mathcal{O}_K.\end{cases}\end{equation}
Here the vertical maps are the canonical quotient maps, and $\overline{\upepsilon}$ is the homomorphism induced by $\upepsilon$. We then have the identification
\begin{equation}\label{fiber prod iden}\mathcal{O}_KG = \{(x,y) \in\mathcal{O}_KQ\times\Gamma_H: \uppi(x) = \overline{\upepsilon}(y)\}.\end{equation}
In particular, writing
\begin{equation}\label{xy notation} x = \sum_{i=1}^{q}x_iH_i,\,\ y = \widetilde{y} + (\Sigma_H),\,\ \upepsilon(\widetilde{y}) = \sum_{i=1}^{q}\widetilde{y}_i H_i, \end{equation}
the corresponding element in $\mathcal{O}_KG$ is given by
\[ \widetilde{y} + \left(\sum_{i=1}^q\left(\frac{x_i-\widetilde{y_i}}{|H|}\right)s_i\right)\Sigma_{H},\mbox{ where $s_i\in H_i$ is fixed}.\]
Since $Q$ is abelian, from the Mayer-Vietoris sequence (see \cite[Section 49B]{CR} or \cite[(1.12), (4.19), (4.21)]{RU}) associated to (\ref{fiber product diagram}), we obtain a homomorphism
\[\partial_H: (\Lambda_{|H|}Q)^\times\longrightarrow D(\mathcal{O}_KG);\hspace{1em}\partial_H(\eta) = [(\mathcal{O}_KG)(\eta)],\]
where $D(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ denotes the kernel group in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ defined as in \cite{RU}, and
\[ (\mathcal{O}_KG)(\eta) = \{(x,y) \in \mathcal{O}_KQ \times \Gamma_H: \uppi(x) = \overline{\upepsilon}(y)\eta\}\]
is equipped with the obvious $\mathcal{O}_KG$-module structure via (\ref{fiber prod iden}).
\vspace{1mm}
The next proposition, which generalizes \cite[Proposition 2.7]{Ullom Swan}, shows that
\[T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG) = \partial_H(\Lambda_{|H|}^\times),\]
where $\Lambda_{|H|}$ is regarded as a subring of $\Lambda_{|H|}Q$ in the obvious way (cf. the set $T_H(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ defined in \cite{Oliver}). This means that under the assumption (\ref{ass}), the set $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ is in fact a subgroup of $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)$.
\begin{prop}\label{T = Image}Let $r\in\mathcal{O}_K$ be coprime to $|H|$. Then we have \[\partial_H((r+|H|\mathcal{O}_K)H) = [(r,\Sigma_H)].\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} For brevity, put $\eta = (r+ |H|\mathcal{O}_K)H$. Note that by definition, we have
\[ \eta = \uppi(rH) = \overline{\upepsilon}(r+(\Sigma_H)).\]
Via the identification (\ref{fiber prod iden}), we may define an $\mathcal{O}_KG$-homomorphism
\[ \varphi: (\mathcal{O}_KG)(\eta) \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_KG;\hspace{1em}
\varphi(x,y) = (x,y(r + (\Sigma_H))).\]
Below, we shall show that $\Image(\varphi) = (r,\Sigma_H)$ and $\ker(\varphi) = 0$. This would imply that $(\mathcal{O}_KG)(\eta)$ and $(r,\Sigma_H)$ are isomorphic as $\mathcal{O}_KG$-modules, from which the claim follows. Given $(x,y)\in(\mathcal{O}_KG)(\eta)$, in the notation of (\ref{xy notation}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{image phi} (x,y(r + (\Sigma_H))) = \widetilde{y}r + \left(\sum_{i=1}^{q}\left(\frac{x_i - \widetilde{y_i}r}{|H|}\right)s_i\right)\Sigma_{H}.\end{equation}
First, from (\ref{image phi}), we immediately see that $\Image(\varphi) \subset (r,\Sigma_H)$, as well as
\[ \varphi((rH,1+(\Sigma_H)) = r
\mbox{ and }\varphi(|H|H,(\Sigma_H)) = \Sigma_H,\]
whence $\Image(\varphi) \supset (r,\Sigma_H)$ holds also. Next, suppose that $(x,y)\in\ker(\varphi)$. It is clear from the definition of $\varphi$ that $x= 0$. Then, we deduce from (\ref{image phi}) that
\[ \widetilde{y}r - \left(\sum_{i=1}^{q}\frac{\widetilde{y}_ir}{|H|}s_i\right)\Sigma_H = 0\mbox{ and hence } \widetilde{y} \in (\Sigma_H).\]
This shows that $y = 0$, and so $\ker(\varphi) = 0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Preliminaries} Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ and let $r\in\mathcal{O}_K$ be coprime to $|H|$. Then, via the isomorphism (\ref{idelic description}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{j(cr)} j(c_{H,r}) = [(r,\Sigma_H)],\mbox{ where }(c_{H,r}) = (c_{H,r,v})\in J(KG)\end{equation}
is defined as in Proposition~\ref{class in T}. Also, note that for $v\mid r$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{cr chi} c_{H,r,v}(\chi) =\begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if $\chi(H) = 1$} \\ r &\mbox{if $\chi(H)\neq1$}\end{cases}\end{equation}
for $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ via the identification (\ref{iden}). This immediately implies that:
\begin{prop}\label{T invar}We have $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)\subset \Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{\Psi_\bZ}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}This follows from (\ref{cr chi}) and the fact that
\[ \chi^k(H) = 1\mbox{ if and only if }\chi(H) = 1\]
for any $k\in\bZ$ coprime to $|H|$.
\end{proof}
To make connections between $T_H^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ and $R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$, we shall use Lemmas~\ref{char lem1} and~\ref{char lem2}. We shall also need the following definitions.
\vspace{1mm}
Fix a prime $v\in M_K$. Recall from (\ref{iden}) and (\ref{lambda def}) that
\[ (K_vG)^\times = \mbox{Map}_{\Omega_{K_v}}(\widehat{G},(K_v^c)^\times)\mbox{ and }\Lambda(K_vG)^\times = \mbox{Map}_{\Omega_{K_v}}(G(-1), (K_v^c)^\times).\]
Given $t\in G$ with $t\neq1$ and $x\in K_v^\times$, define
\[c_{t,v,x,1}(\chi) = x^{\langle\chi ,t\rangle + \langle\chi,t^{-1}\rangle}\mbox{ and }c_{t,v,x,2}(\chi)= x^{2\langle\chi,t\rangle-\langle\chi,t^2\rangle}\]
for $\chi\in\widehat{G}$, where both exponents are integers by Definition~\ref{pair}. In the case that $|t| = 2$ and $|t|>2$, respectively, define
\[g_{t,v,x,1}(s) = \begin{cases} x^2 & \mbox{if $s = t$}\\
1&\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}\mbox{ and }g_{t,v,x,1}(s) = \begin{cases}x &\mbox{for $s\in\{t,t^{-1}\}$}\\1&\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}\]
for $s\in G(-1)$. In the case that $|t|$ is odd, further define
\[g_{t,v,x,2}(s) = \begin{cases} x^2 & \mbox{if $s = t$}\\ x^{-1}&\mbox{for $s = t^{2}$}\\ 1&\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}\]
for $s\in G(-1)$. We have the following lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{char lem3'} We have $c_{t,v,x,1}\in(K_vG)^\times$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}The map $c_{t,v,x,1}$ preserves the $\Omega_{K_v}$-action because
\begin{equation}\label{pair sum} \langle\chi,s\rangle + \langle\chi,s^{-1}\rangle = \begin{cases}0&\mbox{if $\chi(s) = 1$}\\
1&\mbox{if $\chi(s)\neq1$}\end{cases}\end{equation}
for all $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ and $s\in G$ by Definition~\ref{pair}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{char lem3}Suppose that $\zeta_{|t|}\in K_v^\times$. Then we have
\[c_{t,v,x,2}\in (K_vG)^\times\mbox{ and }g_{t,v,x,1},g_{t,v,x,2}\in \Lambda(K_vG)^\times.\]
Moreover, for both $i=1,2$, we have
\[rag(c_{t,v,x,i}) = \Theta^t(g_{t,v,x,i}).\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}Since $\zeta_{|t|}\in K_v^\times$, we easily see that $c_{t,v,x,2}$, $g_{t,v,x,1}$, and $g_{t,v,x,2}$ indeed all preserve the $\Omega_{K_v}$-action. Since
\begin{equation}\label{Theta g} \Theta^t(g)(\psi) = \prod_{s\in G}g(s)^{\langle\psi,s\rangle}\mbox{ for $g\in\Lambda(K_vG)^\times$ and $\psi\in A_{\widehat{G}}$}\end{equation}
by definition, the second also holds by a simple verification.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan1}} Let $H$ be a cyclic subgroup of $G$ of order $n$ and let $r\in\mathcal{O}_K$ be coprime to $n$. Recall (\ref{j(cr)}) and that $j(c_{H,r})\in \Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG)^{\Psi_\bZ}$ by Proposition~\ref{T invar}. We need to show that $j(c_{H,r})^{d_n(K)}\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ in part (a), and that $j(c_{H,r})\in\Image(\Xi_{-1})$ in part (b). We shall do so using Lemma~\ref{char lem1}.
\vspace{1mm}
In what follows, let $t$ be a fixed generator of $H$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan1} (a)]
Let $D$ be the subgroup of $(\bZ/n\bZ)^\times$ such that
\[ D\simeq\Gal(K(\zeta_n)/K)\mbox{ via }i \mapsto (\zeta_n\mapsto \zeta_n^i).\]
Define $g = (g_v)\in J(\Lambda(KG))$ by setting $g_v = 1$ for $v\nmid r$, and
\[ g_v(s) = \begin{cases} r &\mbox{if $s \in\{ t^i, t^{-i}\}$ for some $i\in D$}\\ 1&\mbox{otherwise}\end{cases}\]
for $v\mid r$. It is easy to see that $g_v$ preserves the $\Omega_{K_v}$-action.
\vspace{1mm}
Observe that for all $v\in M_K$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{rag theta}rag((c_{H,r,v})^{d_n(K)}) =\Theta^t(g_v).\end{equation}
Indeed, for $v\nmid r$, this is clear. As for $v\mid r$, we have from (\ref{Theta g}) that
\[\Theta^t(g_v)(\chi) = \begin{cases}
\left(r\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i\in D}\left(\langle\chi,t^i\rangle + \langle\chi,t^{-i}\rangle\right)} & \mbox{if $-1\in D$}\\
\left(r\right)^{\sum\limits_{i\in D}\left(\langle\chi,t^i\rangle + \langle\chi,t^{-i}\rangle\right)} & \mbox{if $-1\notin D$}
\end{cases}\]
and from (\ref{pair sum}) that
\[\sum_{i\in D}\left(\langle\chi,t^i\rangle + \langle\chi,t^{-i}\rangle\right) = \begin{cases} 0 &\mbox{if $\chi(t) = 1$} \\ |D| &\mbox{if $\chi(t)\neq1$}\end{cases}\]
for any $\chi\in\widehat{G}$. The equality (\ref{rag theta}) then follows from (\ref{cr chi}). Hence, we have $j(c_{H,r})^{d_n(K)}\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ by Lemma~\ref{char lem1}, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan1} (b)] Suppose that $n$ is odd and that $\zeta_n\in K^\times$. Then, by Lemma~\ref{char lem3}, we may define $c = (c_v) \in J(KG)$ by setting $c_v = 1$ for $v\nmid r$, and $c_v = c_{t,v,r,2}$ for $v\mid r$. Also, we have $j(c)\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ by Lemma~\ref{char lem1}.
\vspace{1mm}
Below, we shall show that $j(c_{H,r}) = \Xi_{-1}(j(c))$, whence $j(c_{H,r})\in\Image(\Xi_{-1})$. To that end, let $v\in M_K$ and $\chi\in\widehat{G}$. It suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{ccc} c_{H,r,v}(\chi) = c_v(\chi)c_v(\chi^{-1}).\end{equation}
For $v\nmid r$, this is clear. For $v\mid r$, observe that
\[\chi(t) = 1\mbox{ if and only if }\chi(t^2) = 1\]
because $|t|$ is odd. It then follows from (\ref{pair sum}) that
\begin{align*}c_v(\chi)c_v(\chi^{-1}) &= r^{2(\langle\chi,t\rangle + \langle\chi^{-1},t\rangle) - (\langle\chi,t^2\rangle + \langle\chi^{-1},t^2\rangle)} = \begin{cases} 1 &\mbox{for $\chi(t) = 1$},\\r&\mbox{for $\chi(t) \neq 1$}.\end{cases}\end{align*}
From (\ref{cr chi}), we then see that (\ref{ccc}) indeed holds.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan2}} In what follows, for each $v\in M_K$, let $\pi_v$ be a fixed uniformizer of $K_v$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan2} (a)] Suppose that $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)=1$. For each $v_0\in M_K$, we may then choose $\pi_{v_0}$ to be an element of $\mathcal{O}_K$. Then, for any cyclic subgroup $H$ of $G$ of order coprime to $v_0$, it makes sense to write
\[[(\pi_{v_0},\Sigma_H)] = j(c_{H,\pi_{v_0}}),\mbox{ where }c_{H,\pi_{v_0}} = (c_{H,\pi_{v_0},v}) \in J(KG)\]
is as in Proposition~\ref{class in T}. Plainly $c_{H,\pi_{v_0},v} = 1$ for all $v\neq v_0$.
\vspace{1mm}
Now, let $L/K$ be any tame and Galois extension with $\Gal(L/K)\simeq G$, and we shall use the notation as in Lemma~\ref{char lem2}. Let $V$ denote the subset of $M_K$ consisting of the primes which ramify in $L/K$. Then, we have
\[s_v=1\mbox{ for $v\notin V$, and so }\Xi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L]) = j(c_L) = \prod_{v_0\in V} j(c_{L,v_0}),\]
where we regard $c_{L,v_0}$ as an element of $J(KG)$ whose components outside of $v_0$ are all $1$. For each $v_0\in V$, take $H_{v_0} = \langle s_{v_0}\rangle$, whose order is coprime to $v_0$ because $L/K$ is tame. By (\ref{cr chi}) and (\ref{pair sum}), we have
\[ c_{L,v_0}(\chi) = \pi_{v_0}^{\langle\chi,s_{v_0}\rangle +\langle\chi,s_{v_0}^{-1}\rangle} = c_{H_{v_0},\pi_{v_0},v_0}(\chi)\mbox{ for all }\chi\in\widehat{G}.\]
By definition, we also have $c_{L,v_0,v} = c_{H_{v_0},\pi_{v_0},v} = 1$ for $v\neq v_0$. It follows that $j(c_{L,v_0}) = j(c_{H_{v_0},\pi_{v_0}})$, which is an element of $T_{H_{v_0}}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG)$. This implies that
\[ \Xi_{-1}([\mathcal{O}_L]) \in \prod_{v_0\in V}T_{H_{v_0}}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG) \subset T_{\cyc}^*(\mathcal{O}_KG),\vspace{-1mm}\]
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm Swan2} (b)]Suppose that $G\neq1$. Then, fix an element $t\in G$ with $t\neq1$, whose order shall be assumed to be odd when $\delta(G) = 1$, and fix a character $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ such that $\chi(t)\neq1$. Now, suppose that $\zeta_{\exp(G)}\in K^\times$. Then, via (\ref{idelic description}) and (\ref{iden}), evaluation at $\chi$ induces a surjective homomorphism
\[\xi_\chi : \Cl(\mathcal{O}_KG) \longrightarrow \Cl(\mathcal{O}_K).\]
Below, we shall show that
\begin{equation}\label{bound} \xi_{\chi}(\Image(\Xi_{-1})) \supset \Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)^{\delta(G)},\end{equation}
from which the claim would follow.
\vspace{1mm}
Now, every class in $\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)$ may be represented by a prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}_0$ in $\mathcal{O}_K$, corresponding to $v_0\in M_K$, say. Since $\zeta_{\exp(G)}\in K^\times$, by Lemmas~\ref{char lem3'} and~\ref{char lem3}, we may define $c = (c_v)\in J(KG)$ by setting
\[c_{v_0} =\begin{cases} c_{t,v,\pi_{v_0},1} & \mbox{if $\delta(G) = 2$} \\ c_{t,v,\pi_{v_0},2} & \mbox{if $\delta(G) = 1$}\end{cases}\]
and $c_v = 1$ for $v\neq v_0$. Note that $j(c)\in R(\mathcal{O}_KG)$ by Lemmas~\ref{char lem1} and~\ref{char lem3}, whence $\Xi_{-1}(j(c)) \in \Image(\Xi_{-1})$. Also, we have
\begin{align*} c_{v_0}(\chi)c_{v_0}(\chi^{-1}) &=
\begin{cases}
\pi_{v_0}^{2(\langle\chi,t\rangle+\langle\chi^{-1},t\rangle)} & \mbox{if $\delta(G) =2$}\\
\pi_{v_0}^{2(\langle\chi,t\rangle + \langle\chi^{-1},t\rangle) - (\langle\chi,t^2\rangle + \langle\chi^{-1},t^2\rangle)} & \mbox{if $\delta(G) = 1$}
\end{cases}\\& = \pi_{v_0}^{\delta(G)} \end{align*}
by (\ref{pair sum}). We then deduce that
\[\xi_\chi(\Xi_{-1}(j(c))) = [\mathfrak{p}_0]^{\delta(G)}\mbox{ in }\Cl(\mathcal{O}_K).\]
This proves the desired inclusion (\ref{bound}).
\end{proof}
\section{Acknowledgments}
The research was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Special Financial Grant (grant no.: 2017T100060). The author would like to thank the anoynmous referee for pointing out some unclear arguments in the original manuscript and for suggesting the reference \cite{Lang} cited in Lemma~\ref{group1}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Appearing a scalar field in the low energy limit of string theory has
motivated various scientists to study dilaton gravity with different
viewpoints. The coupling of dilaton with other gauge fields has a profound
effects on the resulting solutions \cit
{KoikawaY,GibbonsM,BrillH,GarfinkleHS,GregoryH,Hor2}. For example, it was
shown that the dilaton field can change the asymptotic behavior of the
spacetime. In particular, it was argued that in the presence of one or two
Liouville-type dilaton potentials, black hole spacetimes are neither
asymptotically flat nor (anti)-de Sitter ((A)dS) (see \cit
{MignemiW,PolettiW,PolettiTW,CHM,Cai,Clem,Sheykhi0,DehghaniPH,HendiMath} and
references therein). This is due to the fact that the dilaton field does not
vanish for $r\rightarrow \infty $. Latter, it was shown that with
combination of three Liouville type dilaton potentials, it is possible to
construct dilatonic black hole solutions in the background of (A)dS
spacetime \cite{GaoZh,GaoZPLB,ShDH,HShD,Sheykhi2}. Recently, studies on
compact objects such as neutron stars in the context of dilaton gravity \cit
{HendiBEN,Fiziev} as well as black objects in dilaton gravity's rainbow have
been carried out \cite{HendiFEP,HendiPTEP}.
On the other side, one of the important solutions of Einstein's field
equation is three dimensional black holes. The first three dimensional black
hole solution was found by Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) \cite{BTZ1}, and
afterwards, BTZ black holes have got a lot of attentions \cit
{BTZ2,BTZ3,Emparan,Hemming,Sahoo,Setare,Cadoni,Park,ParsonsR,BirminghamMS,Akbar,MyungKM,HodgkinsonL,MoonM,Frodden,EuneKY,LemosQ,Bravo,SetareA,Hosseini,WuLZ,Soroushfar
. The motivation to study three dimensional solutions originates from the
fact that near horizon geometry of these solutions serves as a worthwhile
model to investigate some conceptual questions of AdS/CFT correspondence
\cite{Witten07,Carlip05}. Also, studying the BTZ black hole has improved our
knowledge of gravitational systems and their interactions in 3-dimensions
\cite{Witten07}. Furthermore, possible existence of gravitational
Aharonov-Bohm effect due to the noncommutative BTZ black holes \cit
{AnacletoB}, and specific relations between these black holes and effective
action in string theory have been explored \cit
{Witten,LarranagaI,LarranagaII}. From the viewpoint of quantum theory of
gravity, three dimensional gravity plays an important role. Entanglement,
quantum entropy \cite{Singh,FroddenGNP,Caputa}, holography and holographical
superconductors of the BTZ black holes have been studied in Refs. \cit
{Germani,LiuPW,de la Fuente,Chaturvedi,Ziogas,Dehyadegari}.
The studies on the BTZ black holes/wormholes were also extended to include
the dilaton field \cite{CM1,CM2}, the nonlinear electrodynamics \cit
{BTZnon,Yamazaki,HendiJHEP,HendiEPJCthree}, and higher dimensional
spacetimes \cite{BTZlikeI,BTZlikeII}. Also, BTZ black holes in the presence
of massive gravity with Maxwell and Born-Infeld fields have been studied in
Ref. \cite{BTZmassive}. In particular, it was shown that the electric field
of BTZ-like solutions in higher-dimensions are the same as three dimensions
and they are thermally stable in the whole phase space \cit
{BTZlikeI,BTZlikeII}. In \cite{SHS}, thermodynamical stability of static
uncharged BTZ dilaton black holes in the canonical ensemble was explored. It
was shown that depending on the dilaton coupling constant, $\alpha $, the
solution can exhibit a stable phase. Indeed, it was observed that the system
is thermally stable/unstable for specific values of the dilaton parameter.
On the other hand, gravity coupled with the nonlinear electrodynamics
attracts significant attentions because of its specific properties in
gauge/gravity coupling. Interesting physical properties of various nonlinear
electrodynamic models have been studied in many papers \cit
{HendiJHEP,HendiEPJCthree,BTZlikeI,BTZlikeII,BTZmassive,Born,Soleng,Yajima,Delphenich,Stefanov,Gonzalez,Miskovic,Diaz-Alonso,Mazharimousavi,Kruglov,HendiEPJHEP
. One of the interesting branches of the nonlinear electrodynamic models is
related to power Maxwell invariant (PMI) theory in which its Lagrangian is
an arbitrary power of Maxwell Lagrangian \cite{HassaineM,Maeda,HendiE}. The
PMI theory has more interesting properties with regard to the Maxwell field,
and for unit power it reduces to linear case (Maxwell theory). One of the
attractive properties of this theory is related to the possible conformal
invariancy. It is notable that, when the power of Maxwell invariant is a
quarter of spacetime dimensions ($power = dimensions/4$), this theory enjoys
the conformal invariancy. In other words, by considering power of Maxwell
invariant equal to $dimensions/4$, one can obtain a traceless
energy-momentum tensor which leads to an invariant theory under conformal
transformation. It is notable that, considering this conformal symmetry, we
can construct charged black hole with an inverse square electric field in
arbitrary dimensions which is analogue to the four-dimensional
Reissner-Nordestr\"{o}m solutions \cite{HassaineMPRD}.
It is worth mentioning that the BTZ black holes in dilaton and dilaton
gravity's rainbow have been investigated in Refs. \cite{HendiPTEP,SHS}. Thus
it is well motivated to consider the three dimensional dilatonic black holes
in the presence of different gauge fields. Since exact solutions of charged
dilatonic black holes have not been investigate before, in the present work,
one of our goals is obtaining an exact solution of three dimensional
dilatonic black holes by adding the PMI electrodynamics to the action. In
addition, we try to study interesting properties of such exact solution as a
thermodynamical system.
One of the interesting methods for studying properties of thermodynamical
systems is through geometrical thermodynamics. This method employs
Riemannian geometry to construct phase space. The information regarding
thermodynamical behavior of a system could be extracted from the Ricci
scalar of this phase space. Divergencies of the Ricci scalar determine two
sets of important points: bound points which separate situations with
positive temperature from those with negative temperature, and phase
transition points which represent discontinuities in thermodynamical
quantities such as the heat capacity. In addition, considering the sign of
Ricci scalar around its divergencies, it is possible to determine whether
the interaction around divergencies are of repulsive or attractive nature
\cite{Rupp}.
The first geometrical thermodynamical approach was introduced by Weinhold
which is based on internal energy as thermodynamical potential \cit
{WeinholdI,WeinholdII}. Latter, an alternative was proposed by Ruppeiner
which has entropy as its thermodynamical potential \cit
{RuppeinerI,RuppeinerII}. Another proposal for the geometrical
thermodynamics was given by Quevedo which has Legendre invariancy as its
core stone \cite{QuevedoI,QuevedoII}. Mentioned methods have been used in
studying thermodynamics of the black holes \cit
{HanC,BravettiMMA,Ma,GarciaMC,ZhangCY,MoLW2016,Sanchez,Soroushfar1,HendiNaderi
. In a series of papers, it was shown that the mentioned methods may
confront specific problems in describing thermodynamical properties of the
black holes \cite{HPEMI,HPEMII,HPEMIII,HPEMIV}. In other words, there were
cases in which, the results of these three approaches were not consistent
with those extracted from other methods. In order to remove the shortcomings
of other methods regarding geometrical thermodynamics, a new thermodynamical
metric was introduced by Hendi, Panahiyan, Eslam Panah and Momennia (HPEM)
\cite{HPEMI}. It was shown that employing this method leads to consistent
results regarding thermodynamical properties of the black holes. For a
comparative study regarding these four thermodynamical metrics, we refer the
readers to Ref. \cite{Wen}.
The organization of our paper is as follows. In the next section, we present
the field equations of three dimensional charged dilatonic black holes when
the gauge field is in the form of power Maxwell field. In section \ref{Therm
, we calculate conserved and thermodynamic quantities of obtained solutions
and examine the validity of the first law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamical
behavior of the solutions and the properties governing it are explored in
different contexts in sections \ref{TB} and \ref{GT}. The paper is concluded
in section \ref{Con} with some closing remarks.
\section{Field equation and Charged dilaton black hole solutions}
\label{Field}
In this section, we obtain three dimensional charged dilatonic black hole
solutions in the presence of PMI field. For this purpose, we consider a $3-
dimensional action of Einstein gravity which is coupled with dilaton and PMI
fields
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\int d^{3}x\sqrt{-g}\left[ \mathcal{R}-4\left(
\nabla \Phi \right) ^{2}-V\left( \Phi \right) +\left( -e^{-4\alpha \Phi
\mathcal{F}\right) ^{s}\right] , \label{action}
\end{equation
where $\mathcal{R}$ is the Ricci scalar, $\Phi $ is the dilaton field and
V\left( \Phi \right) $ is a dilatonic potential. Also, $\mathcal{F}=F_{\mu
\nu }F^{\mu \nu }$ is the Maxwell invariant, in which $F_{\mu \nu }=\partial
_{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }$ is the Faraday tensor with the
electromagnetic potential $A_{\mu }$ and $s$ the power of nonlinearity. In
addition, it should be pointed out that $\alpha $ is a constant which
determines the strength of coupling of the scalar and electromagnetic field.
Using variational principle and varying Eq. (\ref{action}) with respect to
the gravitational, dilaton and gauge fields ($g_{\mu \nu }$, $\Phi $ and
A_{\mu }$), we find the following field equations
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu \nu }=4\left( \partial _{\mu }\Phi \partial _{\nu }\Phi +\frac{1}{4
g_{\mu \nu }V(\Phi )\right) +e^{-4\alpha s\Phi }\left( -\mathcal{F}\right)
^{s}\left[ \left( 2s-1\right) g_{\mu \nu }-\frac{2s}{\mathcal{F}}F_{\mu
\lambda }F_{\nu }^{~\ \lambda }\right] , \label{dilaton equation(I)}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\nabla ^{2}\Phi =\frac{1}{8}\frac{\partial V}{\partial \Phi }+\frac{s\alpha
}{2}e^{-4s\alpha \Phi }\left( -\mathcal{F}\right) ^{s},
\label{dilaton equation(II)}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\partial _{\mu }\left( \sqrt{-g}e^{-4\alpha s\Phi }\left( -\mathcal{F
\right) ^{s-1}F^{\mu \nu }\right) =0. \label{Maxwell equation}
\end{equation}
In this paper, we are attempting to obtain charged dilatonic black hole
solutions in $(2+1)$-dimensions. To do so, one can employ following static
metric ansatz
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}+r^{2}R^{2}(r)d\varphi ^{2},
\label{metric}
\end{equation
where $f(r)$ and $R(r)$ are radial dependent functions which should be
determined.
Since we are looking for the black holes with a radial electric field (
F_{tr}(r)=-F_{rt}(r)\neq 0$), the electromagnetic potential will be in the
following form
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu }=\delta _{\mu }^{0}h\left( r\right) . \label{electric po}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs. (\ref{Maxwell equation}) and (\ref{electric po}), and considering
the metric (\ref{metric}), one can obtain electromagnetic tensor as
\begin{equation}
F_{tr}=E(r)=qe^{\frac{4\alpha s\Phi }{2s-1}}\left[ rR(r)\right] ^{\frac{1}
1-2s}}, \label{Ftr eq}
\end{equation
where $q$ is an integration constant which is related to the electric charge
of black holes.
Now, we can obtain field equations by using Eqs. (\ref{dilaton equation(I)})
and (\ref{dilaton equation(II)}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
eq_{tt} &:&2^{s}\left( s-1\right) \left( E^{2}(r)e^{-4\alpha \Phi
(r)}\right) ^{s}+\frac{1}{2}\left[ f^{\prime \prime }(r)+\left( \frac{1}{r}
\frac{R^{\prime }(r)}{R(r)}\right) f^{\prime }(r)\right] +V(\Phi )=0,\
\label{tt} \\
&& \nonumber \\
eq_{rr} &:&eq_{tt}+\left[ \frac{R^{\prime \prime }(r)}{R(r)}+\frac
2R^{\prime }(r)}{rR(r)}+4\Phi ^{\prime 2}(r)\right] f(r)=0, \label{rr} \\
&& \nonumber \\
eq_{\theta \theta } &:&2^{s}\left( 1-2s\right) \left( E^{2}(r)e^{-4\alpha
\Phi (r)}\right) ^{s}+\left[ \frac{R^{\prime \prime }(r)}{R(r)}+\frac
2R^{\prime }(r)}{rR(r)}\right] f(r)+\left[ \frac{1}{r}+\frac{R^{\prime }(r)}
R(r)}\right] f^{\prime }(r)+V(\Phi )=0, \label{com}
\end{eqnarray
where the prime and double prime are the first and the second derivatives
with respect to $r$, respectively. Subtracting the equations (\ref{tt}) of
\ref{rr}) ($eq_{tt}-eq_{rr}$), we can obtain the following equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{R^{\prime \prime }(r)}{R(r)}+\frac{2R^{\prime }(r)}{rR(r)}+4\Phi
^{\prime 2}(r)=0.
\end{equation}
Next, we employ an ansatz, $R(r)=e^{2\alpha \Phi (r)}$, in the above field
equation. The motivation for considering such an ansatz is due to black
string solutions of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity which was first
introduced in Ref. \cite{Dehghani}. The $\Phi (r)$\ is obtained
\begin{equation}
\Phi (r)=\frac{\gamma }{2}\ln \left( \frac{b}{r}\right) , \label{Phi}
\end{equation
where $b$\ is an arbitrary constant and $\gamma =\alpha ^{2}/K_{1,1}$\ (
K_{i,j}=i+j\alpha ^{2}$).
Here, in order to find consistent metric functions, we use a modified
version of Liouville-type dilaton potential
\begin{equation}
V(\Phi )=2\lambda e^{4\beta \Phi }+2\Lambda e^{4\alpha \Phi },
\label{V(Phi)}
\end{equation
where $\Lambda $\ is a free parameter which plays the role of cosmological
constant, $\lambda $\ and $\beta $\ are arbitrary constants. This potential
is the usual Liouville-type dilaton potential that is used in the context of
Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) scalar field cosmologies \cite{Ozer} and
Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton black holes \cite{Chan,Yazadjiev,Sheykhi}.
Substituting Eqs. (\ref{Phi}) and (\ref{V(Phi)}) in (\ref{Ftr eq}) and using
the ansatz, $R(r)=e^{2\alpha \Phi (r)}$\ in the field equation (\ref{com}),
we can construct exact charged black hole solutions of this theory by
finding the metric functions, $f(r)$,\ as
\begin{eqnarray}
f(r) &=&\frac{2\mathcal{K}_{1,1}^{2}\Lambda r^{2}}{\mathcal{K}_{-2,1}}\left(
\frac{b}{r}\right) ^{2\gamma }-mr^{\gamma } \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\left( 2s-1\right) ^{2}\mathcal{K
_{1,1}^{2}}{\mathcal{K}_{2,1}-2s}r^{\frac{2\left( s-1\right) }{2s-1}}\left[
1+\frac{\alpha ^{2}\left( s-1\right) }{\left( \alpha ^{2}-s\mathcal{K
_{-1,1}\right) }\right] , \label{f(r)}
\end{eqnarray
where $m$\ is an integration constant which is related to the total mass of
black holes. It is notable that, the above solutions (Eqs. (\ref{Phi}) and
\ref{f(r)})) will fully satisfy the system of equations provided,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda &=&\frac{\alpha ^{2}\left( s-1\right) \left( 2s-1\right)
2^{s-1}q^{2s}}{\left( \alpha ^{2}+s\mathcal{K}_{1,-1}\right) b^{\frac{2s}
2s-1}}}, \\
&& \nonumber \\
\beta &=&\frac{s\alpha }{\gamma \left( 2s-1\right) }.
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, one can easily show that the vector potential $A_{\mu }$,
corresponding to the electromagnetic tensor (\ref{Ftr eq}), can be written a
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu }=\frac{\left( 2s-1\right) qb^{\gamma }\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{2s-\mathcal
K}_{2,1}}r^{\frac{2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}}{\left( 2s-1\right) \mathcal{K}_{1,1}
},
\end{equation}
The electromagnetic gauge potential should be finite at infinity, therefore,
one should impose following restriction to have this property
\begin{equation}
\frac{2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}}{\left( 2s-1\right) \mathcal{K}_{1,1}}<0.
\end{equation}
The above equation leads to the following restriction on the range of $s
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}<s<\frac{2+\alpha ^{2}}{2}.
\end{equation}
It is notable that, in the absence of a non-trivial dilaton ($\alpha =\gamma
=0$), the solutions (\ref{f(r)}) reduce to
\begin{equation}
\Psi (r)=-m-\Lambda r^{2}+\frac{\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\left( 2s-1\right)
^{2}}{2\left( 1-s\right) }r^{\frac{2\left( s-1\right) }{2s-1}}. \label{PMI3}
\end{equation
which describes a $3$-dimensional charged black hole in Einstein-PMI
gravity, provided the PMI parameter must be in the range $\frac{1}{2}<s<1$.
It is notable that, for $s=\frac{3}{4}$($s=\frac{d}{4}$, in which $d$ denote
dimensions), this solution (Eq. (\ref{PMI3})) reduce to conformally
invariant Maxwell black hole solutions, as expected \cite{HendiES}.
In order to confirm the black hole interpretation of the solutions, we look
for the curvature singularity. To do so, we calculate the Kretschmann
scalar. Calculations show that for finite values of radial coordinate, the
Kretschmann scalar is finite. On the other hand, for very small and very
large values of $r$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{r\rightarrow 0}R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }
&=&\infty , \label{RR0} \\
\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty }R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }R^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu
} &=&\frac{16\Lambda ^{2}(2\alpha ^{4}-4\alpha ^{2}+3)}{\mathcal{K
_{-2,1}^{2}}\left( \frac{b}{r}\right) ^{4\gamma }. \label{RRinf}
\end{eqnarray}
The equation (\ref{RR0}) confirms that there is an essential singularity
located at $r=0$, while Eq. (\ref{RRinf}) shows that for nonzero $\alpha $,
the asymptotical behavior of solutions is not (A)dS. It is easy to show that
the metric function may contain real positive roots (see Fig. \ref{metricFig
), and therefore, the curvature singularity can be covered with an event
horizon and interpreted as a black hole.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{frI.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{frII.eps
\end{array}
\caption{$f(r)$ versus $r$ for $\Lambda =-1$, $q=0.3$, $\protect\alpha =1$
and $b=1$. \newline
left panel: for $s=0.75$, $m=4.0$ (dotted lines), $m=5.1$ (continuous line)
and $m=6.0$ (dashed line). \newline
right panel: for $s=1.25$, $m=6.0$ (dotted lines), $m=6.1$ (continuous line)
and $m=6.2$ (dashed line).}
\label{metricFig}
\end{figure}
\section{Thermodynamical Quantities}
\label{Therm}
Now, we are in a position to calculate thermodynamic and conserved
quantities of the obtained solutions and examine the validity of first law
of thermodynamics.
In order to study the temperature, we use the concept of surface gravity
which leads to
\begin{equation}
T=-\frac{\Lambda \mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{2\pi }b^{2\gamma }r_{+}^{\frac{\mathcal{
}_{1,-1}}{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}}+\frac{2^{s-1}s\left( s-\frac{1}{2}\right)
q^{2s}\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{\pi \left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right)
r_{+}^{1/\left( 2s-1\right) }}. \label{temp}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, one can use the area law for extracting modified version
of the entropy related to the Einsteinian class of black objects with the
following structure
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{\pi r_{+}}{2}\left( \frac{b}{r_{+}}\right) ^{\gamma },
\label{entropy}
\end{equation
in which by setting $\alpha =0$, the entropy of charged BTZ black holes is
obtained. In order to find the total electric charge of solutions, one can
use the Gauss law. Calculating the flux of electric field helps us to find
the total electric charge with the following form
\begin{equation}
Q=\frac{q^{2s-1}2^{s-2}s^{2}}{s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}+\alpha ^{2}}. \label{Q}
\end{equation}
Next, we are interested in obtaining the electric potential. Using following
standard relation, one can obtain the electric potential at the event
horizon with respect to the infinity as a reference
\begin{equation}
U\left( r\right) =\left. A_{\mu }\chi ^{\mu }\right\vert _{r\longrightarrow
\infty }-\left. A_{\mu }\chi ^{\mu }\right\vert _{r\longrightarrow r_{+}}
\frac{\left( 2s-1\right) qb^{\gamma }\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{\mathcal{K}_{2,1}-2s
r_{+}^{\frac{2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}}{\left( 2s-1\right) \mathcal{K}_{1,1}}}.
\end{equation}
Finally, according to the definition of mass due to Abbott and Deser \cit
{AD1,AD2,AD3}, the total mass of solution is
\begin{equation}
M=\frac{b^{\gamma }}{8\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}m. \label{Mass}
\end{equation}
It is worthwhile to mention that for limiting case of $\alpha =0$, Eq. (\re
{Mass}) reduces to the mass of charged BTZ black holes \cite{Sheykhi}.
Now, we are in a position to check the validity of first law of
thermodynamics. To do so, first, we calculate the geometrical mass, $m$, by
using $f\left( r=r_{+}\right) =0$. Then by employing the obtained
geometrical mass, we rewrite the mass relation, Eq. (\ref{Mass}), in the
following form
\begin{equation}
M(r_{+},q)=\frac{b^{3\gamma }\mathcal{K}_{1,1}r_{+}^{\frac{\mathcal{K}_{2,-1
}{\mathcal{K}_{-2,1}}}}{4\mathcal{K}_{-2,1}}\Lambda +\frac{s\left(
2s-1\right) ^{2}\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}b^{\gamma }\mathcal{K}_{1,1}r_{+}^
\frac{2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}}{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\left( 2s-1\right) }}}{8\left(
\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) \left( 2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}\right) }.
\label{Mass2}
\end{equation}
It is a matter of calculation to show that
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\right) _{Q}=T\text{ \ \ \ \ }\&\text{\
\ \ \ \ }\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}\right) _{S}=U.
\end{equation}
Therefore, it is proved that the first law is valid as
\begin{equation}
dM=\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\right) _{Q}dS+\left( \frac{\partial
}{\partial Q}\right) _{S}dQ.
\end{equation}
\section{Thermodynamical behavior}
\label{TB}
\subsection{Mass}
In usual black holes thermodynamics, the mass of black hole is interpreted
as internal energy. In classical black hole thermodynamics, it is necessary
to have positive value for internal energy of the system, hence, the mass of
black holes. Therefore, in this section we will study the conditions which
are determining the positivity and negativity of this conserved quantity.
The mass of these black holes (\ref{Mass2}) is constructed by two terms. The
first term of Eq. (\ref{Mass2}) is related to dilatonic gravity, and the
second term includes a combination of electromagnetic and dilatonic
parameters. The positivity of first term is determined by $K_{-2,1}>0$. The
second term has two specific parts which determine the positivity and
negativity of it. These terms are $\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha
^{2}\right) $ and $\ \left( 2s-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}\right) $. In order for the
second term has positive effects on the total mass of black holes, the
following conditions should be satisfied simultaneously
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) &>&0\text{ \ \ \& \ }\left( 2s
\mathcal{K}_{2,1}\right) >0, \\
\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) &<&0\text{ \ \ \& \ }\left( 2s
\mathcal{K}_{2,1}\right) <0.
\end{eqnarray*}
The existence of mentioned conditions for positivity and negativity of the
mass indicates that under certain circumstances (suitable choices of
different parameters), it is possible for the mass of black holes to be;
completely negative/positive or a root may exist for the mass of black holes
which results into existence of two regions of negative and positive mass
for black holes. We see that the positivity/negativity of first term of Eq.
\ref{Mass2}) only depends on dilatonic gravity while for the second term of
Eq. (\ref{Mass2}), due to the coupling of dilatonic gravity and
electromagnetic field in the action, it depends on nonlinearity and
dilatonic parameters.
\subsection{Temperature}
Now, we focus on the behavior of temperature. Thermodynamically speaking,
for black holes, existence of negative temperature indicates non-physical
systems, while, positive temperature is denoted as systems being physical.
In other words, negativity and positivity of the temperature confirm whether
obtained solutions for black holes are physical or non-physical ones. Here,
the temperature of these black holes (\ref{temp}) contains two terms;
\Lambda $ term which is purely due to the dilatonic part of action and
electric charge term which is a combination of dilatonic parameter and
electric charge.
The total contribution of $\Lambda$ term depends on the choices of $\Lambda $
itself. If $\Lambda >0$, the contribution of this term will be towards the
negativity whereas for $\Lambda <0$, this term will have positive effects on
values of temperature. As for the charge term, its effects are determined by
two factors which are $\left( s-\frac{1}{2}\right) $ and $\left( s\mathcal{K
_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) $. Considering our earlier discussions, ($s>\frac
1}{2}$), one can automatically conclude that the contributions of this term
is positive. Therefore, the negativity or positivity of charge term only
depends on the sign of $\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) $.
Meaning that for
\[
s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}>0,
\
the charge term will be positive and its effects are toward positivity of
the temperature, whereas the opposite is observed for violation of this
condition. The above condition presents the direct interaction of
electromagnetic and dilatonic fields in an elegant way. We see that the
coupling of electromagnetic field and dilaton gravity results into specific
contribution in thermodynamical structure of the solutions and presents a
tool for tuning the effects of dilaton gravity and electromagnetic field for
specific purposes. Returning to temperature, interestingly, we notice that
in $\Lambda $ term, the power of event horizon only depends on dilatonic
parameter whereas in charge term, it only depends on nonlinearity parameter,
$s$. Here, we see that regardless of the coupling between electromagnetic
field and dilatonic gravity, the power of horizon radius has been separated
into two groups depending on different parts of the action.
Thermodynamically speaking, the effectiveness of horizon radius has been
separated into two branches which depends on the choices of dilatonic and
nonlinearity parameters. The structure of action introduced such property
into thermodynamical structure of the black holes. Therefore, it is possible
to modify the effect of horizon radius in one branch (whether
electromagnetic part or dilatonic gravity) without any concern regarding the
other part.
\subsection{Heat capacity}
Now, we study the positivity/negativity of heat capacity. The heat capacity
has specific information regarding the stability/instability of system and
phase transitions. The phase transitions usually take place when system is
in an unstable state. In other words, unstable systems go under a phase
transition to acquire stability. The phase transition in heat capacity are
recognized when the heat capacity meets a discontinuity, hence divergency.
In other words, divergencies of the heat capacity are where systems go under
phase transitions. The thermal stability/instability of the system is
determined by the sign of heat capacity; the negative values are
representing the system being in unstable state while the positivity of the
heat capacity is denoted as system being thermally stable.
The heat capacity is given by
\begin{equation}
C_{Q}=\left( \frac{\partial M}{\partial S}\right) _{Q}\left( \frac{\partial
^{2}M}{\partial S^{2}}\right) _{Q}^{-1},
\end{equation
where by using the first law of black holes thermodynamics, one can rewrite
it as
\begin{equation}
C_{Q}=T\frac{\left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial r_{+}}\right) _{Q}}{\left(
\frac{\partial T}{\partial r_{+}}\right) _{Q}}. \label{heat}
\end{equation}
Using this relation, it is possible to extract two thermodynamical important
points; bound and phase transition points.
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
T=0 & bounded\text{ }point \\
& \\
\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial r_{+}}\right) _{Q}=0 & phase\text{
transition\text{ }poin
\end{array
\right. . \label{phase}
\end{equation}
The bound point is where the heat capacity, hence temperature, meets a root.
Since this point separates physical (positive temperature) form non-physical
(negative temperature) solutions, it is called bound point. Using the
obtained temperature (\ref{temp}) and entropy (\ref{entropy}), it is a
matter of calculation to show that the heat capacity for these black holes
is obtained as
\begin{equation}
C_{Q}=\frac{\pi \left[ \Lambda \left( \alpha ^{2}-s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\right)
b^{2\gamma }r_{+}^{\left( 2s\mathcal{K}_{3,1}+\mathcal{K}_{-2,1}\right)
}+s\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\left( s-\frac{1}{2}\right) r_{+}^{\left( 4
\mathcal{K}_{1,1}-\mathcal{K}_{2,1}\right) }\right] }{2r_{+}\left[ \Lambda
\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) b^{\gamma
}r_{+}^{2\left( s+\alpha ^{2}\right) }-\frac{s\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s
\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{2b^{\gamma }}r_{+}^{2s\alpha ^{2}}\right] }. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The numerator and denominator of heat capacity consist of $\Lambda $,
dilatonic parameter and electric charge. For having thermally stable
solutions, hence positive heat capacity, two different set of conditions
exist which must be satisfied. These conditions are
\[
\Lambda \left( \alpha ^{2}-s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\right) >0\text{ \ \ \& \ \
\Lambda \mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right)
b^{\gamma }r_{+}^{2\left( s+\alpha ^{2}\right) }-\frac{s\left( 2q^{2}\right)
^{s}\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{2b^{\gamma }}r_{+}^{2s\alpha ^{2}}>0,
\]
\ \
\[
\frac{\Lambda \left( \alpha ^{2}-s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\right) b^{2\gamma }}
r_{+}^{-\left( 2s\mathcal{K}_{3,1}+\mathcal{K}_{-2,1}\right) }}+\frac
s\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\left( s-\frac{1}{2}\right) }{r_{+}^{\left(
\mathcal{K}_{2,1}-4s\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\right) }}<0\ \ \ \text{\&}\ \ \ \frac
\Lambda \mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right)
b^{\gamma }}{r_{+}^{-2\left( s+\alpha ^{2}\right) }}-\frac{s\left(
2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}{2b^{\gamma }r_{+}^{-2s\alpha ^{2}}}<0.
\]
Respectively, the root (bound point) and divergence points (phase
transition) of these black holes are given by
\begin{equation}
r_{root}=\left( \frac{\Lambda b^{2\gamma }\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha
^{2}\right) }{s\left( 2q^{2}\right) ^{s}\left( s-\frac{1}{2}\right) }\right)
^{\frac{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\left( 2s-1\right) }{2\left( s\mathcal{K
_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) }},
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
r_{phase~transition}=\left( \frac{2\Lambda b^{2\gamma }\mathcal{K
_{-1,1}\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) }{s\left( 2q^{2}\right)
^{s}\mathcal{K}_{1,1}}\right) ^{\frac{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\left( 2s-1\right) }
2\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) }}.
\end{equation}
If $\frac{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\left( 2s-1\right) }{2\left( s\mathcal{K
_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) }>1$, then root and divergence points of the heat
capacity are decreasing functions of the electric charge and increasing
functions of $\Lambda $. If $\frac{\mathcal{K}_{1,1}\left( 2s-1\right) }
2\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) }$ is even, then the
existence of positive real valued root and phase transition point for these
black holes is restricted to the following inequalities being satisfied
\[
\Lambda \left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha ^{2}\right) >0,\text{ \ \ \ \ \&\
\ \ \ }\Lambda \mathcal{K}_{-1,1}\left( s\mathcal{K}_{-1,1}-\alpha
^{2}\right) >0,
\
which once more, highlight the interaction between dilaton and
electromagnetic fields.
In order to elaborate the effects of different parameters on thermodynamical
behavior of the mass, temperature and heat capacity, we present a table
(table \ref{tab1}) and some diagrams (Figs. \ref{Fig1}-\ref{Fig4}).
\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Roots of mass ($r_{M}$), temperature ($r_{T}$) and denominator of
the heat capacity ($r_{\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial r_{+}}\right) }$)
for $q=2$ and $b=1$. }
\label{tab1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline\hline
$s$ & $\alpha $ & $\Lambda $ & $r_{M}$ & $r_{T}$ & $r_{\left( \frac{\partial
T}{\partial r_{+}}\right) }$ \\ \hline\hline
$0.9$ & $0$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $1.528881$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $1.973634$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $2$ & $-1$ & $0.559382$ & $2.469012$ & $7.636975$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $5$ & $-1$ & $0.121752$ & $0.318611$ & $0.805420$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $8$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $0.017365$ & $0.042973$ \\ \hline
$0.7$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $0.815298$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$0.8$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $1.152417$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$1.1$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $9.452169$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$1.2$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $25.77402$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$1.3$ & $1$ & $-1$ & $none$ & $80.47861$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $1$ & $0$ & $none$ & $none$ & $none$ \\ \hline
$0.9$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1.426900$ & $none$ & $none$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular
\\[0pt]
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{CQalpha1.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{CQalpha2.eps} \\
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{CQalpha3.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{M-diff-alpha.eps
\end{array}
\caption{For $\Lambda =-1$, $q=2$, $s=0.9$ and $b=1$. \newline
up panels: $C_{Q}$ and $T$ (bold lines) versus $r_{+}$ diagrams for $\protec
\alpha=0$ (continuous line), $\protect\alpha=1$ (dotted line) and $\protec
\alpha=2$ (dashed line). \newline
down left panel: $C_{Q}$ and $T$ (bold lines) versus $r_{+}$ diagrams for
\protect\alpha=5$ (continuous line) and $\protect\alpha=8$ (dotted line).
\newline
down right panel: $M$ versus $r_{+}$ diagrams for $\protect\alpha=0$
(continuous line), $\protect\alpha=1$ (dotted line), $\protect\alpha=2$
(dashed line), $\protect\alpha=5$ (dashed-dotted line) and $\protect\alpha=8$
(bold continuous line). }
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{CQs1.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{Ms1.eps
\end{array}
\caption{For $\Lambda =-1$, $q=2$, $\protect\alpha=1$ and $b=1$; $s=0.7$
(continuous line), $s=0.8$ (dotted line) and $s=0.9$ (dashed line) \newline
left panel: $C_{Q}$ and $T$ (bold lines) versus $r_{+}$ diagrams. \newline
right panel: $M$ versus $r_{+}$ diagrams.}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{CQs2.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{Ms2.eps
\end{array}
\caption{For $\Lambda =-1$, $q=2$, $\protect\alpha=1$ and $b=1$; $s=1.1$
(continuous line), $s=1.2$ (dotted line) and $s=1.3$ (dashed line) \newline
left panel: $C_{Q}$ and $T$ (bold lines) versus $r_{+}$ diagrams. \newline
right panel: $M$ versus $r_{+}$ diagrams. }
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{CQLambda.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{MLambda.eps
\end{array}
\caption{For $s =0.9$, $q=2$, $\protect\alpha=1$ and $b=1$; $\Lambda=-1$
(continuous line), $\Lambda=0$ (dotted line) and $\Lambda=1$ (dashed line)
\newline
left panel: $C_{Q}$ and $T$ (bold lines) versus $r_{+}$ diagrams. \newline
right panel: $M$ versus $r_{+}$ diagrams. }
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
Evidently, depending on the choices of different parameters, these black
holes may enjoy a phase transition in their phase diagrams. This phase
transition is between large unstable black holes to small stable ones (see
up panel of Fig. \ref{Fig1}). The region of stability for this case is
located between a bound and divergence point, whereas after the divergency,
black holes are within physical region (positive temperature and mass) but
are unstable (see up panel of Fig. \ref{Fig1}). In another case, only a
bound point exists where the physical stable solutions are observed after
the bound point.
The critical horizon radius in which phase transition takes place is a
decreasing function of the dilatonic parameter. Whereas, the bound point
depending on the range of dilatonic parameter, could be increasing or
decreasing function of dilatonic parameter (see table \ref{tab1} and also
Fig. \ref{Fig1}). On the other hand, the bound point is an increasing
function of the nonlinearity parameter (see Figs. \ref{Fig2} and \ref{Fig3
). Also, there is one bound point for the negative values of cosmological
constant and for other values of the cosmological constant (positive and
zero) the black holes are not within physical region (see Fig. \ref{Fig4}).
By taking a closer look at the table \ref{tab1}, one can notice that it is
possible to obtain root for mass as well. This indicates that there exists a
region where internal energy of the system is negative. This shows that the
behavior of mass of the black hole imposes specific restrictions for
solutions being physical/non-physical ones.
For the past few years, the studies that were conducted regarding
thermodynamics of the black holes, have neglected the mass of black hole and
its thermodynamical behavior. Here, we have shown that thermodynamical
behavior of this quantity and its positivity/negativity play crucial roles
for studying thermodynamics of the black holes. In fact, without having a
well defined and positive internal energy (mass) for black holes and
considering its behavior, assumptions and physical statements regarding to
thermodynamical structure of the black holes will not be complete and even
in some cases it could be wrong and misleading. The results that are derived
for quantities such as temperature, heat capacity and etc. should be
evaluated by considering the behavior of mass as well. Remembering that some
important applications of the black holes and their thermodynamics, lie
within AdS/CFT correspondence, the necessity of studying the mass of black
holes in more details could be highlighted.
\section{Geometrical thermodynamics}
\label{GT}
In this section, we employ geometrical thermodynamic approach to investigate
thermodynamical properties of the black holes. The geometrical thermodynamic
method provides the possibility of studying thermodynamical properties of
the system through Riemannian geometry. In this method, one constructs
thermodynamical phase space of the system and use its Ricci scalar to
investigate thermodynamical properties. The divergencies of Ricci scalar in
the phase space marks two important points: bound and phase transition
points. In other words, divergencies (phase transition points) and bound
points of the thermodynamical systems coincide with the divergencies of
Ricci scalar. There are several approaches for constructing thermodynamical
phase space which among them one can name; Weinhold \cit
{WeinholdI,WeinholdII}, Ruppeiner \cite{RuppeinerI,RuppeinerII}, Quevedo
\cite{QuevedoI,QuevedoII} and HPEM \cite{HPEMI,HPEMII,HPEMIII}. Recent
studies in the context of black holes thermodynamics revealed that Weinhold,
Ruppeiner and Quevedo metrics may lead to inconsistent results regarding
thermodynamical behavior of the system \cite{HPEMI,HPEMII,HPEMIII}. In other
words, cases of mismatch between the divergencies of Ricci scalar and, bound
and phase transition points or existence of extra divergencies unrelated to
mentioned points were reported. To overcome the shortcomings of mentioned
methods, HPEM formulation was introduced and it was shown that specific
structure of this metric provides satisfactory results regarding the
geometrical thermodynamics of different classes of black holes.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{ccc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{Weinhold.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{Ruppeiner.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{Quevedo.eps
\end{array}
\caption{ $\mathcal{R}$ versus $r_{+}$ for $q=2$, $b=1$, $\protect\alpha=5$,
$s=0.9$ and $\Lambda =-1$; \newline
left panel: Weinhold; middle panel: Ruppeiner; right panel: Quevedo.}
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{HPEMalpha1.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{HPEMalpha2.eps} \\
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{HPEMalpha3.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm
\epsffile{HPEMalpha4.eps
\end{array}
\caption{For $\Lambda =-1$, $q=2$, $s=0.9$ and $b=1$. \newline
up panels: $\mathcal{R}$ versus $r_{+}$ diagrams for $\protect\alpha=0$
(continuous line), $\protect\alpha=1$ (dotted line) and $\protect\alpha=2$
(dashed line). \newline
down panels: $\protect\alpha=5$ (continuous line) and $\protect\alpha=8$
(dotted line). }
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{array}{ccc}
\epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{HPEMs1.eps} & \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{HPEMs2.eps}
& \epsfxsize=5cm \epsffile{HPEMLambda.eps
\end{array}
\caption{ $\mathcal{R}$ versus $r_{+}$ for $q=2$, $\protect\alpha=1$ and
b=1 $; \newline
left panel: $\Lambda =-1$, $s=0.7$ (continuous line), $s=0.8$ (dotted line)
and $s=0.9$ (dashed line). \newline
middle panel: $\Lambda =-1$, $s=1.1$ (continuous line), $s=1.2$ (dotted
line) and $s=1.3$ (dashed line). \newline
right panel: $s=0.9$, $\Lambda =-1$ (continuous line), $\Lambda =0$ (dotted
line) and $\Lambda =1$ (dashed line).}
\label{Fig7}
\end{figure}
The mentioned thermodynamical metrics are in the following forms
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
Mg_{ab}^{W}dX^{a}dX^{b} & Weinhold \\
& \\
-T^{-1}Mg_{ab}^{R}dX^{a}dX^{b} & Ruppeiner \\
& \\
\left( SM_{S}+QM_{Q}\right) \left( -M_{SS}dS^{2}+M_{QQ}dQ^{2}\right) &
Quevedo \\
& \\
S\frac{M_{S}}{M_{QQ}^{3}}\left( -M_{SS}dS^{2}+M_{QQ}dQ^{2}\right) & HPE
\end{array
\right. ,
\end{equation
where $M_{X}=\partial M/\partial X$ and $M_{XX}=\partial ^{2}M/\partial
X^{2} $. It is a matter of calculation to show that the denominators of
Ricci scalar of these phase spaces are \cite{HPEMI
\begin{equation}
denom(\mathcal{R})=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
M^{2}\left( M_{SS}M_{QQ}-M_{SQ}^{2}\right) ^{2} & Weinhold \\
& \\
M^{2}T\left( M_{SS}M_{QQ}-M_{SQ}^{2}\right) ^{2} & Ruppeiner \\
& \\
M_{SS}^{2}M_{QQ}^{2}\left( SM_{S}+QM_{Q}\right) ^{3} & Quevedo \\
& \\
2S^{3}M_{SS}^{2}M_{S}^{3} & HPE
\end{array
\right. .
\end{equation}
In order to have consistent results regarding bound and phase transition
points, the denominator of Ricci scalar of each metric must yield $M_{SS}$
and $M_{S}$, explicitly. Here, we see that HPEM metric has such factors in
its denominator of Ricci scalar. Whereas, the Quevedo metric has only
M_{SS} $ in its Ricci scalar's denominator and Weinhold and Ruppeiner do not
have these factors in explicit forms (see \cite{HPEMI} for more details). In
other words, the structures of denominators of the Ricci scalars obtained of
Weinhold, Ruppeiner and Quevedo metrics may yield extra divergencies for
their Ricci scalars which are not related to any bound and phase transition
points. In addition, these Ricci scalars may admit a mismatch between bound
and phase transition points and divergencies of the Ricci scalar. To
elaborate such cases, we have plotted Fig. \ref{Fig5}.
Evidently, for the Weinhold case , only one divergency for its Ricci scalar
is observed which is not matched with any bound and phase transition points
(compare left panel of Fig. \ref{Fig5} with down left panel of Fig. \re
{Fig1}). The Ruppeiner metric has two divergencies for its Ricci scalar; one
is matched with the bound point while the other one is not matched with any
phase transition point (compare middle panel of Fig. \ref{Fig5} with down
left panel of Fig. \ref{Fig1}). On the other hand, there are two
divergencies for Quevedo metric. One of them is coincidence with the phase
transition point while the other one is not matched with the bound point
(compare right panel of Fig. \ref{Fig5} with down left panel of Fig. \re
{Fig1}). It is evident that employing these three metrics leads into results
which are not consistent regarding the bound and phase transition points of
these black holes. In order to have consistent results, we employ the HPEM
metric and plot following diagrams (Figs. \ref{Fig6} and \ref{Fig7}).
A simple comparison between Figs. \ref{Fig6} and \ref{Fig7} with plotted
diagrams of the previous section (Figs. \ref{Fig1} and \ref{Fig4}) shows
that all the bound and phase transition points are matched with divergencies
of the Ricci scalar of HPEM metric for different cases. This confirms the
validation of the results of HPEM metric. Therefore, one can employ this
method as an independent approach for studying thermodynamical properties of
the black holes. This is the main purpose of the geometrical thermodynamics.
On the other hand, by taking a closer look, one can see that the sign of
HPEM Ricci scalar around the bound and phase transition points, depends on
the type of point. While we have a change of sign for Ricci scalar around
the bound point, but for the phase transition point, the sign of HPEM Ricci
scalar remains fixed. Therefore, it is possible to distinguish the type of
point by studying the sign of Ricci scalar of this metric. In the
geometrical thermodynamics, the sign of Ricci scalar determines whether the
system has repulsive or attractive interaction around the bound and phase
transition point. The positive sign indicates that system has repulsive
interaction whereas the opposite could be said about negative sign. Here, we
see that before the bound point, system has attractive property and by
crossing the bound point, the interaction is changed into repulsive. On the
other hand, for the phase transition point, the sign of Ricci scalar is
positive. Therefore, here, system has repulsive interaction on fundamental
level. Also, we see that employing the geometrical thermodynamics provides
us with extra information regarding the nature of interactions around the
bound and phase transition points. These information could not be extracted
by using the temperature and heat capacity of a system.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Con}
We studied three dimensional dilatonic black holes in the presence of a
nonlinear electromagnetic field known as power Maxwell invariant. It was
shown that the solutions have interpretation of the black holes. Conserved
and thermodynamical quantities of these solutions were extracted and it was
shown that the first law of black holes thermodynamics is satisfied.
In order to highlight the importance and the role of mass (internal energy),
a thermodynamical investigation with the analyzing mass, temperature and
heat capacity of the black holes was done.
It was shown that it is possible to obtain roots for the mass of black holes
which led to the presence of region where the mass of black holes was
negative. This shows that in order to have a better picture regarding
thermodynamical structure of the black holes, it is necessary to include the
behavior of mass as well. There are specific restrictions which are imposed
by thermodynamical behavior of the mass which could not be neglected and
must be taken into account for having reliable conclusions and predictions
regarding thermodynamics of the black holes. For the past decades, the
studies regarding thermodynamical structures of the black holes have
neglected this important and crucial factor. Considering that we are using
thermodynamics of the black holes in AdS spacetime for applications in
conformal field theory, the restrictions which are imposed by mass of the
black holes become highly important.
In addition, the effects of different parameters on thermodynamical
structures and phase transitions of these black holes were investigated. It
was shown that the existence of phase transition is depending on the values
of different parameters.
Next, geometrical thermodynamics was employed to study thermodynamical
structure of these black holes. It was shown that for these specific black
holes, using Weinhold, Ruppeiner and Quevedo methods lead to inconsistent
results regarding the bound and phase transition points, whereas, HPEM
approach was successful in describing thermodynamical properties of these
black holes. Furthermore, we employed the sign of HPEM metric around the
bound and phase transition point to study repulsiveness and attractiveness
of the interactions.
Finally, it is worthwhile to generalize the obtained results to the case of
non-abelian Yang-Mills field. In addition, it will be interesting to study
causal structure of the solutions and examine the possibility of closed
timelike curves in the special case of dilaton and nonlinearity parameters.
Furthermore, one may pay attention to the possibility of having three
dimensional hairy black holes in the context of massive gravity. We will
address these subjects in the future works.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the Shiraz University Research Council. This work has
been supported financially by the Research Institute for Astronomy
and Astrophysics of Maragha, Iran.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank A. Akhmerov, R. Egger, S. Frolov, and R. Lutchyn for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by DFG-SFB 1170 and ERC-StG-Thomale-TOPOLECTRICS-336012.
M.S. acknowledges support by the Rustaveli national science foundation through the grand no. FR/265/6-100/14.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\subsection{Scene Setup}
In a sensing system for robotic manipulation, a 6 degree-of-freedom
(DoF) pose of the camera mounted on a robotic arm $({\bf view} \in
{\bf P}_{cam})$, can be exactly computed using forward
kinematics. Furthermore, the camera calibration provides the intrinsic
parameters of the camera $\textbf{C}_{int}$. To position the resting
surface for the objects, a localization process is performed first in
the real-world to compute the pose of the resting surface ${\bf
P}_s$. The system has been evaluated on an {\tt APC} shelf and a
table-top environment. The shelf localization process uses {\tt
RANSAC} \cite{RANSAC} to compute edges and planes on the shelf and the
geometry of the shelf model is used to localize the bins. Given the
above information as well as 3D object models {\bf M}, the method aims
to render and automatically label $N$ different images in simulation.
The algorithm simulates a scene by first choosing the objects ${\bf
O}$ from the list of available object models ${\bf M}$ (line 3). The
initial pose of an object is provided by function {\sc
initial\_random\_poses} (line 4), which samples uniformly at random
along the x and y axis from the range
$(\frac{-dim_i}{2}, \frac{dim_i}{2})$, where $dim_i$ is the dimension
of the resting surface along the $i^{th}$ axis. The initial position
along the z-axis is fixed and can be adjusted to either simulate
dropping or placing. The initial orientation is sampled appropriately
in {\tt SO(3)}. Then the function {\sc phys\_sim} is called (line 5),
which physically simualates the objects and allows them to fall due to
gravity, bounce, and collide with each other as well as with the
resting surface. Any inter-penetrations among objects or with the
surface are treated by the physics engine. The final poses of the
objects ${\bf P}_{final}^{O}$, when they stabilize, resemble
real-world poses. Gravity, friction coefficients and mass parameters
are set at similar values globally and damping parameters are set to
the maximum to promote fast stabilization.
The environment lighting and point light sources are varied with
respect to location, intensity and color for each rendering (line
6). Simulating different indoor lighting sources according to related
work ~\cite{ReproducingRealWorldLight} helps to avoid over-fitting to
a specific texture. This makes the training set more robust to
different testing scenarios. Once lighting conditions ${\bf Light}$
are chosen, the simulated scene is rendered from multiple views using
the pre-defined camera poses (line 6). The rendering function {\sc
render} requires the set of stabilized object poses ${\bf
P}_{final}^{O}$, the camera viewpoint ${\bf view}$ as well as the
selected lighting conditions ${\bf Light}$ and intrinsic camera
parameters $\textbf{C}_{int}$ (line 7). Finally, perspective
projection is applied to obtain 2D bounding box labels for each object
in the scene with function {\sc project} (line 8). The overlapping
portion of the bounding boxes for the object that is further away from
the camera is pruned.
The synthetic {\bf dataset} generated is used to train an object
detector {\sc sim\_detect}($\cdot$) based on {\tt
Faster-RCNN} \cite{ren2015faster}, which utilizes a deep {\tt VGG}
network architecture \cite{simonyan2014very}.
\begin{figure*}[thpb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth, height=8cm]{images/multiview.png}
\vspace{-.3in}
\caption{Automatic self-labeling pipeline:
The detector, which is trained with simulated data, is used to detect
objects from multiple views. The point cloud aggregated from
successful detections undergoes 3D segmentation. Then,
Super4PCS \cite{super4pcs} is used to estimate the 6D pose of the
object in the world frame. The computed poses with high confidence are
simulated and projected back to the multiple views to obtain precise
labels over real images.}
\label{fig:selflearn}
\vspace{-.2in}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Multi-view detection}
A robotic arm is used to move the sensor to different pre-defined
camera configurations ${\bf P}_{cam}$ and capture color ({\bf RGB})
and depth ({\bf D}) images of the scene (lines 2-3). The PRACSYS
motion planning library \cite{kimmel2012pracsys, Littlefield:2015aa}
was used to control the robot in the accompanying implementation.
\vspace{-.15in}
\input{algos/self_learning}
\vspace{-.15in}
The detector trained using physics-aware simulation is then used to
extract bounding boxes {\bf bbox} corresponding to each object $o$ in
the scene (line 7). There might exist a bias in simulation either with
respect to texture or poses, which can lead to imprecise bounding
boxes or complete failure in certain views. For the detection to be
considered for further processing, a threshold is considered on the
confidence value returned by {\tt RCNN} (line 8).
The pixel-wise depth information {\bf 3DPts} within the confidently
detected bounding boxes {\bf bbox} (line 9) is aggregated in a common
point cloud per object {\bf Cloud[o]} given information from multiple
views (line 10). The process employs environmental knowledge to clean
the aggregated point cloud (line 11). points outside the resting
surface bounds are removed and outlier removal is performed based on
k-nearest neighbors and a uniform grid filter.
Several point cloud registration methods were tested for registering
the 3D model {\bf M[o]} with the corresponding segmented point cloud
{\bf Cloud[o]} (line 12). This included {\sc
Super4PCS} \cite{super4pcs}, fast global registration \cite{koltun}
and simply using the principal component analysis ({\tt PCA}) with
Iterative Closest Point ({\tt ICP}) \cite{icp}. The {\sc Super4PCS}
algorithm \cite{super4pcs} used alongside ICP was found to be the most
applicable for the target setup as it is the most robust to outliers
and returns a very natural metric for confidence evaluation. {\sc
Super4PCS} returns the best rigid alignment according to the Largest
Common Pointset ({\tt LCP}). The algorithm searches for the best
score, using transformations obtained from four-point
congruences. Thus, given enough time, it generates the optimal
alignment with respect to the extracted segment.
After the 6DoF pose is computed for each object, the scene is
recreated in the simulator using object models placed at the pose {\bf
P[o]} and projected to the known camera views (line 14). Bounding
boxes are computed on the simulated setup and transferred to the real
images. This gives precise bounding box labels for real images in all
the views (line 15).
To further reduce manual labeling effort, an autonomous scene
reconfiguration is performed (lines 16-18). The robot reconfigures the
scene with a pick and place manipulation action to iteratively
construct scenes and label them, as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:figurelabelx}. For each reconfiguration, the object to
be moved is chosen randomly and the final configuration is selected
from a set of pre-defined configurations in the workspace.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/reconfig.png}
\vspace{-.3in}
\caption{Manipulator performing scene reconfiguration by moving an object from one configuration on the table to another}
\label{fig:figurelabelx}
\vspace{-.1in}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Datasets}
Several RGB-D datasets have been released in the setting of the Amazon
Picking Challenge \cite{singh2014bigbird, rennie2016dataset,
Princeton}. They proposed system was evaluated on the benchmark
dataset released by Team MIT-Princeton called the Shelf\&Tote dataset
\cite{Princeton}. The experiments are performed on 148 scenes in the
shelf environment with different lighting and clutter conditions. The
scenes include 11 objects used in APC with 2220 images and 229 unique
object poses. The objects were chosen to represent different geometric
shapes but ignoring the ones which did not have enough depth
information. Thus, the results can be generalized to a large set of
objects.
The proposed system has been also evaluated on a real-world table-top
setup. The corresponding test dataset was generated by placing
multiple objects in different configurations on a table-top. An {\tt
Intel RealSense} camera mounted on a {\tt Motoman} robot was used to
capture images of scenes from multiple views. Images corresponding to
41 cluttered scenes, with 11 {\tt APC} objects and 473 detection
instances were collected and manually labeled.
\subsection{Evaluating the Object Detector trained in Simulation}
To study how object pose distribution effects the training process,
different techniques for synthetic data generation are evaluated. The
results of experiments performed on the Shelf\&Tote dataset are
presented in Table \ref{table:perf}.
\subsubsection{Generating training data using test data distribution}
The objective here is to establish an upper bound for the performance
of a detector trained with simulated images. For this purpose, the
object detector is trained with the knowledge of pose distribution in
the test data. This process consists of estimating the density of the
test data with respect to object poses using {\it Kernel Density
Estimation}, and generating training data according to this
distribution, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Uniformly simulate many scenes using a simulator and record the
poses for each object in the scene.
\item Weigh each generated scene according to its similarity to test
data. This is the sum of the number of objects in the scene for
which the pose matches (rotation difference less than $15^o$ and
translation difference less than 5cm) at least one pose in their
corresponding test pose distribution.
\item Normalize the weights to get a probability distribution on the
sampled poses.
\item Sub-sample the training poses using the normalized probability
distribution
\end{itemize}
The sampled scenes were used to train a Faster-RCNN detector, which
achieved an accuracy of 69\%.
\subsubsection{Uniformly sampled synthetic data}
This alternative is a popular technique of generating synthetic
data. It uses 3D models of the objects to render their images from
several viewpoints sampled on a spherical surface centered at the
object. The background image corresponded to the {\tt APC} shelf, on
top of which randomly selected objects were pasted at sampled
locations. This process allows to simulate occlusions and mask
subtraction provides the accurate bounding boxes in these cases. The
objects in these images are not guaranteed to have physically
realistic poses. This method of synthetic data generation does not
perform well on the target task, giving a low accuracy of 31\%.
\subsubsection{Generating training data with physics-aware simulation}
The accuracy of 64\% achieved by the proposed physics-aware simulator
is close to the upper bound. By incorporating the knowledge of the
camera pose, resting surface and by using physics simulation, the
detector is essentially over-fitted to the distribution of poses from
which the test data comes, which can be useful for robotic setups.
\vspace{-.1in}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|a| m{4.6cm}|m{1.8cm} m{0cm}|}
\hline
\rowcolor{Gray}
& {\bf Method} & {\bf Success(IoU$>$0.5)} &\\[1ex]
\cline{2-4}
& Team MIT-Princeton \cite{Princeton} (Benchmark) & 75\% &\\[1ex]
\hline
\hline
& Sampled from test data distribution & 69\% &\\[1ex]
\cline{2-4}
& Sampled from uniform distribution & 31\% &\\[1ex]
\cline{2-4}
& Physics-aware simulation & 64\% &\\[1ex]
\cline{2-4}
\multirow{-4}{*}[2.8ex]{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{{\bf Simulation}}} & Physics-aware simulation + varying light & {\bf 70}\% &\\[1ex]
\hline
\hline
& Self-learning (2K images) & 75\% &\\[2ex]
\cline{2-4}
& Self-learning (6K images) & 81\% &\\[2ex]
\cline{2-4}
\multirow{-3}{*}[4.8ex]{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{{\bf Self-Learning}}} & Self-learning (10K images) & {\bf 82}\% &\\[2ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Evaluation on Princeton's Shelf\&Tote dataset \cite{Princeton}}\label{table:perf}
\vspace{-.25in}
\end{table}
The results discussed until now were with respect to a constant
lighting condition. As the dataset grows, then a dip in the
performance is observed. This is expected as the detector overfits
with respect to the synthetic texture, which does not mimic real
lighting condition. This is not desirable, however. To deal with this
issue, the lighting conditions are varied according to the location
and color of the light source. This does resolve the problem to some
extent but the dataset bias still limits performance to an accuracy of
70\%.
On the table-top setup, the detector trained by the physics-based
simulation has a success rate of 78.8\%, as shown in Table
\ref{table:bbox}.
\vspace{-.1in}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|m{4.6cm}|p{2.2cm} m{0cm}|}
\hline
\rowcolor{Gray}
{\bf Method} & {\bf Success(IoU$>$0.5)} &\\
\hline
Physics aware simulation & 78.8\% &\\
\hline
Self-learning (140 images) & {\bf 90.3\%} &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Detection accuracy on table-top experiments}
\label{table:bbox}
\vspace{-.3in}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluating Self-learning}
The self-learning pipeline is executed over the training images in the
{\tt Shelf\&Tote} \cite{Princeton} training dataset to automatically
label them using multi-view pose estimation. The real images are
incrementally added to the simulated dataset to re-train the {\tt
Faster-RCNN}. This results in a performance boost of 12\%. This
result also outperforms the training process by \cite{Princeton} which
uses approximately 15,000 real images labeled using background
subtraction. The reason that the proposed method outperforms a large
dataset of real training images is mostly because the proposed system
can label objects placed in a clutter.
On the table-top setup, pose estimation is performed using the trained
detector and model registration. The estimated poses with high
confidence values are then projected to the known camera views to
obtain the 2D bounding box labels on real scenes. This is followed by
reconfiguring the scenes using pick and place manipulation. After
generating 140 scenes with a clutter of 4 objects in each image, the
automatically labeled instances are used to retrain the {\tt
Faster-RCNN} detector. The performance improvement by adding these
labeled examples is presented in Table \ref{table:bbox}. The overall
performance improvement is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:improvement},
while an example is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:figurelabel}.
\vspace{-.15in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, height=6.5cm,
keepaspectratio]{images/plot2.png}
\vspace{-.25in}
\caption{Plot depicting the performance improvement by adding different components of the system}
\label{fig:improvement}
\vspace{-.2in}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evaluating the detector for 6DoF Pose estimation}
Success in pose estimation is evaluated as the percentage of
predictions with an error in translation less than 5cm and mean error
in the rotation less than $15^o$. The results of pose estimation are
compared to the pose system proposed by the APC Team MIT-Princeton
\cite{Princeton} in addition to different model registration
techniques. The results are depicted in Table
\ref{table:poseest}. Given the above specified metric, the proposed
approach outperforms the pose estimation system proposed before
\cite{Princeton} by a margin of 25\%. It is very interesting to note
that the success in pose estimation task is at par with the success
achieved using ground truth bounding boxes.
\vspace{-.15in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, height=6.5cm,
keepaspectratio]{images/selflearnresult.png}
\vspace{-.15in}
\caption{Results of object detection before and after training with
the self-learning process. The detector learns to predict more
precise bounding boxes. It can also detect objects better from novel
views.}
\label{fig:figurelabel}
\vspace{-.2in}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|m{4cm}|m{3cm}|m{3.5cm}|m{3.5cm}|m{2cm} m{0cm}|}
\hline
\rowcolor{Gray}
2D-Segmentation Method & 3D-registration Method & Mean-error Rotation (deg) & Mean-error Translation (m) & Success(\%) &\\[2ex]
\hline
Ground-Truth Bounding-Box & PCA + ICP & 7.65 & 0.02 & 84.8 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
\hline
{\tt FCN} (trained with \cite{Princeton}) & PCA + ICP & 17.3 & 0.06 & 54.6 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
{\tt FCN} (trained with \cite{Princeton}) & Super4PCS + ICP & 16.8 & 0.06 & 54.2 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
{\tt FCN} (trained with \cite{Princeton}) & fast-global-registration & 18.9 & 0.07 & 43.7 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
\hline
{\tt RCNN} (Proposed training) & PCA + ICP & {\bf 8.50} & 0.03 & {\bf 79.4} &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
{\tt RCNN} (Proposed training) & Super4PCS + ICP & 8.89 & {\bf 0.02} & 75.0 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
{\tt RCNN} (Proposed training) & fast-global-registration & 14.4 & 0.03 & 58.9 &\\[0.85ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Comparing the performance of the proposed system to state-of-the-art techniques for pose estimation.}
\label{table:poseest}
\vspace{-.4in}
\end{table*}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\input{01_introduction}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\input{02_relatedwork}
\section{Physics-aware Synthetic Data Generation}
\label{sec:physim}
\input{03_physics_aware}
\section{Self-Learning via\\ Multi-view Pose Estimation}
\label{sec:self_learning}
\input{04_self_learning}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\input{05_evaluation}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{06_conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Back in the late sixties, Ashcroft\cite{PhysRevLett.21.1748} made
the bold prediction of room temperature superconductivity in
metallic hydrogen under very high pressures. Later in the seventies,
a quantitative evaluation of the electron-phonon (e-p)
coupling\cite{Ferro.16.307, PhysRevB.15.4221} using
the Gaspari-Gyorffy-McMillan (GGM) theories\cite{PhysRevLett.28.801,
PhysRev.167.331} supported Ashcroft's ideas. In
Ref.\ \onlinecite{Ferro.16.307} an e-p coupling
$\lambda=1.86$ gave a superconducting transition temperature
$T_c=234$ K at an estimated pressure of 4.6 Mbar.
The ideas of Ashcroft have been recently confirmed by the
experiments of Drozdov \textit{et al}. \cite{Drozdov2015} and a series of
theoretical
papers\cite{Duan2014,PhysRevB.91.184511,PhysRevB.91.060511,PhysRevLett.114.157004,flores,quan,li,bianconi}
that confirm hydrogen-based high-temperature superconductivity is
realized in the sulfur compound H$_3$S under 200 GPa
pressure. Reference \onlinecite{PhysRevB.91.184511} presents a
comprehensive set of calculations for H$_3$S using the GGM
theory. In a subsequent paper (Ref.15), we extended the work of Ref.8 studying substitutions of S by Si, P, and Cl
in the framework of the virtual crystal approximation. In the present paper we pursue another study in this
class of hydrides by substituting S by F.
So we have performed band structure and total energy calculations using the linearized augmented
plane wave(LAPW) method. The resulting angular-momentum components of the densities of states (DOS) at the Fermi level
($E_f$) and the phase shifts obtained from the computed band structure potentials are the input to the GGM theory for the evaluation of the Hopfield parameter ($\eta$).
\newpage
\section{Computational Details}
We have applied the LAPW code developed at NRL\cite{singh, nrl}, using the Hedin-Lunqvist form of
exchange and correlation, to calculate the band structure and total energy of the H$_3$F and H$_2$F systems
in the Im$\bar{3}$m and Fluorite crystal structures respectively.
The total energy minimization was done using the third-order Birch equation\cite{birch}. The total
and angular momentum decomposed densities of electronic states were
obtained by the tetrahedron method using LAPW results on a $k$-point uniformly distributed grid of 1785 k-points and
505 k-points for the respective irreducible Brillouin zones to ensure very accurate convergence. Subsequently, we
applied the Gaspari-Gyorffy (GG) formula to obtain the parameter
$\eta$, then the Allen-Dynes modification\cite{PhysRevB.12.905} of
the McMillan equation to determine $T_c$. The main steps here are to
determine the electron-phonon coupling constant $\lambda_j$ given by
McMillan\cite{PhysRev.167.331} as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_j = \frac{N(E_f) \langle I_j^2 \rangle}{M_j\langle\omega_j^2\rangle} \equiv \frac{\eta_j}{M_j\langle w_j^2 \rangle}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $N(E_f)$ is the total DOS per spin at $E_f$, $<I_j^2>$ is the electron-ion matrix element, $<w_j^2>$ is the
average phonon frequency and the index $j$ corresponds to hydrogen and fluorine.
The Hopfield parameter $\eta_j$ for the two components is
computed by the GG formula shown below:
\begin{equation}
\eta_j = \frac{1}{N(E_f)} \sum\limits_{l=0}^2 2(l+1) \sin^2(\delta^j_l-\delta^j_{(l+1)})v^j_{l} v^j_{(l+1)}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\delta^j_{l}$ is the scattering phase shift for the
$j$-th atom, the sum of which is related to the deformation
potential, and $v^j_{l}=N^j_{l}(E_f)/N^{j(1)}_{l}$ is the ratio of
the $l$-th partial DOS of the $j$-th atom to $N^{(1)}$, the free
scatterer DOS, for the given atomic potential in a homogeneous
system.The phase shifts $\delta^j_{l}$ are calculated using the following expression:
\begin{equation}
tan \ {\delta^j_l(R_s ,E)} = \frac{j_l^{'}(kR_s) - j_l(kR_s)L_l(R_s ,E)}{n_l^{'}(kR_s) - n_l(kR_s)L_l(R_s ,E)}
\end{equation}
where $L_l = \frac{u_l^{'}} {u_l}$ \ is the logarithmic derivative.
\noindent The free scatterer DOS is defined as
\begin{equation}
N^{j(1)}_{l}=(2l+1)\int_{0}^{R_s} [u^j_{l}(r,E_f)]^2 r^2 dr
\end{equation}
\noindent where $u_l$ is the radial wave function and the upper
limit of the integral is the muffin-tin radius $R_s$. In previous
works, equations (2) and (3) contain multiplying factors of
$E_f/\pi^2$ and $\sqrt{E_f}/\pi$, respectively. But by examining
these equations it is easy to see that these factors cancel out.
Finally, we use the Allen-Dynes equation to determine the superconducting
transition temperature $T_c$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
T_c = f_1f_2 \frac{\omega_{\mathrm{log}}}{1.2} \exp{\bigg[-\frac{1.04(1+\lambda)}{\lambda-\mu^*(1+0.62\lambda)}\bigg]}
\end{equation}
\noindent In Eq.\ (4) we have set the Coulomb pseudopotential
$\mu^*=0.1$ and $f_2=1$. $f_1$ is the strong coupling factor given
by
\begin{equation}
f_1=\left[1+\left(\frac{\lambda}{2.46+9.35\mu^*}\right)^{1.5}\right]^{1/3} ~ .
\end{equation}
It turns out for this material, $f_1$ can provide an additional
10\% enhancement to $T_c$. We have used the values for
$\omega_{\mathrm{log}}$ and $\langle \omega_j^2 \rangle$ found in
Ref. \onlinecite{PhysRevB.91.184511} from the analysis of the
results of Duan \textit{et al}. (Ref.\ \onlinecite{Duan2014}). Our choice of
$\mu^*=0.1$ can be justified by the empirical formula proposed by
Bennemann and Garland\cite{bennemann}.
\section{Results}
In Fig.\ 1 we show the Pressure v.\ Volume relationships found from the Birch fit for the H$_3$S and H$_3$F compounds. It is worth noting that there is a significant difference between the two graphs showing that the H$_3$S reaches the pressure of 200 GPa at much higher volume than in H$_3$F. So at $V=87.8$ (lattice constant $=5.6$ Bohr) the pressure is around 210 GPa in H$_3$S while at the same volume H$_3$F reaches a pressure of only 82 GPa. This suggests that H$_3$F might reach high superconducting temperature at much lower pressure than H$_3$S.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.18in, angle=-90]{press}
\caption{ Pressure v.\ Volume relationships for H$_3$S and H$_3$F.}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ 2 displays the energy bands of H$_3$F in the bcc-like Im$\bar{3}$m structure for lattice constant $a=5.6$ Bohr ($P=82$ GPa). We note that the low energy band near -1.0 Ry is almost 100 per cent of s-like fluorine character.
At the Fermi level, $E_f$, at about 0.9 Ry the bands consist of 70 per cent p-like fluorine character ,22 per cent
hydrogen s-like, 5 per cent fluorine s-like and 3 per cent fluorine d-like. Our Birch fit found that P=0 corresponds
to a lattice constant of 6.33 Bohr.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 0 0.4cm},clip,width=3.11in]{band_h3f_lat56.eps}
\caption{Energy bands of H$_3$F for lattice constant $a=5.6$ Bohr\ ($P=82$ GPa).}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ 3 we present the total and angular momentum and site-decomposed(DOS) for H$_3$F in the Im$\bar{3}$m structure for lattice constant $a=5.6$ Bohr . We note the narrow s-like fluorine dominated peak at -1.0 Ry. This is followed by a gap of about 1 Ry where two fluorine dominated p-like peaks appear. Then at an energy of 0.5 Ry a tiny gap is found
which is followed by another two peaks with both fluorine p-like and hydrogen s-like contributions. In the middle of the latter two peaks $E_f$ is found. The $N(E_f)$ is decomposed as discussed above in the description of the bands. It is important to state here that the overall features of the DOS shown in Fig. 3 are very different from those calculated by many groups for H$_3$S. But at $E_f$ both the DOS values and the per site decomposition are very similar.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.18in,angle=-90]{h3f_dos56.eps}
\caption{Total and angular momentum-decomposed DOS for H$_3$F. Although this DOS has a different overall shape than that of H$_3$S,
it turns out that at the Fermi level both the actual values and the decomposition are very similar between the two compounds}
\end{figure}
In Fig.\ 4 we show the values of the Hopfield parameter $\eta$ comparing H$_3$F to H$_3$S. The results shown in this
figure establish a dramatic increase of the fluorine component of $\eta$ in H$_3$F over the corresponding value of the sulfur component in H$_3$S while the hydrogen component is comparable to that in H$_3$S.
More specifically from Fig.\ 4 we can see that at $P=128$ GPa (lattice constant $a=5.4$ Bohr) and for $P=82$ GPA (lattice constant $a=5.6$), the corresponding values of the $\eta$ fluorine are 17.5 eV/\AA$^2$ and 13.9 eV/\AA$^2$ respectively. As can be seen from the figure these values are almost a factor of three larger than those of both the sulfur and hydrogen components in H$_3$S which are actually achieved at higher pressures. This
large increase of the parameter $\eta$ in H$_3$F is a signal that we should be looking for a high superconducting transition temperature in this compound if it can be synthesized.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.11in]{eta.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the Hopfield parameters $\eta$ as a
function of pressure for H$_3$F and H$_3$S. Note that the values for the hydrogen components have been multiplied by three.}
\end{figure}
However, in order to obtain a quantitative prediction of the transition temperaturerge $T_c$, a large value of the
Hopfield parameter is not a sufficient condition. It is necessary to estimate the force
constants $(M\omega^2)_j$ so that values for the electron-phonon
coupling constants $\lambda$ can be obtained. Using our previous
analysis\cite{PhysRevB.91.184511} for pure H$_3$S and the results of
Duan \textit{et al}. \cite{Duan2014}, we derived the following values of the
averaged phonon frequencies in H$_3$S: $\langle\omega\rangle_S=615$K,
$\langle\omega\rangle_H=1840$ K, and $\omega_{\mathrm{log}}=1560$K.
Now we assume that the $M\omega^2$ of H (optic mode) to be nearly the same as in H$_3$S.
We then estimate the $M\omega^2$ of the fluorine site by scaling the H$_3$S results by
the fluorine mass also introducing a volume dependence by considering the square of the
phonon frequency as proportional to the bulk modulus $B$.
Hence, as shown in (Eq.1), by dividing our calculated parameters $\eta$ by the above
estimated values of the force constants we obtain an estimate of $\lambda$ which is
shown as a function of pressure in Fig.\ 5.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.18in]{lambda.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the electron-phonon coupling constants $\lambda$ as a function of pressure for H$_3$F and H$_3$S}
\end{figure}
Finally, using the Allen-Dynes equation (Eq.5) we calculated the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$.
This estimate of $T_c$ for H$_3$F together with that of H$_3$S are shown in Fig.\ 6. It is interesting that for
the fluorine compound we predict transition temperature well over 200K for a pressure of only about 130 GPa.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.18in]{Tc.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ as a function of
pressure for H$_3$F and H$_3$S}
\end{figure}
\section{Further Discussion}
We now proceed with further analysis of our results. The main result of our calculation
is the finding that the fluorine component of the Hopfield parameter $\eta$ is very
large in H$_3$F (see Fig.\ 4).
This is due to the very large contribution from the pd channel of F in the GG formula (Eq.3),which has the value of 13.7 eV/\AA$^2$ and 11.3 eV/\AA$^2$ for a=5.4 a.u. and a=5.6a.u.respectively. It is worth noting in H$_3$F the hydrogen component of $\eta$ is much smaller than in H$_3$S.
In summarizing the situation we recognize that while our $\eta$ calculations are reliable, our estimates of the force constants are less reliable since we have not calculated
the phonon frequencies from first principles. Nevertheless, the large values of $\eta$
are very intriguing especially since they are not due to large value of N(Ef) which has modest values of less than 7 states/Ry. Further support for the large $\eta$ is found
from a calculation we performed in the Fluorite structure compound H$_2$F where we find
even larger values of $\eta$ exceeding 27 eV/\AA$^2$.
Therefore, it becomes important to check the stability of H$_3$F by calculating the
elastic constants c11-c12 and c44. We performed such calculations for the lattice constants a=5.4 a.u. and a=5.6 a.u which correspond to the highest pressures we considered.
The results are shown in Fig.\ 7 which depicts the energy versus the square of the distortion for c44 and c11-12.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=2.18in]{c44_a=54.eps}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=2.18in]{c44_a=56.eps}
}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=2.18in]{c11-c12.eps}
}
\caption{(a) Energy v.\ Distortion Squared for a=5.4 and c44 (b) Energy v.\ Distortion Squared for a=5.6 and c44 and (c) Energy v.\ Distortiom Squared for c11-c12}
\end{figure}
It appears that the slope for c11-c12 has a small negative value suggesting
an instability. So this result casts a doubt as to whether the H$_3$F can be
a superconductor in the bcc-like structure. However, the unusually large values of the Hopfield parameter in the H-F system warrants further investigation in other crystal structures.
\section{Conclusion}
We emphasize that using the results of band structure calculations and
application of the GGM theory, the main conclusion of this work is that
H$_3$F has a very large value of the fluorine component of the Hopfield parameter. This is due to the very large
electron-ion matrix element $<I_f^2>$ on the fluorine site, and not to the $N(E_f)$, which has a
modest value similar to that in H$_3$S. However, due to an instability in
the calculated elastic constant c11-c12 in the Im$\bar{3}$m structure further studies are needed for other crystal structures to verify the present prediction.
\section{Acknowledgments}
I acknowledge many useful discussions with Michael J. Mehl. This work was partially supported by DOE grant DE-SC0014337.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we study selected argument forms involving
counterfactuals and
indicative conditionals
under uncertainty. The aim is to explore potential cross-cultural
differences in human reasoning about conditionals and negation under
uncertainty between Easterners and Westerners. So far, cross-cultural
differences in reasoning involving negations have been described in the classical-logic based (old) paradigm psychology of reasoning literature \cite<see, e.g.,>{nisbett01,
norenzayan02,peng99,yamaIP}. These previous studies demonstrate that Westerners are inclined to engage in rule-based reasoning whereas Easterners are apt to engage in intuitive or dialectical reasoning. In other words, Easterners are more likely to consider contradictory premises dialectically than Westerners. However, \citeA{zhang15} report that Easterners are not actually more dialectical when they meet contradictory opinions, but they believe due to cultural reasons that dialectical thinking is wiser than Westerners. Because contradictory premises are not used in this experiment, we do not make predictions concerning whether Easterners reason more dialectical or not \cite<see, e.g.,>{peng99}. Rather, we explore whether the location of negation in the context of conditionals impacts on reasoning and whether our Japanese sample differs from corresponding data of Western samples. Moreover, if Japanese people see a stronger cultural value in dialectical thinking, it is plausible to assume that they may hesitate to show stronger confidence in the correctness of their judgments. Our study
presents one of the first attempts \cite<see also>{yamaIP} to
identify cross-cultural differences within the framework of the new probability-based paradigm psychology
of reasoning.
Among the various ways of expressing
and using counterfactuals \cite<see, e.g.>{declerck01}, we restrict our investigation of
counterfactuals to conditionals in subjunctive
mood, where the grammatical structure implies that the counterfactual's \emph{antecedent} ($A$) is factually
false. For instance, consider the utterance of the following counterfactual in the
context of a randomly drawn poker card:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{CounterfEx}
\text{If the drawn
card were to show an ace } (A), \\ \text{then it would show
spades }
(C)\, .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The grammatical structure of (\ref{CounterfEx}) pragmatically entails that the drawn card is not an ace
($\neg A$), i.e., the antecedent $A$ of (\ref{CounterfEx}) is false. By ``indicative conditional'' we mean an ``if--then'' statement of the form
\emph{If $A$, then $C$}, e.g.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{IndicativeEx}
\text{If the drawn
card shows an ace, then it shows
spades}\, .
\end{split}
\end{equation} Contrary to the counterfactual~(\ref{CounterfEx}), the
indicative conditional~(\ref{IndicativeEx}) does not imply whether
the card actually shows an ace or not.
While the core meaning of indicative conditionals was equated
with the semantics of the \emph{material conditional} in the classical
logic-based
paradigm (or ``old'') psychology of reasoning \cite<see,
e.g.,>{braine98,johnsonlaird83,rips94,wason72}, our work is located in the new paradigm psychology of reasoning, where conditionals are
interpreted as \emph{conditional probability} assertions \cite<see,
e.g., >{elqayam16,oaksford07,over09,pfeifer13b}. Instead of using
(fragments of) classical logic, the new paradigm psychology of
reasoning uses probability theory as a rationality
framework. Probability as a rationality framework is psychologically
and philosophically
appealing for many reasons \cite<see, e.g.,>{pfeifer14}. Let us
mention three of them.
First, probability theory allows for managing
\emph{degrees of belief} instead of restricting belief to the two values \emph{true} and \emph{false} as
in the case of bivalent classical logic. Thus, probability
theory provides a much richer framework to study
conditionals.
It allows for analysing different psychological predictions concerning
conditionals: not only in terms of the material conditional ($A\supset C$) and the conjunction
($A\wedge C$) as defined in classical logic, but also in terms of the conditional
event ($C|A$), as defined in coherence-based probability logic \cite<see,
e.g.,>{coletti02,gilio16,pfeifer09b}. Table~\ref{FIG:ttables} presents
the truth conditions of these three interpretations.
Note that the
conditional event cannot be expressed in classical bivalent
logic. We hypothesise that the degree of belief in a conditional \emph{If $A$, then $C$} is
interpreted by a suitable conditional
probability assertion ($p(C|A)$) and neither as the probability of the
material conditional ($p(A\supset C)$) nor as the probability of the
conjunction ($p(A \wedge C)$). We will test these three
interpretations in the following experiment.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Truth tables for the material conditional $A \supset C$ interpretation,
the conjunction $\wedge$ interpretation and the conditional event
interpretation $C|A$ of a (counterfactual) conditional \emph{If $A$ (were the case), then
$C$ (would be the case)}.}
\label{FIG:ttables}
\vskip 0.12in
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}\hline
$A$ & $C$ & $A \supset C$& $\wedge$& $C|A$\\\hline
true &true &true &true &true \\
true &false &false &false &false \\
false &true &true &false & undetermined \\
false &false &true &false &undetermined \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Second, probability logic blocks so-called paradoxes of the material
conditional \cite<see, e.g.,>{pfeifer13}. For example, $\neg A$ (``not-$A$'') logically entails $A
\supset C$. It is easy to imagine natural language instantiations for
$A$ and $C$, where this inference appears counterintuitive. The
paradox arises, when the material conditional is used to formalize a
natural language conditional. In probability logic, the inference from
$p(\neg A)=x$ to $p(C|A)$ is probabilistically non-informative, i.e.,
if $p(\neg A)=x$, then $0\leq p(C|A)\leq 1$ is coherent; hence, the
paradox is blocked
\cite{pfeifer13}. This also matches experimental data based on samples
involving Westerners
\cite{pfeifer10b,pfeifertulkki17}. Note that the paradox is not blocked if the
conditional probability (conclusion) is replaced by
$p(A\supset C)$ or by $p(A \wedge C)$. A subgoal of this paper is to explore how Japanese
participants reason about this paradox.
Third, probability allows
for retracting conclusions in the light of new evidence while
classical logic is monotonic (i.e., adding a premise to a logically
valid argument can only increase the set of conclusions). The
suppression effect \cite<see, e.g.,>{byrne89,stenning05}
illustrates peoples' capacity to retract conclusions if new premises
are learned. Moreover, experimental data suggests that most people
satisfy
basic nonmonotonic reasoning postulates of System~P \cite<see,
e.g.>{benferhat05,pfeifer,pfeifer10a}. The rules of System~P describe
formally basic principles any system of nonmonotonic reasoning
should satisfy \cite{kraus90} and different semantics were developed,
including probabilistic ones. Probabilistic semantics postulate that
conditionals should be represented by conditional probability assertions \cite<see,
e.g.,>{adams75,gilio02}. Interestingly, inference rules which are
(in)valid in System~P are also (in)valid in standard systems of
counterfactual conditionals \cite<like>{lewis73}. This convergence
shows a close relation between conditional probabilities and
counterfactuals. Compared to the big number of psychological investigations on indicative conditionals
\cite<for overviews see, e.g.,>{evans04,Nickerson2015}, studies
on adult reasoning about counterfactuals are surprisingly
rare \cite{over07b,pfeifer15a,pfeifertulkki17}. Our study sheds new
light by adding a cross-cultural perspective on indicative conditionals and counterfactuals.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Task names, their abbreviations and formal structures used in
the experiment, where $\neg$ denotes negation, $\rightarrow$ is a
placeholder for denoting the
indicative conditional or the counterfactual, $\supset$ denotes the material
conditional, $\therefore$ denotes ``Therefore''.}
\label{TAB:tasks}
\vskip 0.12in
\begin{tabular}{ll}\hline
Task name (abbreviation) &\!\!\!Argument form \\\hline
Aristotle's thesis \#1 (AT1) &\!\!\!it's not the case that:$(\neg A \rightarrow A)$\!\!\! \\
Aristotle's thesis \#2 (AT2) &\!\!\!it's not the case that:$(A \rightarrow \neg A)$\!\!\! \\
Negated Reflexivity (NR) &\!\!\!it's not the case that:$(A \rightarrow A)$ \\
From ``Every'' to ``If'' (EIn) &\!\!\!Every $S$ is $P$ $\therefore$ $S\rightarrow \neg P$ \\
From ``Every'' to ``If'' (EI) &\!\!\!Every $S$ is $P$ $\therefore$ $S\rightarrow P$ \\
Modus Ponens (MP)&\!\!\!$A$, $A\rightarrow C$ $\therefore$ $C$ \\
Negated MP (NMP) &\!\!\!$A$, $A\rightarrow C$ $\therefore$ $\neg C$ \\
Paradox (Prdx) &\!\!\!$\neg A$ $\therefore$ $A \rightarrow C$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{TAB:tasks} lists the task names, their abbreviations, and their underlying logical
form used in our experiment. All
argument forms were investigated previously in the literature on Western
samples. Each argument form is suitable for indicative and subjunctive formulations. They are carefully selected to distinguish between the
material conditional, conjunction and conditional event interpretation
of conditionals. Tasks AT1, AT2, and NR \cite<adapted from>{pfeifer12x} are about negating
conditionals. Note that there are
two ways to negate material conditionals, namely the wide scope
negation of material conditionals
(i.e., $A \supset C$ can be negated by $\neg (A \supset C)$) and the
narrow scope negation of material conditionals (i.e., $A \supset C$ is negated
by negating its consequent $C$: $A \supset \neg
C$). Table~\ref{TAB:percentages} lists the normative predictions of the
different argument forms. Averaging the percentages of
responses in three studies reveals that 73\% of the participants in
task AT1, 75\% in
task AT2, and 80\% of the participants in
task NR responded probabilistically coherently according to the
conditional probability interpretation \cite{pfeifer12x,pfeifer15a,pfeifertulkki17}.
Task EI (resp., task EIn) connects the basic syllogistic sentence type ``\emph{Every
$S$ is $P$}'' with associated conditionals (resp., conditionals involving negations) in the indicative and in the
counterfactual form. The motivation for these tasks is to shed light on
the hypothesised close relations between quantified statements and
conditional probability assertions in the literature \cite<see,
e.g.>{cohen12,2016:SMPS2,PSsubm}. Recent data of Westerners suggest, that in
task ASP 73\% of the participants respond that the conclusion
holds, whereas 88\% of the participants respond that the conclusion
in task
ASnP does not hold \cite{pfeifertulkki17}, which corresponds to the normative predictions.
We also investigate the well-known MP and its not logically valid but
probabilistically informative counterpart
NMP. In a sample of Western participants \cite{pfeifertulkki17}, 68\% responded correctly,
that the conclusion in task MP holds, and 63\% responded correctly
that the conclusion in task NMP does not hold \cite<see also>{pfeifer07a}.
Finally, as mentioned above, we investigate one of the paradoxes of the material
conditional.
Western data on Task Prdx indicates that most people (87\% on the
average) understand that
this argument form is probabilistically non-informative \cite{pfeifer10b,pfeifertulkki17}.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Materials and Design}
We used a $2\times 2$ between-participants design where we crossed
task formulations in terms of indicative conditionals versus
formulations in terms of counterfactuals. To control for position effects, we
used two random orders (generated by \texttt{random.org}). This
resulted in four different task booklets.
Each booklet consisted of a brief introduction, of eight tasks, and of
questions about the booklets (task
difficulty, whether participants took logic or probability classes and
whether they like maths). Furthermore, we included usual demographic
questions at the end. The logical forms of the eight tasks are
explained in Table~\ref{TAB:tasks}. We instantiated these logical forms
into a cover story which was already used in studies on Western samples
\cite<see, e.g.,>{pfeifer10b,pfeifertulkki17}. We adapted and
translated this cover story for the Japanese sample.
For each task, the participants were asked to imagine the following
situation:
\begin{quote}\em
Hanako works in a factory that produces toy blocks. She is
responsible for controlling the production. Every toy block has a
shape (\emph{cylinder, cube \emph{or} pyramid}) and a colour
(\emph{red, blue \emph{or} green}). For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item Red cylinder, red cube, red pyramid
\item Blue cylinder, blue cube, \dots
\item Green cylinder, \dots
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}
Then, for example in task AT1 (indicative conditional), the participants were asked to consider the
following sentence:
\begin{center}
\fbox{\em
\parbox{.43\textwidth}{\textbf{It is not the case}, that: \, \textbf{If} the toy
block is \textbf{not} a
\emph{cube}, \textbf{then} the toy block is a
\emph{cube}.}}
\end{center}
The instructions continued by the following questions, which prompt
answers
in a forced choice format:
\begin{quote}\em
\noindent Can Hanako infer at all \underline{how sure she can be} that
the sentence in the box holds? \emph{(please tick the appropriate box)}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\Box$] NO, Hanako can {\bf not} infer how sure she can be that
the sentence in the box holds.
\item[$\Box$] YES, Hanako can infer how sure she can be that
the sentence in the box holds. \\%[.5em]
\begin{quote}
\emph{If you chose ``\emph{YES}'', please tick one of the following answers:}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\Box$] Hanako can be sure that the sentence in the box holds.
\item[$\Box$] Hanako can be sure that the sentence in the box does {\bf
not} hold.
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}
After each target task, the participants were instructed to rate on a scale their subjective confidence in their response.
The corresponding AT1 task involving counterfactuals was formulated in
exactly the same way with the difference, that the indicative
conditional was replaced by a corresponding counterfactual, as follows:
\begin{center}
\fbox{\em
\parbox{.43\textwidth}{\textbf{It is not the case}, that: \, \textbf{If} the toy
block were \textbf{not} a
\emph{cube}, \textbf{then} the toy block would be a
\emph{cube}.}}
\end{center}
For those tasks involving explicit premises (i.e., in tasks EIn, EI, MP, NMP, and Prdx), we formulated
uncertainties in terms of verbal descriptions (``\emph{quite sure}''). For instance, consider task MP:
\begin{quote}\em
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A)] \dots {\em quite sure} that the toy block is a \emph{cube}.
\item[(B)] \dots {\em quite sure} that \textbf{if} the toy block is a
\emph{cube}, \textbf{then} it is \emph{red}.
\end{itemize}
\end{quote}
\subsection{Participants and procedure}
63 Osaka City University undergraduate students
participated in this study (mean age 20.02 ($SD=1.05$) years, 34
females, 21 males, 8 did not disclose their gender). Their major subjects
included various humanistic fields (3 commerce, 5 culture, 1 geography, 5 history,
4 Japanese, 8 law, 5 linguistics, 1 pedagogy, 2 philosophy, 17
psychology, 2 sociology, and 10 other). Nobody had ever taken logic classes but two
participants had previously taken some probability classes. At the end of the experiment,
participants evaluated the set of tasks as rather difficult (mean 2.76 ($SD=2.11$) on a
scale ranging from 0 (``very difficult'') to 10 (``very
easy'')). 82.54\% reported that they do not like maths.
All participants were tested at the same time during a lesson in a course on cultural psychology. For reducing the probability for copy-pasting responses, the
booklets were distributed such that the two task orders and the
two formulations of the conditionals (indicative vs.\ counterfactual)
alternated systematically. Moreover, the experimenter announced that the task booklets differ before the participants started with filling in their responses. The booklets
were formulated in Japanese, the participants' mother tongue.
\section{Results and discussion}
We performed Fisher's exact tests to compare the response frequencies
among the four booklets (task order 1~$\times$ task order~2 $\times$
indicative conditionals $\times$ counterfactuals) and did not observe
any significant differences after performing Holm-Bonferroni corrections
for multiple significance tests. Likewise, analyses of variance on the
participant's confidence ratings in the correctness of their responses
did not show statistically significant differences among the four
booklets. This replicates previous findings in studies which used Western samples. Specifically, studies on probabilistic truth
table tasks \cite{over07b,pfeifer15a} and on uncertain
argument forms \cite{pfeifertulkki17} did not detect significant difference between indicative conditionals and counterfactuals. Thus, our data speak against
cross-cultural differences between Easterners and Westerners. This calls for further experiments to clarify whether this interesting negative result is due to a too high dissimilarity of our tasks compared to those in other studies on cross-cultural differences. Or, alternatively, whether cross-cultural differences are not that strong as they are claimed to be \cite<see, e.g.,>{zhang15}.
Since there were no significant differences in the responses among the
four booklets, we pooled the data for the following data analysis
($N=63$).
Concerning the interpretation of conditionals, we observed high endorsement rates of the conditional probability
hypothesis (see Table~\ref{TAB:percentages}). This is strong support for the hypothesis that both indicative conditionals and counterfactuals are best modeled by conditional probability.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{\renewcommand\baselinestretch{1}
Percentages ($n=63$) of ``holds'' (hld), ``does not hold''
($\neg$hld), and probabilistic non-informativeness responses (n-inf;
see also Table~\ref{TAB:tasks}). Predictions based on the conditional
probability hypothesis of conditionals are in {\bf bold}. Alternative
hypotheses are indicated in parentheses: $\neg_\supset$ (resp.,
$\supset_\neg$) denotes wide (resp., narrow) scope negation of the
material conditional $\supset$; $\wedge$ denotes conjunction. If not
specified otherwise, predictions coincide.}
\label{TAB:percentages}
\vskip 0.12in
\begin{tabular}{rlllll}\hline
& AT1 & AT2 &NR & EIn \\\cline{2-5}
hld: &{\bf 65.08}$\left(^{\supset_\neg}_\wedge\right)$ & {\bf 76.19}$\left(^{\supset_\neg}_\wedge\right)$ &~6.35 & ~6.45 \rule{0pt}{1.1\normalbaselineskip} \\
\!\!$\neg$hld: &15.87 & 11.11 & {\bf 63.49}$(^{\neg_\supset})$ &{\bf 69.35} \\
n-i: &19.05$(^{\neg_\supset})$& 12.70$(^{\neg_\supset})$ &30.16$\left(^{\supset_\neg}_\wedge\right)$ &24.20 \\[0.1in]
& EI &MP &NMP & Prdx \\ \cline{2-5}
hld: &{\bf 88.89} &{\bf 53.97} & ~9.52 & ~0.00$(^\supset)$\\
\!\!$\neg$hld: &~6.35 & ~3.17 & {\bf 52.38}& 17.46$(_\wedge)$\\
n-inf: & ~4.76 & 42.86 & 38.10& {\bf 82.54} \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{FIG:conf} presents the mean confidence ratings, which shows how sure the
participants are that their responses are correct. The confidences are relatively
high, with an average value of 7.2 on a rating scale from 0 to 10.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Mean ($M$) and standard deviations ($SD$) of the
participants' confidence ratings ($n=63$) on a scale from 0 (``very
sure that my response is not correct'') to 10 (``very sure that my response is correct''; see also Table~\ref{TAB:tasks}).}
\label{FIG:conf}
\vskip 0.12in
\begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrr}\hline
& \!\!AT1 & \!AT2 &\!NR & \!EIn & \!EI~ &\!MP &\!NMP & Prdx \\ \cline{2-9}
\!\!$M$&\!\!6.77 &\!6.86 &\!7.20 &\!7.71 &\!8.02 &\!7.18 &\!7.02&\!6.82 \\
\!\!$SD$&\!\!1.99 &\!2.06 &\!2.37 &\!1.99 &\!1.97 &\!2.10 &\!2.08&\!1.93 \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Concluding remarks}
Our data suggest that people form their degree of belief in the
counterfactual \emph{If $A$ were the case, $C$ would be the case} by
equating it with the corresponding conditional probability of
$C|A$. This is consistent with the observation in previous
experimental work (with Western participants) that people
treat the factual statement as irrelevant when they form
their degree of belief in a counterfactual
\cite{pfeifer15a,pfeifertulkki17}. This can be justified and
explained by the coherence-based theory of nested conditionals
\cite{GiSa13c,gilio14,2016:SMPS1,GOPSsubm}. Given three events
$A,B,C$ with incompatible $A$ and $B$ (i.e., $A \wedge B$ is a logical
contradiction) the prevision of the conditional random quantity
$((C|B)|A)$ is equal to $p(C|B)$ \cite[Example 1,
p. 225]{GiSa13c}. Thus, the counterfactual \emph{If $A$ were the case,
$C$ would be the case} can be modeled by the degree of belief in the
conditional random quantity $(C|A)|\neg A$ which equals to $p(C|A)$
(i.e., $Prevision((C|A)|\neg A)=p(C|A)$). This is an explanation for
why people---as experimentally demonstrated in Western samples and
also in our Japanese sample---respond by corresponding conditional
probabilities when asked to give a degree of belief in a
counterfactual.
Our data suggest a negative answer to the question whether there
are cross-cultural differences between Easterners and Westerners
w.~r.~t.\ reasoning about indicative conditionals, counterfactuals, and
their negations. Further experimental work is needed to
substantiate the hypothesis that conditional probability is the
\emph{universal} key ingredient for psychological theories of
indicative conditionals and counterfactuals.
Finally, we note that
adaptation of reasoning styles can be one of the universal adaptive strategies across cultures.
The question of which aspects of human reasoning are universal, and in how far they are universal, is important and calls for collaborations of psychologists of reasoning and cultural psychologists.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Niki Pfeifer is supported by the DFG project
PF~740/2-2 as part of the Priority Program ``New Frameworks of Rationality'' (SPP1516).
|
\section{Introduction}
The modal $\mu$ calculus, $L_\mu$, is a well-established verification logic describing properties of labelled transition systems.
It consists of a simple modal logic, augmented with the least fixpoint $\mu$ and its dual, the greatest fixpoint $\nu$.
Alternations between $\mu$ and $\nu$ are key for measuring complexity: the fewer alternations, the easier a formula
is to model check. We call this the formula's index. For any fixed index, the model-checking problem is in $P$. However,
no fixed index is sufficient to capture all properties expressible in $L_\mu$ \cite{bradfield1996modal,lenzi1996hierarchy,arnold1999}, and it is notoriously
difficult to decide whether a formula can be simplified. So far only properties expressible without fixpoints \cite{otto1999eliminating}, or with only one type of fixpoint \cite{kusters2002deciding} are known to be decidable.
In automata theory, the corresponding index problem is to decide the simplest acceptance condition sufficient to express a property with a
specified type of automata. This is often referred to as the Mostowski-Rabin index of a language.
Given a deterministic automaton on labelled binary trees,
the minimal index of equivalent deterministic \cite{niwinski1998relating}, non-deterministic \cite{urbanski2000deciding,niwinski2005deciding},
and alternating \cite{niwinski2003gap} automata are all known to be decidable.
In \cite{facchini2013rabin} these results were extended to show that the non-deterministic and alternating index problems are also decidable for languages
of labelled binary trees recognised by game-automata, a slightly more general model than deterministic automata.
For the case of non-deterministic automata, the index problem reduces to the uniform universality of distance parity automata \cite{colcombet2008non}.
In \cite{colcombet2013deciding} it was shown that given a B\"uchi definable language $\mathcal L$, it is decidable whether it can be described by an alternating co-B\"uchi automaton.
Skrzypczak and Walukiewicz \cite{skrzypczakdeciding} give an alternative proof of the same result and add a topological
characterisation of the recognised languages.
A B\"uchi definable language which is co-B\"uchi is said to be weakly definable: it is definable in weak monadic second order logic \cite{rabin1970}, and equivalently, by an alternating automaton which is simultaneously
both B\"uchi and co-B\"uchi.
In $L_\mu$ terms, this result corresponds to deciding whether
a formula in the class $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ is equivalent on binary trees to a formula in the class $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$.
This paper provides a novel proof of the same result extended to arbitrary structures: given a $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ formula, it is decidable whether it is equivalent to a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula.
The proof defines an $n$-parametrised game such that the decidability of $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ reduces to deciding whether for some $n$ this is the model-checking game for a formula.
From this game, we derive a family $\Psi^n$ of $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formulas, such that an input formula $\Psi$ is equivalent to a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula if and only if it is
equivalent to some formula in this family. To decide the parameter $n$ for $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ input formulas, we simply argue that the game construction in
\cite{skrzypczakdeciding}, designed for binary trees, extends to the case of labelled transition systems.
We consider the most interesting contributions of this paper to be the reduction of the decidability of $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ to finding the parameter $n$ such that $\Psi$ is equivalent to $\Psi^n$.
With this result, finding a way to generalise the game construction from \cite{skrzypczakdeciding} to arbitrary inputs would suffice to decide $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec-preliminaries}
\subsection{$L_\mu$}
Let us fix, once and for all a finite set of actions $\mathit{Act}=\{a,b,...\}$, a countably infinite set of propositional variables $\mathit{Prop}=\{P,Q,...\}$, and
fixpoint variables $\mathit{Var}=\{X,Y,...\}$. A literal is either $P$ or $\neg P$ for $P \in \mathit{Prop}$.
\begin{definition} {\em (Labelled transition tree)}
A labelled transition tree is a structure $\mathcal{T}=(V,v_r,E,L,P)$ where $V$ is a set of states, $v_r$ is the root, the only node without predecessor, $E\subset V\times V$ is an edge relation,
$L: E \rightarrow \mathit{Act}$ labels edges with actions and $P: V\rightarrow 2^{\mathit{Prop}}$ labels vertices with propositional variables. Furthermore, for each $v\in V$ the set of ancestors
$\{w\in V\mid \exists w_1,\ldots,w_k.\;wEw_1E\ldots w_kEv\}$ is finite and well-ordered with respect to the transitive closure of $E$; the set of successors $\{w\in V\mid vEw\}$ is also finite.
We can represent repetition in an infinite tree with back edges. Note that we allow more than one successor per label.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
(\textit{Modal} $\mu$) The syntax of
$L_{\mu}$ is given by:
\[ \phi:= P
\mbox{ | } X
\mbox{ | }\neg P
\mbox{ | }\phi\wedge\phi
\mbox{ | }\phi\vee\phi
\mbox{ | }\langle a \rangle \phi
\mbox{ | }[a] \phi
\mbox{ | }\mu X.\phi
\mbox{ | }\nu X.\phi
\mbox{ | }\bot
\mbox{ | }\top
\]
\end{definition}
The order of operator precedence is $[a], \langle a \rangle,
\wedge, \vee, \mu$ and $\nu$.
The operators $\langle a \rangle$ and $[a]$ are called {\em modalities}, and formulas $\langle a \rangle \phi$ and $[a]\phi$ are called {\em modal formulas}. If $\psi=\mu X.\phi$ or $\psi=\nu X.\phi$, we call the formula $\phi$ the binding formula of $X$ within $\psi$ and denote it by $\phi_X$.
We say that $\phi'$ is an immediate subformula of $\phi$ if either $\phi$ is built from $\phi'$ in one step using the syntax rules above, or, in a slight abuse of notation, if $\phi=X$ and $\phi'$ its binding formula.
Hence $\phi$ is an immediate subformula of the formulas $\phi\vee \psi$, $\langle a \rangle \phi$, $\mu X.\phi$ and also of $X$ in $\nu X.\phi$.
A formula is guarded if every fixpoint variable is in the scope of a modality within its
binding. Without loss of expressivity
\cite{MateescuRadu2002,kupferman2000automata}, we
restrict ourselves to $L_\mu$ in guarded positive form. We will also assume throughout the paper that all fixpoint variables within a formula have distinct names.
The semantics of $L_\mu$ are standard, see for example \cite{bradfield2007modal}.
We now define the {\em priority assignment} and {\em index} of a formula, following Niwi\'nski's notion of alternation in \cite{niwinski86}.
\begin{definition}{\em (Priority assignment, index and alternation classes)}
A {\em priority assignment} $\Omega$ is a function assigning an integer value to each fixpoint variable in a formula such that:
(a) $\mu$-bound variables receive odd priorities and $\nu$-bound variables receive even priorities, and (b) if $X$ is free in $\phi_Y$, the binding formula of $Y$, then $\Omega(X)\geq \Omega(Y)$.
A formula has {\em index} $\{q,...,i\}$ where $i\in \{0,1\}$ if it has a priority assignment with co-domain $\{q,...,i\}$.
Formulas without fixpoints form the modal fragment of $L_\mu$. Formulas with one type of fixpoint have index $\{0\}$ or $\{1\}$,
corresponding to the alternation classes $\Pi^{\mu}_1$ and $\Sigma^{\mu}_1$, respectively. Then the class $\Pi^{\mu}_i$ and $\Sigma^{\mu}_i$ for even
$i$ correspond to formulas with indices $\{i,...,1\}$ and $\{i-1,...,0\}$, respectively, while for odd $i$ they correspond
formulas with indices $\{i-1,...,0\}$ and $\{i,...,1\}$, respectively.
A formula has semantic alternation class $C$ if it is equivalent to a formula in $C$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
The formula $\mu X. \nu Y. \Box Y \wedge \mu Z. \Box (X \vee Z)$ accepts the priority assignment $\Omega(X)=1,\Omega(Y)=0$ and $\Omega(Z)=1$, so it has index $\{1,0\}$ and is in the class $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$. However, it is equivalent to $\mu X. \Box X$
which holds in structures without infinite paths, and is therefore semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_1$.
\end{example}
In this paper we present a new proof that $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ is decidable for formulas in $\Pi^{\mu}_2$: given an arbitrary $L_\mu$ formula $\Psi$ with index $\{2,1\}$, it is decidable whether
$\Psi$ is equivalent to a formula with index $\{1,0\}$.
\subsection{Parity Games}
The semantics of $L_\mu$ formulas (like that of alternating parity automata) can be described in terms of winning regions of parity games.
\begin{definition}
A parity game $G=(V,v_i,E,\Omega)$ consists of a set of vertices $V$ partitioned into those belonging to Even, $V_e$,
and those belonging to Odd, $V_o$, an initial position $v_i \in V$, and a set of edges $E\in V\times V$. A priority assignment $\Omega$ assigns a priority to every vertex.
At each turn, the player who owns the current position $v$ chooses a successor
position from the successors of $v$ via $E$. A play is a potentially infinite sequence of positions starting at the initial position $v_i$. A finite play is winning for Even if the final position
has even priority, and for Odd otherwise. An infinite play is winning for the player of the parity of the highest priority seen infinitely often.
\end{definition}
Parity games are known to be determined and we can restrict ourselves to positional winning strategies \cite{emersonjutla91},\cite{mostowski91}.
It is a standard result that given a structure $\mathcal{M}$ and a formula $\Psi$, there is a model-checking parity game $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$ such that Even wins if
and only if $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies $\Psi$ \cite{wilke2001alternating}.
\begin{definition}{\em (The model-checking game $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$)}
The parity game $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$ has for states $s \times \phi$ where $s$ is a state of $\mathcal{M}$
and $\phi$ is a subformula of $\Psi$. There is an edge from $s \times \psi$ to $s \times \phi$ if
$\phi$ is an immediate subformula of a non-modal formula $\psi$; there is an edge from $s \times \langle a \rangle\phi$ and $s \times [a]\phi$
to $s'\times \phi$ for $s'$ an $a$-successor of $s$.
Positions $s\times \phi$ where $\phi$ is a disjunction or starting with an existential modality $\langle a \rangle$ belong to Even while
those where $\phi$ is a conjunction or universal modality $[a]$ belong to Odd. Positions with a single successor are given to Even,
although the game is deterministic at those.
The priority assignment is inherited from the priority assignment $\Omega_{\Psi}$ on $\Psi$: a fixpoint variable $X$ receives priority $\Omega_{\Psi}(X)$ while
other nodes receive the minimal priority in the co-domain of $\Omega_{\Psi}$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Disjunctive Form}
Disjunctive $L_\mu$ is a fragment restricting conjunctions in a
way reminiscent of non-deterministic automata \cite{Walukiewicz2000}. Its use is key to several of our proofs.
\begin{definition}
\textit{(Disjunctive formulas) }The set of disjunctive form formulas
of $L_{\mu}$ is the smallest set $\mathcal{F}$ satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\top$,$\bot$, fixpoint variables and finite sets (conjunctions) of literals are in $\mathcal{F}$;
\item If $\psi\in\mathcal{F}$ and $\phi\in\mathcal{F}$, then $\psi\vee\phi\in\mathcal{F}$;
\item If for each $a$ in $\mathit{Act}$ the set $\mathcal{B}_a\subseteq\mathcal{F}$
is a finite set of formulas, and if $\mathcal{A}$ is a finite set of literals,
then $\mathcal{A}\wedge \bigwedge_{a\in \mathit{Act}} {\xrightarrow{a}} \mathcal{B}_a\in \mathcal{F}$
where ${\xrightarrow{a}}\mathcal{B}_a$ is short for $(\bigwedge_{\psi\in\mathcal{B}_a}\langle a \rangle \psi)\wedge [a] \bigvee_{\psi\in\mathcal{B}_a}\psi$
-- that is to say, every formula in $\mathcal{B}_a$ holds
at least one successor and at every successor at least one of
the formulas in $\mathcal{B}_a$ holds;
\item $\mu X.\psi$ and $\nu X.\psi$ are in $\mathcal{F}$ as long as $\psi\in\mathcal{F}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Every formula is known to be equivalent to an effectively computable
formula in disjunctive form \cite{Walukiewicz2000}. The transformation preserves
guardedness.
Given an $L_\mu$ formula with unrestricted conjunctions,
the model-checking parity game requires Even to have a strategy to verify both conjuncts. A strategy for Even will
agree with the plays corresponding to each of Odd's choices, leading potentially to several plays on some branches.
In contrast, disjunctive form restricts conjunctions, and the only branching in Even's strategies is at a position where the formula is of the form $\mathcal{A} \wedge \bigwedge_{a\in \mathit{Act}} {\xrightarrow{a}} \mathcal{B}_a\in \mathcal{F}$, called an {\em Odd-choice formula}.
Disjunctive form guarantees that Even can use strategies which only agree with one play per branch. For further details, see \cite{lehtinen2015deciding}.
\begin{lemma}\cite{lehtinen2015deciding}\label{below}
Given a disjunctive formula $\Psi$, for any structure $\mathcal{M}$ and strategy $\sigma$ in $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$, there is a structure $\mathcal{M}'$ bisimilar to $\mathcal{M}$
such that a strategy $\sigma'$ in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Psi$ induced from $\sigma$ only agrees with one play per branch.
We then say that $\mathcal{M}'$ and $\sigma'$ are well-behaved.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{disjunctpitwo}
Given a $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ formula, the transformation into disjunctive form as presented in \cite{Walukiewicz2000} yields a disjunctive $\Pi^{\mu}_2$
formula.
\end{lemma}
The proof, in Appendix \ref{app-preserve-pi}, uses the concepts of tableau, tableau equivalence, and traces from \cite{Walukiewicz2000}. The crux of the argument
is that the tableau of a disjunctive formula not in $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ must have an even cycle nested in an odd cycle which in turn implies
the existence of a trace on which a $\mu$-fixpoint dominates a $\nu$ fixpoint in any equivalent tableau.
Note that the dual is not true:
a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula may yield a formula of arbitrarily large alternation depth when turned into disjunctive form \cite{lehtinendisjunctive}.
This is in line with alternating B\"uchi automata being equivalent to non-deterministic B\"uchi automata while the same is not
necessarily true for co-B\"uchi automata.
\subsection{Automata and $L_{\mu}$}\label{sec-non-det-automata}
The relationship between $L_\mu$ and automata theory is based on the fact that the automata model that $L_\mu$ formulas correspond to is, when restricted to
binary trees\footnote{assuming $|\mathit{Act}|=2$; otherwise trees with one successor per label.}, equivalent to alternating automata with a parity condition \cite{janin1995automata}.
The model-checking problems in these two settings are equivalent:
Model-checking a formula $\psi$ on a structure $\mathcal{M}$ reduces to checking an automaton $A(\psi)$ on a binary tree encoding of $\mathcal{M}$. Model checking disjunctive $L_\mu$ similarly reduces to model checking non-deterministic automata, albeit one of potentially higher index. For the index problem, the comparison is not as simple and to the best of our knowledge there is no known reduction from the (disjunctive) $L_\mu$ index problem to the (non-deterministic) automata index problem.
Part of the difficulty is that only considering binary trees affects the semantic complexity of formulas: for example, the formula $\langle a \rangle \psi \wedge \langle a \rangle \bar \psi$ (where $\bar \psi$ is the negation of $\psi$) is semantically trivial
when interpreted on trees with only one $a$-successor while in the general case its index depends on $\psi$.
Furthermore, non-deterministic parity automata are weaker than disjunctive $L_\mu$ in the sense that some properties of binary trees can be expressed with a lower index using disjunctive form.
\section{Deciding $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ Reduces to a Bounding Problem}\label{sec-main}
The first part of the proof of our main result defines a parametrised {\em $n$-challenge game}
on a parity game arena.
For each finite $n$, the $n$-challenge game is described by a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula $\Psi^n$ which holds in $\mathcal{M}$ if and only if
Even wins the $n$-challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$.
We then show that a disjunctive formula $\Psi$ is equivalent to a (not necessarily disjunctive) formula in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ if and only if
there is some $n$ such that $\Psi$ is equivalent to $\Psi^n$.
As any formula can be turned into disjunctive form, this reduces the decidability of $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ to bounding the parameter $n$.
For the main result
of this paper, we will only use this construction for $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ input formulas to determine equivalence to a $\Sigma^\mu_2$ formula. However, using this more general construction, a generalisation of the second part of our proof beyond $\Pi^\mu_2$ would suffice to decide $\Sigma^\mu_2$ entirely.
When restricted to automata on binary trees and two priorities, this construction is equivalent to those found for example in \cite{colcombet2013deciding} and \cite{skrzypczakdeciding}.\\
We fix a disjunctive formula $\Psi$ with index $\{q,...,0\}$. Let $I = \{q,...,0\}$ if the maximal priority $q$ is even and $\{q+1,q,...,0\}$ otherwise.
Write $I_e$ for the even priorities in $I$.
The $n$-challenge game consists of a normal parity game augmented with a set of challenges, one for each even priority $i$. A challenge can
either be {\em open} or {\em met} and has a counter $c_i$ attached to it.
Each counter is initialised to $n$, and decremented when the corresponding challenge is opened. The Odd player
can at any point open challenges of which the counter is non-zero, but he must do so in decreasing order: an $i$-challenge can only be opened if
every $j$-challenge for $j>i$ is opened.
When a play encounters a priority greater or equal to $j$ while the $j$-challenge is open, the challenge is said to be met. All $i$-challenges for $i<j$ are {\em reset}. This means that
the counters $c_i$ are set back to $n$.
A play of this game is a play in a parity game, augmented with the challenge and counter configuration at each step. A play with dominant priority $d$ is winning for
Even if either $d$ is even or if every opened $d+1$ challenge is eventually met or reset.
\begin{example}
The formula $\nu Y. \mu X. (A\wedge \Diamond X) \vee (B\wedge \Diamond Y)$ is true if on some path B always eventually holds.
This formula does not hold in this structure:
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[->,>=stealth',shorten >=1pt,auto,node distance=2cm,
semithick]
\tikzstyle{every state}=[fill=none,draw=black,text=black]
\node[initial,state] (A) {$A$};
\node[state] (B) [right of=A] {$B$};
\node[state] (C) [right of=B] {$A$};
\node[state] (D) [right of=C] {$B$};
\node[state] (E) [right of=D] {$A$};
\path (A) edge [loop above] node {} (A)
edge node {} (B)
(B) edge node {} (C)
(C) edge [loop above] node {} (C)
edge node {} (D)
(D) edge node {} (E)
(E) edge [loop above] node {} (E);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
However, Even wins the $1$- and $2$-challenge games: her strategy is to loop in the current state until Odd opens a $2$-challenge, then meet the challenge by moving to the next
state, as seeing a $B$ corresponds to seeing $2$. Odd will run out of challenges before reaching the
last state. Although Odd wins the $3$-challenge game in this structure, for any $n$ it is easy to construct a similar structure
in which he loses the $n$-challenge game but wins the parity game. This section argues that this is sufficient to show that $\nu Y. \mu X. (A\wedge \Diamond X) \vee (B\wedge \Diamond Y)$
is not equivalent to any $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula.
In contrast, in the formula $\nu Y. \mu X. (A\wedge \Box X) \vee (B\wedge \Diamond Y)$, Odd wins the $1$-challenge game whenever he wins the parity game: he can open the challenge
when his strategy in the parity game reaches the point at which he can avoid $B$. This formula is therefore
equivalent to a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula, namely the alternation free formulas $\nu Y. ((A\wedge \Box Y) \vee (B\wedge \Diamond Y)) \wedge \mu X. (A\wedge \Box X) \vee B)$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
A configuration $(v,p,\bar c,r)$ of the $n$-challenge game on a parity game $G$ of index $\{q,...,0\}$ where $q$ is even consists of:
\begin{itemize}
\item a position $v$ in the parity game;
\item an even priority $p$ indicating the least significant priority on which a challenge is open or $p = q+2$ if all challenges are currently met;
\item $\bar c=(c_{0},c_{2},\ldots,c_{q})$ a collection of counter values $c_i$ for each even priority $i$.
\item $r\in \{0,1\}$ indicating the round of the game: $1$ for Odd's turn to open challenges, $0$ for a turn in the parity game.
\end{itemize}
At a configuration $(v,p,\bar c,1)$, corresponding to Odd's turn, he can open challenges up to any $p'\leq p$, as long as $c[i]>0$ for each $i$ such that $p'\leq i <p$.
Then the configuration becomes $(v,p',\bar c',0)$ where
$c'[i]=c[i]-1$ for all newly opened challenges $i$, that is to say $i$ such that $p'\leq i<p$ and $c'[i]=c[i]$ for all other $i$.
At the configuration $(v,p,\bar c,0)$, the player whose turn it is in the parity game decides the successor position $v'$ of $v$ and the configuration is updated to
$(v',p',\bar c',1)$ according to the priority $i$ of $v'$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $i\geq p$ then $p'=i+2$ if $i$ is even, $p'=i+1$ otherwise. This indicates which challenges have been met. Note that if all challenges are met, $p=q+2$.
\item For each $j<i$, the counter value $c_j$ is reset to $n$.
\item If $i$ is even and $c_i=0$, then the game ends immediately with a win for Even.
\end{itemize}
A play is a potentially infinite sequence of configurations starting at the initial configuration
$(v_\iota,q+2,(n,...,n),1)$, where $v_\iota$ is the initial position of the parity game. An infinite play is winning for Even if
the dominant priority on the sequence of parity game positions is $d$ but the game reaches infinitely many configurations $(v,p,\bar c,0)$ where $p>d+1$.
This is the case if $d$ is even or if all $d+1$ challenges set by Odd are either met or reset.
A strategy for Odd in a challenge game consists of two parts: a strategy which dictates when to open challenges, and a regular parity-game strategy which dictates his moves in the underlying parity game.
Even only has a parity game strategy. Both players' strategies may of course depend on the challenge configuration as well as the parity game configuration.
Given a challenge-game strategy for even $\sigma$, a challenging strategy $\gamma$ for Odd induces a normal parity game strategy $\sigma_\gamma$ for Even which does not depend on the challenge configuration.
\end{definition}
We first establish that the winning regions of the $n$-challenge games for $\Psi$ can be described by a $\Sigma^\mu_2$ formula $\Psi^n$.
\begin{lemma}\label{automaton-formula}
For all $\Psi$ and finite $n$, there is a formula $\Psi^n \in \Sigma^\mu_2$ which holds in $\mathcal{M}$ if and only if Even wins the $n$-challenge game
on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$.
\end{lemma}
We prove this lemma by constructing the formula $\Psi^n$.
For clarity, we will describe the alternating parity automata on labelled transition systems (see appendix \ref{app-automata}) corresponding to $\Psi^n$.
From \cite{wilke2001alternating}, this is equivalent to describing a $L_\mu$ formula.
\begin{definition}\label{automaton}
Let $A=(S,s_i,\delta,\Omega)$ be the alternating parity automaton for $\Psi$.
We build the automata $A^n$ for $\Psi^n$ using distinct copies of $A$ for each possible challenge configuration $(p,\bar c)$.
For each even priority $p$ or $q+2$, and counter values $\bar c\in [n]^{I_e}$, the copy $A(p,\bar c)$ of $A$
corresponds to $p$ being the least significant open priority and the counter values being
$\bar c$. These components will then be combined into the automaton $A^n$.
$A(p,c)=(S^{(p,c)},s^{(p,c)}_i,\delta^{(p,c)},\Omega^{(p,c)})$ is based on $A$ using
copies $S^{(p,c)}$, $s^{(p,c)}_i$ and $S^{(p,c)}$ of
$S,s_i$ and $\delta$ respectively.
The priority function is given by $\Omega^{(p,c)}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Omega(s)\geq p-1$ then $\Omega^{(p,c)}(s)=1$;
\item If $\Omega(s)<p-1$ then $\Omega^{(p,c)}(s)=0$;
\end{itemize}
The components $A(p,c)$ are linked in $A^n=(S^n,s^n_i,\delta^n,\Omega^n)$ consisting of:
\begin{itemize}
\item The disjunct union of all component state spaces: $S^n = \biguplus_{p\in I_e,c\in [m]^{I_e}} S^{(p,c)}$;
\item The initial state $s^n_i = s^{(q+2, \bar n)}_i$ of the component $A(q+2,\bar n)$;
\item $\Omega^n$ defined by $\Omega^n(s)=\Omega^{(p,c)}(s)$ for $p,c$ such that $s$ is a state of the component $A(p,c)$;
\item
For states $s$ in $A(p,\bar c)$ of original priority $j\geq p$, let $\delta^n(s,A)=\top$ if $c_j=0$. This corresponds to Even having met all n challenges. Otherwise,
let $\delta^n(s,A)= s'$ such that: $s'$ is the copy of $s$ in $A(k,\bar c')$
where $k=j+2$ if $j$ is even and $k=j+1$ otherwise, and $\bar c'[i]= n$ for $i<j$ and $\bar c'[i]=\bar c[i]$ for other $i$.
This corresponds to the open $j$-challenge being met and all counters below $j$ being reset.
For every state $s$ in $A(p,c)$ with original priority $j< p$, if $K$ is the set
of even priorities smaller than $p$ such that $\bar c[k]>0$,
let $\delta^n(s,P)$ be $\delta^{(p,c)}(s,P) \wedge \bigwedge_{k\in K} s_k$
where $s_k$ is the copy of $s$ in $A(k,\bar c')$, and $\bar c'[i]=\bar c[i]-1$ for $i$ such that $k\leq i<p$ and $\bar c'[i]=\bar c[i]$ otherwise.
In other words, Odd can open challenges below $p$ if their counter-values are non-zero, by moving to the component $A(k,\bar c')$ which reflects the new challenge configuration.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{proof}
The automaton described in Definition \ref{automaton} only has priorities $0$ and $1$ and therefore the corresponding formula $\Psi^n$, is in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$. It therefore suffices to check that
this automaton indeed describes the winning regions of the challenge game.
A game in $A^n$ maps to a game in $A$, augmented with challenge configurations $(p,\bar c)$ at each state, according to the component
a state is played in. Transitions between components account for challenges being opened, met, and reset according to the rules of the game.
Let us check that $\Omega^n$ implements the winning conditions of the challenge game.
Opening challenges in $A^n$ makes the play move to lower components $A(p,c)$, as measured by $p$;
seeing high {\em original} priorities makes the play move up to higher components.
If the dominant original priority $d$ is even, then eventually the play can no longer move up to
components $A(p',c')$ with $p'>d$ from components $A(p,c)$ where $p<p'$.
Such plays eventually settle into some
$A(p,c)$ where $p> d$. Such a play is winning for Even:
it eventually only sees priority $0$.
If $d$ is odd, then Even wins only if the play settles into some $A(p,c)$ where $p>d+1$ since those are the components in which
$d$ and lower priorities are replaced with $0$ -- this corresponds to Odd eventually not opening the challenge on $d+1$ after it has been met,
causing him to lose. If the minimum challenged priority never settles, this means the highest original priority $d$ seen infinitely often is odd
and that a $d+1$-challenge is not met -- that is to say, Odd wins the challenge game. In $A^n$ such a play is also winning for Odd since
resetting and meeting challenges corresponds to seeing priority $1$.
Therefore the automaton only accepts parity games in which Even wins the $n$-challenge game.
\end{proof}
Next
we prove our core theorem, reducing the decidability of $\Sigma^\mu_2$ to a boundedness criterion.
\begin{theorem}\label{PsiPsiM}\label{thmpsipsin}
If a disjunctive formula $\Psi$ is semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$, then there is a finite $n$ such that $\Psi\Leftrightarrow\Psi^n$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\Psi$ is semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$, {\em i.e.} equivalent to some $\Phi$ of index $\{1,0\}$, and that for all $n$, $\Psi\nLeftrightarrow \Psi^n$. Fix $n$ to be larger than $2^{|\Psi|+|\Phi|}$. There is a structure $\mathcal{M}$,
such that Odd wins the parity game $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$
but Even wins the $n$-challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$. W.l.o.g, take $\mathcal{M}$ to be finitely branching.
The overall structure of this proof is to first use a winning strategy $\tau$ for Odd in $\mathcal{M}\times \Phi$ to define a challenging strategy $\gamma$
for him in the $n$-challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$ (Part I). We then use Even's winning strategy $\sigma$ to add back edges to $\mathcal{M}$ (Part II), turning it into a new
structure $\mathcal{M}'$ which preserves Odd's winning strategy $\tau$
in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Phi$ while turning $\sigma_\gamma$ into a winning strategy in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Psi$ (Part III). This contradicts the equivalence of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$.
{\bf Part I.}
Let $\tau$ be Odd's winning strategy in $\mathcal{M}\times \Phi$.
Since $\mathcal{M}$ is finitely branching, for any node $v$ reachable via $\tau$, there is a finite bound $i$ such that
any play that agrees with $\tau$ sees $1$ within $i$ modal steps of any position $v\times \alpha$ that it reaches (K\"onig's Lemma).
For a branch $b$ of $\mathcal{M}$, on which $\tau$ reaches a node $v$, indicate by $\mathit{next}(b,v)$ the
$i^\mathit{th}$ node on $b$ from $v$. This node has the property that any play on the branch $b$ agreeing with $\tau$ must see a $1$ between $v$ and $\mathit{next}(b,v)$.
If $\tau$ does not agree with any plays on the branch $b$, then let $\mathit{next}(b,v)$ be a node on $b$ which $\tau$ does not reach.
Now consider the $n$-challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$. Let Odd's challenging strategy $\gamma$ be: to
open all challenges at the start of the game, and whenever its counter is reset;
if a challenge for a priority $i$ is met at $v$, and its counter $c_i$ is not at $0$, to open the next challenge when the play reaches a node $\mathit{next}(b,v)$ for any branch $b$,
unless the counter is reset before then ({\em i.e.} a higher priority is seen).
{\bf Part II.}
Even wins the $n$-challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$, so let $\sigma$ be her winning strategy. Recall that $\sigma_\gamma$ is an Even's strategy
for $\Psi$ up to the point where an $n^{\mathit{th}}$ challenge in the original challenge game is met, and undefined thereafter.
Since $\Psi$ is disjunctive, we can adjust $\mathcal{M}$ into a bisimilar structure in which the pure parity game strategy $\sigma_\gamma$ is well-behaved wherever it is defined -- it reaches
each position of $\mathcal{M}$ at either one subformula, or none.
The strategy $\sigma_\gamma$ is winning in the challenge game against any strategy for Odd which uses the challenging strategy $\gamma$. Since Odd always eventually opens the next challenge,
the only way for him to lose is that the play reaches a position of priority $p$ when $c_p = 0$. Thus, every play is finite.
Since $\sigma_\gamma$ is well-behaved, each branch carries at most one play. For every branch $b$ the finite play it may carry must end in a long streak in which the highest priority seen is some even $p$, and it is seen at least $n$ times, corresponding to every instance of Even meeting a $p$-challenge.
As long as $n$ is sufficiently large, on every such branch there are two nodes $v$ and its descendant $w$, at which Odd opens challenges on $p$, which agree on the set of subformulas that $\sigma_\gamma$
reaches there in $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$ and that $\tau$ reaches there in $\mathcal{M}\times \Phi$. We now consider the structure $\mathcal{M}'$, which is as $\mathcal{M}$ except that the predecessor of each $w$-node has an
edge to $v$ instead. The strategies $\sigma_\gamma$ and $\tau$ transfer in the obvious way to $\mathcal{M}'$.
{\bf Part III.}
We now claim that $\tau$ is winning in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Phi$ and that $\sigma_\gamma$ is winning in $\mathcal{M}' \times \Psi$.
Starting with $\sigma_\gamma$, consider plays that do not go through back edges infinitely often. On these the dominant priority is even, as in the challenge game on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$.
Any play in $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$
that agrees with $\sigma_\gamma$ which sees both $v$ and $w$ is dominated by an even priority between $v$ and $w$.
Then, as the $w$ and $v$ agree on which subformula $\sigma_\gamma$ reaches them at, an even priority dominates any play that goes through back edges in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Psi$ infinitely many times.
The strategy $\sigma_\gamma$ is therefore winning in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Psi$.
Now onto $\tau$ in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Phi$. If a branch is unchanged by the transformation, then any play on it is still winning for $\tau$, because such a play would be consistent with $\tau$ in the original game.
If a branch that $\tau$ plays on has been changed, then consider in $\mathcal{M}$ the two nodes $v$ and $w$ at which the transformation is done.
These both are nodes at which Odd opens challenges according to $\gamma$, therefore, from the definition of $\mathit{next}$ and $\gamma$, the highest priority seen between them by any play agreeing with $\tau$ is $1$.
Since $v$ and $w$ agree on which subformulas $\tau$ reaches them at, any play in $\mathcal{M}'\times \Phi$ which goes through a back-edge infinitely often sees $1$ infinitely often and is therefore winning for Odd.
This contradicts the equivalence of $\Psi$ and $\Phi$. Therefore, if $\Psi$ is semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$, then for all structures $\mathcal{M}$ the $n$-challenge game and the parity game
on $\mathcal{M}\times \Psi$ have the same winner for $n>2^{|\Phi|+|\Psi|}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thmpsipsin}
Let $\Psi\in L_\mu$, and $\Psi_d$ a disjunctive formula equivalent to $\Psi$. Then
$\Psi$ is semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ if and only if there is some finite $n$ such that $\Psi\Leftrightarrow\Psi_d^n$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Deciding $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ for $\Pi^{\mu}_2$}\label{sec-Fgame}
To complete the proof of the namesake result, it suffices to show that the parameter $m$ from Theorem \ref{thmpsipsin} can be bounded. If we restrict ourselves to disjunctive $\Psi\in\Pi^\mu_2$,
we argue that the tree-building game $\mathcal{F}$ from \cite{skrzypczakdeciding} extends to arbitrary labelled transition systems and delivers such
a bound.
Since the $\mathcal{F}$ game is already well-exposed in \cite{skrzypczakdeciding}, and the adjustments to cater for disjunctive $L_\mu$ and labelled
transition systems are relatively straight-forward but verbose, the technical bulk of this section,
that is to say the proof of Theorem \ref{restrictm1}, is left to the Appendix \ref{app-restrictm}. We obtain the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{restrictm1}
Let $\Psi\in \Pi^\mu_2$ be disjunctive. Then there is a constant $K_0$ computable from $\Psi$ such that the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
\item{There is some $m$ such that $\Psi\Leftrightarrow\Psi^m$.}
\item{$\Psi\Leftrightarrow\Psi^{K_0}$}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Placing everything together, we obtain our final result.
\begin{theorem}
It is effectively decidable whether any given $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ formula is equivalent to a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula. By duality, it is also effectively decidable whether any given $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula is equivalent to a $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ formula.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given any $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ formula $\Psi$, it can be effectively turned into a disjunctive formula $\Psi_d$ also in $\Pi^{\mu}_2$ (Lemma \ref{disjunctpitwo}).
Then, Theorem \ref{thmpsipsin} yields that $\Psi_d$ is semantically in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ if and only if it is equivalent to $\Psi_d^n$ for some $n$.
From Theorem \ref{restrictm1}, $\Psi_d\Leftrightarrow \Psi_d^n$ if and only if $\Psi_d\Leftrightarrow\Psi_d^{K_0}$ where $K_0$ is computable from $\Psi$ via $\Psi_d$. Thus, $\Psi$ is semantically in $\Sigma^\mu_2$ if and only if $\Psi\Leftrightarrow\Psi_d^{K_0}$ if and only if $\Psi_d\Leftrightarrow\Psi_d^{K_0}$.
Given any $\Sigma^\mu_2$ formula, it can also be decided whether it is equivalent to a $\Pi^\mu_2$ formula, via checking whether its negation is equivalent to a $\Sigma^\mu_2$ formula.
\end{proof}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec-discussion}
We have shown that given any $L_\mu$ formula in $\Pi^{\mu}_2$, it can be effectively decided whether it is equivalent to a $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formula.
This result is the $L_\mu$-theoretic counterpart of the decidability of weak definability of B\"uchi definable languages \cite{colcombet2013deciding,skrzypczakdeciding}.
The core contribution is the reduction of the decidability of $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ for arbitrary $L_\mu$ formulas
to deciding whether the $n$-challenge game is equivalent to the model-checking parity game of a formula for any $n$. We obtain
a family of parameterised $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ formulas $\Psi^n$ such that $\Psi$ is in $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$ if an
only if $\Psi$ is equivalent to $\Psi^n$ for some $n$.
Unfortunately, the second
part of our proof, based on \cite{skrzypczakdeciding}, is less general and only admits input formulas in $\Pi^{\mu}_2$. If this could also be generalised to
arbitrary formulas, this would yield a decidability proof for $\Sigma^{\mu}_2$.
The challenge game can be extended to constructions described by more complex $L_\mu$ formulas -- this may
turn out to be the right way to characterize higher alternation classes.
However, for Theorem \ref{PsiPsiM}, if there are more than two priorities at play, the different plays along one branch become less manageable and it is not clear how
they can inform a challenging strategy. Even when restricted to disjunctive formulas, a new technique seems to be required.
However, the result of \cite{colcombet2008non} which achieves this for non-deterministic automata on binary trees justifies cautious optimism for the disjunctive case.
\\
\paragraph{Achnowledgements}
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughful comments and corrections.
The work presented here has been supported by an EPSRC doctoral studentship at the University of Edinburgh.
\bibliographystyle{splncs}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $G$ be a linear connected real semisimple Lie group which is non-compact and let $K$
denote a maximal compact subgroup
of $G$.
Let $\theta:G\to G$ be the Cartan involution of $G$ which fixes $K$.
We denote by $\mathfrak{g}_0, \mathfrak{k}_0$ the Lie algebras of $G$ and $K$ respectively and by
the same symbol $\theta$ the involution of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_0$, which is the differential
of $\theta:G\to G.$ The complexification of $\mathfrak{g}_0, \mathfrak{k}_0$ will be denoted
by $\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{k}$, etc. One has the Cartan decomposition $\mathfrak{g}_0
=\mathfrak{k}_0\oplus \mathfrak{p}_0$ where $\mathfrak{p}_0$ is the $(-1)$-eigenspace of $\theta$.
We denote by $\mathfrak{p}$ the complex vector space $\mathfrak{p}_0\otimes_\mathbb{R}\mathbb{C}$. Thus
$\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{k}\oplus \mathfrak{p}$.
Since $G$ is semisimple, the Killing form of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ restricted to $\mathfrak{p}_0$ is positive definite
and induces a $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on $X:=G/K$ with respect to which $X$ is a symmetric space.
We will assume that $G$ is not a complex Lie group so that $X$ is a product of irreducible symmetric spaces
of type III (see \cite{helgason}). This condition automatically holds when $X$ is a Hermitian symmetric space.
Let $\Gamma\subset G$ be a torsionless uniform lattice in $G$ so that $\Gamma \backslash
G/K=\Gamma\backslash X=:X_\Gamma$ is a compact locally symmetric space which is an
Eilenberg-MacLane space $K(\Gamma,1)$.
The cohomology algebra $H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})=H^*(\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ is an important
object of study and is of interest not only in topology but also in number theory and representation theory.
Our aim here is to construct so-called special cycles whose Poincar\'e duals are non-zero cohomology classes
in $H^*(\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ when $X$ is an irreducible {\it Hermitian} (non-compact) symmetric space.
Our results have implications to occurrence with non-zero multiplicity of the irreducible unitary representations $(\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}, A_\mathfrak{q})$
of $G$ associated to certain $\theta$-stable parabolic algebras $\mathfrak{q}\subset \mathfrak{g}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$
in the Hilbert space $L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)$.
Special cycles, which are closed oriented totally geodesic submanifolds of $X_\Gamma$, whose Poincar\'e duals
are non-zero cohomology classes, were first constructed by Millson and Raghunathan \cite{mr}
when $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q), \textrm{SO}_0(p,q), \textrm{Sp}(p,q)$. Schwermer and Waldner \cite{sw} dealt with the case $G=\textrm{SU}^*(2n)$
and Waldner, when $G$ is the non-compact real form of the exceptional complex Lie group $G_2$. More recently,
the cases $G=\textrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R}), \textrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{C})$ were considered by Susanne Schimpf \cite{schimpf}
and the case $G=\textrm{SO}^*(2n)$ by Arghya Mondal \cite{mondal}. (See also \cite{mondal-sankaran}.)
Millson and Raghunathan's construction yields a {\it pair} of special cycles $C, C'\subset X_\Gamma$ whose dimensions
add up to the dimension of
$X_\Gamma$. In fact $C$ and $C'$ are sub locally symmetric space $X(\sigma)_{\Gamma(\sigma)}$ and $X(\sigma\circ \theta)_{\Gamma(\sigma\circ\theta)}$, where $\sigma$ arises from an algebraically defined involutive automorphism that commutes
with the Cartan involution, $X(\sigma)=G(\sigma)/K(\sigma)$, $G(\sigma)\subset G$ is the subgroup of fixed points of
$\sigma$, $K(\sigma)=G(\sigma)\cap K$, and
$\Gamma(\sigma)=G(\sigma)\cap \Gamma$. The involutions $\sigma, \theta$ are required to stabilize $\Gamma$ so that
$\Gamma(\sigma), \Gamma(\sigma\circ \theta)$ are lattices in $G(\sigma), G(\sigma\circ \theta)$.
Under certain additional hypotheses on the special cycles which ensure that their intersection is transverse,
and, if necessary, replacing $\Gamma$, which is assumed to be arithmetic, by a suitable finite index subgroup, they showed that
the cup-product of the Poincar\'e duals $[C],[C']$ of $C$ and $C'$ is a non-zero class in the top cohomology
of $X_\Gamma$. They deduced that the Poincar\'e dual of such special cycles cannot arise from a $G$-invariant form. (See \cite[Theorem 2.1]{mr}.) Equivalently, their dual cohomology classes are
not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism $H^*(X_u;\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$. Here $X_u$ denotes the compact dual of the non-compact symmetric space $X$. Rohlfs and Schwermer \cite{rs} obtain an excess intersection formula leading to a criterion for the non-vanishing of the cup-product of special cycles in a more general setting.
In order to state our main results, we first recall some well-known results concerning the Hilbert space of square-integrable
functions on $\Gamma\backslash G$, where $G$ is any non-compact semisimple Lie group with finite centre and
$\Gamma$ a lattice in $G$. To a Haar measure on $G$ is associated $G$-invariant measure on
$\Gamma\backslash G$ with finite volume. The Hilbert space $L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)$ affords a unitary representation
of $G$ via the translation action of $G$ on $\Gamma\backslash G$.
When $\Gamma$ is a uniform lattice,
Gelfand and Pyatetskii-Shapiro \cite{ggp},\cite{gp} proved that $L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)$ decomposes into a Hilbert direct sum of
irreducible unitary representations $(\pi, H_\pi)$ of $G$ each occurring with {\it finite} multiplicity $m(\pi, \Gamma)$. Those
unitary representations $\pi$ such that $m(\pi,\Gamma)$ are positive are referred to as {\it automorphic} representations.
Let $K\subset G$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. If $V$ is any $G$-representation
on a Hilbert space, we denote by $V_K$ the space of all smooth $K$-finite vectors of $V$. Recall that $V_K$
is a $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module, known as the Harish-Chandra module of $V$.
The cohomology of $X_\Gamma=\Gamma\backslash G/K$ is described in terms of the relative Lie algebra cohomology
by the Matsushima isomorphism \cite{matsushima}:
\[H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})\cong H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)_K)=\oplus_{\pi}m(\pi,\Gamma) H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;H_{\pi, K}).\]
A theorem of D. Wigner says that if $(\pi, H_\pi)$ is
an irreducible unitary representation of $G$, then $H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;H_{\pi,K})$ is non-zero only when its infinitesimal
character $\chi_\pi$ is trivial (that is, $\chi_\pi=\chi_0,$ the infinitesimal character of the (trivial) representation $\mathbb{C}$).
The irreducible unitary representations which have trivial infinitesimal characters have been classified in
terms of $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}\subset \mathfrak{g}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$. If $\mathfrak{q}$ is a
$\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}_0$, we will denote the corresponding irreducible unitary
representation of $G$ by $(\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q},A_\mathfrak{q})$ and set $m(\mathfrak{q},\Gamma)
:=m(\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q},\Gamma)$. One has the equivalence relation $\sim$ on the set of all $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ where $\mathfrak{q} \sim \mathfrak{q}'$ if $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}'}$. The set $\mathfrak{Q}$ of equivalence classes of $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ is finite.
Suppose that $X=G/K$ is a Hermitian symmetric space. Then $X_\Gamma$ is a compact K\"ahler manifold and we have the Hodge decomposition
$H^r(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})\cong \oplus_{p+q=r} H^{p,q}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$. Also one has a Hodge decomposition $H^r(\mathfrak{g},K;
H_{\pi, K})=\oplus_{p+q=r}H^{p,q}(\mathfrak{g},K;H_{\pi,K})$ for any unitary representation $\pi$ of $G$.
See \cite[Ch. II,\S4]{borel-wallach}.
When $\pi=\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}}$, there exists a pair of integers $R_+(\mathfrak{q}),R_-(\mathfrak{q})$ such that
$H^{p,q}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})=0$ unless $p\ge R_+(\mathfrak{q}), q\ge R_-(\mathfrak{q})$ and $p-q
=R_+(\mathfrak{q})-R_-(\mathfrak{q})$. Moreover $H^{r+R_+(\mathfrak{q}), r+R_-(\mathfrak{q})}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q}
,K})\cong H^{r,r}(Y_\mathfrak{q};\mathbb{C})$ for a certain compact globally Hermitian symmetric space $Y_\mathfrak{q}$.
We refer to $(R_+(\mathfrak{q}), R_-(\mathfrak{q}))$ as the {\it Hodge type} of $\mathfrak{q}$ (or of $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$) and we set
$R(\mathfrak{q})=R_+(\mathfrak{q})+R_-(\mathfrak{q})$. Note that the Hodge type of $\mathfrak{q}$ depends only on its class in $\mathfrak{Q}$.
The Matsushima
isomorphism preserves the Hodge decomposition, that is, its inverse maps $H^{p,q}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})$ into
$H^{p,q}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ for all $p,q$.
Suppose that $X=G/K$ is an irreducible Hermitian symmetric space.
Denote by $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$ the smallest positive integer $r$ such that there exists a $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra $\mathfrak{q}$ of
$\mathfrak{g}_0$ with $R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})=r$. See Table \ref{valuesofr0} for the values of $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$.
Let $F$ be a totally real number field $F\ne \mathbb{Q}$ and let
$u\in F_{>0}$ be an element all of whose conjugates, except $u$ itself, are negative. Then one obtains, via
Weil's restriction of scalars,
a {\it uniform} lattice $\Gamma(F,u)\subset G$ arising from an $F$-structure on $\mathfrak{g}_0$
using a suitable Chevalley basis of $\mathfrak{g}$. (The Chevalley basis is assumed to be adapted to $\mathfrak{t}$ where $T\subset K$ is a compact Cartan subgroup of $G$ and to the compact form
$\mathfrak{k}\oplus i\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{g}_\textrm{u}$ in the sense of \cite{borel63}.)
This construction is due to Borel \cite{borel63}. Let
$\mathcal{L}(G)$ be the family consisting of all torsionless lattices $\Lambda\subset G$ which are commensurable
to $\Gamma(F,u)$ for some pair $(F,u)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{main1}
We keep the above notations.
Let $G$ be one of the groups $\textrm{SU}(p,q), 1\le p<q-1, q\ge 5$, $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p), p\ge 3, \textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R}), n\ne 4$, and $\textrm{SO}^*(2n), n\ge 9$.
Then there exists a unique irreducible unitary representation $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ of $G$ where $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=r(\mathfrak{g}_0).$ Moreover,
$\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ occurs with non-zero multiplicity in $L^2(\Gamma \backslash G)$
for every $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$.
\end{theorem}
The above theorem leaves out the infinite families $G=\textrm{SU}(p,p), \textrm{SU}(p,p+1)$, the exceptional groups with Lie algebras
$\mathfrak{e}_{6,(-14)}, \mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)} $ and a few classical groups for small complex rank.
We do consider these cases also and obtain, but a weaker result. See \S \ref{proofs}.
The above theorem will be obtained as an application of the following theorem.
We associate to each irreducible Hermitian symmetric space $X=G/K$ a number, denoted $c(X)$, as follows:
$c(\textrm{SU}(p,q)/K)=p$ where $p\le q$, $c(\textrm{SO}_0(2,p)/K)=1, c(\textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R})/K)=n-1, c(\textrm{SO}^*(2n)/K)=n-1,
c(E_{6,(-14)}/K)=6, c(E_{7,(-25)}/K)=11$. Here $E_{6, (-14)}, E_{7,(-25)}$ are exceptional Lie groups
with Lie algebras $\mathfrak{ e}_{6,(-14)}, \mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)}$ respectively.
The significance of $c(X)$ is that, as we shall see, there
exists a complex analytic special cycle in $X_\Gamma$ of complex dimension $c(X)$ for $\Gamma \in \mathcal{L}(G)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{main2}
We keep the above notations.
Let $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$.
For any integer $r$ such that $c(X)\le r\le \dim_\mathbb{C} X-c(X)$, there exist a non-zero cohomology
class in $H^{r,r}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ which is not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism
$H^{2r}(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})\to H^{2r}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{main1} seems to be a new addition to the vast literature on the non-vanishing and the asymptotic behaviour
of the multiplicity of automorphic representations in $L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)$ in various settings, including,
the work of Anderson \cite{anderson}, Clozel \cite{clozel}, DeGeorge and Wallach \cite{degeorge-wallach}, and
Li \cite{li}. See also \cite[\S6]{parthasarathy80} and \cite[Ch. VIII]{borel-wallach}.
It should be pointed out that the work of Li \cite{li} establishes non-vanishing results for $m(\pi,\Gamma)$
in a general setting using entirely different (and rather deep) techniques, but it does not cover the case of the representation $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ as in Theorem \ref{main1} when $G=\textrm{Sp}(n, \mathbb{R}), \textrm{SO}^*(2n)$ or $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p)$ with $p$ odd.
This is because, in these cases the group
$L\subset G$ corresponding to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{l}_0=
\mathfrak{q}\cap \bar{\mathfrak{q}}\cap \mathfrak{g}_0$ has more than one non-compact simple factor and so
does not satisfy the hypotheses of \cite[Prop. 6.1]{li}.
(See \S \ref{pptypeparabolics}.)
When $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q)$ or $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p), p$ even, Theorem \ref{main1} does follow from the work of
Li, at least when $\Gamma $ is sufficiently `deep'.
This paper was inspired by the work of Schwermer and Waldner \cite{sw}.
We will prove both the theorems simultaneously.
Our proofs are quite elementary and involves Lie theory in identifying elements of $\mathfrak{Q}$ having Hodge
type $(r,r)$, especially when $r\le c(X),$ and exploits well-known cohomological consequences resulting from
the existence of complex analytic cycles in a compact K\"ahler manifold. The construction of the
lattices in $\mathcal{L}(G)$ is recalled in \S \ref{commutinginvolutions}.
The group of commuting involutions obtained in Proposition
\ref{involutions}, which is applicable in greater generality, is used in the construction of {\it analytic} special cycles. In
\S\ref{pptypeparabolics} we determine all $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of Hodge type $(r,r)$ for $r\le c(X)$.
The main theorems are proved in the last section.
\newpage
\begin{center}
{\bf List of notations}
\end{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$G\supset K\supset T$ & linear connected (semi) simple non-compact Lie group, a maximal compact \\
& subgroup of $G$, a maximal torus.\\
$\mathfrak{g}_0, \mathfrak{k}_0, \mathfrak{t}_0$& $\text{Lie}(G), \text{Lie}(K), \text{Lie}(T)$\\
$\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{k}$ & complexifications of $\mathfrak{g}_0,\mathfrak{k}_0, \mathfrak{t}_0$\\
$X, X_\textrm{u}$ & the symmetric space $G/K$, compact dual of $X$\\
$\Gamma$, $\mathcal{L}(G)$ & a (uniform) lattice in $G$, a certain collection of torsionless uniform lattices in $G$.\\
$G(\sigma), X(\sigma)$ & fixed points of an automorphism $\sigma$ of $G$.\\
& respectively an isometry $\sigma$ of $X$.\\
$X_\Gamma$ & $\Gamma\backslash X$\\
$C(\sigma, \Gamma)$ & $\Gamma(\sigma)\backslash X(\sigma)$ \\
$\theta$ & Cartan involution of $G$ that fixes $K$, the induced Lie algebra \\
&automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ or its complexification.\\
$\mathfrak{p}_0, \mathfrak{p}$ & the $(-1)$-eigenspace of $\theta:\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$, its complexification.\\
$\mathfrak{p}_+, \mathfrak{p}_-$ & the $K$-submodules of $\mathfrak{p}$, holomorphic and anti-holomorphic tangent space at the origin of $X$.\\
$\mathfrak{g}_\textrm{u}$ & the compact form $\mathfrak{k}_0\oplus i\mathfrak{p}_0\subset \mathfrak{g}$ of
$\mathfrak{g}$. \\
$\Phi_\mathfrak{g}, \Delta_\mathfrak{g}$ & the roots of $\mathfrak{g}$, the set of simple roots of $\mathfrak{g}.$\\
$\Phi^+; \Phi^+_\textrm{n}, \Phi^-_\textrm{n}$ & the set of positive roots; the set of positive (resp. negative) non-compact roots.\\
$\alpha_0; \psi, \psi_j,$ & the highest root; simple roots.\\
$\varpi_\psi, \varpi_j$ & fundamental weights of $\mathfrak{g}$.\\
$\lambda, \mu$ & elements of $i\mathfrak{t}^*.$\\
$(.,.)$ & the innerproduct on $i\mathfrak{t}$ or on $i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$ induced by the Killing form on $\mathfrak{g}_0$.\\
$h_\lambda; H_\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$ & the element of $i\mathfrak{t}_0$ such that $\lambda(h)=(h_\lambda, h); 2h_\lambda/||h_\lambda||^2$\\
$\# A$ & cardinality of a set $A$.\\
$|A|$ & sum of elements of $A$ when $A$ is a finite set of vectors in a vector space.\\
$\mathfrak{q}, \mathfrak{q}_x,\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ & $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$\\
$\mathfrak{l}, \mathfrak{u}$ & a Levi subalgebra and the unipotent radical of $\mathfrak{q}$ respectively.\\
$\mathfrak{m}_F, \widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}_\mathbb{R}$ & an $F$-form of $\mathfrak{g}_0$, $\mathfrak{m}_F\otimes_\mathbb{Q}\mathbb{R}$\\
$\mathbf{M}, \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}$ & an $F$-algebraic group, $\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}}\mathbf{M}$, $\mathbb{R}$-points of $\mathcal{M}$.\\
$(\pi, H_\pi)$ & an irreducible unitary representation of $G$ on a Hilbert space $H_\pi$.\\
$H_{\pi,K}$ & the $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module of smooth $K$-finite vectors in $ H_\pi$.\\
$(\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}, A_\mathfrak{q})$ & a certain irreducible unitary representation associated to $\mathfrak{q}$.\\
\end{tabular}
\section{Geometric cycles}
Let $ G$ be a connected real semi simple linear Lie group without compact factors and let $K$ be a maximal
compact subgroup of $G$. We have the Cartan decomposition $\mathfrak{g}_0=
\mathfrak{k}_0\oplus \mathfrak{p}_0$; thus $\mathfrak{p}_0$ is the $(-1)$-eigenspace of $\theta$. Let $X=G/K$. We shall refer
to the trivial coset as the origin of $X$.
For any lattice $\Gamma$ in $G$, let $X_\Gamma:=\Gamma\backslash X=\Gamma\backslash G/K$.
We shall assume that $\Gamma$ is torsionless,
irreducible, and uniform. Thus $X_\Gamma$ is a smooth compact manifold. The $G$-invariant metric on $X$ descends to yield a Riemannian metric on $X_\Gamma$. Our aim in this section is to exhibit, for suitable lattices $\Gamma\subset G$, pairs of {\it geometric cycles} $C_1, C_2$ in $X_\Gamma$ of complementary dimensions (i.e., $\dim C_1+\dim C_2=\dim X$)
such that the cup-product of their Poincar\'e duals $[C_1],[C_2]$ is a non-zero element of $H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ when $X$ is an
irreducible Hermitian symmetric space (of non-compact type). The significance of such pairs is that the cohomology classes $[C_j], j=1,2,$ are then {\it not} representable by $G$-invariant forms on $X$; this is a result due to Millson and Raghunathan \cite[Theorem 2.1]{mr}.
Equivalently, the Poincar\'e duals $[C_1], [C_2]$ are not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism $H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$. Millson and Raghunathan constructed pairs of geometric cycles which intersect transversally
when $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q), \textrm{SO}_0(p,q), \textrm{Sp}(p,q)$ for certain lattices $\Gamma$. Working in a more general setup where the
geometric cycles are allowed to intersect along positive dimensional submanifolds, Rohlfs and Schwermer \cite{rs} obtained
a formula for the cup-product $[C_1].[C_2]$ when $C_1,C_2$ satisfy a certain orientation condition called Or (to be explained below).
This has been applied, for suitable uniform arithmetic lattices, when $G=\textrm{SU}^*(2n)$ by Schwermer and
Waldner, for the (non-compact) exceptional group of type $\textrm{G}_2$ by Waldner \cite{waldner} and for the groups
$\textrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R}), \textrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{C})$ by Schimpf \cite{schimpf}. More recently, Mondal \cite{mondal} has considered the case $G=\textrm{SO}^*(2n).$ (See also \cite{mondal-sankaran}.) In this paper we use the term \textit{special cycles} interchangeably with the term geometric cycles, although the special cycles considered by Rohlfs and Schwermer are more general.
Suppose that $G$ is simple so that $X$ is irreducible. Let $\sigma_1$ be an involutive automorphism of $G$ that
stabilizes $K$ and that $\sigma_1$ commutes with the Cartan involution $\theta$.
Set $\sigma_2:=\sigma_1\circ \theta$.
It is known (\cite{borel63}, \cite[\S2]{rohlfs-speh}) that there are arithmetic lattices $\Gamma\subset G$ such that $\theta(\Gamma)=\Gamma$.
We assume that $\sigma_1(\Gamma)$ and $\Gamma$ are commensurable so that, by passing to a finite index subgroup
of $\Gamma$ if necessary, we have $\sigma_j(\Gamma)=\Gamma, j=1,2.$
Let $G_j=\text{Fix}(\sigma_j)$ and let $K_j=K\cap G_j$. The group $G_j$ is in general a reductive Lie subgroup, not necessarily
semi simple. In any case $X_j:=G_j/K_j$ is a Riemannian symmetric space that naturally embeds in $X=G/K$ as a totally
geodesic submanifold.
Denote by $C_j$ the image of $X_j$ under the projection $X\to X_\Gamma$.
Setting $\Gamma_j:=G_j\cap \Gamma$, the $C_j=\Gamma_j\backslash G_j/K_j, j=1,2,$ are closed submanifolds of $X_\Gamma$ of complementary dimensions.
Following \cite{rs} one says that $C_j$ satisfies condition Or if the action of $G_j$ on (the left of) $X_j$ is orientation preserving.
This requirement is trivially valid when $G_j$ is connected. It is also valid when $X$ is Hermitian symmetric and
$\sigma_j:X\to X$ commutes with translation by elements of the centre of
$K$; see \cite{rs}. Moreover, in this case the $X_j$ are also Hermitian symmetric and the inclusions $X_j\hookrightarrow X$ and $C_j\hookrightarrow X_\Gamma$
are complex analytic. As $X_\Gamma$ is K\"ahler---in fact it is a smooth complex projective variety by a theorem of Kodaira \cite[Theorem 6]{kodaira}---so are the $C_j$.
Our aim is to show the existence of a uniform lattice in $G$ stabilized by $\sigma, \theta,$
where $\sigma\in Aut(G)$ is such that $\sigma(K)=\theta(K)=K$.
We will achieve this by choosing an appropriate $F$-algebraic group $\mathbf{M}$, with $\mathcal{M}$ the $\mathbb{Q}$-algebraic group obtained by applying Weil's restriction of scalars functor $\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}}$ to $\mathbf{M}$, such that (i) $G/Z(G)$ equals the identity component of the Lie group given by the
$\mathbb{R}$-points $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}$ modulo its maximal compact connected normal subgroup
(ii) $\sigma$ and $\theta$ are induced by $F$-rational involutions $\sigma_F, \theta_F$ of $\mathbf{M}$.
The existence of $F$-rational structures and an $F$-rational Cartan involution $\theta_F$ that induces $\theta $ on
$G$ are well-known \cite{borel63}, \cite{rohlfs-speh}. We shall proceed as in \cite{rohlfs-speh} to show
the existence of $\sigma_F$ that commutes with $\theta_F$. It suffices to do this at the level of Lie algebras (as in \cite{rohlfs-speh}).
\subsection{Commuting family of involutions}\label{commutinginvolutions}
Throughout this section we suppose that $G$ is a connected semisimple linear Lie group without
compact factors. Let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$ and denote by $\theta$ the Cartan involution of $G$ that
fixes $K$. Let $T\subset K$ be a maximal torus
in $K$. We assume that $\mathfrak{t}$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$, although $G/K$ is not required to be Hermitian symmetric. This hypothesis simplifies the exposition of the Chevalley basis of
$\mathfrak{g}$ needed in the construction
of $\theta$-stable uniform lattices to be described below,
although Borel obtained his results in complete generality.
Denote the Killing form on $\mathfrak{g}$ by $(.,.)$. Its
restriction to $\mathfrak{t}$ is non-degenerate and hence yields an isomorphism $\mathfrak{t}\cong \mathfrak{t}^*$
and an induced bilinear form on $\mathfrak{t}^*$ denoted by the same symbol. It is an innerproduct on
$i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$.
For any non-zero $\lambda\in \mathfrak{t}^*$,
we denote by $h_\lambda\in\mathfrak{t}$ the unique element so that
$\lambda(H)=(H,h_\lambda)$ and set $H_\lambda:=2h_\lambda/||\lambda||^2$.
Note that
$(\lambda,\mu)=(h_\lambda,h_\mu)=\mu(h_\lambda)$ and that if $\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$, then
$h_\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$.
Let $\Phi=\Phi(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t})$ be the set of roots. Let $\Phi^+\subset \Phi$ be a positive root system and let
$\Delta_\mathfrak{g}\subset \Phi^+$ be the set of simple roots.
We choose a Chevalley basis $\{H_\gamma\}_{\gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}}, X_\alpha, \alpha\in \Phi_\mathfrak{g}=\Phi,$ of $\mathfrak{g}$
adapted to $\mathfrak{t}$ and
the compact form $\mathfrak{g}_\textrm{u}=\mathfrak{k}_0\oplus i\mathfrak{p}_0$ so that the structure constants are all rationals, that is:
\[\sum_{\gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}} \mathbb{R}H_\gamma=i\mathfrak{t}_0,\]
\[ [H, X_\alpha]=\alpha(H)X_\alpha, ~\forall H\in \mathfrak{t},\forall \alpha\in \Phi,\]
\[ [X_\alpha, X_\beta]=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
N_{\alpha,\beta}X_{\alpha+\beta} & \textrm{if~} \alpha,\beta,\alpha+\beta\in \Phi, \alpha+\beta\ne 0 \\
H_\alpha & \textrm{if~} \alpha+\beta=0.
\end{array}\right. \]
where $N_{\alpha,\beta}=-N_{-\alpha,-\beta}=\pm(p+1)\in \mathbb{Z}$ where $p\ge 0$ is the greatest integer such that $\alpha-p\beta\in \Phi$. Set
$U_\alpha:=(X_\alpha-X_{-\alpha}), V_\alpha:=i(X_\alpha+X_{-\alpha}), \alpha\in \Phi^+$.
Then $iH_\gamma, \gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}, U_\alpha, V_\alpha, \alpha\in \Phi_{\mathfrak{k}}^+,
iU_\beta, iV_\beta, \beta\in \Phi_\textrm{n}^+$
form a basis for $\mathfrak{g}_0$ with rational structure constants. For any real number field $F$ let
$\mathfrak{g}_F$ denote
the $F$-vector space spanned by these elements.
Then $\mathfrak{g}_F$ is a Lie algebra over $F$ and is an $F$-form of $\mathfrak{g}_0$, that is, $\mathfrak{g}_F\otimes_F\mathbb{R}=\mathfrak{g}_0$. Note that the set $\mathcal{B}_{\mathfrak{k}}$ consisting of $iH_\gamma,
\gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}, U_\alpha, V_\alpha, \alpha\in \Phi^+_{\mathfrak{k}}$ is an $F$-basis for an $F$-form
$\mathfrak{k}_F$,
of $\mathfrak{k}_0$. We denote by $\mathfrak{p}_F$ the $F$-span the set $\mathcal{B}_\mathfrak{p}=\{iU_\alpha, iV_\alpha\mid \alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\}$.
Suppose that $F$ is a totally real number field. Choose an element $u\in F, u>0$, such that $s(u)<0$ for all
$s\in S=S(F)$, the set of
all embeddings $s:F\to\mathbb{R}$ other than the inclusion $\iota:F\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
Let $E=F(\sqrt{u})$ and let
\[\mathfrak{m}_F=\mathfrak{k}_F\oplus \sqrt{u} \mathfrak{p}_F.\]
In view of the fact that $[\mathfrak{k}_0,\mathfrak{p}_0]\subset \mathfrak{p}_0,
[\mathfrak{p}_0,\mathfrak{p}_0]\subset \mathfrak{k}_0$ we see that $\mathfrak{m}_F$ is a
Lie algebra over $F$.
It has an $F$-basis $\{b_j\}:=\mathcal{B}_\mathfrak{k}\cup \sqrt{u}\mathcal{B}_\mathfrak{p}$.
Choose a primitive element $v\in F$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ and let $d=\deg_\mathbb{Q} F$.
Then $\{v^l\otimes_\mathbb{Q} b_j\mid 0\le l<d, 1\le j\le \dim G\}$ yields a $\mathbb{Q}$-structure on
$\mathfrak{m}_F$.
Also, for any $s\in S, \mathfrak{m}^s_F:=
\mathfrak{k}_F\oplus i\sqrt{-s(u)}\mathfrak{p}_F$ is a Lie algebra over $F$ which is an $F$-form
of $\mathfrak{u}:=\mathfrak{k}_0+i\mathfrak{p}_0$, a
maximal compact Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}$. Again $\mathfrak{m}^s_F$ has a $\mathbb{Q}$-structure
given by $\{v^l\otimes_\mathbb{Q} s(b_j)\}$ where $s(b_j)=b_j$ if $b_j\in \mathfrak{k}_F$ and $s(b_j)
=i\sqrt{-s(u)} b'_j$ if $b_j=\sqrt{u} b'_j, b'_j\in \mathfrak{p}_F$.
Since $F$ is totally real, we have an isomorphism of real Lie algebras
\[\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}_\mathbb{R}:=\mathfrak{m}_F\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \mathbb{R}
\cong \mathfrak{g}_0\bigoplus (\oplus_{s\in S} \mathfrak{m}^s_\mathbb{R}). \]
In particular $\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}_\mathbb{R}$ is a semi simple Lie algebra in which all simple ideals
{\it not} contained in $\mathfrak{g}_0$ are compact Lie algebras.
Let $\mathbf{M}$ denote the adjoint type
$F$-algebraic group corresponding to the $F$-Lie algebra $\mathfrak{m}_F$ and let
$\mathcal{M}=\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}}(\mathbf{M})$ be the $\mathbb{Q}$-algebraic group obtained from
$\mathbf{M}$
by Weil's restriction of scalars from $F$ to $\mathbb{Q}$. Let $\textrm{Lie}(\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Q})$ be the Lie algebra of $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Q}$. Then $\textrm{Lie}(\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Q})\otimes_\mathbb{Q}\mathbb{R}\cong \widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}_\mathbb{R}$ is the Lie algebra of
the real Lie group $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}.$
Denote by $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}^0$ the identity component of $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}$.
It follows that $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}^0$ has exactly one non-compact
factor, namely, $G/Z(G)$.
The $F$-rational involution $\theta^\iota_F:\mathfrak{m}_F\to \mathfrak{m}_F$
defined by $X+\sqrt{u}Y\mapsto X-\sqrt{u}Y$ induces the Cartan involution $\theta=\theta^\iota_F\otimes _F
\mathbb{R}$ on $\mathfrak{g}_0$ and an involution $\theta^s$ on $\mathfrak{m}^s_\mathbb{R}$ given by conjugation, $X+i\sqrt{-s(u)}Y\mapsto X-i\sqrt{-s(u)}Y$. The $\mathbb{Q}$-rational involution $\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}}(\theta^\iota_F):\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}$ yields an involution
$\widetilde{\theta}_\mathbb{R}$ on $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}$ which induces the product
$\theta\times (\prod_{s\in S} \theta^s)$ on $\textrm{Lie}(\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R})=\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}_\mathbb{R}$.
This shows that $\theta:\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$ arises from a $\mathbb{Q}$-rational involution
of the $\mathbb{Q}$-group $\mathcal{M}$.
In view of the fact that $G/Z(G)$ is the only non-compact factor of $\mathcal{M}^0_\mathbb{R}$, we see that the $\mathbb{Z}$-points $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Z}\cap \mathcal{M}^0_\mathbb{R}$ of $\mathcal{M}^0_\mathbb{R}$ projects to a {\it uniform} arithmetic lattice $\bar{\Gamma}$ in $G/Z(G)$.
(Here we need $F\ne \mathbb{Q}$
so that there is at least one non-trivial compact factor in $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}^0$.)
If $p:G\to G/Z(G)$ is the canonical projection, then $\Gamma=\Gamma(F,u):=p^{-1}(\bar{\Gamma})$ is a uniform arithmetic lattice in $G$. Since $\widetilde{\theta}_\mathbb{R}(\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Z})=\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Z},$ it follows that
$\theta(\Gamma)=\Gamma$.
{\it We denote by $\mathcal{L}(G)$ the family of all torsionless uniform lattices which are commensurable with
$\Gamma(F,u)$ as $F$ varies over all
totally real number fields and $u$ over $ F_{>0}$ all whose conjugates, other than itself, are negative. }
\begin{proposition}\label{involutions}
We keep the above notation. Let $\varpi=\varpi_\psi$ be a fundamental weight corresponding to
a compact simple root $\psi\in \Delta_\mathfrak{g}$. Set $t_0:=\pi ||\varpi||^2/||\psi||^2$.
Then:\\
(i) The automorphism $\sigma=\sigma_\psi:=e^{\emph{ad} it_0H_\varpi}:\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$
is a $\mathbb{Q}$-rational involution for the $\mathbb{Q}$-structure given by the Chevalley basis. \\
(ii) The involution $\sigma_\mathbb{Q}$ commutes with $\theta_\mathbb{Q}$ and defines an $F$-involution $\sigma^\iota_F$ on $\mathfrak{m}_F$ which commutes with $\theta^\iota_F$. \\
(iii) The involution $\widetilde{\sigma}:=\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}} (\sigma^\iota_F)$ of $\mathbb{Q}$-group $\mathcal{M}$ commutes with $\widetilde{\theta}=\textrm{Res}_{F|\mathbb{Q}}(\theta^\iota_F)$. In particular
$\widetilde{\sigma}_\mathbb{R}$ commutes with $\widetilde{\theta}_\mathbb{R}$. \\
(iv) The uniform lattice $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Z}\cap \mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}^0$
is preserved by $\widetilde{\sigma}_\mathbb{R}$. \\
(v) Any two involutions $\sigma_\psi, \psi\in \Delta_\mathfrak{k},$ commute.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Evidently $[iH_\varpi,H_\gamma]=0$ for any $\gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $\alpha\in \Phi^+$ and write $\alpha=\sum_{\gamma\in\Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}} a_{\alpha,\gamma} \gamma$ as an (integral)
linear combination of simple roots.
$[iH_\varpi, X_\alpha]=i\alpha(H_\varpi)X_\alpha= 2i(\alpha,\varpi)||\varpi||^{-2} X_\alpha=i a_{\alpha,\psi} c X_\alpha$ where $c=c(\psi):=(||\psi||/||\varpi||)^{2}$.
It follows that $[iH_\varpi, U_\alpha]=ca_{\alpha,\psi} V_\alpha, [iH_\varpi, V_\alpha]
=-ca_{\alpha,\psi} U_\alpha$. Therefore the automorphism $e^{\textrm{ad}i tH_\psi}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ restricts
to the identity on $\mathfrak{t}_0$, preserves the planes $\mathfrak{k}_{0,\alpha}\subset \mathfrak{k}_0$ spanned by $U_\alpha, V_\alpha; \alpha\in \Phi^+_{\mathfrak{k}},$ and the planes $\mathfrak{p}_{0,\alpha}\subset \mathfrak{p}_0$
spanned by $iU_\alpha, iV_\alpha, \alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$. The matrix $E_\alpha$ of the operator $e^{\textrm{ad}itH_\psi}$ restricted to $\mathfrak{k}_{0,\alpha}$ or to $\mathfrak{p}_{0,\alpha}$
with respect to their respective chosen basis is $e^{tA_\alpha}$ where
$A_\alpha:=\left(\begin{matrix} 0 & -ca_{\alpha,\psi} \\
ca_{\alpha,\psi} & 0\end{matrix} \right)$.
Taking $t_0:=\pi /c$ we see that $E_\alpha=I$ or $-I$ according as $a_{\alpha,\psi}=(1/c)\alpha(H_\varpi)$ is even or odd.
As the value of $t_0$ is independent of $\alpha$ we see that $\sigma$ sends each Chevalley basis
element either to itself or to its negative. Hence it preserves the $\mathbb{Q}$-structure on $\mathfrak{g}_0$
and is an involution.
Parts (ii)-(iv) of the proposition follow easily from the observation that the matrix of $\sigma$ with respect to the Chevalley basis is diagonal with eigenvalues $\pm 1$. Part (v) is trivial since all the $H_\varpi$
belong to the abelian subalgebra $i\mathfrak{t}$.
\end{proof}
The involution $\sigma_\psi:\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$ induces an involution of
the universal cover $\widetilde{G}$ of $G$ which leaves fixed the centre of $Z(\widetilde{G})$. Hence it
induces an involution of $G$, which is again denoted by the same symbol $\sigma_\psi$.
Since $\sigma_\psi(\mathfrak{k}_0)=\mathfrak{k}_0$, we have $\sigma_\psi(K)=K$.
Hence $\sigma_\psi$ induces an isometry of $X=G/K$ which is also denoted $\sigma_\psi$.
The group $\Sigma=\Sigma(F,u)$ generated by $\sigma_\psi, \psi\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{k}}$ and $\theta$ is an
elementary abelian group of order $2^n$ where $n=\dim \mathfrak{t}_0$. Then the assertions
(ii), (iii), and (iv) hold for any $\sigma\in \Sigma$.
We regard $\Sigma$ also
as a group of isometries of $X$.
From now on, we assume that $X=G/K$ be hermitian symmetric. Since $\sigma_\psi$ commutes
with the isometries of $X$ defined by elements of $Z(K)$,
it follows that $\sigma_\psi:X\to X$ is complex analytic.
Let $\Gamma\subset G$ be a torsionless uniform lattice stabilized by
a $\sigma\in \Sigma$ and the Cartan involution $\theta$ and set $\tau:=\sigma\circ \theta$.
Note that if $\Lambda\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, then $\Gamma:=\Lambda\cap \theta(\Lambda)\cap
\sigma(\Gamma)\cap \theta\circ \sigma(\Lambda)$ is such a lattice.
Denote by $G(\sigma),
K(\sigma), \Gamma(\sigma)$ the fixed points $\text{Fix}(\sigma), \text{Fix}(\sigma|_K), \text{Fix}(\sigma|_\Gamma)$, etc.
Then $K(\sigma)$ is a maximal compact subgroup of the reductive group $G(\sigma)$ (which may not be
connected) and $\Gamma(\sigma)$ is a uniform lattice in $G(\sigma)$.
We obtain a pair of complementary dimensional special cycles
$C(\sigma,\Gamma)=X(\sigma)_{\Gamma(\sigma)}, C(\tau,\Gamma)=X(\tau)_{\Gamma(\tau)} \subset X_\Gamma$ which are complex analytic submanifolds of the locally Hermitian symmetric space $X_\Gamma$.
The group $G(\sigma)$ acts on $X(\sigma)$ preserving the orientation by \cite[Remark 4.8(ii)]{rs}. The same is true of $G(\tau)$ as well and so condition {\it Or} of \cite[Theorem 4.11]{rs} is met and we have the following
corollary (cf. \cite[Theorem 2.1]{mr}).
\begin{corollary} \label{geometriccycles}
Let $\Gamma\subset G$ be a torsionless uniform arithmetic group stabilized by $\sigma\in \Sigma$
and by the Cartan involution $\theta$. Let $\textrm{codim}_{X_\Gamma}C(\sigma,\Gamma)=p$.
Then
$[C(\sigma,\Gamma)]\in H^{p,p}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ is {\em not} in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism
$H^*(X_u;\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$. \hfill $\Box$
\end{corollary}
In view of the fact that $C(\sigma,\Gamma)$ is a complex analytic submanifold of the K\"ahler manifold
$X_\Gamma$, we have that $[C(\sigma,\Gamma)]\ne 0$. In fact, $[V]\ne 0$ in $H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ for any complex analytic subvariety $V\subset C$; see \cite{gh}. Evidently $[V]$ is of Hodge type $(p,p)$ where
$p$ is the complex codimension of $V$ in $X_\Gamma$.
We will be concerned with special cycles $C(\sigma,\Gamma)$ as in the above corollary having {\it minimum} codimension.
The following corollary, whose proof is immediate from the proof of Proposition \ref{involutions}(i), is a useful tool in
determining $X(\sigma)$ (the universal cover of $C(\sigma,\Gamma)$) and its compact dual $X(\sigma)_u$, in particular the dimension of the special cycles.
\begin{corollary}
With notations as above, let $\psi$ be a compact simple root.
The Lie algebra of $G(\sigma_\psi)$
is $\mathfrak{g}_{0}(\sigma_\psi)=
\mathfrak{t}_0\oplus \sum \mathfrak{k}_{0,\alpha}\oplus \sum \mathfrak{p}_{0,\beta}$ where the sum is over all
$\alpha\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$, (resp. $\beta\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$) such that $(||\varpi_\psi||^2/||\psi||^2)\alpha(H_{\varpi_\psi})$
(resp. $(||\varpi_\psi||^2/||\psi||^2)\beta (H_{\varpi_\psi}))$
is even. \hfill $\Box$
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}\label{codim}{\em
(i) We remark that $\theta|_{G(\sigma_\psi)}$ is the Cartan involution of $G(\sigma_\psi)$ that fixes $K(\sigma_\psi):=K\cap G(\sigma_\psi)$. The expression for $\mathfrak{g}_0(\sigma_\psi)$ in the above corollary is the corresponding
Cartan decomposition where the last summand equals $\mathfrak{p}_0(\sigma_\psi):=\mathfrak{p}_0\cap \mathfrak{g}_0(\sigma_\psi)$.
It follows that $T_0(X(\sigma_\psi))=\mathfrak{p}_0(\sigma_\psi)$ and so we obtain the following formula
for the (complex) codimension of $X(\sigma)=G(\sigma_\psi)/K(\sigma_\psi)$ in $X$:
\[c(\sigma_\psi):= \textrm{codim}_X X(\sigma)=\#\{\alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid a_{\alpha,\psi}\equiv 1 \mod 2\}
=\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}-\#\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_n.\]
(ii) Although $\Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}\cap \Phi(\mathfrak{g}(\sigma_\psi), \mathfrak{t})=\Delta_\mathfrak{g}\setminus\{\psi\}$,
it is not, in general, the set of simple roots for the positive system $\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)=
\Phi^+(\mathfrak{g}(\sigma_\psi),\mathfrak{t})=
\Phi^+\cap\Phi(\sigma_\psi)$. }
\end{remark}
\subsection{Outer automorphisms commuting with $\theta$}\label{outerinvolutions}
The involutions of $G$ commuting with $\theta$ arising from the involutions of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_0$ given by the above proposition are all inner automorphism of $G$. There are also involutive outer automorphisms which commute
with $\theta$ when the Dynkin diagram of $\mathfrak{g}$ admits a non-trivial symmetry. We consider the case
$G=\textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-2), K=\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(2n-2)$ in some detail as it will be used later. We take $T=(\textrm{SO}(2))^n$ embedded block diagonally in $K$.
We
label the simple roots of $\mathfrak{g}$ as in \cite[Planche IV]{bourbaki}.
Let $H_\psi, \psi\in \Delta_\mathfrak{g}, X_\gamma, \gamma\in \Phi=\Phi(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t})=\{\pm(\epsilon_i\pm\epsilon_j)
\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}$ be a Chevalley
basis for a $\mathbb{Q}$-form $\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{Q}$ of $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{so}(2n,\mathbb{C})$ adapted to
$\mathfrak{t}$
and
$\mathfrak{g}_u$. Then the Lie algebra automorphism $\tau_\mathbb{Q}:\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{Q}\to \mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{Q}$ defined by $H_\psi\mapsto H_\psi, \psi\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}, \psi\ne \epsilon_{n-1}\pm \epsilon_n$,
$H_{\epsilon_{n-1}\pm\epsilon_n}\mapsto H_{\epsilon_{n-1}\mp\epsilon_n}$, $X_\gamma\mapsto X_\gamma, \gamma=\pm
(\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j), 1\le i<j\le n-1$, $X_{\pm(\epsilon_j\pm\epsilon_n)}\mapsto X_{\pm(\epsilon_j\mp\epsilon_n)}$
induces an involutive {\it outer} automorphism $\tau:\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$ that fixes $\mathfrak{so}(2,2n-3)$.
Denote by $\tau_\mathbb{C}:\mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g}$ the complex linear extension of $\tau$.
It is evident that $\tau_\mathbb{Q}$ commutes with
$\theta_\mathbb{Q}$. If $F$ is any totally real number field and an element $u\in F\cap \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ such that
$s(u)<0$ for all embeddings $s:F\to \mathbb{R}$ other than the inclusion $\iota:F\to \mathbb{R}$, we obtain
from $\tau_\mathbb{Q}$ an involution
$\tau_F^\iota:\mathfrak{m}_F\to \mathfrak{m}_F$
which commutes with $\theta_F^\iota$ (with notations as in \S \ref{commutinginvolutions}).
We may apply the restriction of
scalar functor to obtain a $\mathbb{Q}$-automorphism $\tilde{\tau}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ that commutes with $\theta^\iota$.
This allows us to conclude that the arithmetic group $\mathcal{M}_\mathbb{Z}\cap \mathcal{M}_\mathbb{R}^0$ is stable by $\tilde{\tau}_\mathbb{R}$.
It follows that the uniform lattice $\Gamma=\Gamma(F,u)\subset \textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-2)$ (as in \S\ref{commutinginvolutions}) is preserved by $\tau$ and that $\Gamma\cap \textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-3)$ is a lattice in $\textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-3)$.
By passing to a finite index subgroup, we may (and do)
assume that $\Gamma$ is torsionless.
Let $\Lambda\in \mathcal{L}(G)$ be a lattice commensurable with $\Gamma=\Gamma(F,u)$ and let $\Lambda(\tau)=\Lambda\cap G(\tau)$. Then
$C(\tau,\Lambda)=\Lambda(\tau) \backslash G(\tau) /K(\tau) $ is a special cycle which is complex analytic
since $\tau$ commutes with the centre $SO(2)\hookrightarrow \textrm{SO}(2)\times\textrm{SO}(2n-2)$. Note that $C(\tau,\Gamma)$ is a divisor in $X_\Gamma$.
As in Corollary \ref{geometriccycles}, its Poincar\'e dual $[C(\tau,\Lambda)]$ is a non-vanishing
cohomology class in $H^{1,1}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$
which is {\it not} in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism
$H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Lambda;\mathbb{C})$.
We summarise the above discussion as a proposition.
\begin{proposition} Let $G=\textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-2), K=\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(2n-2)$.
Let $\Lambda\in \mathcal{L}(G)$. Then there exists an involutive automorphism
$\tau:G\to G$ with $\text{Fix}(\tau)=G(\tau)=\textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-3)$
such that (i) $\tau(K)=K$, (ii) $\tau$ commutes with conjugation by any central element of
$K$; in particular, $\tau\circ \theta=\theta\circ \tau$, (iii) $\tau(\Lambda)\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, and
(iv) $\Lambda\cap \text{Fix}(\tau)$ is a uniform lattice in $\textrm{SO}_0(2,2n-3)$, and, (v) The Poincar\'e dual of the special cycle
$[C(\tau,\Lambda)]\subset \Lambda$ is not in the image of the the Matsushima homomorphism $H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C}) \to H^*(X_\Lambda;\mathbb{C})$. \hfill $\Box$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}{\em
Millson and Raghunathan \cite{mr} constructed an involutive automorphism $\sigma$ of $\textrm{SO}_0(2,n)$ so that
$X(\sigma)\cong \textrm{SO}_0(2,n-1)/\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(n-1)$ irrespective of the parity of $n$. In fact they considered
the more general case when $G=\textrm{SO}_0(m,n)$ and construct involutions $\sigma_k$ so that $X(\sigma_k)\cong \textrm{SO}_0(m,k)/(\textrm{SO}(m)\times \textrm{SO}(n-k))$, for $1\le k<n$. They further show that $\sigma$ arises from an $F$-algebraic
automorphism (for a suitable number field $F\subset \mathbb{R}$) and hence leads to construction of special cycles of complementary dimensions in $\Gamma\backslash X$ for appropriate uniform lattices. Our approach to the construction
of $C(\tau,\Gamma)$ is different from theirs. Although our approach is applicable to the more general case of $\textrm{SO}_0(p,q)$, we
will have no need for it for our present purposes. }
\end{remark}
\subsection{Dimensions of Hermitian special cycles}\label{codimension}
We shall describe the tangent space at the origin of $X(\sigma)\subset X=G/K$ for certain involutive automorphisms $\sigma$ for
which $X(\sigma)$ is Hermitian symmetric and $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma)$ is minimum.
In all but one case $\sigma$ is an element of the group $\Sigma$.
In the case when $G$ is an exceptional group we shall merely compute the codimension as this is the only information
that will be needed for our puposes.
Again we shall use the conventions of the Planches in \cite{bourbaki} for labelling of the
simple roots of $\Phi(\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{t})$. We shall also use the formula for
$\text{codim} (X(\sigma))$ given in Remark \ref{codim}(i).
{\bf Type AIII}. $\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{su}(p,n-p), 2p\le n$. We have $\dim_\mathbb{C} X=p(n-p)$. The simple non-compact root is $\epsilon_p-\epsilon_{p+1}$.
Taking $\psi=\epsilon_{n-1}-\epsilon_n$, we see that for any positive root $\alpha=\sum a_{\alpha, \gamma}\gamma,
\gamma\in \Delta_{\mathfrak{g}}$, $a_{\alpha,\gamma}$ is either $0$ or $1$ and that $a_{\alpha, \psi}=1$ if and only
if $\alpha=\epsilon_i-\epsilon_n$.
Such a root $\alpha$ is non-compact if and only if $i\le p$. Thus there are
exactly $p$ such roots and so the complex codimension of $T_0X(\sigma)\subset T_0X$ equals $p$.
In this case $G(\sigma)=\textrm{SU}(p,n-1-p)$ which embeds in $\textrm{SU}(p,n-p)$ by fixing the standard basis element
$\epsilon_n\in \mathbb{C}^n$.
It is easily verified that if we take $\psi$ to be any other compact simple root, the (complex) codimension of
$X(\sigma_\psi)\subset X$ is at least $2p$, except when $2p=n$ and $\psi=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2,$
in which $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=p$ again.
{\bf Type BDI (rank=2)}.
$\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{so}(2,n)$ with non-compact simple root $\psi_1=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$.\\ There are two cases
to consider depending on the parity of $n$.
{\it Case 1}. Let $n=2p-1$ be odd, $p\ge 3$. Consider $\psi:=\psi_p=\epsilon_p$. Then $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=
\{\epsilon_1\pm \epsilon_j, 1<j\le p\}\cup \{\epsilon_1\}$ and $\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)=\{\epsilon_1\pm \epsilon_j,
1<j\le p\}$. Therefore
there is exactly one non-compact root $\alpha$ for which the coefficient of $\psi$ is odd, namely, $\epsilon_1.$
So $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=1.$ The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}(\sigma_\psi)$ modulo its radical is
isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2,n-1)$ with positive roots $\{\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j\mid 1\le i< j\le p\}$.
{\it Case 2.} Let $n=2p-2$ be even, $p\ge 4$. Consider $\psi=\psi_2=\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3$. The only
non-compact roots
in which the coefficient of $\psi_2$ is even are $\psi_1=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$ and the highest root $\alpha_0:=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2$.
It follows that
$\textrm{dim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=2$ and so $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi\circ\theta)=2$.
This is the minimum codimension of a geometric cycle as we vary $\sigma \in \Sigma$. However, with notations as in
\S\ref{outerinvolutions}, we note that $\textrm{codim}_XX(\tau)=1$.
{\bf Type CI}.
$\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{sp}(n,\mathbb{R})$ with non-compact simple root $2\epsilon_n$.
Take $\psi=\psi_1=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$. Then $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=\{\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j, 1\le i<j\le n; 2\epsilon_j, 1\le j\le n\}$
and $\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_\mathfrak{n}=\{2\epsilon_j, 1\le j\le n; \epsilon_i+\epsilon_j, 1<i<j\le n \}$. Therefore
$\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}-\#\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_\textrm{n}=n-1.$
In this case $\mathfrak{g}(\sigma)$ modulo its radical is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})\times \mathfrak{sp}(n-1,\mathbb{C})$, where the roots of the $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ factor are $\pm 2\epsilon_1$. (In fact
$\mathfrak{g}_0\cong \mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus \mathfrak{sp}(n-1,\mathbb{R})$ since $\pm \epsilon_1$ are compact roots.)
{\bf Type DIII}
$\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{so}^*(2n)$. The non-compact root is $\psi_n=\epsilon_{n-1}+\epsilon_n$ and
$\Phi_\textrm{n}^+=\{\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}$.
Let $\psi=\psi_1=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2$. Then $\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_\textrm{n}=\{ \epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\mid 1<i<j\le n\}$.
So $\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}-\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_\textrm{n}=\#\{\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\mid 2\le j\le n\}=n-1$. Thus $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=n-1$.
{\bf Type EIII}
$\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{e}_{6,(-14)}$, with non-compact simple root $\psi_1$. In this case $\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=16$.
Take $\psi=\psi_3$. Using \cite[Planche V]{bourbaki}, we observe that among the non-compact positive roots,
the coefficient of $\psi_3$ is at most $2$. Among them
one has coefficient $0$ and five have coefficient $2$.
So $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=10$. Hence $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi\theta)=6$. A routine calculation
shows that for {\it any} $\tau\in \Sigma$, the codimension, $\textrm{codim}_XX(\tau)$ is at least six.
{\bf Type EVII}
$\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)}$. The non-compact simple root is $\psi_7$. $\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=27$.
Take $\psi=\psi_6$. Again using Planche-VI in \cite{bourbaki}, we see that the coefficient of $\psi_6$ in any non-compact root is at most $2$ and that the number of non-compact
roots in which $\psi_6$ occurs with coefficient $0, 2$ are respectively, $1, 10$.
Thus $\#\Phi^+(\sigma_\psi)_\mathfrak{n}=
11$ and we have $\textrm{codim}_XX(\sigma_\psi)=16$. Hence $\textrm{codim}_XX(\theta\sigma_\psi)=11$.
This is the least possible codimension of $X(\tau)$ as $\tau$ varies in $\Sigma$ by a routine verification.
The verification was made by direct computation as well as by using Python.
Table \ref{c(X)} summarises the results obtained above.
The number $c(X)$ denotes the smallest number that arises
as complex codimension of $X(\sigma)\subset X$ that has been constructed
above. In the table we have also indicated a $\sigma$ which
realizes this number. Except when $G=\textrm{SO}_0(2,2p-2)$, $\sigma$ belongs to $\Sigma$.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Type & $\mathfrak{g}_0$ & $\sigma$&$c(X)$\\
\hline
AIII& $\mathfrak{su}(p,n-p)$ & $\sigma_{\epsilon_{n-1}-\epsilon_n}$ &$p$\\
&$1\le p\le n/2$ & &\\
\hline
BD I (rank ~2) & $\mathfrak{so}(2,n)$ & & \\
& $n=2p-1$& $\sigma_{\epsilon_p}$ & $1$\\
& $n=2p-2$& $\tau (\textrm{see~} \S\ref{outerinvolutions})$ &$1$\\
\hline
CI & $\mathfrak{sp}(n,\mathbb{R})$ &$\sigma_{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2}$ & $n-1$ \\
\hline
DIII&$\mathfrak{so}^*(2n)$ & $\sigma_{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2}$ &$n-1$\\
\hline
EIII & $\mathfrak{e}_{6,(-14)}$ &$\sigma_{\psi_3} \circ \theta$ &$6$ \\
\hline
EVII &$\mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)}$ & $\sigma_{\psi_6}\circ \theta$ &$11$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
~\\
\caption{The values of $c(X)$ and involutions yielding analytic special cycles of minimum codimension.}
\label{c(X)}
\end{table}
\section{$\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras}\label{parabolics} \label{thetastableparabolics}
Let $G$ be a linear connected non-compact simple Lie group and $K\subset G$ a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. Denote by $\theta$ the Cartan involution that fixes $K$. We denote its
differential $\mathfrak{g}_0\to \mathfrak{g}_0$ and also its complexification by the same symbol
$\theta$. We have the Cartan decomposition $\mathfrak{g}_0=\mathfrak{k}_0\oplus \mathfrak{p}_0$
where $\mathfrak{p}_0$ is the $(-1)$-eigenspace of $\theta$. Complexification yields $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{k}\oplus \mathfrak{p}$. We assume that $G/K$ is Hermitian symmetric. Thus the centre
of $K$, denoted $Z(K)$, is isomorphic to $U(1)$ and the (complex) rank of $G$ equals the rank of $K$. We fix a maximal
torus $T\subset K$.
We denote by $\Phi$ the set of
roots of $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t})$; $\Phi_\mathfrak{k}, \Phi_\textrm{n}\subset \Phi$ denote the set of compact,
respectively, non-compact roots. We fix a positive root system for $(\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{t})$
such that the set of simple roots $\Delta_\mathfrak{g}$ has exactly one non-compact root; $\Phi^+, \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ denote
the set of positive roots of $\mathfrak{g}, \mathfrak{k}$ respectively and $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}, \Phi^-_\textrm{n}$ the set of
positive, resp. negative, non-compact roots. Then $\Delta_\mathfrak{k}:=\Delta_\mathfrak{g}\cap \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ is the simple
roots for the positive system $\Phi_\mathfrak{k}^+$. The fundamental weight corresponding to a simple root $\psi\in \Delta_\mathfrak{g}$ will be
denoted $\varpi_\psi$.
If $\mathfrak{s}$ affords a $\mathfrak{t}$-representation, especially when $\mathfrak{s}\subset \mathfrak{g}$, we shall denote by
$\Phi(\mathfrak{s})$ the multiset of non-zero weights of $\mathfrak{s}$ and by $|\Phi(\mathfrak{s})|$ the sum of elements
of $\Phi(\mathfrak{s})$ each appearing as many times as its multiplicity.
The Killing form on $\mathfrak{g}$ restricted to $i\mathfrak{t}_0\subset \mathfrak{t}$ is an
inner product. This in turn defines an inner product on $i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$, which will be denoted $(\cdot,\cdot)$.
The tangent space $\mathfrak{p}_0$ of $G/K$ at the origin is a complex vector space and so we have a
decomposition $\mathfrak{p}:=\mathfrak{p}_0\otimes_\mathbb{R}\mathbb{C}=\mathfrak{p}_+\oplus \mathfrak{p}_-$ as the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic tangent spaces at the identity coset of $G/K$ where
$\mathfrak{p}_+= \oplus_{\alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}}\mathfrak{g}_\alpha,
\mathfrak{p}_-= \oplus_{\alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}}\mathfrak{g}_{-\alpha}$.
Denoting by $~\bar{}~$ the complex
conjugation of $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_0\oplus i\mathfrak{g}_0$ with respect to $\mathfrak{g}_0$,
we recall that a $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra $\mathfrak{q}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ is a parabolic subalgebra contained in $\mathfrak{g}$ such that (a) $\theta(\mathfrak{q})=\mathfrak{q}$, and, (b) $\mathfrak{q}\cap \overline{\mathfrak{q}}=:\mathfrak{l}$ is a Levi subalgebra of $\mathfrak{q}$. If $k\in K$ and $\mathfrak{q}$ is a $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra, then so is $\text{Ad}(k)(\mathfrak{q})$.
Then $\mathfrak{l}_0:=\mathfrak{l}\cap \mathfrak{g}_0$ contains $\text{Lie}(T_1)$ for some maximal torus $T_1\subset K$.
Conjugating by an element of $K$ if required, we may assume that $\mathfrak{t}_0\subset \mathfrak{l}_0$ so that $\mathfrak{t}\subset \mathfrak{q}$.
Let $\mathfrak{u}$ be the nilradical of $\mathfrak{q}$; thus we have $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{l}\oplus \mathfrak{u}$.
The $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ containing $\mathfrak{t}$ are constructed
as follows: Let $x\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$. Note that the roots of $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t})$ take real values
on $i\mathfrak{t}_0$. Let $\mathfrak{q}_x:=\mathfrak{t}+\sum_{\alpha(x)\ge 0, \alpha\in \Phi} \mathfrak{g}_\alpha $. Then $\mathfrak{q}_x=\mathfrak{l}_x\oplus \mathfrak{u}_x$ is a $\theta$-stable subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ where the nilradical of $\mathfrak{q}_x$ equals $\mathfrak{u}_x=\oplus \sum_{\alpha(x)>0}\mathfrak{g}_\alpha$ and the Levi subalgebra $\mathfrak{l}_x$ equals
$\mathfrak{t}+\sum_{\alpha(x)=0}\mathfrak{g}_\alpha$. We denote by $\Phi_x$ the roots of $(\mathfrak{l},\mathfrak{t})$.
Every $\theta$-stable subalgebra $\mathfrak{q}$ that contains $\mathfrak{t}$ arises as $\mathfrak{q}_x$ for some $x\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$. Moreover, fixing a positive system for $(\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{t})$ we may assume, without loss of
generality that, $\alpha(x)\ge 0$ for all $\alpha\in\Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$.
Recall that if, $\lambda$ is any element of $i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$, then $h_\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$ is the
unique element such that $\lambda(H)=(H,h_\lambda) ~\forall H\in \mathfrak{t}^*$ and we have $\alpha(h_\lambda)=(\lambda, \alpha)~\forall \alpha\in
i\mathfrak{t}^*_0$.
When $x=h_\lambda$ we often denote
$\mathfrak{q}_x, \mathfrak{l}_x, \mathfrak{u}_x$ by $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda, \mathfrak{l}_\lambda,\mathfrak{u}_\lambda$ respectively.
We choose a positive root system for $(\mathfrak{l}\cap\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{t})$ and extend it to a positive root system $\Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}(x)$
for $(\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{t})$ such that the set $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{k})\subset \Phi^+_{\mathfrak{k}}(x)$ where $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap\mathfrak{k})$ denotes the $\mathfrak{t}$-weights of $\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{k}$. One has an irreducible unitary representation $(\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}}, A_\mathfrak{q})$ of $G$ with trivial infinitesimal character
such that (i) the $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module $A_{\mathfrak{q},K}$ has an irreducible $K$-submodule $V$ with highest weight
(with respect to $\Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}(x)$) equal to the sum $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p})|=
\sum_{\alpha\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u\cap p})}\alpha$, (ii) the $K$-type of $V$ occurs in $A_{\mathfrak{q},K}$ with multiplicity one, i.e.,
$\hom_K(V,A_{\mathfrak{q},K})\cong \mathbb{C}$, and, (iii) any other $K$-type that occurs in $A_{\mathfrak{q},K}$ has
highest weight of the form $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p})|+\sum_{\gamma\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap\mathfrak{p})}
a_\gamma\gamma$ with $a_\gamma\ge 0$. If $\mathfrak{q}':=\mathfrak{q}_{x'}=\mathfrak{l}_{x'}\oplus
\mathfrak{u}_{x'},x'\in i\mathfrak{t}_0,$ is another $\theta$-stable parabolic
subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}_0$,
then
$A_{\mathfrak{q},K}$ is unitarily equivalent to $A_{\mathfrak{q}',K}$
if and only if $\mathfrak{u}_x\cap\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{u}_{x'}\cap \mathfrak{p}$. See \cite{sriba} for a more general statement. It is a result due to Harish-Chandra that two irreducible {\it unitary} representation of $G$ are unitarily equivalent
if and only if their spaces of smooth $K$-finite vectors are isomorphic as $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-modules. (See \cite[Ch. IX, \S 1]{knapp}.)
In particular, $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})|=|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap\mathfrak{p})|$ for two $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras
$\mathfrak{q}_\lambda, \mathfrak{q}_\mu$ of $G$ if and only if
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\mu}$ are unitarily equivalent $G$-representations.
The group $L=\{g\in G\mid \text{Ad}(g)(\mathfrak{q})=\mathfrak{q}\}$ is a connected reductive closed Lie subgroup of
$G$ with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{l}_0=\mathfrak{l}\cap \mathfrak{g}_0.$
Moreover, $T\subset L$ and $[L,L]\cap K $ is a maximal compact subgroup of the
semisimple Lie group $[L,L]$.
Let $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ denote the compact dual of $[L,L]/(K\cap[L, L])$.
It turns out that $Z(K)\subset [L,L]$ and so $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ is {\it Hermitian} symmetric.
(See Proposition \ref{hermitian} below.)
It is known that if $(\pi,H_\pi)$ is an irreducible unitary representation of
$G$ such that $H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;H_{\pi,K})$ is non-zero, then $\pi$ is unitarily equivalent to
$\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ for some $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra $\mathfrak{q}$.
Also $H^r(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})$
is isomorphic to $H^{r-R(\mathfrak{q})}(Y_\mathfrak{q};\mathbb{C})$, where $R(\mathfrak{q})=\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p}$. In fact a more refined statement is valid as we shall now describe.
Let $R_+(\mathfrak{q})=\dim_\mathbb{C} \mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p}_+, R_-(\mathfrak{q})=
\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p}_-$ so that $R(\mathfrak{q})=R_+(\mathfrak{q})+R_-(\mathfrak{q})$. Then
$H^{p,q}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})\cong
H^{p-R_+(\mathfrak{q}),q-R_-(\mathfrak{q})}(Y_\mathfrak{q};\mathbb{C})$. (See \cite{vz}.)
Since $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ is Hermitian symmetric, we see that $H^{p,q}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})=0$ unless $p-q=R_+(\mathfrak{q})-R_-(\mathfrak{q})$. See \cite{gh}.
We refer to $(R_+(\mathfrak{q}),R_-(\mathfrak{q}))$ as the {\it Hodge type} of $\mathfrak{q}$ and to $R(\mathfrak{q})=R_+(\mathfrak{q})+R_-(\mathfrak{q})$ as the {\it degree} of $\mathfrak{q}$.
The $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module $A_{\mathfrak{q},K}$ was first constructed by Parthasarathy \cite{parthasarathy}.
Vogan and Zuckerman \cite{vz} and Vogan \cite{vogan} gave a construction via cohomological induction and proved
that they are unitarizable. We refer the reader to the paper \cite{vogan97} for a very readable account of
the basic properties of $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$. For basic representation theory of semisimple Lie groups
we refer the reader to Knapp's book \cite{knapp}. For the cohomology of $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-modules
and its relation to the cohomology of lattices in Lie groups, see \cite{borel-wallach}.
\subsection{The Levi subalgebras of $\theta$-stable subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$.} \label{levi}
Having fixed a positive system of roots for $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{t})$, we have a partial order on the set of roots where $\alpha\ge \beta$ if $\alpha-\beta$ is a non-negative linear combination of simple roots. Let $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_x$ where $x\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$ is such that $\gamma(x)\ge 0$ for all compact roots $\gamma\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}.$ Write $\Phi_x=\{\alpha\in \Phi\mid \alpha(x)=0\}$. It is clear that $\Phi_x$ is the set of roots of $(\mathfrak{l},\mathfrak{t})$.
Our assumption on $x$ that $\psi(x)\ge 0$ for all $\psi\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ implies that if $\alpha+\beta\in \Phi_x, \alpha,\beta\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$, then $\alpha,\beta\in \Phi_x$.
If $\Phi_x\subset \Phi_\mathfrak{k}$, then $[\mathfrak{l},\mathfrak{l}]\subset \mathfrak{k}$ and $Y_\mathfrak{q}$
is reduced to a point. So assume that $\Phi_x\cap \Phi_\textrm{n}\ne \emptyset.$
Let $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(x)\subset \Phi_x\cap \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ be the set of all positive non-compact roots such that
there is no positive non-compact root $\beta\in\Phi_x$ where $\beta<\alpha$. For each $\alpha\in \mathcal{C}$,
let $\Delta_\alpha\subset \Phi^+$ denote the set consisting of $\alpha$
and all compact simple roots $\psi$ such that there exists a positive non-compact root $\beta\in \Phi_x$ where $\beta>\alpha$ and
$(\varpi_\psi,\beta-\alpha)\ne 0.$
Also let $\Phi_\alpha\subset \Phi_x$ be the set consisting of all roots $\beta \in \Phi_x$
in the span of $\Delta_\alpha$. Then $(\Phi_\alpha,\Delta_\alpha)$ is a reduced root system.
From the definition of $\mathcal{C}$, it follows that if $\gamma\in \Phi_\alpha$ is a compact root then
$\gamma$ is in the span of $\Delta_\alpha\cap \Phi_\mathfrak{k}$.
The Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{l}$ generated by the root spaces $\mathfrak{g}_\gamma, \gamma\in \Phi_\alpha,$ will be denoted by $\mathfrak{l}_\alpha$. It is clear that $\mathfrak{l}_\alpha\subset
[\mathfrak{l},\mathfrak{l}]$.
Denote the subgroup of $[L,L]$ corresponding to $\mathfrak{l}_{\alpha,0}:=\mathfrak{l}_0\cap \mathfrak{l}_\alpha$ by $L_\alpha$ and the group
$K\cap L_\alpha$ by $K_\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \mathcal{C}$. The set $\Delta_\alpha$ has exactly one non-compact root, namely $\alpha$. Since the coefficient of
this root in any non-compact root of $\Phi_\alpha$ is $\pm 1$, $(\Phi_\alpha,\Delta_\alpha)$ is a Borel-de Siebenthal root system
of a Hermitian symmetric pair $(L_\alpha,K_\alpha)$ of non-compact type. (See \cite{bds}.)
Thus $L_\alpha/K_\alpha$ is an irreducible Hermitian symmetric space of non-compact type.
We let $\Phi_\textrm{c}=\Phi_x\setminus (\cup_{\alpha\in \mathcal{C}}\Phi_\alpha)$. Then $\Phi_\textrm{c}$
consists entirely of compact roots.
The Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak{l}$ generated by $\mathfrak{g}_\gamma, \gamma\in \Phi_\textrm{c}$ is an ideal
$\mathfrak{l}_\textrm{c}$ in $\mathfrak{[l,l]}$ and the subgroup of $[L,L]$ corresponding to
$\mathfrak{l}_0\cap\mathfrak{l}_\textrm{c}$ is a maximal compact normal subgroup, which we denote by $K_\textrm{c}$.
A maximal compact subgroup of $[L,L]$ is the product
$K_\textrm{c}.\prod_{\alpha\in \mathcal{C}}K_\alpha$. We summarise below the above discussion.
\begin{proposition} \label{hermitian}
With the above notation, the simple ideals of $[\mathfrak{l,l}]$ are $\mathfrak{l}_\textrm{c}$ and $\mathfrak{l}_\alpha,\alpha\in \mathcal{C}$.
The homogeneous space $L_\alpha/K_\alpha$ is an irreducible globally Hermitian symmetric space of non-compact type. Hence $[L,L]/(K\cap [L,L])=\prod_{\alpha\in \mathcal{C}} L_\alpha/K_\alpha$ is Hermitian symmetric. \hfill $\Box$
\end{proposition}
We have the following lemma which implies, in particular, that $\#\mathcal{C}$ does not exceed the real rank of $G$.
\begin{lemma}
The set $\mathcal{C}\subset \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ is a set of strongly orthogonal roots.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $\alpha,\beta\in \mathcal{C}$.
Since the sum of two positive non-compact roots is never a root (as $\mathfrak{p}_+$ is an abelian subalgebra) it suffices
to show that $\beta-\alpha$ is not a root. Indeed if $\beta-\alpha=:\kappa$ is a root, it has to be a compact root, which we assume is positive. Now $\beta,\alpha\in \Phi_x$ implies that $\kappa(x)=0$. Therefore $\beta=\alpha+\kappa$ implies that $\beta\in \Phi_\alpha$ and hence $\beta\notin\mathcal{C}$, a contradiction. Since $\beta\pm \alpha$ are not roots, we must have $(\alpha,\beta)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rootsofu}
{\em
(i) Since $\theta$ restricts to the identity on $\mathfrak{t}$, it is clear that $\theta(\mathfrak{l})=\mathfrak{l}$. In fact
$\theta|_\mathfrak{l}$ is the $\mathbb{C}$-linear extension of $\theta|_{\mathfrak{l}_0}$.
Moreover, $\theta|_{[\mathfrak{l}_0,\mathfrak{l}_0]}$ is a Cartan involution of
$[\mathfrak{l}_0,\mathfrak{l}_0]$ and $\theta|_{\mathfrak{l}_{\alpha,0}}$ is a
Cartan involution of $\mathfrak{l}_{\alpha,0}$.
(ii) Recall that $R(\mathfrak{q})=\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathfrak{u\cap p}$. If $\beta\in \Phi_\textrm{n}\setminus \Phi_x$, then $\beta(x)\ne 0$ and so exactly one of the roots $\beta, -\beta$ is a weight of $\mathfrak{u\cap p}$. It follows that
$R(\mathfrak{q})=(1/2)\#(\Phi_\textrm{n}\setminus\Phi_x)=
\dim_\mathbb{C}G/K-\dim_\mathbb{C} [L,L]/(K\cap [L,L]).$
In particular, if $R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})$, then $R_+=(1/2) \#(\Phi^+_\textrm{n}\setminus \Phi_x^+)$.
(iii)
Let $\beta>\alpha$ where $\beta,\alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$.
Since $\psi(x)\ge 0$ for all $\psi\in \Delta_\mathfrak{k}$, we have $\beta\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_x\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ if $\alpha\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_x\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$.
In particular there exists a unique set of pairwise non-comparable positive roots $\xi_1,\ldots, \xi_r\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ (depending on $x$) such that
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_x\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=\cup_{1\le i\le r}\{\eta\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \eta\ge \xi_i\}$.
An analogous statement holds for $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_x\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$.
Write $x=h_\lambda$.
If $\psi$ is a compact simple root
such that $\xi_j-\psi$ is a root for some $j$ and $\xi_j-\psi\in\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_x\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$, then
$(\lambda,\psi)=(\lambda,\xi_j)>0$.
If $\alpha\in\Phi^+_n$ and $\psi$ is a simple compact root such that $\alpha,\alpha+\psi\in\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_x\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, then $(\lambda,\psi)=0$.
These elementary observations will be used in classifying $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras
of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ with prescribed Hodge type, particularly in the case of exceptional Lie algebras of type EIII and EVII.
}
\end{remark}
The Weyl group $W(K,T)\cong W(\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{t})=:W_\mathfrak{k}$ acts on $i\mathfrak{t}_0$ and is generated by the set $S$ of simple reflections $s_\gamma, \gamma \in \Delta_\mathfrak{k}$. We have the length function defined on $W_\mathfrak{k}$ with respect to $S$. We will denote by $w_0^\mathfrak{k}$ (or more briefly $w_0$),
the longest element of $W_\mathfrak{k}$. Recall that
$w_0(\Delta_\mathfrak{k})=-\Delta_\mathfrak{k}$ and that $w_0^2=1$.
We denote by $\iota$ the Weyl involution $-w_0$ on $\mathfrak{t}, i\mathfrak{t}_0$ or on their duals.
\begin{lemma} \label{purity}
Suppose that $x\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$ satisfies the condition that $\gamma(x)\ge 0~\forall \gamma\in \Phi_\mathfrak{k}^+$, then $\iota(x)$ also satisfies this condition. Moreover
$(R_+(\mathfrak{q}_{\iota(x)}),R_-(\mathfrak{q}_{\iota(x)}))=(R_-(\mathfrak{q}_x),R_+(\mathfrak{q}_x))$. In particular, if
$x=\iota (x)$, then $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_x)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_x)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\iota$ yields a
bijection of $\Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ onto itself. So, if $\gamma\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k},$ then $\iota(\gamma)\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ and we have $\gamma(\iota(x))=\iota(\gamma)(x)\ge 0$. This proves the first assertion.
Since $\mathfrak{p}_+$ and $\mathfrak{p}_-$ are irreducible representations of $K$ which are dual to each other,
we have $\iota (\Phi^+_\textrm{n})=-\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=\Phi^-_\textrm{n}$.
We need only show that $\alpha\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ is a weight of $\mathfrak{u}\cap \mathfrak{p}_+$ if and only if
$\iota (\alpha)\in \Phi^-_\textrm{n}$ is a weight of $\mathfrak{u}_{\iota(x)}\cap \mathfrak{p}_-$. This is immediate from
the observation $\iota (\alpha)(\iota(x))=w_0(\alpha)(w_0(x))=\alpha(w_0^{-1}w_0(x))=\alpha(x)$, and the lemma
follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of type $(p,p)$} \label{pptypeparabolics}
As at the beginning of \S \ref{thetastableparabolics}, $G$ is a linear connected simple Lie group with finite centre, $K\subset G$ is a maximal compact subgroup and $X=G/K$ is an irreducible Hermitian symmetric space of non-compact
type.
We shall classify $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ such that $R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})\le c(X)$, the (complex)
codimension
of a complex analytic geometric cycle $X(\sigma)\subset X=G/K$ constructed in \S\ref{involutions}; see Table \ref{c(X)}.
(In most cases $c(X)$ is the smallest such
positive integer. However this property of $c(X)$ will not be needed.)
Recall that if $x=h_\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0$, then $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ stands for $\mathfrak{q}_x$. Note that
$\psi(h_\lambda)\ge 0$ for all $\psi\in \Phi^+(\mathfrak{k})$ if and only if $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant.
For any $p\ge 1$, let $N(p)$ be the number of
$\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ of
$\mathfrak{g}_0$ (where $\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$ is in the dominant Weyl chamber) such that $\mathfrak{q}$ is of
Hodge type $(p,p)$, i.e., $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=p$.
In this section we shall determine $N(p)$ for $p\le c(X)$. We denote by $r=r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$ the smallest positive
integer such that
$N(r)\ge 1$. Our results are summarised in Table \ref{valuesofr0}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Type & $\mathfrak{g}_0$&$c(X)$& $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$ & $\sum_{1\le p\le c(X)}N(p)$\\
\hline
AIII &$\mathfrak{su}(p,q), p<q-1$& $p$& $p$& $1$ \\
&~~~$p=q-1$&$p$&$p$&$3$\\
&~~~$p=q$&$p$&$p-1$& $4$\\
\hline
BDI& $\mathfrak{so}(2,2n-1)$& $1$ & $1$ &$1$\\
&$\mathfrak{so}(2,2n-2)$ &$1$&$1$&$1$ \\
\hline
CI & $\mathfrak{sp}(n,\mathbb{R}), n\ne 4$ & $n-1$ &$n-1$&$1$\\
\hline
DIII & $\mathfrak{so}^*(2n),n\ge 9$ & $n-1$& $n-2$& $1$\\
\hline
EIII &$\mathfrak{e}_{6,(-14)}$ & $6$ & $4$& $4$\\
\hline
EVII & $\mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)}$ & $11$ & $6$&$6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $r(\mathfrak{g}_0).$}
\label{valuesofr0}
\end{table}
We shall proceed with the task of the classification in each type.
\subsection*{Type AIII}
Let $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q), p\le q$.
The set $\Phi^+(\mathfrak{g})$ of positive roots of $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}(p+q,\mathbb{C})$ equals
$\{\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le p+q\}$. The non-compact simple root is $\epsilon_{p}-\epsilon_{p+1}$ and the set
of positive non-compact roots equals $\Phi_\textrm{n}^+=\{\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i\le p, p+1\le j\le p+q\}$. Set $n:=p+q-1,$ the
rank of $\mathfrak{g}$.
We regard $i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$ as the
subspace of the Euclidean space
$\mathbb{R}^{p+q}$ where the sum of the coordinates is equal to zero. (Cf. \cite[Planche I]{bourbaki}.)
Thus $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le p+q}a_i\epsilon_i\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$
if and only if $\sum_{1\le i\le n} a_i=0$. It is convenient to set
$\epsilon_0=\sum_{1\le i\le p+q}\in \mathbb{R}^{p+q}$.
(Of course $\epsilon_0\notin i \mathfrak{t}_0^*$.)
Let $\omega:=\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{p+q}$.
For any $\gamma\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ we see that $(\gamma,\omega) \ge 0$.
We have $(\epsilon_k-\epsilon_{p+1},\omega) =-1$ and $(\epsilon_k-\epsilon_{p+q},\omega)=1$ for $k\notin\{p+1,p+q\}.$ Also $(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j,\omega)=0$ if $i,j\notin\{p+1,p+q\}$. Hence, considering $\mathfrak{q}_\omega=\mathfrak{l}_\omega\oplus \mathfrak{u}_\omega$, we have
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\omega\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)
=\{\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_k\mid 1\le k\le p\}$, $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\omega\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)
=\{\epsilon_{k}-\epsilon_{p+q}\mid 1\le k\le p\}$ and so
$R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\omega)=p$.
Also $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\omega\cap \mathfrak{p})|=p(\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{p+q})=p\omega$.
Similarly, if $\mu:=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_p$, then $(\gamma,\mu)\ge 0$ for all $\gamma\in \Phi_\mathfrak{k}^+$,
$R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\mu)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\mu)=q, \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap \mathfrak{p})=\{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_k,
\epsilon_k-\epsilon_p\mid p+1\le k\le p+q\}$ and $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap \mathfrak{p})|=q(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_p)=q\mu$. Since
$|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap \mathfrak{p})|\ne |\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\omega\cap \mathfrak{p})|$, the highest weights of the lowest
$K$-type in $A_{\mathfrak{q}_\omega,K}$ and $A_{\mathfrak{q}_\mu,K}$ are not equal. Hence we conclude that
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\omega}, \mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\mu}$ are not unitarily equivalent. {\it In particular,
when $p=q, $ we have $N(p)\ge 2$.}
Let $q=p+1$ and let $\kappa:=p\epsilon_1+q\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_0\in i\mathfrak{k}^*_0, \nu=\epsilon_0-p\epsilon_p-q\epsilon_{p+q}$ which are $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant.
By a straightforward computation $\Phi^+(\mathfrak{u}_{\kappa}\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j\mid p+1<j\le q\}$,
so that $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_{\kappa})=q-1=p$. Also $\Phi^+(\mathfrak{u}_{\kappa}\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)=
\{\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_j\mid 1\le j\le p\}$, and consequently $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\kappa)=p$. Observe that
$|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\kappa\cap\mathfrak{p})|
=p\epsilon_1+(p+1)\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_0=\kappa$. Similarly $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\nu})=p$ and
$|\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_{\nu}\cap \mathfrak{p})|=\nu$.
Since $p\omega, \kappa,\nu$ are pairwise distinct, the corresponding
representations $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}, \lambda=\omega,\kappa, \nu,$ of $G$ are pairwise inequivalent. Hence $N(p)\ge 3$ in this case.
Suppose that $p=q$. We now show that $N(p-1)\ge 2$. Indeed, the
$\xi:=p(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_{p+1})-\epsilon_0$ and $\eta:=\epsilon_0-p(\epsilon_p+\epsilon_{p+q})$ are $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weights. A straightforward computation shows that
$R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\xi)=R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\eta)
=p-1$ and $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\xi\cap \mathfrak{p})|=\xi, |\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\eta\cap \mathfrak{p})|= \eta$ and hence
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\xi}, \mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\eta}$ are
inequivalent unitary representations. Thus $N(p-1)\ge 2.$
We have the following theorem:
\begin{theorem} \label{aiii} We keep the above notations. Let $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q),1\le p\le q, q\ge 5$.
Any unitary representation $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ having Hodge type $(r,r)$ where $1\le r\le p$ is
unitarily equivalent to one of the representations $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}$ where
$\lambda\in \{\omega, \mu, \nu, \xi,\eta,\kappa\}$. In particular,
the number $N(r)$ of such unitary representations
up to unitary equivalence, is as follows: (i) if $p<q-1, N(p)=1$; if $p=q-1$,
$N(p)=3$; if $p=q, N(p)=2$. (ii) If $1\le r<p$, then $N(r)=0$, except when $r+1=p=q$ in which case $N(p-1)
=2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
When $p=1$ the statement is easily seen to be true. So we shall assume that $p\ge 2$.
Let $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le p+q} a_j\epsilon_j\in i\mathfrak{t}^*_0$ be a non-zero
$\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weight. Thus $(\gamma,\lambda)\ge 0~\forall \gamma\in \Phi_\mathfrak{k}^+,$ which implies
that $a_1\ge \cdots \ge a_p$ and $a_{p+1}\ge \cdots \ge a_{p+q}$.
Also $\sum_{1\le j\le p+q} a_j=0$ as $\lambda\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$.
Suppose that $0<R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le p$. We will show that $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p$ if $p<q$ and $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\in \{p,p-1\}$ when $p=q$ and that
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p})$ equals $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap\mathfrak{p})$ where
$\mathfrak{q}\in \{\mathfrak{q}_\omega,\mathfrak{q}_\mu,\mathfrak{q}_\kappa, \mathfrak{q}_\xi,\mathfrak{q}_\eta, \mathfrak{q}_\nu\}$ considered in the discussion prior to the statement
of the theorem. This is decisive for the proof.
Since $\#\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p})\le 2p$, we have $\#\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)
\ge\#\Phi^+_\textrm{n}-2p=p(q-2)$. Therefore there exists an $s\le p$ so that there are at least $q-2$ numbers among
$a_j, p+1\le j\le p+q$, such that $a_s=a_j$.
Suppose that $m$ is the cardinality of the set $C=\{ j\in [p+1,p+q]\mid a_j=a_s\}$. Then $m\in \{q-2,q-1,q\}$.
We break up the rest of the proof into three cases depending on the value of $m$.
Case (1): $m=q-2$. We claim that $a_s=a_i$ for all $1\le i\le p$. Otherwise there exists an $i$ such that
$a_i\ne a_s$ for some $ i\le p.$
Any such $a_i$ equals {\it at most two} of the numbers $a_j, j\ge p+1$. If there are $t\ge 1$ such numbers, we have $2t+(p-t)(q-2)\ge \#\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})\ge p(q-2).$ This implies that $2\ge (q-2)$ contrary to our assumption
that $q\ge 5$.
Therefore $a_s=a_i$ for all $i\le p$.
Since $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)>0$,
$a_1-a_{p+q}=(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_{p+q},\lambda)>0$. Similarly $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)>0$ implies that $a_p-a_{p+1}<0$.
Since $a_1=a_p$, it follows that $a_{p+1}>a_{p+q}$ and $p+1,p+q\notin C$.
Now $\lambda=a_1(\sum_{1\le j\le p+q} \epsilon_j)+(a_{p+1}-a_1)\epsilon_{p+1} +(a_{p+q}-a_1)\epsilon_{p+q}=a_1\epsilon_0+
(a_{p+1}-a_1)\epsilon_{p+1}+(a_{p+q}-a_1)\epsilon_{p+q}$. (Here $\epsilon_0=\sum_{1\le i\le p+q}\epsilon_i$.)
Using $a_{p+1}>a_1>a_{p+q}$, a direct computation shows that $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda
\cap \mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\omega\cap \mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ where
$\omega=\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{p+q}$.
Case (2): $m=q-1$. In this case $p+1\in C$ or $p+q\in C$.
As in case (1) above, we have $(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_{p+q},\lambda)>0, (\epsilon_p-\epsilon_{p+1},\lambda)<0$,
that is $a_1>a_{p+q}, a_p<a_{p+1}$.
If $p+1\in C$, then $a_p-a_j<0$ for $p+1\le j\le p+q-1$ and so $-\epsilon_p+\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$ which implies that $q-1\le R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le p,$ that is, $q-1\le p$.
We arrive at the same conclusion if $p+q\in C$ using $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le p$.
Let $A=\{i\le p\mid a_i\ne a_s\}, B=\{i\le p\mid a_i=a_s\}$.
For each $i\in A$, $(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j)$ or $(\epsilon_j-\epsilon_i) $ belongs to $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ for $(q-1)$ distinct values
of $j, p+1\le j\le p+q$. For each $i\in B$, either $\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{p+1}$ or $-\epsilon_i+\epsilon_{p+q}$ belongs to $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$.
It follows that, setting $a:=\#A$, we have $\#B=p-a$ and
$2p \ge R(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge a(q-1)+(p-a)=p+aq-2a$. Therefore $a(q-2)\le p$. Using the observation that $p\le q, q\ge 5, $ the only possibilities are $a=0,1$.
Suppose that $a=0$. Then all the $a_i, 1\le i\le p$, are equal and so each $a_i=a_s, i\le p,$ equals $a_j$
for every $j\in C$. Thus $\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}) ~\forall i\le p, j\in C$
and $\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{p+1}\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ for all $i\le p$. So $\#\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=p(q-1)$ and
$R_+(\mathfrak{q})=p,$ whence $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=0$,
a contradiction. So we are left with the possibility that
$a=1$, in which case $A=\{1\}$ or $\{p\}$, in view of the monotonicity of $a_1,\ldots,a_p$.
As observed earlier $p+1\in C $ or $p+q\in C$. There are four possibilities to consider, one for each choice of $A$ and $C$:
(a) If $A=\{1\}, C=[p+1,p+q-1]\cap \mathbb{N}$, then $a_p=a_{p+1}$ which implies that $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=0$,
a contradiction.
(b) If $A=\{p\}, C=[p+2,p+q]\cap \mathbb{N}$, then $a_1=a_{p+q}$ which implies $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=0$, a contradiction.
(c) Let $A=\{1\}, C=[p+2, p+q]\cap \mathbb{N}$. Then $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ for $p+1<j\le p+q$, $\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_i\in \Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$ for $2\le i\le p$.
Therefore $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge q-1$, $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge p-1$. If $a_1>a_{p+1}$, then $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=q$, $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p-1$, which is impossible as $p\le q$ and $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$. So $a_1\le a_{p+1}$. If equality holds, then $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=q-1, R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p-1$. This forces $p=q$ and we have $\lambda=a_p\epsilon_0 +(a_1-a_p)\epsilon_1+(a_1-a_p)\epsilon_{p+1}$.
In this case $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\xi\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ where $\xi=p(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_{p+1})
-\epsilon_0$. On the other hand, if $a_1<a_{p+1}$, then $\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_1\in \Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap
\mathfrak{p}_-)$ and $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p$. Furthermore we must have $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=q-1$ whence
$p=q-1$. In this case $\lambda=(a_1-a_p)\epsilon_1+(a_{p+1}-a_p)\epsilon_{p+1}+a_p\epsilon_0$ and $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\kappa\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$
where $\kappa=p\epsilon_1+q\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_0$.
(d) Let $A=\{p\}, C=[p+1, p+q-1]\cap \mathbb{N}$. This is similar to (c) above and we obtain, one of the two possibilities: Either
$p=q-1, R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p$, in which case $\lambda=a_1\epsilon_0+(a_p-a_1)\epsilon_p+(a_{p+q}-a_1)\epsilon_{p+q}$,
$\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_\pm)
=\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\nu \cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ or $p=q, R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p-1$, $\lambda=a_1\epsilon_0+
(a_p-a_1)(\epsilon_p+\epsilon_{p+q})$, and $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)
=\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\eta\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ where $\eta=\epsilon_0-p(\epsilon_p+\epsilon_{p+q})$.
Case (3) $m=q$. Thus $C=\{p+1,\ldots, p+q\}$. As $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_{p+q}\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$
we see that $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ for all $j\ge p+1$.
Thus $p\ge R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge q$ and so $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p=q$. Similarly $-\epsilon_p+\epsilon_{p+1}\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)$ implies that $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p$.
If $1<i<p$, then $a_i$ must equal $a_{p+1}$, for,
otherwise $\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{p+1}$ or $-\epsilon_i+\epsilon_{p+1}\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$ resulting in
$R(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)>2q=2p$. It follows that $\lambda=(a_1-a_{p+1})\epsilon_1-(a_{p+1}-a_{p})\epsilon_p+a_{p+1}\epsilon_0$. In this case $\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\mu\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ where $\mu
=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_p$ considered previously. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}{\em
Suppose that $2\le p\le q\le 4$,
Apart from the representations $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ given by the theorem, which are
valid also for $2\le p\le q\le 4$, there are a few exceptional ones with $1\le R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})\le p$
which we list below:\\
(i) when $p=2, q=3$, $\lambda= \epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3-\epsilon_5$ is the only exceptional case
and we have $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=2$. \\
(ii) when $p=2, q=4$, $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3+\epsilon_4-\epsilon_5-\epsilon_6$
yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=2$. This is the only exceptional case.\\
(iii) when $p=3,q=3,4$, $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3+\epsilon_4-\epsilon_6$ yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)
=3$.\\
(iv) when $p=4=q$ and $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4+\epsilon_5+\epsilon_6-\epsilon_7-\epsilon_8$
yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=4$. There are no other exceptional cases.
}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{supqyq}
{\em
Suppose that $p<q-1, q\ge 5$. By the above proposition, if $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=p$ where $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant, then $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda=\mathfrak{q}_\omega$.
It follows that $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)=\{\pm(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j)\mid 1\le i< j\le p+q, i\ne p+1, j\ne p+q\}$. The compact roots are $\pm(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j), 1\le i<j\le p$ or $p+1<i<j<p+q.$ It is readily seen that $\{\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1}\mid 1\le i<p+q, i\ne p, p+1, p+q-1\}\cup\{\epsilon_p-\epsilon_{p+2}\}$ is the set of simple roots for the positive system
$\Phi^+(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)=\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)\cap \Phi^+$. The only non-compact simple root
is $\epsilon_p-\epsilon_{p+2}$. Since $\mathfrak{t}\subset \mathfrak{l}_\lambda$, the rank of $\mathfrak{l}$ equals $p+q-1$. In fact the centre of $\mathfrak{l}$ is spanned by the vectors $H_\omega$ and $H_\epsilon$ where
$\epsilon:=\epsilon_0-(p+q)(\epsilon_{p+1}+\epsilon_{p+q})/2$.
It follows that the
real reductive Lie algebra $\mathfrak{l}_{0,\lambda}$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{su}(p,q-2)\oplus \mathbb{R}iH_\omega\oplus\mathbb{R}iH_\epsilon$. The connected Lie subgroup $L\subset \textrm{SU}(p,q)$ corresponding
to $\mathfrak{l}_{0,\lambda}$ is locally isomorphic to $\textrm{SU}(p, q-2)\times \mathbb{S}^1\times \mathbb{S}^1.$ We note that
the compact globally Hermitian symmetric space $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ dual to the symmetric space $L/(K\cap L)$ is the
Grassmann manifold $\textrm{U}(p+q-2)/(\textrm{U}(p)\times \textrm{U}(q-2))\cong G_p(\mathbb{C}^{p+q-2})$.
}
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Type BDI}
Let $G=\textrm{SO}_0(2,p)$, $K=\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(p), p\ge 3$. Set $n:=\lfloor p/2\rfloor +1=\textrm{rank}(\mathfrak{g})$.
We have $\Phi^+=\{\epsilon_i\pm\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le n\} $ if $p$ is even, $\Phi^+=\{\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}
\cup\{\epsilon_j\mid 1\le j\le n\}$, if $p$ is odd; $\Delta_\mathfrak{g}=\{\psi_{j}:=\epsilon_j-\epsilon_{j+1}\mid 1\le j<n\}\cup
\{\psi_n\}$ where $\psi_n=\epsilon_n$ if $p$ is odd and $\psi_n=\epsilon_{n-1}+\epsilon_n$ if $p$ is even. The simple
non-compact
root is $\psi_1=\epsilon_{1}-\epsilon_2$ for any parity of $p$. We have $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}:=\{\epsilon_1\pm\epsilon_j\mid 1< j\le n\}$ if $p$ is even and $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}:=\{\epsilon_1\pm \epsilon_j\mid 1<j\le n\}\cup \{\epsilon_1\}$ if $p$ is odd. In this case
we shall classify {\it all} $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ having Hodge type of the form $(r,r)$ although our main concern is to show that $N(1)=1$.
It is readily
verified that when $\lambda_r=\epsilon_2+\cdots+\epsilon_r, 2\le r\le n,$ we have $(\epsilon_i\pm\epsilon_j,\lambda)\ge 0$
for $2\le i<j\le n$, $(\epsilon_k,\lambda_r)\ge 0$ for $2\le k\le n$. Thus $(\gamma, \lambda_r)\ge 0$ for all
$\gamma\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ for any parity of $p$.
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_{\lambda_r}\cap
\mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\{\pm\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\mid 2\le j\le r\}$ and so
$R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\lambda_r})=r-1$.
When $p$ is even, $\mu_n=\epsilon_2+\cdots+\epsilon_{n-1}-\epsilon_n$ is also $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant
and we have $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\mu_n})=n$. However $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_{\mu_n}\cap \mathfrak{p})=\{\pm \epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\mid j<n\}
\cup \{\pm\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n\}\ne \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_{\lambda_n}\cap \mathfrak{p})$. Moreover $2\lambda_n=|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_{\lambda_n}\cap \mathfrak{p})|\ne |\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_{\mu_n}\cap \mathfrak{p})|=2\mu_n$. This
shows that the two representations $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}, \lambda=\lambda_n,\mu_n$,
are {\it inequivalent} representations of $G$ whence $N(n)\ge 2$.
More generally, suppose that $\lambda=\sum_{1\le j\le n} a_j\epsilon_j\ne 0$. Then $(\gamma,\lambda)\ge 0$
for all $\gamma\in \Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}$ if and only if the following condition holds depending on the parity of $p$:
(i) when $p$ is odd, $a_2\ge \cdots\ge a_{n}\ge 0$ and,
(ii) when $p$ is even, $a_2\ge \cdots\ge a_{n-1}\ge |a_n|$. Assume that $\lambda \ne 0$ satisfies this condition.
\begin{lemma} We keep the above notation.
Suppose that $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le n}a_i\epsilon_i$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant and that
$R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)= R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$. Then
(i) $a_1=0$ if $p$ is odd, and, (ii) $|a_1|< |a_n|$ if $p$ is even.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will assume that $a_1>0$ the case $a_1<0$ being analogous---one merely has to interchange $\epsilon_1$ and $-\epsilon_1$ throughout.
Also we assume that $a_n\ge 0$ when $p$ is even.
The case when $a_n<0$ is similar---one merely has to interchange
$\epsilon_n$ with $-\epsilon_n$ throughout.
We shall pair the positive non-compact root $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ with the negative non-compact
root $-\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\in \Phi^-_\textrm{n}$.
and similarly the root $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j$ with $-\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j$. In addition, when $p$ is odd, the non-compact root $\epsilon_1$ is paired with $-\epsilon_1$.
When $p$ is odd, as $a_1>0$ we note that $\epsilon_1\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$ but not $-\epsilon_1$.
Let $i_0\le n$ be the largest integer such that $a_{i_0}>a_1$. Similarly, let $i_1$ be the smallest integer such that
$a_1> a_{i_1}$.
If there is no such integer we put $i_1=n+1$.
Since $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)>0$, we have $-\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)$ and so $a_1<a_2$. Thus $2\le i_0<i_1$.
If $1< j\le i_0$, then both the roots $\pm\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j$ belong to
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$ and neither of the roots $\pm\epsilon_1
-\epsilon_j $ belong to $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$.
Let $i_0<j<i_1$. Then $a_j=a_1$ and none of the pairs of roots $\pm\epsilon_1-\epsilon_j$ belongs to $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p})$. However $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$ {\it but not its pair} $-\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j$.
If $i_1\le j\le n$, then $\epsilon_1\pm \epsilon_j$ is in
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda \cap \mathfrak{p})$ but neither of their paired
roots $-\epsilon_1\pm \epsilon_j$ is in $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p})$. In this case,
for each such $j$ there are two non-compact positive roots which
belong to $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}\cap\mathfrak{p})$ but {\it there are no matching negative non-compact roots} in $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$.
The above observations, together with the equality $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$, imply that $a_1=0$ if $p$ is odd and that
and $i_1=n+1$. Thus if $a_1>0$, we must have $p$ is even and $a_1<a_n$ and the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
Finally, suppose that $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$.
Now observe that when $p$ is even and $0<|a_1|<|a_n|$, $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ equals $\mathfrak{q}_{\mu}$
where $\mu=\sum_{2\le j\le n}a_j\epsilon_j$. Therefore, in view of the above lemma we may (and do) assume that $a_1=0$.
We see that $\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_\pm)=\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_{\mu}\cap\mathfrak{p}_\pm)$ where
$\lambda=\lambda_r$ when $a_n\ge 0$ and
$r\ge 1$ is the largest number such that $a_r>0$ and $\lambda=\mu_n$ (defined above)
when $p$ is even and $a_n<0$. We have proved
\begin{proposition} Suppose that $G=\textrm{SO}_0(2,p)$ and $n=\lfloor p/2\rfloor+1$. Then
$N(r)=1$ for $1\le r<n$. Also $N(n)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 1 & ~\textrm{if $p$ is odd}, \\
2 &\textrm{~if $p$ is even}.\\
\end{array}\right. $ \hfill $\Box$
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}\label{bd1yq} {\em When $\lambda=\epsilon_2$, we have $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)$ consists of
the roots $\{\pm(\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j)\mid 1\le i<j\le n, i\ne 2\ne j\}$ if $p$ is even, and, when
$p$ is odd, besides the above set of roots we have also the roots $\epsilon_j, 1\le j\le n, j\ne 2$.
Here $n=\lfloor p/2\rfloor +1$.
Also $H_{\lambda}$ is in the centre of $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda.$
Thus, for any parity of $p$, $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda
\cong \mathfrak{so}(p,\mathbb{C})\oplus \mathbb{C}H_\lambda$. The set of simple roots
of $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda$ for the positive system $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)\cap \Phi^+$ consists
of $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3, \epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1}, 3\le i\le n,$ when $p$ is even; we have one
more simple root, namely $\epsilon_n$, when $p$ is odd. The only non-compact simple root is $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3$.
It follows that, for
any parity of $p$, $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2,p-2)\oplus \mathbb{R}iH_\lambda$.
It is readily seen that the connected Lie subgroup $L$ of $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p)$ corresponding to $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$
is (locally) isomorphic to $\textrm{SO}(2,p-2)\times \mathbb{S}^1$.
Hence the compact dual of the symmetric space $L/(K\cap L)$ is isomorphic to $\textrm{SO}(p)/(\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(p-2))$. This
homogeneous space may be identified with the
non-singular complex quadric $Q_{p-2}$ defined by the vanishing of the equation $z_1^2+\cdots +z_p^2 $
in the complex projective $(p-1)$-space $\mathbb{C}P^{p-1}$.
}
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Type CI}
Let $G=\textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R})$ so that $K\cong U(n)$. We have $\Phi^+=\{\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}\cup \{2\epsilon_j\mid 1\le j\le n\}, \Delta_\mathfrak{g}=\{\psi_j=\epsilon_j-\epsilon_{j+1}\mid 1\le j<n\}\cup\{\psi_n=2\epsilon_n\},$ with $\psi_n$ being the non-compact simple root. Also $\Phi_\textrm{n}^+=\{\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i\le j\le n\}$.
Let $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n.$ Then $(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j,\lambda)\ge 0$ for all $1\le i< j\le n$. That is, $\lambda$ is
$\mathfrak{k}$-dominant. Consider $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$. We have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=
\{\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\mid 1\le j<n\}$, $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)=\{-\epsilon_j-\epsilon_n\mid 1< j\le n\}$.
Thus $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n})=n-1$.
More generally let $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le n} a_i\epsilon_i$ be $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant, that is, $(\gamma,\lambda)\ge 0$ for all $\gamma\in \Phi^+(\mathfrak{k})$. Equivalently we have that $a_1\ge \cdots\ge a_n$. The following
observations will be used without explicit mention:
(a) if $\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, then $\epsilon_p+\epsilon_q\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ for $1\le p\le i, 1\le q\le j$;
(b) if $-(\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j)\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$, then $-\epsilon_p-\epsilon_q\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$ for $i\le p\le n, j\le q\le n$.
Our aim is to establish the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{ci} Let $G=\textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R})$. (i) Suppose that $n\ne 4$. There exists a unique (up to equivalence)
unitary representation $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ of $\emph{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R})$ having Hodge type $(n-1,n-1)$. Thus $N(n-1)=1$ and
$N(r)=0$ for $1\le r\le n-2$. Moreover if $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-1$ with $\lambda$ being $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant, then $\lambda=r(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ for some $r>0$. (ii) When $n=4$, we have $N(3)=2$ and $N(2)=N(1)=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
When $n=3$ it is easily verified that $N(1)=0$ and that $N(2)=1$ corresponding to $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3$.
Let $n=4$. We have $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\mu)=2$ when $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_4$ and $\mu=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4$. It is readily
checked that $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})|=4\lambda$, $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap\mathfrak{p})|=3\mu$ and
so $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\mu}$ are inequivalent representations, resulting in $N(3)\ge 2$. It is easy to see that $N(3)\le 2$ and so equality must hold. Again it is trivial to verify that $N(2)=N(1)=0$.
Now assume that $n\ge 5$.
Let $\lambda=\sum c_i\epsilon_i\ne 0$ be $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant. Then $c_1\ge \cdots\ge c_n$.
Suppose that $0<R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$. We will
show that $\lambda$ is a positive multiple of $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n$.
If $(\lambda, \epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)>0,$ then $(\lambda, \epsilon_1+\epsilon_i)>0$ for $1\le i\le n$ and so $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge n$, a contradiction. Similarly $(\lambda, \epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)<0$ contradicts the hypothesis that
$R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)<n$. So $c_1+c_n=(\lambda,\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)=0$.
Let $a\le n$ be the largest positive integer such that $c_j=c_n$ for $n-a+1\le j\le n$ and let $b\le n$ be the largest positive integer so that $c_j=c_1$ for $1\le j\le b$. Since $c_1>c_n$ we see that $1\le a,b\le n-1$; also $a+b\le n$.
We have
$(\epsilon_i-\epsilon_j,\lambda)=0$ for all $i,j \le b$ and $i, j>n-a$. Since $c_{n-a}>c_{n-a+1},~c_b>c_{b+1}$, we have,
for $i\le j$ with $i>b, j>n-a$,
$(\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j,\lambda )=c_i+c_j<c_1+c_n=0$
and similarly for $i\le j$ with $i\le b, j\le n-a$, we have
$(\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j,\lambda)=c_i+c_j>c_1+c_{n}=0$.
Thus $R_+(\mathfrak{q})\ge b(n+1-a-b)+{b\choose2}$ and $R_-(\mathfrak{q})\ge a(n+1-a-b)+{a\choose2}$. There are
three cases to consider.\\
{\it Case} (i): Let $a=1$.
Using the above estimates we get $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge n-1$. If $b>1$, we have $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 2n-3$ implying that
$n-1\ge 2n-3$ or $n\le 2$. This is contrary to our hypothesis. Hence we must have $b=1$ and so
$R_-(\mathfrak{q})=n-1$. This implies that $(2\epsilon_i,\lambda)=0$ for $2\le i\le n-1$. As $c_1+c_n=0$,
we obtain that $\lambda=r(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ for some $r>0$.
{\it Case} (ii): Let $b=1$. This is analogous to Case (i) leading to the same conclusion.
{\it Case} (iii): Suppose that $a, b\ge 2$.
We have $(\lambda, \epsilon_i+\epsilon_j)\ge (\lambda,\epsilon_1+\epsilon_{n-a})>0$ for
$i\le 2, 1\le j\le n-a$. Hence we obtain that $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 2n-2a-1$.
As $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$, we conclude that $2(n-a)-1\le n-1$ or $a\ge n/2$. Similarly $b\ge n/2$.
Since $a+b\le n$, and since $a, b$ are both integers we conclude that $a=b=n/2$. In particular $n$ cannot be odd.
Write $n=2m$, so that $a=b=m$. Using the estimate $n-1\ge R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\ge b(n+1-a-b)+{b\choose 2}$ we obtain that $2m-1\ge m+{m\choose 2}$ implying $m\le 2$. This is a contradiction as $n\ge 5$.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{ciyq}
{\em
(i) Let $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-1$. By the above result, for $n\ne 4$, $\lambda=r(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ for some $r>0$ and so $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)$ consists of the roots $\{\pm 2\epsilon_i\mid 2\le i\le n-1\}\cup \{\pm(\epsilon_i\pm\epsilon_j)
\mid 2\le i<j\le n-1\}\cup \{\pm (\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)\}$. Hence $\mathfrak{l}\cong \mathfrak{sp}(n-2, \mathbb{C})\oplus
\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})\oplus \mathbb{C}H_\lambda$. The roots of the summand $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$
are the non-compact roots $\pm(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)$ and the
summand $\mathfrak{sp}(n-2,\mathbb{C})$ is generated by the set of simple roots $\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1}, 2\le i\le n-3,~2\epsilon_{n-1}$. It follows that $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$ is isomorphic to
$\mathfrak{sp}(n-2,\mathbb{R})\oplus \mathfrak{su}(1,1)\oplus \mathbb{R}iH_\lambda$.
We conclude that
the connected Lie group $L\subset G$ with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$ is locally isomorphic to $\textrm{Sp}(n-2,\mathbb{R})\times \textrm{SU}(1,1)\times \mathbb{S}^1$.
We further note that $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ does not satisfy the hypothesis of \cite[Prop. 6.1]{li}.
The compact dual of the symmetric space $L/(K\cap L)$ is the space $Y_\mathfrak{q}\cong \textrm{Sp}(n-2)/\textrm{U}(n-2) \times \mathbb{S}^2$.
}
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Type DIII}
Let $G=\textrm{SO}^*(2n)$; thus $K\cong \textrm{U}(n)$. We have $\Phi=\{\pm(\epsilon_i\pm\epsilon_j)\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}$ where
the set of simple roots is $\{\psi_i:=\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1}\mid 1\le i<n\}\cup\{\psi_n:=\epsilon_{n-1}+\epsilon_n\}$; the
non-compact simple root being $\psi_n$.
The set of non-compact positive roots is $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}=\{\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\mid 1\le i<j\le n\}$.
A weight $\lambda=\sum_j a_j\epsilon_j\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant
if and only if $a_1\ge a_2\ge \cdots \ge a_n$.
When $\lambda=\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n$, we have
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\mid 1< j\le n-1\}$ and
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)=\{-\epsilon_j-\epsilon_n\mid 1<j\le n-1\}$.
Therefore $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\lambda})=n-2$.
More generally when $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le n}a_i\epsilon_i$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant, we
have the following properties, as in Type CI:
(a) if $\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, then $\epsilon_p+\epsilon_q\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ for $1\le p\le i, 1\le q\le j$;
(b) if $-(\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j)\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$, then $-\epsilon_p-\epsilon_q\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$ for $i\le p\le n, j\le q\le n$.
We have the following theorem, which was
first established in \cite{mondal} and can also be found in \cite[Prop. 3.7]{mondal-sankaran}.
\begin{theorem}\label{d3}
Let $G=\textrm{SO}^*(2n)$ and let $n\ge 9$. Then there exists a unique irreducible unitary representation $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ (up to unitary equivalence) having Hodge type $(n-2,n-2)$. Moreover, if $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-2$, then
$\lambda=r(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ for some $r>0$.
Thus $N(n-2)=1$. Also $N(r)=0$ for $1\le r\le n-3$ and for $r=n-1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\lambda=\sum_{1\le i\le n} c_i\epsilon_i$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant so that $c_1\ge \cdots\ge c_n$. Assume that $1\le R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$.
We claim that $c_1+c_n=0$. To obtain a contradiction, assume that $(\lambda,\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)=c_1+c_n>0$.
Then $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_j\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ for $1<j\le n$. As $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$, equality must hold and no other positive root
$\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j, 2\le i<j\le n$ can be in $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$.
Hence $c_i+c_j\le 0$
for $2\le i<j\le n$. If $c_2+c_{n-1}<0,$ then $c_i+c_j<0~\forall 2\le i< j, n-1\le j\le n$ and so $R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 2n-5.$
This implies that $2n-5\le n-1$, i.e., $n\le 4$ contrary to our hypothesis. So $c_2+c_{n-1}=0$.
This implies that $c_2=-c_j, 3\le j\le n-1$. If $c_2>0$, then $c_3<0$ and we see that $c_i+c_j\in\Phi( \mathfrak{q}_\lambda
\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)~\forall 3\le i<j\le n$. This yields $n-1\ge R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge {n-2\choose 2}$, a contradiction as $n\ge 6$.
Therefore we must have $c_i=0$ for $2\le i\le n-1$. Now $c_1+c_{n}>0$ implies that
$R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-2<R_+
(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$, contrary to our hypothesis that $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)$.
Similarly we rule out $c_1+c_n<0$ by considering $\lambda'=\sum -c_{n+1-i}\epsilon_i$ which is also $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant.
Thus we are forced to conclude that $c_1+c_n=0$.
As in proof of Theorem \ref{ci}, let $a=\#\{2\le i\le n\mid c_i=c_n\},
b=\#\{1\le i<n\mid c_i=c_1\}$. We have $a,b\ge 1, a+b\le n$. There are three cases to consider.
{\it Case} (i): Let $a=1$. Then $c_1+c_j>0~\forall 2\le j\le n-1$ and so $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge n-2.$
If $b>1$, then (as in the proof of Theorem \ref{ci}) we obtain the lower bound $R_+(\mathfrak{q})\ge 2n-5$.
As $R_+(\mathfrak{q})\le n-1$, this is impossible if $n\ge 5$. So $b=1.$
Since $R_\pm (\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$, we must have
$c_2+c_4=0$ and
also $c_3+c_4=0, c_3+c_5=0, c_4+c_5=0$ using $n\ge 7$. Therefore
$c_2=c_3=0=c_4=c_5$. Hence
we must have $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda) \le n-2$. By what has been shown already, $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-2$.
It follows that $c_j=0~\forall 2\le j\le n-1$ and so
$\lambda=c_1(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ in this case.
{\it Case} (ii): Let $b=1$. This is similar to the above case.
It remains to consider the case $a,b>1$.
{\it Case} (iii): Let $a,b\ge 2$. We will show that, under the hypotheses of the theorem, this leads to a contradiction.
This part of the proof is similar to that in the proof of Theorem \ref{ci}. Then $n-1\ge R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 2n-2a-3$ and so $a\ge (n-2)/2$ and similarly $b\ge (n-2)/2$. Also we have the estimate
$R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge a(n-a-b)+{a\choose 2}$. Writing $m=\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$, if $n$ is odd then either $\{a,b\}=\{m\}$ or $\{m,m+1\}$. In either case $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le n-1$, implies $2m\ge (m^2+m)/2$. Hence $m\le 3$ or $n\le 7$
a contradiction as we assumed $n\ge 9$.
Finally, let $n=2m\ge 10$ so that $\{a,b\}=\{m-1\}$ or $\{m-1,m\}$ or $\{m\}$ or $\{m-1,m+1\}$. In all cases we get the inequality
$2m-1\ge m(m-1)/2$. This implies that $m\le 4$ which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
When $4\le n\le 8$, there are more possibilities for the $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}$ with $R_+(\mathfrak{q}), R_-(\mathfrak{q})\le n-1$.
The following is the complete list of such `exceptional' $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras:
In all these cases $R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})$.\\
$\underline{n=8}:$ The only exceptional $\mathfrak{q}$ corresponds to $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3+\epsilon_4-(\epsilon_5+\epsilon_6+\epsilon_7+\epsilon_8)$. We have $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=6$.\\
$\underline{n=7}:$ The only exceptional $\mathfrak{q}$ corresponds to $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3-\epsilon_5-\epsilon_6-\epsilon_7$, where $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=6$.\\
$\underline{n=6}:$ There three exceptions corresponding to $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4-\epsilon_5-\epsilon_6$ in which case $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=3$, $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_5-\epsilon_6$ where $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=5$ and $\lambda=2(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_6)+(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3)-(\epsilon_4+\epsilon_5)$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=5$.\\
$\underline{n=5}:$ There are four exceptional cases
corresponding to $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_4-\epsilon_5$ with $R_\pm=3, \lambda=2(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_5)+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_4$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=4$, $\lambda=3\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4-\epsilon_5$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=4$ and $\lambda=2\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4-3\epsilon_5$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=4$. \\
$\underline{n=4}:$ There are three exceptional cases corresponds to $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=1$, $\lambda=2\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_4$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=3$ and $\lambda=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2-2\epsilon_4$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=3$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{d3yq}
{\em Let $n\ge 9$.
Let $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=n-2$ where $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant. By the above theorem we have $\lambda=r(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n)$ for some $r>0$.
It follows that $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)=\{\pm(\epsilon_i\pm \epsilon_j)\mid 2\le i<j\le n-1\}\cup
\{\pm(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)\}$. The set of simple
roots for the positive system $\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda)\cap \Phi^+$ is $\{\epsilon_i-\epsilon_{i+1}\mid 2\le i\le n-2\}
\cup \{\epsilon_{n-2}+\epsilon_{n-1}\}\cup \{\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n\}$. We note that the root spaces corresponding
to $\pm(\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n)$ spans a copy of $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$. As the root
$\epsilon_1+\epsilon_n$ is orthogonal to the remaining simple roots of $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda$, whose root spaces generate a subalgebra isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}(2n-4,\mathbb{C})$ we have $[\mathfrak{l}_\lambda,\mathfrak{l}_\lambda]
\cong \mathfrak{so}(2n-4,\mathbb{C})\oplus \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
The element
$H_{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n}$ spans the centre of $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda$. Since the only simple non-compact
roots of $\mathfrak{l}_\lambda$ are $\epsilon_{n-2}+\epsilon_{n-1}, \epsilon_1+\epsilon_n$ we
see that $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$
is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{so}^*(2n-4)\oplus \mathfrak{su}(1,1) \oplus\mathbb{R}iH_{\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n}$.
Therefore the Lie group $L\subset \textrm{SO}^*(2n)$ corresponding to $\mathfrak{l}_{\lambda,0}$ is locally isomorphic
to $\textrm{SO}^*(2n-4)\times \textrm{SU}(1,1)\times \mathbb{S}^1$. In particular, $\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ does not satisfy the
hypothesis of \cite[Prop. 6.1]{li}.
The compact dual $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ of the non-compact symmetric space $L/(K\cap L)$ equals
$\textrm{SO}(2n-4)/\textrm{U}(n-2)\times \mathbb{S}^2$.
}
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Type EIII} Let $G$ be a linear connected Lie group with Lie algebra
the real form $\mathfrak{e}_{6, (-14)}$ of $\mathfrak{e}_6$ let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$.
Then $K$ is
locally isomorphic to $\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(10)$. The vector space $i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$ may be realised as
subspace of the Euclidean space
$\mathbb{R}^8$ which is orthogonal to the space spanned by the vectors
$\epsilon_6+\epsilon_8, \epsilon_7+\epsilon_8$. (See \cite[Planche V]{bourbaki}.)
We let $\epsilon_0=\epsilon_8-\epsilon_7-\epsilon_6\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$. Then $\epsilon_i, 0\le i\le 5,$ is a basis for
$i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$.
The simple roots of $\mathfrak{g}$ are $\psi_1=(1/2)(\epsilon_0+\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2-\epsilon_3-
\epsilon_4-\epsilon_5),
\psi_2=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2, \psi_3=\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1, \psi_4=\epsilon_3-\epsilon_2,\psi_5=\epsilon_4-\epsilon_3,
\psi_6=\epsilon_5-\epsilon_4$. The non-compact simple root is $\psi_1$. The set of positive non-compact roots equals
$\Phi^+_n=\{(1/2)(\epsilon_0+\sum_{1\le i\le 5}(-1)^{s_i}\epsilon_i)\mid s_i=0,1,~ \sum_{1\le i\le 5}s_i\equiv 0\mod 2\}.
$ Also the set of positive compact roots equals
$\Phi^+_\mathfrak{k}=\{(\epsilon_j\pm\epsilon_i)\mid 1\le i<j\le 5\}$.
Denote the highest root $(1/2)(\epsilon_0+\sum_{1\le j\le 5}\epsilon_j)$ by $\alpha_0$.
Let $\lambda=\sum_{0\le i\le 5}a_i\epsilon_i\in i\mathfrak{t}_0^*$.
It is readily seen that $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant if and only if $-a_2\le a_1\le a_2\le a_3\le a_4\le a_5$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (1,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (2,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (3,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw[fill] (4,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (2,1) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (2,2) circle [radius=.1cm];
\node [below] at (0,0) {$\psi_6$};
\node [below] at (1,0) {$\psi_5$};
\node [below] at (2,0) {$\psi_4$};
\node [below] at (3,0) {$\psi_3$};
\node [below] at (4,0) {$\psi_1$};
\node [left] at (2,1) {$\psi_2$};
\node[left] at (2,2){$-\alpha_0$};
\draw (.1,0)--(.9,0);
\draw (1.1,0)--(1.9,0);
\draw (2.1,0)--(2.9,0);
\draw (3.1,0)--(3.9,0);
\draw (2,.1)--(2,.9);
\draw[dashed] (2,1.1)--(2,1.9);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Extended Dynkin diagram of EIII with non-compact root $\psi_1$.}
\label{dynkine6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.3]
\draw[fill] (0,.6) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,1.3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,2) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,5.7) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,6.4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,2.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,3.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,4.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,2.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,3.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,4.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-1,4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (1,3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw (0,.6)--(0,1.3);
\draw (0,1.3)--(0,2);
\draw (0,2)--(-0.5,2.5);
\draw (0,2)--(.5,2.5);
\draw (-0.5,2.5)--(0,3);
\draw (.5,2.5)--(0,3);
\draw (.5,2.5)--(1,3);
\draw (0,3)--(.5,3.5);
\draw (1,3)--(.5,3.5);
\draw (0,3)--(-.5,3.5);
\draw (-.5,3.5)--(0,4);
\draw (.5,3.5)--(0,4);
\draw (-.5,3.5)--(-1,4);
\draw (-1,4)--(-.5,4.5);
\draw (0,4)--(-.5,4.5);
\draw (0,4)--(.5,4.5);
\draw (-.5,4.5)--(0,5);
\draw (.5,4.5)--(0,5);
\draw (0,5)--(0,5.7);
\draw (0,5.7)--(0,6.4);
\node [right] at (0,.95) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (0,1.65) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (.2,2.2) {$\psi_5$};
\node [right] at (.7,2.7) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (.7,3.3) {$\psi_2$};
\node [right] at (.2,3.8) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (.2,4.2) {$\psi_5$};
\node [right] at (.2,4.8) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (0,5.35) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (0,6.05) {$\psi_2$};
\node [left] at (.3,2.7) {$\psi_2$};
\node [right] at (.2,3.2) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (-.3,3.7) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (-.3,4.3) {$\psi_3$};
\node [left] at (-.2,2.2) {$\psi_2$};
\node [left] at (-.25,2.8) {$\psi_5$};
\node [left] at (-.2,3.2) {$\psi_4$};
\node [left] at (-.7,3.7) {$\psi_3$};
\node [left] at (-.75,4.3) {$\psi_6$};
\node [left] at (-.25,4.8) {$\psi_5$};
\node [below] at (0,.55) {$\psi_1$};
\node [above] at (0,6.45) {$\alpha_0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Hasse diagram of the positive non-compact roots of EIII.}
\label{hassee6}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition} Let $G$ be a linear connected Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{e}_{6, (-14)}$. Then
$N(r)=0$ if $1\le r\le 3$, $N(4)=1$ and $N(5)=1$ and $N(6)=2$.
\end{proposition}
The proof will make repeated use of Remark \ref{rootsofu}(iii) without explicit reference.
It may be helpful to refer to Figure \ref{hassee6}.
\begin{proof}
Suppose $1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le 3$ with $\lambda$ being $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant. Then $(\lambda,\xi)=0$ for all roots $\xi\in\Phi^+_n$ such that $\psi_1+\psi_3+\psi_4<\xi<\alpha_0-\psi_2-\psi_4$. Then the roots $\psi_i, 2\le i\le 6$ are in the linear span of such roots. Thus $(\lambda,\psi_i)=0$ for all $2\le i\le 6$ which implies $\lambda=t\varpi_1$ for some $t\in\mathbb{R}$. This is impossible since $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 1$.
Set $\beta:=\alpha-\psi_2-\psi_4-\psi_3-\psi_5$. When $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=4$, we must have
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in\Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta+\psi_5\}$ or
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in\Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge\beta+\psi_3\}$. In the latter case $\beta,\beta-\psi_6\in\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, which implies that $(\lambda,\psi_6)=0$.
Therefore $(\lambda,\beta)=(\lambda,\beta-\psi_6)>0$ and so $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 5$, a contradiction.
So we must have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in\Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta+\psi_5\}$. Similarly
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)
=\{\xi\in\Phi^-_n\mid -\xi\le \psi_1+\psi_3+\psi_4+\psi_2\}$. It is easily verified that $\lambda=\varpi_5-\varpi_1$ yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=4$ and hence $N(4)=1$.
If $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=5$, then the only possibilities for $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$ are
$\{\xi\mid \xi\ge \beta+\psi_3-\psi_6\}$
or $\{\xi\mid \xi>\beta\}$. In the latter case $\beta-\psi_6,\beta-\psi_6+\psi_3\in\Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, which implies that $(\lambda,\psi_3)=0$. Therefore $(\lambda,\beta)=(\lambda,\beta+\psi_3)>0$ and so $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 6$, a contradiction. So we must have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\mid \xi\ge \beta+\psi_3-\psi_6\}$. Similarly $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le \psi_1+\psi_3+\psi_4+\psi_5+\psi_6\}$. It is easy to see that $\lambda=\varpi_2+\varpi_3-2\varpi_1$ yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=5$ and hence $N(5)=1$.
Suppose $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=6$ (where $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant), then there are only two possibilities for the set $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$, namely,
$\{\gamma\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \gamma\ge\beta\}=:A_1$ or $\{\gamma\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid
\gamma\ge \beta+\psi_3-\psi_6\}\cup \{\beta+\psi_5\}=:A_2$.
In the former case we have $(\lambda,\psi_6)>0$ and in the latter we have $(\lambda,\psi_6)=0$. Arguing likewise with $\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-$, we see that there are again two possibilities for
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)$ say $B_1, B_2$. Exactly one of them, say $B_1$, implies that $(\lambda,\psi_6)\ne 0$ and the other $B_2$, implies the vanishing of $(\lambda,\psi_6)$. It follows that only $A_i$ can be paired with $B_i$ for $i=1,2$, that is, $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=A_i$
if and only if $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)=B_i, i=1,2$. These two possibilities occur by choosing $\lambda=\varpi_4+\varpi_6-2\varpi_1$ and $\varpi_2+\varpi_3+\varpi_5-3\varpi_1$. Hence $N(6)=2$.
\end{proof}
We tabulate in Table \ref{EIII} the weight $\lambda$ such that, writing $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$, we have $1\le R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})\le 6$. We also describe the
corresponding compact Hermitian symmetric space $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ and its Euler characteristic. We
omit the detailed calculation that leads to the description of $Y_\mathfrak{q}$; it may be worked out
easily using Proposition \ref{hermitian}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda$ & $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})$ & $Y_{\mathfrak{q}}$ &$\chi(Y_{\mathfrak{q}})$\\
\hline
$\varpi_5-\varpi_1$ & $4$&$G_2(\mathbb{C}^6)$&$15$\\
\hline
$\varpi_2+\varpi_3-2\varpi_1$ & $5$&$\textrm{SO}(8)/U(4)$ &$8$\\
\hline
$\varpi_4+\varpi_6-2\varpi_1$ & $6$ & $\mathbb{S}^2\times \mathbb{S}^2$&$4$\\
\hline
$\varpi_2+\varpi_3+\varpi_5-3\varpi_1$ & $6$&$G_2(\mathbb{C}^4)$&$6$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ of type EIII for which
$1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=r\le 6$,
the symmetric spaces $Y_{\mathfrak{q}}$ and their Euler characteristics.}
\label{EIII}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Type EVII}
Let $G$ be a linear connected Lie group with $\mathfrak{g}_0$ isomorphic to $\mathfrak{e}_{7,(-25)}$.
Then $K$ is locally isomorphic to the compact group $E_6\times \textrm{SO}(2)$.
As with the case of type EIII, it is convenient to set $\epsilon_0:=\epsilon_8-\epsilon_7-\epsilon_6\in \mathbb{R}^8$ and regard
$i\mathfrak{t}^*_0\subset \mathbb{R}^8$ as the subspace orthogonal to $\epsilon_7+\epsilon_8$. See \cite[Planche VI]{bourbaki}.
The simple roots are $\psi_1=(1/2)(\epsilon_0-\epsilon_5-\epsilon_4-\epsilon_3-\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1),
\psi_2=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2,\psi_3=\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1,\psi_4=\epsilon_3-\epsilon_2,\psi_5=\epsilon_4-\epsilon_3, \psi_6=\epsilon_5-\epsilon_4, \psi_7=\epsilon_6-\epsilon_5$. The non-compact simple root is $\psi_7=\epsilon_6-\epsilon_5$.
The set $\Phi^+_\textrm{n}$ of non-compact positive roots equals
$\{(1/2)(\epsilon_8-\epsilon_7+\epsilon_6+\sum_{1\le j\le 5} (-1)^{s_j}\epsilon_j)\mid \sum_{1\le j\le 6}(-1)^{s_j}\equiv 1 \mod 2 \}\cup\{\epsilon_6\pm\epsilon_i\mid 1\le i\le 5\}
\cup \{\epsilon_8-\epsilon_7\}$.
The highest root is $\alpha_0:=2\psi_1+2\psi_2+3\psi_3+4\psi_4+3\psi_5+2\psi_6+\psi_7=\varpi_1
=\epsilon_8-\epsilon_7$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[fill] (-1,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (0,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (1,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (2,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (3,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (4,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (5,0) circle [radius=.1cm];
\draw (2,1) circle [radius=.1cm];
\node [below] at (-1,0) {$\psi_7$};
\node [below] at (0,0) {$\psi_6$};
\node [below] at (1,0) {$\psi_5$};
\node [below] at (2,0) {$\psi_4$};
\node [below] at (3,0) {$\psi_3$};
\node [below] at (4,0) {$\psi_1$};
\node [above] at (2,1) {$\psi_2$};
\node[below] at (5,0) {$-\alpha_0$};
\draw (-.9,0)--(-.1,0);
\draw (.1,0)--(.9,0);
\draw (1.1,0)--(1.9,0);
\draw (2.1,0)--(2.9,0);
\draw (3.1,0)--(3.9,0);
\draw[dashed] (4.1,0)--(4.9,0);
\draw (2,.1)--(2,.9);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Extended Dynkin diagram of EVII with non-compact root $\psi_7$.}
\label{dynkine7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.3]
\draw[fill] (0,-.1) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,.6) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,1.3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,2) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,6) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,7) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,7.7) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,8.4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (0,9.1) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,2.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,3.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,4.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,5.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (.5,6.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,2.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,3.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,4.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,5.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-.5,6.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-1,4) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-1,5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (-1.5,4.5) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (1,3) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw[fill] (1,6) circle [radius=.05cm];
\draw (0,-.1)--(0,.6);
\draw (0,.6)--(0,1.3);
\draw (0,1.3)--(0,2);
\draw (0,2)--(-0.5,2.5);
\draw (0,2)--(.5,2.5);
\draw (-.5,2.5)--(0,3);
\draw (.5,2.5)--(-1.5,4.5);
\draw (.5,2.5)--(1,3);
\draw (0,3)--(.5,3.5);
\draw (1,3)--(-1,5);
\draw (-1,4)--(1,6);
\draw (-1.5,4.5)--(.5,6.5);
\draw (-.5,3.5)--(.5,4.5);
\draw (.5,4.5)--(-.5,5.5);
\draw (.5,5.5)--(-.5,6.5);
\draw (1,6)--(0,7);
\draw (-.5,6.5)--(0,7);
\draw (0,7)--(0,9.1);
\node [right] at (0,.25) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (0,.95) {$\psi_5$};
\node [right] at (0,1.65) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (.2,2.2) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (.7,2.7) {$\psi_1$};
\node [right] at (.7,3.3) {$\psi_2$};
\node [right] at (.2,3.8) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (.2,4.2) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (.2,4.8) {$\psi_5$};
\node [right] at (0,7.35) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (0,8.05) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (0,8.75) {$\psi_1$};
\node [left] at (.3,2.7) {$\psi_2$};
\node [right] at (.2,3.2) {$\psi_1$};
\node [right] at (-.3,3.7) {$\psi_1$};
\node [right] at (-.3,4.3) {$\psi_5$};
\node [right] at (-.8,4.8) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (-.3,5.3) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (.2,5.8) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (.7,6.3) {$\psi_6$};
\node [right] at (.2,6.8) {$\psi_5$};
\node [left] at (-.2,6.2) {$\psi_5$};
\node [left] at (-.2,2.2) {$\psi_2$};
\node [left] at (-.25,2.8) {$\psi_3$};
\node [left] at (-.2,3.2) {$\psi_4$};
\node [left] at (-.7,3.7) {$\psi_5$};
\node [left] at (-1.2,4.2) {$\psi_6$};
\node [left] at (-.45,4.2) {$\psi_1$};
\node [right] at (-.3,4.7) {$\psi_3$};
\node [right] at (.2,5.2) {$\psi_4$};
\node [right] at (.7,5.7) {$\psi_2$};
\node [left] at (-1.2,4.85) {$\psi_1$};
\node [left] at (-.7,5.35) {$\psi_3$};
\node [left] at (-.2,5.85) {$\psi_4$};
\node [left] at (.3,6.35) {$\psi_2$};
\node [left] at (-.2,6.85) {$\psi_2$};
\node [below] at (0,-.15) {$\psi_7$};
\node [above] at (0,9.15) {$\alpha_0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Hasse diagram of the positive non-compact roots of EVII.}
\label{hassee7}
\end{figure}
\begin{proposition} Let $G$ be a linear connected Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{e}_{7, (-25)}$. Then
$N(r)=0$ for $1\le r\le 5, N(6)=1, N(7)=0, N(8)=0, N(9)=2, N(10)=1, N(11)=2$.
\end{proposition}
We will make repeated use of Remark \ref{rootsofu}(iii) without explicit mention.
\begin{proof}
First suppose that $1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le 7$ with $\lambda$ being $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant.
Then $(\lambda,\xi)=0$ for all roots $\xi\in \Phi^+_n$ such that $\psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_2<\xi<\alpha_0-\psi_1-\psi_3-\psi_4-\psi_5-\psi_2$. It is readily seen that roots
$\psi_1, \psi_i, 3\le i\le 6,$ are in the linear span of such roots. Set $\beta:=\alpha_0-\psi_1-\psi_3-\psi_4-\psi_5-\psi_2
\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}$.
If $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\le 5$, then, by the same argument $(\lambda,\psi_2)$ also vanishes and so $\lambda=t\varpi_7$ for some
$t\in \mathbb{R}$. This is impossible when $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=R_-(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 1$.
When $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=6$, we must have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)
=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_6+\psi_2\}$ or
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\mid \xi>\beta\}$. In the latter case, $\beta+\psi_2-\psi_6, \beta-\psi_6\notin
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})$. This implies that $(\lambda,\psi_2)=0$. Therefore $\beta\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ since $\beta+\psi_2\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ and so $R_+(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 7$, a contradiction. So we must have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)
=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_6+\psi_2\}$. Similarly, $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in
\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid
-\xi\le \psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_1\}$.
It is easily verified that $\lambda=\varpi_2-\varpi_7$ yields $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=6$ and hence
$N(6)=1$.
Also when $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=7,$ the only possibilities for $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)
$ are $\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta\}, \{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge\beta-\psi_6+\psi_2\}\cup\{\beta+\psi_5\}$. In former case, using the observation
that $(\lambda,\psi_4)=0, (\lambda,\psi_6)=0$, we see that $\beta-\psi_4, \beta-\psi_6$ are in $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$, a contradiction. In the latter case we have $(\lambda,\psi_5)=0$ which implies that $\beta\in\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, again a contradiction. This proves that $N(7)=0$.
Suppose that $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)= 8$ where $\lambda$ is $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant.
Then $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ equals
$\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta\}\cup\{\beta-\psi_4\}=:A$ or $\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta\}
\cup\{\beta+\psi_2-\psi_6\}=:B$. In the case $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=A$, we have $(\lambda,\beta-\psi_6)=0$ as $(\lambda, \psi_6)=0$, a contradiction as $\beta-\psi_6\notin A$.
Now suppose that $\Phi(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda
\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=B$. Then $(\lambda, \psi_4)=0$, which implies that $\beta-\psi_4\in\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+),$ a contradiction. Thus the claim that $N(8)=0$ is established.
Next we turn to $N(9)$. Let $\lambda=\varpi_2+\varpi_4-3\varpi_7$. Then a straightforward verification shows that $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_6\}, \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in
\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le \psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_2+\psi_1\}$ and so
$R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_{\lambda_i})=9$.
Now let $\mu=\varpi_1+\varpi_6-2\varpi_7$. Again by a direct verification $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\mu)=9$.
In fact we have $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)=
\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \alpha_0-\psi_1-2\psi_3-2\psi_4-\psi_2
-\psi_5\}$ and $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le \psi_7+\psi_6+2\psi_5+2\psi_4
+\psi_3+\psi_2\}$.
The representations $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}, \mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\mu}$ are inequivalent
since, $|\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p})|\ne |\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\mu\cap \mathfrak{p})|$ (as seen by
comparing the coefficient of $\psi_6$ on both sides). Therefore $N(9)\ge 2$.
We claim that $N(9)=2$. It suffices to show that there does not exist a $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weight $\nu$ such
that $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\nu\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi \ge \beta -\psi_4\}
\cup \{\beta+\psi_2-\psi_6\}$ or
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\nu\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in \Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le \psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+2\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_2\}
\cup \{-(\psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_1)\}$.
Indeed, suppose that $\nu$ is such that $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\nu\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid
\xi \ge \beta -\psi_4\}\cup \{\beta+\psi_2-\psi_6\}$
Then $\beta-\psi_6-\psi_4, \beta-\psi_6-\psi_4-\psi_3
\in \Phi(\mathfrak{l}_\nu\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. Hence $(\nu, \psi_3)=0$.
It follows that $(\nu,\beta-\psi_4-\psi_3)=(\nu,\beta-\psi_4)>0$. Hence $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_3\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\nu\cap\mathfrak{p}_+)$, contrary to our hypothesis. The possibility for $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap\mathfrak{p}_-)$
is also likewise eliminated.
Thus $N(9)=2$.
Now suppose that $\lambda$ is a $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weight such that $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=10$.
Cardinality consideration shows that $\beta-\psi_4\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$.
We claim that $\beta-\psi_6\notin
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. For, otherwise,
arguing as before we see that $(\lambda,\psi_6)=0$, which implies that
$(\lambda, \beta-\psi_4-\psi_6)=(\lambda,\beta-\psi_4)>0$ and hence $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_6\in
\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. A simple cardinality argument then shows that $R(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)\ge 11$, a contradiction. So we must have $\beta-\psi_6\notin \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ and $(\lambda,\psi_6)>0$. This implies that $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_3
\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. Thus there are two possibilities: either
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap
\mathfrak{p}_+)$ equals $ \{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_4-\psi_3-\psi_1 \}$ or $\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi
\ge \beta-\psi_4-\psi_3 \}\cup \{\beta+\psi_2-\psi_6\}$. Similarly there are two possibilities for
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)$. Of the four possible combinations,
three are eliminated as in the determination of $N(9)$. It turns out that when
$\lambda=\varpi_1+\varpi_2+\varpi_6-3\varpi_7$, we have $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=10$. Hence
$N(10)=1$ as asserted.
Next we show that $N(11)=2$. Let $\lambda$ be a $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weight with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)
=11$.
As in the above case, we must have $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_3-\psi_1\notin \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$.
Hence $\beta-\psi_6, \beta-\psi_4\in\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. There are
two possibilities: either $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_3\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$ or $\beta-\psi_4-\psi_6
\in \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)$. Accordingly, $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)
=\{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_4-\psi_3\}\cup \{\xi\in \Phi^+_\textrm{n}\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_6\}$, in which case $(\lambda,\psi_6)\ne 0$, or
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+)=\{\xi
\mid \xi\ge \beta-\psi_6-\psi_4 \}$ in which case $(\lambda,\psi_6)=0$. Similarly $\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)=\{\xi\in \Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le
\psi_7+\psi_6+2\psi_5+2\psi_4+\psi_2+\psi_3\}\cup \{\xi\in\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le\psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_2+\psi_1\}$ in which case $(\lambda, \psi_6)>0$, or $\{\xi\in\Phi^-_\textrm{n}\mid -\xi\le\psi_7+\psi_6+\psi_5+2\psi_4+\psi_3+\psi_2+\psi_1\}$ in which case $(\lambda,\psi_6)=0$. Thus, of the four combinations for the pair
$\Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_+), \Phi(\mathfrak{u}_\lambda\cap \mathfrak{p}_-)$ only two are possible.
Thus $N(11)\le 2$. Both possibilities do occur as can be seen by choosing $\lambda= \varpi_1+\varpi_4+\varpi_6-4\varpi_7$ and
$\varpi_3+\varpi_5-3\varpi_7$.
\end{proof}
We tabulate in Table \ref{EVII} the weights $\lambda$ corresponding to $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$
with $1\le R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})\le 11.$ We also describe the compact Hermitian symmetric
space $Y_{\mathfrak{q}}$ dual to $[L,L]/(K\cap [L,L])$ which is determined using Proposition \ref{hermitian}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\lambda$ & $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})$ & $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ & $\chi(Y_\mathfrak{q})$\\
\hline
$\varpi_2-\varpi_7$ & $6$ & $\textrm{SO}(12)/U(6)$& $32$ \\
\hline
$\varpi_2+\varpi_4-3\varpi_7$ & $9$& $G_3(\mathbb{C}^6)$ & $20$ \\
\hline
$\varpi_1+\varpi_6-2\varpi_7$ & $9$& $\mathbb{S}^2\times \textrm{SO}(10)/U(5)$ & $32$\\
\hline
$\varpi_1+\varpi_2+\varpi_6-3\varpi_7$ & $10$ & $\mathbb{S}^2\times \textrm{SO}(8)/U(4)$ & $16$ \\
\hline
$\varpi_1+\varpi_4+\varpi_6-4\varpi_7$& $11$ & $\mathbb{S}^2\times G_2(\mathbb{C}^4)$&$12$ \\
\hline
$\varpi_3+\varpi_5-3\varpi_7$ & $11$ & $\mathbb{S}^2\times G_2(\mathbb{C}^4)$ & $12$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
~\\
\caption{The $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$ of type EVII that satisfy
$1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=r\le 11$, the symmetric
spaces $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ and their Euler characteristics.}
\label{EVII}
\end{table}
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main2}}\label{proofs}
Recall the set $\mathfrak{Q}$ of equivalence classes of $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebras $\mathfrak{q}$ of $\mathfrak{g}_0$ where $\mathfrak{q}\sim\mathfrak{q}'$ if the unitary representations of $G$,
$\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}'}$, are equivalent. Let us denote the equivalence class of
$\mathfrak{q}$ by $[\mathfrak{q}]$. We shall denote by $\mathfrak{Q}^0$ the set consisting of $[\mathfrak{q}]$ such that
$R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})$.
The equivalence class determined by $\mathfrak{g}$ consists only of
$\mathfrak{g}$ and the corresponding irreducible representation is trivial. When $X=G/K$ is a Hermitian symmetric space
and $\Gamma$ is a uniform lattice, the Matsushima isomorphism yields the following isomorphism:
For any $p\ge 0$,
\[H^{p,p}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})\cong \bigoplus_{[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0}H^{p,p}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K}).\]
Let $V\subset X_\Gamma$ be a closed analytic cycle, not necessarily a submanifold. It is well-known that, in view of the fact that $X_\Gamma$ is a compact
K\"ahler manifold (in fact even a projective variety by a result of Kodaira \cite{kodaira}), $V$ determines a fundamental homology
class $\mu_V$ whose Poincar\'e dual $[V]$ is a non-zero class in $H^{p,p}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ where $p=\textrm{codim}_XV$ is the complex codimension. (See \cite{gh}.)
Write $[V]=\sum_{[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0} [V]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}$ where $[V]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}\in H^{p,p}(\mathfrak{g},K;
A_{\mathfrak{q},K})$. If $[V]$ is in the image of the Matsushima map $H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$, then $[V]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}=0$ whenever $\mathfrak{q}\ne \mathfrak{g}$.
Recall the family of lattices $\mathcal{L}(G)$ defined in \S\ref{commutinginvolutions}.
When $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, we can find a finite index subgroup $\Lambda\subset \Gamma$ and an
involution $\sigma:G\to G$ such that (i) $\sigma(\Lambda)=\Lambda$, (ii) the special cycle $C(\sigma,\Lambda)\subset
X_\Lambda$ is complex analytic, and (iii) the Poincar\'e dual $[C(\sigma,\Lambda)]$ of $C(\sigma, \Lambda)$
is not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism $H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})\to H^*(X_\Lambda;\mathbb{C})$.
In fact we may (and do) choose $\sigma$ so that $\textrm{codim}_{X_\Lambda} C(\sigma,\Lambda)$ is equal to $c(X)$.
See \S\ref{codimension}. It follows that, taking $V$ in the above to be equal to $C(\sigma,\Lambda)$, we obtain $[C(\sigma,\Lambda)]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}\ne 0$ for some $[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0\setminus\{[\mathfrak{g}]\}$
by \cite[Theorem 2.1]{mr}.
In view of our hypothesis on $G$,
there exists a {\it unique} class $[\mathfrak{q}_0]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0$ such that $1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\le c(X)$,
namely the one with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_0)=r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$. It follows that
$[C(\sigma,\Lambda)]_{[\mathfrak{q}_0]}\in H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q}_0,K})$ is non-zero.
Therefore $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_0}$ occurs in $L^2(\Lambda\backslash G)$ with non-zero multiplicity $m(\mathfrak{q}_0,\Lambda)$.
Now we take $V$ to be the image of $C(\sigma,\Lambda)$ under the (finite) covering projection
$\pi: X_\Lambda\to X_\Gamma$.
Note that this projection is holomorphic. Then $V$ is a complex analytic submanifold and hence its Poincar\'e dual
$[V]$ in $H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ is non-zero. If $[V]$ could be represented by a $G$-invariant form,
then so would $[C(\sigma,\Lambda)]$. It follows that $[V]$ is not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism
and we are led to the conclusion that $[V]_{[\mathfrak{q}_0]}\ne 0$. Hence, as before, $m(\mathfrak{q}_0;\Gamma)\ne 0$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{main1}.
Note that, when there are possibly more than one element $[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0$ with $1\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})
\le c(X)$, the above argument is still applicable, but leads to the weaker conclusion that $[V]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}\ne 0$ for
at least one such $[\mathfrak{q}]$.
Finally to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{main2}, we observe that, for any $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, there exists a
$[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0$ with $r_0(\mathfrak{g})\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\le c(X)$ with $m:=m(\mathfrak{q},\Gamma)>0$.
The corresponding representation $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}}$ contributes $H^*(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})^{\oplus m}$
to the cohomology of $X_\Gamma$. Recall that, writing $r=R_+(\mathfrak{q})$, we have $H^{p,p}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})\cong H^{p-r,p-r}(Y_\mathfrak{q};\mathbb{C})$ where
$Y_\mathfrak{q}$ is Hermitian symmetric of (complex) dimension $\dim_\mathbb{C} X-2r$
by Proposition \ref{hermitian}. Since
$H^{p,p}(\mathfrak{g},K;A_{\mathfrak{q},K})\cong H^{p-r, p-r}(Y_\mathfrak{q};\mathbb{C})$ is
non-zero for $r\le p\le \dim_\mathbb{C} X-r$,
and since $r\le c(X)$, this completes the proof.
The irreducible representations $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ whose occurrence with non-zero multiplicity in
$L^2(\Gamma\backslash G), \Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$ is asserted by Theorem \ref{main1} are listed in Table \ref{lambda} below, in terms of the $\mathfrak{k}$-dominant weight $\lambda$ such that $\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}_\lambda$.
This is based on the classification results obtained in \S\ref{pptypeparabolics}.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Type & $G$ & $\lambda$ & $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$\\
\hline
AIII & $\textrm{SU}(p,q)$& $\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{p+q}$&$p$\\
&$p<p-1, q\ge 5 $&&\\
\hline
BDI & $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p),p\ge 3$ & $\epsilon_2$& $1$\\
\hline
CI & $\textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R}),n\neq 4$ & $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n$& $n-1$\\
\hline
DIII & $\textrm{SO}^*(2n), n\ge 9$ & $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_n$& $n-2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_\lambda}$ with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda)=r(\mathfrak{g}_0)$.}
\label{lambda}
\end{table}
\begin{remark}{\em
When $G=\textrm{SU}(p,q), q=p+1$, there are three irreducible representations $\mathcal{A}_\lambda$
with $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=p=c(X)$. In view of this, arguing as above, from the non-vanishing of $[V]\in H^{p,p}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$
we can only infer that (at least) one of the three components $[V]_{[\mathfrak{q}]}$
is non-zero. But we are unable to decide whether a specific component is non-zero. For this reason
we obtain only a weaker conclusion that for any $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, for one of the
representations $\mathcal{A}_{\mathfrak{q}_{\lambda}}, \lambda\in \{\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{p+q},p\epsilon_1+(p+1)\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_0 ,\epsilon_0-p\epsilon_p-(p+1)\epsilon_{p+1} \}$, (where $\epsilon_0=\sum_{1\le i\le p+q}\epsilon_i$), the multiplicity $m(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda,\Gamma) \ne 0$.
The same remark applies to $G=\textrm{SU}(p,p)$ and we obtain that
$m(\mathfrak{q}_\lambda,\Gamma)\ne 0$ for at least one of $\lambda\in \{\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_{2p},\epsilon_1-\epsilon_p, p\epsilon_1+p\epsilon_{p+1}-\epsilon_0, \epsilon_0-p\epsilon_p-p\epsilon_{p+q}\}$.
Analogously, when $G$ is an
exceptional Lie groups with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{e}_{6, (-14)}$ or $\mathfrak{e}_{7, (-25)}$ we see that
if $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$, then
one of the representations $\mathcal{A}_\mathfrak{q}$ occurs with non-zero multiplicity $m(\mathfrak{q},\Gamma)$
in $L^{2}(\Gamma\backslash G)$ where $\mathfrak{q}$ is as in Table \ref{EIII} and Table \ref{EVII}.}
\end{remark}
Fix $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$.
Let $\mathfrak{q}$ be a $\theta$-stable parabolic subalgebra with $ R_+(\mathfrak{q})=R_-(\mathfrak{q})$ and let
$Y_\mathfrak{q}$ be the Hermitian symmetric space associated to $\mathfrak{q}$ (see Proposition \ref{hermitian}).
In view of Theorem \ref{main1}, the above remark, and the Matsushima isomorphism, we obtain a monomorphism
$H^{s,s}(Y_{\mathfrak{q}};\mathbb{C})\to H^{r,r}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$ (with $s=r-R_+(\mathfrak{q})$) for
some $[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0$ such that $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\le c(X)$.
This yields the following result which is stronger than Theorem \ref{main2}.
\begin{theorem} Let $\Gamma\in \mathcal{L}(G)$. Then,
for some $[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}^0$ with $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)\le R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=:r_0\le c(X)$ and
for every integer $r$ such that $R_+(\mathfrak{q})\le r\le \dim X_\Gamma-R_+(\mathfrak{q})$,
there exist a vector subspace of dimension $b_{2(r-r_0)}(Y_\mathfrak{q})$, the $2(r-r_0)^{th}$ Betti number of $Y_\mathfrak{q}$, contained
in $H^{r,r}(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$
whose non-zero elements are not in the image of the Matsushima homomorphism $H^*(X_\textrm{u};\mathbb{C})
\to H^*(X_\Gamma;\mathbb{C})$. \hfill $\Box$
\end{theorem}
We tabulate in Table \ref{euler} the spaces $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ and their Euler characteristics in the cases when the hypotheses of
Theorem \ref{main1} hold. (Thus $[\mathfrak{q}]\in \mathfrak{Q}_0$ is the unique one with $r(\mathfrak{g}_0)
=R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})\le c(X)$ given in Table \ref{lambda}.) Recall that $Y_\mathfrak{q}$ have been determined in each case
in Remarks \ref{supqyq}, \ref{bd1yq}, \ref{ciyq}, and \ref{d3yq}.
We have used the following notations:
$G_r(\mathbb{C}^n)$ is the Grassmannian $\textrm{U}(n)/(\textrm{U}(r)\times \textrm{U}(n-r))$
and $Q_p$ is the quadric $\textrm{SO}(p+2)/\textrm{SO}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(p)$ which is also the real oriented
Grassmann manifold $\tilde{G}_2(\mathbb{R}^n)$. The Euler characteristics of compact globally
Hermitian symmetric
spaces are well-known and are given by the formula $\chi(M/H)=\#W(M,T)/\#W(H,T)$ where $H$ is a
closed connected subgroup of a compact connected Lie group $M$ and
$T\subset H$ is a maximal torus of $M$.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}
{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Type &$G$& $Y_{\mathfrak{q}}$ & $\chi(Y_\mathfrak{q})$\\
\hline
AIII & $\textrm{SU}(p,q)$ & $G_p(\mathbb{C}^{p+q-2})$ &${p+q-2\choose p}$\\
& $p<q-1, q\ge 5$& &\\
\hline
BDI & $\textrm{SO}_0(2,p), p\ge 3$ & $Q_{p-2}$ & $2\lfloor p/2\rfloor$\\
\hline
CI & $\textrm{Sp}(n,\mathbb{R}), n\ne 4$ & $\textrm{Sp}(n-2)/\textrm{U}(n-2) \times \textrm{P}^1(\mathbb{C})$ & $2^{n-1}$\\
\hline
DIII & $\textrm{SO}^*(2n), n\ge 9$ & $\textrm{SO}(2n-4)/\textrm{U}(n-1) \times \textrm{P}^1(\mathbb{C})$ & $2^{n-2}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The spaces $Y_\mathfrak{q}$, where $R_\pm(\mathfrak{q})=c(X)$, and their Euler characteristics.}
\label{euler}
\end{table}
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements.}
We thank T. N. Venkataramana for pointing out to us the paper of Li \cite{li}. We thank Sravan Danda for writing a programme in Python for finding out the least dimensional or least codimensional geometric cycle in EIII and EVII cases. Most of this work was carried out when Arghya Mondal was at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai.
Research of both the authors were partially supported by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India,
under a XII Plan Project.
|
\section*{Methods}
\subsubsection{Spectroscopy experiment setup}
A homemade fiber-based confocal microscope is used for polarization-resolved PL spectroscopy. Polarizers and quarter wave plates are installed on the excitation and detection arm of the confocal microscope for polarization-selective excitation and PL detection. The PL emission is directed by an multi-mode optical fiber into a spectrometer (Andor Shamrock) with a CCD detector for spectroscopy recording. The sample is loaded into a magneto cryostat and cooled down to $\sim$ 2.3 K. Cryostat with vector magnet provides possibility to study dynamics in different magnetic field directions. The vector magnetic field ranges from -7 T to +7 T in out-of-plane direction (z-axis) and -1 T to +1 T in in-plane direction (x- and y-axis). The wavelength of the excitation is 726 nm (1.708 eV) for both the cw and pulsed laser experiment (pulse width 100 ps).
\subsubsection{Preparation of the heterostructures}
We fabricated MoSe$_2$/WSe$_2$ heterostructures via a mechanical exfoliation and aligned-transfer method \cite{XuWeigao2017}. Bulk WSe$_2$ and MoSe$_2$ crystals (from HQ graphene) were used to produce WSe$_2$ and MoSe$_2$ monolayer flakes and they were precisely stacked with a solvent-free aligned-transfer process. We first prepared a WSe$_2$ monolayer on SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrate and a MoSe$_2$ monolayer on a transparent polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) substrate; after careful alignment (for both relative position and stacking angle) under the optical microscope with the aid of an XYZ manipulation stage, we then stacked the two monolayer flakes together, forming a PDMS-MoSe$_2$-WSe$_2$-SiO2/Si structure. Finally, we removed the top PDMS layer and obtained a WSe$_2$/MoSe$_2$ heterostructure on SiO2/Si substrate. For controlled alignment of stacking angle, the armchair axes were guided according to their sharp edges from optical images, e.g., a stacking angle of $0(60)^\text o$ $(<\pm2^\text o)$ can be identified from Figure \ref{fig:1}a.
\section*{Supplementary Information}
\subsection{Analysis of time resolved degree of polarization}
The time resolved interlayer PL emission for $B=3,0,-3$T for $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ are shown in Supplementary Figure \ref{timePL}a and \ref{timePL}b respectively. Based on this measurement, the time resolved degree of polarization can be determined. The time-resolved degree of polarization, the valley polarization and the PL polarization are shown in Supplementary Figure \ref{timedoP}a, \ref{timedoP}b, and \ref{timedoP}c respectively.
As can be seen from Supplementary Figure \ref{timedoP}, the lifetime of the valley polarization at 3T and -3T are similar to each other. In both cases, the valley polarization lifetime is much bigger than the 0T case. As has been explained in the main text, this is due to the suppression of the intervalley scattering when out-of-plane magnetic field is applied. This is not the case for PL polarization. The PL polarization at -3T differs from the one at 3T. In particular it saturates to different values at different magnetic field: $\sim0.2$ at -3T, and $\sim-0.2$ at 3T. This can be understood by the following scenario.
Initially, the polarized pulsed laser excites the bright exciton (trion) in one valley. This bright exciton population undergoes 4 main processes. It can:
\textbf{(1)} relax to vacuum which results in intralayer emission, \textbf{(2)} transform to interlayer exciton through charge transfer between MoSe2 and WSe2, \textbf{(3)} undergo intervalley scattering to the bright exciton in different valley, and \textbf{(4)} transform to dark exciton through spin flipping of the conduction band electron.
The first 3 processes happen in short time scale and they together determine the initial population of the interlayer exciton, which decays in tens of nanoseconds. This population decay is responsible for the fast decay of the valley polarization as shown in the inset of the main text Figure \ref{fig:3}a right panel. In the later stage ($> 50ns$), the dark exciton contribution to the interlayer exciton emission is the dominant process. In other words, the valley polarization and PL polarization of the interlayer exciton closely follow the dark exciton population decay dynamics. At more than 6 $\mu s$, since the thermal equilibrium has been reached, the degree of polarization has a weak dependence on the excitation polarization and it is determined mostly by the dark exciton population in the two valleys which follows Boltzmann distribution. Hence, the valley polarization saturates to near zero value and the PL polarization saturates to value determined by the dark exciton distribution between the two valleys.
\subsection{Detail of theoretical model and experimental data fitting}
The diagram illustrating the theoretical model showing all the parameters involved in the fitting are shown in Supplementary Figure \ref{theoModel}. The interlayer exciton emission is proportional to the sum of the two interlayer exciton population. That is $I_{\sigma+} \propto (N_{xx}+N_x)$ and $I_{\sigma-} \propto (N_{xx}'+N_x')$.
The rate equation model can be solved analytically. The closed form solutions for $N_d, N_d', N_x, N_x', N_{xx},$ and $N_{xx}'$ are
\begin{equation}
N_d = c_1 e^{-tk_-}+c_2 e^{-tk_+}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_x=c_3 e^{-tk_2}+c_1\frac{k_1}{k_2-k_-} e^{-tk_-}-c_2 \frac{k_1}{k_+-k_2} e^{-tk_+}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_{xx}=\frac{1/k_0}{t+c_4 }
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_d' = c_1 \frac{k_3}{\sqrt{\Delta^2+k_3^2}-\Delta}e^{-tk_-}-c_2 \frac{k_3}{\sqrt{\Delta^2+k_3^2}+\Delta}e^{-tk_+}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_x'=c_5 e^{-tk_2'}+c_1\frac{k_3}{\sqrt{\Delta^2+k_3^2}-\Delta}\frac{k_1'}{k_2'-k_-} e^{-tk_-}+c_2\frac{k_3}{\sqrt{\Delta^2+k_3^2}+\Delta} \frac{k_1'}{k_+-k_2'} e^{-tk_+}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_{xx}'=\frac{1/k_0'}{t+c_6}.
\end{equation}
where $k_\pm=\frac{k_1+k_1'}{2}+k_3\pm\sqrt{\Delta^2+k_3^2}$ and $\Delta=\frac{k_1-k_1'}{2}$. The terms $N_d(N_d')$, and $N_x(N_x')$, are the population of $K(K')$ valley’s dark exciton and interlayer exciton. $N_{xx}(N_{xx}')$ corresponds to the population of the additional exciton level at $K(K')$ valley to account for the power decay with decay rate equal to $k_0N_{xx}$ for $K$ valley and $k_0'N_{xx}'$ for $K'$ valley. $k_3$ is the intervalley scattering rate, $k_1(k_1')$ is the dark-to-interlayer scattering rate and $k_2(k_2')$ is the interlayer exciton decay rate.
It is possible to fit these equations straight away to the experimental data. However, due to the large number of the independent variables, there is a possibility that multiple local optimum solutions exist with some of the solution is not physically reliable. A different strategy can be employed by using the fact that for magnetic field with big enough magnitude the value of $k_3$ is negligible. In our case, we assume $k_3 = 0$ for $|B| = 0.8$, which is reasonable given the saturation of valley polarization at $|B| > 0.8$. In this case the interlayer population $N_x(N_x')$ and the dark exciton population $N_d(N_d')$ can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
N_d=c_2 e^{-tk_1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_x=c_3 e^{-tk_2}+c_2\frac{k_1}{k_2-k_1} e^{-tk_1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_d'=c_7 e^{-tk_1'}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_x'=c_5 e^{-tk_2'}+c_7\frac{k_1'}{k_2'-k_1'} e^{-tk_1'}.
\end{equation}
As can be seen from equation (7-10), for big magnetic field magnitude, there is no coupling between the exciton population in different valley. Hence, in this case, the model is equivalent to a time-dependent function with two exponentials and one power decay as stated in the main text. Moreover, due to the absence of the coupling terms, the experimental PL data for different emission polarization can be fitted separately.
The fitting result at big magnetic field can be used to check the sanity of the model. The model predicts that the value of various decay rates ($k_1, k_1', k_2, k_2', k_0,$ and $k_0'$) and the population ratio between the interlayer exciton and dark exciton in one valley should be independent of the excitation polarization. We found that this is the case for all of these parameters other than the small difference for power decay rate ($k_0$ and $k_0'$).
From the fitting result at big magnetic field, we extract the magnetic field dependence of $k_1, k_1', k_2, k_2', \frac{N_d}{N_x+N_{xx}}, \frac{N_d'}{N_x'+N_{xx}'}$, and $\frac{N_d+N_x+N_{xx}}{N_d'+N_x'+N_{xx}'}$. From these data, the values of these parameters at small magnetic field are interpolated by linear interpolation. The value of $k_0, k_0', N_{xx}$, and $N_{xx}'$ are obtained by doing the fitting using equation (7-10) for both small and big magnetic field. The intervalley scattering rate ($k_3$) is used as a fitting parameter in equation (1-6) to fit the PL data for the case of small magnetic field. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:4}a in the main text, the fitting result fits well with the experimental data.
\subsection{Temperature dependence of dark-to-interlayer exciton scattering rate}
In order to get the value of the energy level difference between bright and dark exciton at zero magnetic field ($\Delta E_0$), the pulse measurement were done in various temperatures at two different magnetic field setting: $B = 0$T and $B = 7$T. These data is then fitted with the theoretical model to obtain the value of dark-to-interlayer exciton scattering rate ($k_1$).
The measurement results for the case where $\sigma_-$ polarized pulsed excitation and $\sigma_-$ polarized PL detection can be seen in Supplementary Figure \ref{tempFit}a, \ref{tempFit}c. The corresponding temperature dependence of $k_1$ at two different magnetic field setting is shown in Supplementary Figure \ref{tempFit}b, \ref{tempFit}d. Based on this fitting, we obtain $\Delta E_0 = 58.2\pm20$ meV. Considering the experimental uncertainty, this result is comparable to the value of this parameter reported in \cite{Xiaoxiao15}.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{nature}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider a function $f\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ which is {\it{symmetric}}, i.e.
\eq{f(\kappa_{1},\dots,\kappa_{n})=f(\kappa_{\pi(1)},\dots,\kappa_{\pi(n)})\quad\forall \pi\in\mathcal{P}_{n},}
where $\mathcal{P}_{n}$ is the permutation group on $n$ elements. Let $V$ be a real, $n$-dimensional vector space and $\mathcal{L}(V)$ be the vector space of linear operators on $V$. If $V$ carries an inner product $g$, on the vector subspace $\Sigma_{g}(V)\subset \mathcal{L}(V)$ of $g$-selfadjoint operators one can define a map
\eq{F_{g}\colon \Sigma_{g}(V)&\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\\
A&\mapsto f(\mathrm{EV}(A)),}
where $\mathrm{EV}(A)=(\kappa_{1},\dots,\kappa_{n})$ denotes the ordered $n$-tuple of real eigenvalues of $A$. In \cite{Ball:/1984} J. Ball proved that if $f\in C^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, $r=1,2,\infty$, the function $F_{g}$ is also of class $C^{r}$. Furthermore, using Schauder theory, he showed that if $f\in C^{r,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, $r\in \mathbb{N}$, $0<\alpha<1$, then also $F$ is in the respective function class. Also compare \cite[Sec.~2.1]{Gerhardt:/2006} for a detailed proof of these regularity results.
For $r\geq 3$, the implication
\eq{f\in C^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\quad\Rightarrow \quad F_{g}\in C^{r}(\Sigma_{g}(V))}
was proven in \cite{Silhavy:/2000}.
In these results one always starts with an inner product space $(V,g)$. In many applications one has to deal with a whole family of such spaces, where $g$ may vary. For example in geometric curvature problems one is often faced with a map $F$ being evaluated on the Weingarten tensor $\mathcal{W}$, an endomorphism field with values in the tensor bundle of linear transformations of the tangent spaces. From point to point, these linear maps $\mathcal{W}(x)$ are self-adjoint with respect to different metrics, so one has to be careful with the domain of $F$.
One may observe, that for the most natural symmetric functions, e.g.
\eq{s_{1}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}\quad\text{or}\quad s_{n}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}}
there is no ambiguity about how to define $F$ even on the whole space $\mathcal{L}(V)$ and not only on some $\Sigma_{g}(V)$. Namely for $s_{1}$ just set
\eq{F(A)=S_{1}(A)=\tr(A)}
and for $s_{n}$ set
\eq{F(A)=S_{n}(A)=\det(A).}
The functions $s_{1}$ and $s_{n}$ are special cases of the {\it{elementary symmetric polynomials}} $s_{k}$, $1\leq k\leq n$, cf. \cref{skpk}, to which we associate
\eq{S_{k}(A)=\fr{1}{k!}\fr{d^{k}}{dt^{k}}\det(I+tA)_{|t=0}.}
It is true that every symmetric function $f\in C^{\infty}(\Gamma)$ on a symmetric open set $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ can be written as a function of the $s_{i}$,
\eq{f=\rho(s_{1},\dots,s_{n}),}
where $\rho\in C^{\infty}(U)$ for some open $U\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$, cf. \cite{Glaeser:01/1963}. In case $f\in C^{r}(\Gamma)$, $\rho$ will in general have less regularity, cf. \cite{Barbancon:/1972}. In both cases the function
\eq{F=\rho(S_{1},\dots,S_{n})}
is defined on an open set $\Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(V)$ and satisfies
\eq{F(A)=f(\mathrm{EV}(A))}
for all $\mathbb{R}$-diagonalisable $A\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ with eigenvalues in $\Gamma$. Hence $F$ can be differentiated in all directions of $\mathcal{L}(V)$.
The aim of this short note is a transfer of some well known and often used relations between derivatives of $F$ and $f$ to the new situation, that $F$ can be differentiated in all of $\mathcal{L}(V)$. In previous treatments of this, only the relation between $f$ and $F_{g}$ was studied for some fixed metric $g$, compare for example \cite{Andrews:/2007,Ball:/1984,BowenWang:01/1970,ChadwickOgden:01/1971,ChadwickOgden:01/1971b,Gerhardt:/2006,HuiskenSinestrari:09/1999,LewisSendov:/2001,Sendov:07/2007,Silhavy:/2000}. Our approach is by direct calculation of the proposed relations for the elementary symmetric polynomials and then to transfer them to general functions. Note that this approach also provides a new, quite elementary proof of the corresponding results for the pair $(f,F_{g})$ with fixed inner product $g$, as obtained in \cite[Thm.~5.1]{Andrews:/2007} and \cite[Lemma~2.1.14]{Gerhardt:/2006}.
The motivation to write this note came up during the preparation of \cite{BIS4}, where we had to apply derivatives of $F_{g}$ to some non-$g$-selfadjoint operators, so the need for a globally defined $F$ was apparent. For illustration, have a look at the following simple example:
\begin{example}\label{example}Let $f$ be the second power sum,
\eq{f(\kappa)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}^{2},\quad F(A)=\tr(A^{2}),}
then $F$ is clearly the associated operator function for $f$ and $F$ is defined on whole $\mathcal{L}(V)$. $f$ is a convex function of the $\kappa_{i}$. However,
\eq{F\colon \mathcal{L}(V)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}}
is {\it{not}} convex: Indeed there holds
\eq{dF(A)B=2\tr(A\circ B),}
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(B,C)=2\tr(B\circ C)}
and hence
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)=2\tr(\eta^{2})<0}
for a nonzero skew-symmetric (with respect to a basis of eigenvectors of $A$) $\eta$.
\end{example}
The fact that $F$ is in general not convex, when considered as a function on $\mathcal{L}(V)$, caused trouble in the preparation of \cite{BIS4}, where we had to estimate the term $d^{2}F(\dot{\mathcal{W}},\dot{\mathcal{W}})$ along some curvature flow. Here $\dot{\mathcal{W}}$ is the evolution of the Weingarten tensor. For the particular flow considered in \cite{BIS4}, we could not prove the symmetry of $\dot{\mathcal{W}}$. This trouble was the main motivation to write this note and to extend the formulas for derivatives of $F$, as in \cref{2DerHk}.
\section{Symmetric functions and associated operator functions}\label{Poly}
For an $n$-dimensional, real vector space $V$, the aim of this section is to deduce relations between the derivatives of the functions $f$ and $F$ as described in the introduction. First we fix some definitions and notation.
{\defn{\label{skpk}
On $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ we denote the elementary symmetric polynomials for $1\leq k\leq n$ by $s_{k},$
\eq{s_{k}(\kappa_{1},\dots,\kappa_{n}):=\sum_{1\leq i_{1}<\dots<i_{k}\leq n}\prod_{j=1}^{k}\kappa_{i_{j}}}
and the power sums for all $ k\in \mathbb{N}$ by $p_{k},$
\eq{p_{k}(\kappa)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}^{k}.}
}}
{\defn{(i)~Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space and $\mathcal{D}(V)\subset \mathcal{L}(V)$ be the set of diagonalisable endomorphisms. Then we denote by $\mathrm{EV}$ the eigenvalue map, i.e.
\eq{\mathrm{EV}\colon \mathcal{D}(V)&\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}/\mathcal{P}_{n}\\
A&\mapsto (\kappa_{1},\dots,\kappa_{n}),}
where $\kappa_{1},\dots, \kappa_{n}$ denote the eigenvalues of $A$ and $\mathcal{P}_{n}$ is the permutation group of $n$ elements.
(ii)~Let $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be open and symmetric, then we define
\eq{\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)=\mathrm{EV}^{-1}(\Gamma/\mathcal{P}_{n}).}
}}
{\rem{Note that $\mathrm{EV}$ is continuous, compare \cite{Zedek:/1965}. }}
{\lemma{\label{Hk} Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space. Then for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ there exists a function $P_{k}\in C^{\infty}(\mathcal{L}(V))$ with
\eq{\label{Pk-A}P_{k}(A)=p_{k}\circ \mathrm{EV}(A)\quad\forall A\in \mathcal{D}(V).} }}
\pf{
Simply set
\eq{P_{k}(A)=\tr(A^{k}).}
Then there holds
\eq{P_{k}(A)=p_{k}(\mathrm{EV}(A))\quad\forall A\in \mathcal{D}(V).}
}
Since the $P_{k}$ are smooth, we want to investigate the structure of their derivatives.
{\prop{\label{DerHk} Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space. Let $U\subset\mathbb{R}^{m}$ be open and $\psi\in C^{r}(U)$, $r\geq 1$. Then the function
\eq{f=\psi(p_{1},\dots,p_{m})}
is defined on an open symmetric set $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and the function $F=\psi(P_{1},\dots,P_{m})$ is defined on an open set $\Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(V)$. There holds \eq{F_{|\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)}=f\circ\mathrm{EV}_{|\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)}}
and the derivatives of $F$ evaluated at a fixed $A\in \Omega$ are given by
\eq{\label{DerHk-4}dF(A)B=\tr(F'(A)\circ B)=\sum_{l=1}^{m}l\fr{\partial\psi}{\partial P_{l}}\tr\br{A^{l-1}\circ B}\quad\forall B\in \mathcal{L}(V),}
where
\eq{\label{DerHk-1}F'(A)=\sum_{l=1}^{m}l\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial P_{l}}A^{l-1}.} }}
\pf{
Only the formula for $dF$ has to be checked, while all other statements are obvious. The function $P_{1}(A)=\tr(A)$ is linear and hence
\eq{dP_{1}(A)B=\tr(B)\quad\forall A,B\in \mathcal{L}(V).}
Furthermore by the chain rule there holds
\eq{\label{DerHk-3}dP_{k}(A)B=d(P_{1}(A^{k}))(A)B=k\tr(A^{k-1}\circ B)\quad\forall A,B\in \mathcal{L}(V).}
Thus
\eq{\label{DerHk-2}dF(A)B=\sum_{l=1}^{m}\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial P_{l}}dP_{l}(A)B=\tr(F'(A)\circ B)}
and hence the proof is complete. }
{\rem{It is well known that the elementary symmetric polynomials $s_{k}$ are functions of the $p_{k}$, cf. \cite{Mead:10/1992}, and hence \cref{DerHk} also applies to these. }}
{\cor{\label{EVDerHk}Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space and let $f$ and $F$ be as in \cref{DerHk}. Suppose $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$. Then the endomorphisms $F'(A)$ and $A$ are simultaneously diagonalisable. For a basis $(e_1,\dots,e_n)$ of eigenvectors for $A$ with eigenvalues $\kappa=(\kappa_1,\dots,\kappa_n),$ the eigenvalue $F^i$ of $F'(A)$ with eigenvector $e_i$ is given by
\eq{\label{EVDerHk-1}F^{i}(A)=\fr{\partial f}{\partial\kappa_{i}}(\kappa).}
}}
\pf{That $F'(A)$ and $A$ are simultaneously diagonalisable follows from \eqref{DerHk-1} immediately. Let $(\kappa_{i})$ be the eigenvalues of $A$. The eigenvalues of $F'$ can be read off \eqref{DerHk-1}. They are
\eq{F^{i}=\sum_{l=1}^{m}l\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial p_{l}}\kappa_{i}^{l-1}=\fr{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{i}},}
due to the chain rule.
}
There also follows a representation for the second derivatives of the function $F$. Proofs for the case that $F$ is defined on the subspace of selfadjoint operators with respect to a fixed metric can be found in \cite[Thm.~5.1]{Andrews:/2007}, \cite[Lemma~2.1.14]{Gerhardt:/2006} and \cite{Silhavy:/2000}, where in the latter even higher derivatives are treated.
The proof presented here is by direct differentiation of \eqref{DerHk-2}. It extends similar proofs used in the context of tensor valued functions in \cite{BowenWang:01/1970,BowenWang:01/1971,ChadwickOgden:01/1971,ChadwickOgden:01/1971b} to the case $n>3$ and diagonalisable $A.$
There are several other very recent results \cite{JiangSendov:03/2018}, which address similar questions in the context of operator monotone functions and $k$-isotropic functions. Also compare the comprehensive thesis \cite{Jiang:/2017}, as well as \cite{LewisSendov:/2001} and \cite{Sendov:07/2007}.
{\prop{\label{2DerHk}
Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space and let $F$ and $f$ be as in \cref{DerHk} with $r\geq 2$. Let $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$ and let $(\eta^{i}_{j})$ be a matrix representation of some $\eta\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ with respect to a basis of eigenvectors of $A$. Then there holds
\eq{\label{2DerHk-A}d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\fr{\partial^{2} f}{\partial\kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{i}\eta_{j}^{j}+\sum_{i\neq j}^{n}\fr{\fr{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{i}}-\fr{\partial f}{\partial\kappa_{j}}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{j}\eta^{j}_{i},}
where $f$ is evaluated at the $n$-tuple $(\kappa_{i})$ of corresponding eigenvalues. The latter quotient is also well defined in case $\kappa_{i}=\kappa_{j}$ for some $i\neq j$.
}}
\begin{proof}
Starting from \eqref{DerHk-2} we can calculate for all $A\in \Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(V)$ and $B,C\in \mathcal{L}(V)$, that
\eq{\label{2DerHk-1} d^{2}F(A)(B,C)&=\sum_{k,l=1}^{m}\fr{\partial^{2}\psi}{\partial P_{l}\partial P_{k}}(d P_{l}(A)B)(d P_{k}(A)C)\\
&\hphantom{=}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial P_{k}}d^{2}P_{k}(A)(B,C).}
From \eqref{DerHk-3} we obtain, already inserting $B=C=\eta=\hat{\eta}+\tilde{\eta},$
where $\hat{\eta}$ is the diagonal part of $\eta$ in a basis of eigenvectors for $A$ and $\tilde\eta$ is the corresponding off-diagonal part $\tilde{\eta}=\eta-\hat{\eta}$,
\eq{\label{2DerHk-3}d^{2}P_{k}(A)(\eta,\eta)&=k\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\tr(A^{l-1}\circ \eta\circ A^{k-1-l}\circ\eta)\\
&=k\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\big(\tr(A^{l-1}\circ \hat\eta\circ A^{k-1-l}\circ\hat\eta)\\
&\hphantom{=k\sum\big(}+\tr(A^{l-1}\circ \tilde\eta\circ A^{k-1-l}\circ \tilde\eta)\big).}
Using the specific basis of eigenvectors we get
\eq{\label{2DerHk-4}d^{2}P_{k}(A)(\eta,\eta)&=k(k-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}^{k-2}(\eta^{i}_{i})^{2}+k\sum_{l=1}^{k-1}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\kappa_{i}^{l-1}\kappa_{j}^{k-1-l}\tilde\eta^{i}_{j}\tilde\eta^{j}_{i}\\
&=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\fr{\partial^{2} p_{k}}{\partial \kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{i}\eta^{j}_{j}+\sum_{i\neq j}k\fr{\kappa_{i}^{k-1}-\kappa_{j}^{k-1}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{j}\eta_{i}^{j}\\
&=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\fr{\partial^{2} p_{k}}{\partial \kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{i}\eta^{j}_{j}+\sum_{i\neq j}\fr{\fr{\partial p_{k}}{\partial \kappa_{i}}-\fr{\partial p_{k}}{\partial\kappa_{j}}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{j}\eta^{j}_{i}.}
Hence the claimed result holds for the power sums. Returning to \eqref{2DerHk-1} we obtain, also using \cref{EVDerHk},
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)&=\sum_{k,l=1}^{m}\fr{\partial^{2}\psi}{\partial P_{l}\partial P_{k}}(d P_{l}(A)\hat\eta)(d P_{k}(A)\hat\eta)+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial P_{k}}d^{2}P_{k}(A)(\eta,\eta)\\
&=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\fr{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{i}\eta^{j}_{j}+\sum_{k=1}^{m}\fr{\partial \psi}{\partial P_{k}}\sum_{i\neq j}\fr{\fr{\partial p_{k}}{\partial \kappa_{i}}-\fr{\partial p_{k}}{\partial\kappa_{j}}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{j}\eta^{j}_{i},}
from which the claim follows due to the chain rule. Also in this formula, the quotient makes sense even if $\kappa_{i}=\kappa_{j}$, since the singularity in this fraction is removable, as can be seen from \eqref{2DerHk-4}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The representation formulae \eqref{EVDerHk-1} and \eqref{2DerHk-A} are only valid a diagonalisable $A$, since their expressions make use of a particular basis of eigenvectors. Formulae which are valid for arbitrary $A\in \Omega$ are given, though a little less explicit, in \eqref{DerHk-4} and \eqref{2DerHk-3}. They are still easy enough to serve as a computational tool, particularly in low dimensions.
\end{rem}
Although in the previous proof we have already seen an explicit expression for the quotient term in \eqref{2DerHk-A}, we want to at least mention another representation. It appeared in \cite[Lemma~2.1.14]{Gerhardt:/2006} and \cite{Silhavy:/2000}, also compare \cite[Lemma~2]{EckerHuisken:02/1989}. The proof is similar to these references.
{\lemma{\label{2DerHkMixed}
Let $f$ be as in \cref{DerHk} with $r\geq 2$ and suppose that $\Gamma$ is convex. Then there holds
\eq{\fr{\fr{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{i}}-\fr{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{j}}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}=\fr 12 \int_{0}^{1}\br{\fr{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\kappa_{i}^{2}}-2\fr{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}+\fr{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\kappa_{j}^{2}}},}
where the integrand is evaluated along the line segment
\eq{\sigma(t)=\kappa+t\fr{\kappa_{j}-\kappa_{i}}{2}\br{e_{i}-e_{j}}.}
}}
\subsection*{An alternative proof}
Let us have a look at a second nice proof of \cref{2DerHk}, the idea of which appeared in \cite[Lemma~3.2]{Silhavy:/2000}. I owe thanks to the anonymous referee for the observation that this method can also be applied in our situation. It is based on the fact that the function $F$, as given in \cref{DerHk}, is $\mathrm{Gl_{n}}(V)$-invariant:
\eq{\label{Inv}F(SAS^{-1})=F(A)\quad\forall A\in \mathcal{L}(V)~ \forall S\in \mathrm{Gl_{n}}(V).}
In \cite[Lemma~3.2]{Silhavy:/2000} this property held for all orthogonal transformations $S$ of a subspace of self-adjoint operators, but the proof basically carries over. Let us repeat it quickly here.
We suppose that all eigenvalues of $A$ are mutually different. The general case can then be treated by approximation as in \cite{Silhavy:/2000}. Differentiating the relation \eqref{Inv} with respect to $A$ in direction of an arbitrary $\eta\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ we obtain for all $S\in \mathrm{Gl_{n}}(V)$, that
\eq{\label{Inv-2}dF(SAS^{-1})(S\eta S^{-1})=dF(A)(\eta).}
In particular, choosing $S=e^{tW}$ for arbitrary $W\in \mathcal{L}(V)$, $t\in \mathbb{R}$, and differentiating \eqref{Inv-2} with respect to $t$ at $t=0$ gives
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(WA-AW,\eta)=dF(A)(\eta W-W\eta).}
On the other hand, writing
\eq{\eta=\hat\eta+\tilde{\eta},}
with diagonal $\hat\eta$ and off-diagonal $\tilde{\eta},$
we have
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)=d^{2}F(A)(\hat\eta,\hat\eta)+2d^{2}F(A)(\hat\eta,\tilde{\eta})+d^{2}F(A)(\tilde{\eta},\tilde\eta).}
With respect to a basis of eigenvectors for $A$ and $F'(A)$ we define
\eq{W^{i}_{j}=\fr{\tilde{\eta}_{j}^{i}}{\kappa_{j}-\kappa_{i}},}
which implies
\eq{W^{i}_{k}A^{k}_{j}-A^{i}_{k}W^{k}_{j}=\tilde{\eta}^{i}_{j}}
and hence
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\hat\eta,\tilde\eta)=dF(A)(\hat\eta W-W\hat\eta)=0}
and
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\tilde\eta,\tilde\eta)=DF(A)(\tilde\eta W-W\tilde\eta)=\sum_{i\neq j}\fr{\fr{\partial f}{\partial\kappa_{i}}-\fr{\partial f}{\partial\kappa_{j}}}{\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}}\eta^{i}_{j}\eta^{j}_{i}.}
Finally, since $A$ and $\hat\eta$ are simultaneously diagonal, we have
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\hat\eta,\hat\eta)&=\fr{d}{dt}\br{dF(A+t\hat\eta)(\hat\eta)}_{|t=0}\\
&=\fr{d}{dt}\br{\fr{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{i}}(\kappa+t(\eta^{i}_{i}))\eta^{i}_{i}}_{|t=0}\\
&=\fr{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\kappa_{i}\partial\kappa_{j}}(\kappa)\eta^{i}_{i}\eta_{j}^{j}}
and \cref{2DerHk} follows. \hfill$\square$
There is a slight advantage of the first proof of \cref{2DerHk}, namely that the calculation in \eqref{2DerHk-4} gives a precise description of why the term involving $\kappa_{i}-\kappa_{j}$ in the denominator also makes sense in case of coalescing eigenvalues.
\section{Functions on bilinear forms}
There is a useful relation of our maps $F\colon \Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(V)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ to maps which are defined on bilinear forms. First we need several definitions.
{\defn{Let $V$ be a finite dimensional real vector space.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] We denote the vector space of bilinear forms on $V$ by $\mathcal{B}(V)$. The space of bilinear forms on the dual space $V^{*}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{B}^{*}(V)$. The respective subsets of symmetric and positive definite forms will be denoted by $\mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ and $\mathcal{B}^{*}_{+}(V)$.
\item[(ii)] For $a\in\mathcal{B}(V)$ and $b\in \mathcal{B}^{*}(V)$ we set
\eq{a_{*}\colon V&\rightarrow V^{*}\\
v&\mapsto a(v,\cdot)}
and
\eq{b^{*}\colon V^{*}&\rightarrow V\\
\phi&\mapsto J^{-1}\br{b(\phi,\cdot)},}
where $J\colon V\rightarrow V^{**}$ is the canonical identification given by
\eq{v\mapsto \br{\phi\mapsto \phi(v)}.}
\item[(iii)] Let $a\in \mathcal{B}(V)$ and $b\in \mathcal{B}^{*}(V)$, then we define $b\ast a\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ by contraction, i.e.
\eq{b\ast a=b^{*}\circ a_{*}.}
\item[(iv)] For $g\in \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ we define $g^{-1}\in \mathcal{B}^{*}_{+}(V)$ by requiring
\eq{g^{-1}\ast g=\id.}
\item[(v)] For $a\in \mathcal{B}(V)$ and $g\in \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ we define the operator $a^{\sharp_{g}}\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ by
\eq{a^{\sharp_{g}}=g^{-1}\ast a}
\item[(vi)] For any bilinear form $a$ on either $V$ or $V^{*}$ we denote by $\hat{a}$ the symmetrisation, i.e.
\eq{\hat{a}(v,w)=\fr 12\br{a(v,w)+a(w,v)}.}
\end{itemize}
}}
\begin{rem}
For $a\in \mathcal{B}(V)$ and $g\in \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ we have
\eq{a(v,w)=g(a^{\sharp_{g}}(v),w)\quad\forall v,w\in V.}
\end{rem}
The following construction is very useful.
{\prop{\label{BilF}
Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space, $\Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(V)$ open and $F$ be as in \cref{DerHk}. Define
\eq{\Phi\colon \Lambda\subset \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)\times\mathcal{B}(V)&\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\\
(g,h)&\mapsto F( g^{-1}\ast \hat h), }
where $\Lambda$ is the open subset such that $g^{-1}\ast\hat h\in \Omega$ for all $(g,h)\in\Lambda$.
Then $\Phi$ is as smooth as $F$ and the partial derivative of $\Phi$ at $(g,h)$ with respect to $h$ can be regarded as a symmetric bilinear form,
\eq{\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}(g,h)\in \mathcal{B}^{*}(V).}
Furthermore the derivatives of $F$ and $\Phi$ are related by
\eq{\label{BilF-A}\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}(g,h)a=\tr(F'(g^{-1}\ast \hat h)\circ\hat a^{\sharp_{g}})=dF(g^{-1}\ast \hat h)\hat a^{\sharp_{g}}.}
}}
\pf{
Since the map $h\mapsto g^{-1}\ast \hat h$ is linear, we obtain
\eq{\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}(g,h)a=\tr\br{F'\circ (g^{-1}\ast \hat a) }}
and it can be regarded as a symmetric bilinear form acting on pairs $(\xi,\zeta)$ via letting it act on $\xi\otimes \zeta$.
}
\section{Properties of symmetric functions}
We investigate some special properties associated to symmetric functions, which are particularly related to applications in geometric flows. The most crucial one, the monotonicity, usually ensures that a flow is parabolic. Define
\eq{\Gamma_{+}=\{(\kappa_{i})\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\colon \kappa_{i}>0\quad\forall 1\leq i\leq n\}.}
{\defn{
Let $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ open and symmetric, $r\geq 1$ and let $f\in C^{r}(\Gamma)$ be symmetric.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]~$f$ is called {\it{strictly monotone}}, if
\eq{\fr{\partial f}{\partial\kappa_{i}}(\kappa)> 0\quad\forall \kappa\in\Gamma~\forall 1\leq i\leq n.}
\item[(ii)] Let $\Gamma$ in addition be a cone, then $f$ is called {\it{homogeneous of degree $p\in \mathbb{R}$}} if
\eq{f(\lambda \kappa)=\lambda^{p}f(\kappa)\quad\forall \lambda>0~\forall \kappa\in\Gamma.}
\item[(iii)] A nowhere vanishing function $f\in C^{r}(\Gamma_{+})$, $r\geq 2$, is called {\it{inverse concave (inverse convex)}}, if the so-called {\it{inverse symmetric function}} $\tilde f\in C^{r}(\Gamma_{+})$, defined by
\eq{\tilde f(\kappa_{i})=\fr{1}{f(\kappa_{i}^{-1})},}
is concave (convex).
\end{itemize}
}}
These properties carry over to the function $F$ from \cref{DerHk} in the following sense.
{\prop{\label{PropF}
Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space, $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ open and symmetric, $r\geq 1$ and let $f\in C^{r}(\Gamma)$ and $F\in C^{r}(\Omega)$ be as in \cref{DerHk}.
Then there hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $f$ is strictly monotone, then $F'(A)$ only has positive eigenvalues at all $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$ and the bilinear form $\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}$ from \cref{BilF} is positive definite at all $(g,h)$ with $g^{-1}\ast\hat{h}\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$.
\item[(ii)] If $\Gamma$ is a cone and $f$ is homogeneous of degree $p$, then $\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$ is a cone and $F_{|\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)}$ is homogeneous of degree $p$.
\item[(iii)]\label{PropF-C} If $r\geq 2$, $\Gamma$ is convex and $f$ is concave, then $F$ satisfies
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)\leq 0}
for all $\eta$ having a symmetric matrix representation with respect to a basis of eigenvectors of $A$. The reverse inequality holds if $f$ is convex.
\end{itemize}
}}
\pf{
(i)~$F'(A)$ has positive eigenvalues due to \cref{EVDerHk}. From \eqref{BilF-A} we obtain (omitting the arguments) for $0\neq \xi\in V$,
\eq{\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}(\xi,\xi)=\fr{\partial\Phi}{\partial h}(\xi\otimes\xi)=dF(\xi\otimes\xi)^{\sharp_{g}}>0.}
(ii) Let $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)$ and $\lambda>0.$ Then the claim follows from $\mathrm{EV}(\lambda A)=\lambda\mathrm{EV}(A)$.
(iii)~Follows immediately from \eqref{2DerHk} and \cref{2DerHkMixed}.
}
In \cref{PropF-C}, item (iii), the restriction to symmetric $\eta$ is indeed necessary, as can be seen from \cref{example}
The following estimates for $1$-homogeneous resp. inverse concave curvature functions are very useful and are also needed in \cite{BIS4}. The idea for the first statement comes from \cite[Thm.~2.3]{Andrews:/2007} and also appeared in a similar form in \cite[Lemma~14]{BIS1}. The proof for the second statement, however appearing in a slightly different form, can be found in \cite[p.~112]{Urbas:/1991}.
{\prop{\label{InvConc}
Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional real vector space and $r\geq 1$. Let $f\in C^{r}(\Gamma_{+})$ and $F\in C^{r}(\Omega)$ be as in \cref{DerHk} with $f$ symmetric, positive, strictly monotone and homogeneous of degree one.
Then there hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] For every pair $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma_{+}}(V)$ and $g\in \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ such that $A$ is self-adjoint with respect to $g$, there holds for all $\eta\in \mathcal{L}(V)$ that
\eq{dF(A)(\ad_{g}(\eta)\circ A^{-1}\circ\eta)\geq F^{-1}\br{dF(A)\eta}^{2},}
where $\ad_{g}(\eta)$ is the adjoint of $\eta$ with respect to $g$.
\item[(ii)] If $f$ is inverse concave, then for every pair $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma_{+}}(V)$ and $g\in \mathcal{B}_{+}(V)$ such that $A$ is self-adjoint with respect to $g$, there holds
\eq{d^{2}F(A)(\eta,\eta)+2dF(A)(\eta\circ A^{-1}\circ\eta)\geq 2F^{-1}\br{dF(A)\eta}^{2},}
for all $g$-selfadjoint $\eta$.
\end{itemize}
}}
\pf{
(i)~Note that for each $A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma_{+}}(V)$ the kernel $S$ of the map
\eq{dF(A)\colon \mathcal{L}(V)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}}
has dimension $n^2-1$, due to the homogeneity which implies
\eq{dF(A)A=F(A)>0.}
Now let $\eta\in \mathcal{L}(V)$, then there exists a decomposition
\[\eta=aA+\xi,\]
where $\xi\in S$. Hence, omitting the argument $A$ of $F$,
\eq{dF(\ad_{g}(\eta)\circ A^{-1}\circ\eta)&=adF(\eta)+adF(\ad_{g}(\xi))+dF(\ad_{g}(\xi)\circ A^{-1}\circ\xi)\\
&\geq adF(\eta),}
since $F'$ and $A$ can be diagonalised simultaneously. The result follows from $F=dF(A)=a^{-1}dF(\eta).$
(ii)~For the inverse symmetric function $\tilde f$ the corresponding $\tilde F$ has the property
\eq{\label{InvConc-1}\tilde F(A)=\fr{1}{F(A^{-1})}\quad\forall A\in \mathcal{D}_{\Gamma_{+}}(V).}
Thus we may differentiate $\tilde F$ using this formula, if we restrict to directions $B$ which are self-adjoint with respect to $g$. Hence for all $g$-selfadjoint $A\in\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma_{+}}(V)$ we get
\eq{d\tilde F(A)B=\tilde F^{2}dF(A^{-1})(A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1})}
and, omitting arguments,
\eq{d^{2}\tilde F(B,B)&=2\tilde F^{3}\br{dF(A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1})}^{2}\\
&\hphantom{=}-\tilde F^{2}d^{2}F(A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1},A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1})\\
&\hphantom{=}-2\tilde F^{2}dF(A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1}\circ B\circ A^{-1}),}
where $\tilde F=\tilde F(A)$ and $F=F(A^{-1})$. Since $\tilde f$ is inverse concave, there holds
\eq{d^{2}\tilde F(B,B)\leq 0}
for all $g$-selfadjoint $B$. For some $g$-selfadjoint $\eta$ set
\eq{B=A\circ\eta\circ A} to obtain
\eq{d^{2}F(\eta,\eta)+2dF(\eta\circ A\circ\eta)\geq 2 F^{-1}\br{dF(\eta)}^{2},}
where we again have in mind $F=F(A^{-1}).$ The result follows.
}
\section{Examples}
Let us have a look at some familiar symmetric functions, their corresponding associated operator functions and their properties. The most important examples are the elementary symmetric polynomials satisfying
\eq{s_{k}\circ\mathrm{EV}(A)=\fr{1}{k!}\fr{d^{k}}{dt^{k}}\det(I+tA)_{|t=0},}
compare \cite[equ.~(2.1.31)]{Gerhardt:/2006}. $s_{k}$ is strictly monotone on the set
\eq{\Gamma_{k}=\{\kappa\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\colon s_{1}(\kappa)>0,\dots,s_{k}(\kappa)>0\},}
which is equal to the connected component of the set $\{s_{k}>0\}$ containing $\Gamma_{+},$ compare \cite[Prop.~2.6]{HuiskenSinestrari:09/1999}. Obviously $s_{1}$ is also concave and convex.
Define the quotients
\eq{q_{k}\colon \Gamma_{k-1}&\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\\
q_{k}&=\fr{s_{k}}{s_{k-1}}.}
These are homogeneous of degree one and concave, cf. \cite[Thm.~2.5]{HuiskenSinestrari:09/1999}. On $\Gamma_{+}$ the $q_{k}$ are also strictly monotone and inverse concave, cf. \cite[Thm.~2.6]{Andrews:/2007}.
Also the functions
\eq{f=\br{\fr{s_{k}}{s_{l}}}^{\fr{1}{k-l}}, \quad 0\leq l<k\leq n,}
share all these properties on $\Gamma_{+}$, \cite[p.~23]{Andrews:/2007}. More examples of such curvature functions can be found in \cite{Andrews:/2007}.
\section{Loss of regularity}
In this final section we discuss the regularity properties of the associated operator function $F$ and show be means of an example that the loss of regularity from $f$ to $\psi$ in the correspondence
\eq{f=\psi(p_{1},\dots,p_{m})}
also leads, in general, to the same loss of regularity from $f$ to
\eq{F\colon \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}} in the relation
\eq{\label{Loss-1}F_{|\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)}=f\circ\mathrm{EV}_{|\mathcal{D}_{\Gamma}(V)}.}
Consider the following example:
\eq{f(\kappa_{1},\kappa_{2})=(\kappa_{1}^{2}+\kappa_{2}^{2})^{\fr 32}.}
Then $f\in C^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{2})$.
Since $F$ is required to satisfy \eqref{Loss-1} and the {\it{open}} domain $\Omega$ of $F$ has to contain the zero matrix,
we must use
\eq{\psi(x_{1},\dots,x_{m})=|x_{2}|^{\fr 32}}
to connect to $f$ (note that $P_{2}(A)$ can be negative). Hence
\eq{F\colon \mathcal{L}(V)&\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\\
F(A)&=\psi(P_{2}(A))=|\tr(A^{2})|^{\fr 32}}
is an associated operator function.
Writing, with respect to a basis,
\eq{A=\begin{pmatrix} w & x\\
y & z \end{pmatrix},}
we see that
\eq{F(A)=F(w,x,y,z)=|w^{2}+2xy+z^{2}|^{\fr 32},}
which is not $C^{2}$, since its restriction to the straight line
\eq{\label{Loss-2}x\mapsto (0,x,1,0)}
is not $C^{2}$. It is in fact only as smooth as $\psi$. This is in sharp contrast to the regularity of the restriction to a subspace of $g$-selfadjoint operators,
\eq{F\colon \Sigma_{g}(V)\rightarrow \mathbb{R},}
which has the same regularity as $f$, cf. \cite{Ball:/1984,Silhavy:/2000}. The crucial difference is that the variations in \eqref{Loss-2} are not allowed, since one must remain within the class of symmetric matrices.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her interest in this work, for pointing out the second proof of \cref{2DerHk} and for the very helpful comments which made the exposition much more complete.
I would also like to thank Prof. Guofang Wang for a helpful discussion on isotropic functions.
\bibliographystyle{hamsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Bulk toroidal rotation is usually beneficial for plasma performance in tokamaks. Rotation with an Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of $M_{A} \approx 1\%$ is able to stabilize dangerous magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) modes \cite{LiuITERrwmStabilization2004, GarofaloExpRWMstabilizationD3D2002, ReimerdesRWMmachineComp2006}. This corresponds to a Mach number of roughly $M_{S} \equiv \sqrt{2 T_{i}/m_{i}} \approx 5 \%$ in ITER \cite{AymarITERSummary2001}, where $T_{i}$ is the ion temperature and $m_{i}$ is the ion mass. Moreover, higher levels of rotation can combat turbulence \cite{RitzRotShearTurbSuppression1990, BurrellShearTurbStabilization1997} (though extremely high rotation can actually drive turbulence through the parallel velocity gradient instability \cite{CattoPVG1973,MattorPVG1988,NewtonPVG2010}). Unfortunately, the mechanisms that drive toroidal rotation in existing experiments do not appear to scale well to future high-performance devices like ITER (i.e. larger devices with stronger magnetic fields).
Rotation is commonly driven by pushing the plasma using external injection of momentum. This is often done with beams of neutral particles, which enable existing experiments to achieve toroidal rotation with typical values of $M_{A} \approx 3 \%$ (or $M_{S} \approx 15\%$) \cite{GarofaloExpRWMstabilizationD3D2002}. However, due to ITER's larger size, external injection is only expected to drive rotation with $M_{A} \approx 0.3 \%$ (or $M_{S} \approx 1.5\%$) \cite{LiuITERrwmStabilization2004}, significantly less than what is needed for MHD stabilization.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/optimalNonMirrorGeo.pdf}
\caption{A cutaway view of the flux surfaces in the ``optimal'' magnetic geometry (i.e. the equilibrium that will be shown to maximize intrinsic toroidal rotation generated by up-down asymmetry), shown with the midplane (blue, dotted) and axis of toroidal symmetry (black, dashed).}
\label{fig:cutawayTokamak}
\end{figure}
An attractive alternative is ``intrinsic'' rotation, or rotation spontaneously generated by the turbulent transport of momentum. Turbulence can move momentum around the device, just like it moves particles and energy. This enables the nested magnetic flux surfaces to push off each another, as well as the surrounding vacuum vessel and external magnets. Unfortunately, the intrinsic rotation in existing experiments is observed to be fairly modest, typically with $M_{A} \lesssim 1 \%$ (or $M_{S} \lesssim 5\%$) \cite{RiceExpIntrinsicRotMeas2007}. This has been explained by noting a particular symmetry \cite{PeetersMomTransSym2005, ParraUpDownSym2011, SugamaUpDownSym2011} of the gyrokinetic model, a theoretical model that is thought to accurately describe turbulence in the core of tokamaks. This symmetry constrains the intrinsic rotation to be small in $\rho_{\ast} \equiv \rho_{i} / a \ll 1$, where $\rho_{i}$ is the ion gyroradius and $a$ is the tokamak minor radius (strictly speaking, intrinsic rotation is small in the ion {\it poloidal} gyroradius divided by the minor radius \cite{ParraIntrinsicRotTheory2015}). However, it is broken if the magnetic equilibrium is up-down asymmetric (i.e. is not mirror symmetric about the midplane as shown in figure \ref{fig:cutawayTokamak}). Subsequent numerical \cite{CamenenPRLSim2009, BallMomUpDownAsym2014} and experimental \cite{CamenenPRLExp2010} work using flux surfaces with tilted elliptical shapes suggests that up-down asymmetry is a feasible method to generate the present experimentally-measured rotation levels in future larger devices (which have smaller values of $\rho_{\ast}$).
Recently, a series of analytic arguments have been formulated concerning the ability of different up-down asymmetric flux surface shapes to drive intrinsic rotation. MHD analysis has shown that externally-applied shaping with a large poloidal mode number $m \gg 1$ does not penetrate effectively throughout the plasma, but only shapes an exponentially thin layer at the edge \cite{BallDoctoralThesis2016}. Furthermore, another symmetry of the gyrokinetic model, a poloidal tilting symmetry, has been demonstrated in the limit of high-order flux surface shaping \cite{BallMirrorSymArg2016}. The tilting symmetry implies that mirror symmetric flux surfaces (i.e. flux surfaces that have mirror symmetry about at least one line in the poloidal plane) drive momentum transport that is exponentially small in $m \gg 1$. There are two ways to circumvent this restriction. First, we can break tilting symmetry using non-mirror symmetric flux surface shapes \cite{BallMomFluxScaling2016,BallEnvelopes2017} (i.e. shapes that do not have mirror symmetry about any line in the poloidal plane). This allows rotation to be driven by the direct interaction between different shaping modes (irrespective of toroidicity). This mechanism is expected to dominate in the limit of cylindrical devices. Second, we can beat two different shaping effects together in order to create an envelope that gives the flux surface shape low-order variation. Reference \cite{BallMomFluxScaling2016} indicates that, as long as the envelope is up-down asymmetric, this strategy can drive rotation that is only polynomially small in $m \gg 1$. This mechanism is expected to dominate in the limit of high-order shaping effects.
Taken together all these arguments motivate up-down asymmetric flux surface shapes with the lowest possible poloidal mode numbers. Additionally, it is important to explore the effects of non-mirror symmetry and up-down asymmetric envelopes, as they may enhance the rotation drive. In this work, we will consider flux surfaces with both elongation and triangularity. We will allow the two shaping effects to be tilted independently in order to break mirror symmetry and create up-down asymmetric envelopes. These two modes, $m = 2$ and $m = 3$, are the lowest order modes that can be created by external shaping coils. The $m = 1$ mode (i.e. the Shafranov shift) is not directly controlled by external magnets and has already been considered in reference \cite{BallShafranovShift2016}. By varying these two tilt angles, we will optimize the geometry to drive the fastest intrinsic rotation and look for geometries that directly improve the energy confinement time (irrespective of rotation).
\section{Magnetic equilibrium}
\label{sec:magneticEquil}
Before we can simulate turbulence, we must first specify the magnetic equilibrium. Due to axisymmetry, the general form of the magnetic field in a tokamak is given by
\begin{align}
\vec{B} = I \left( \psi \right) \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \zeta + \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \zeta \times \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi , \label{eq:magField} .
\end{align}
where $\zeta$ is the toroidal angle and $I \left( \psi \right)$ (which is closely related to the poloidal plasma current) controls the toroidal field strength. The magnetic flux surfaces (see figure \ref{fig:cutawayTokamak}) are contours of the stream function $\psi$ (which is the poloidal magnetic flux divided by $2 \pi$). We will motivate experimentally-practical flux surface shapes using solutions to the Grad-Shafranov equation
\begin{align}
R^{2} \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \cdot \left( \frac{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi}{R^{2}} \right) = - \mu_{0} R^{2} \frac{d p}{d \psi} - I \frac{d I}{d \psi} , \label{eq:gradShafEq}
\end{align}
which governs the tokamak equilibrium \cite{ShafranovGradShafranovEq1966}. Here $R$ is the major radial coordinate, $\mu_{0}$ is the permeability of free space, and $p$ is the plasma pressure. From equation \refEq{eq:magField} and Ampere's law, one can show that
\begin{align}
- \mu_{0} R^{2} \frac{d p}{d \psi} - I \frac{d I}{d \psi} = \mu_{0} j_{\zeta} R ,
\end{align}
where $j_{\zeta}$ is the toroidal plasma current density. To find a simple and realistic solution, we assume $j_{\zeta}$ is uniform and expand in the limit of large aspect ratio (given the typical orderings for a low $\beta$, ohmically-heated tokamak \cite{FreidbergIdealMHD1987pg126}). In this context, equation \refEq{eq:gradShafEq} is solved by
\begin{align}
\psi_{N} \left( r_{N}, \theta \right) &= r_{N}^{2} + \sum _{m=2}^{\infty} C_{N m} r_{N}^{m} \Cos{m \left( \theta + \theta_{m} \right)} , \label{eq:gradShafSol}
\end{align}
where we have normalized all lengths to the tokamak minor radius $a$, all magnetic fields to $\mu_{0} j_{\zeta} R_{0} / 4$, and indicated these normalized quantities by the subscript $N$. Here $r$ is the distance from the magnetic axis (the magnetic axis is the line enclosed by all flux surfaces), $\theta$ is the usual cylindrical poloidal angle, $C_{m}$ controls the strength of each shaping mode, $\theta_{m}$ is the mode tilt angle, and $R_{0}$ is the major radial location of the magnetic axis. Instead of using $\psi_{N}$ to label flux surfaces, we choose to use the flux surface label $\rho$, defined by
\begin{align}
\psi_{N} \left( \rho \right) = \rho^{2} + \sum_{m=2}^{\infty} C_{N m} \rho^{m} . \label{eq:rhoDef}
\end{align}
This substitution is made for convenience, as $\rho$ keeps the volume enclosed by the flux surfaces roughly constant as the tilt angles are changed. Specifically, $\rho$ corresponds to the value of $r_{N}$ at the outboard midplane if all shaping effects were untilted. To determine the shape of the flux surfaces, we must invert equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol} in order to find $r_{N} \left( \rho, \theta \right)$. We will do this in two ways.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{figs/genElongShapeExample_mod.pdf}
\caption{An example flux surface shape (solid) specified by the less-realistic parameterization of equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong}, along with the axis of toroidal symmetry (dashed). Note the slight concave region on the inboard side of the surface.}
\label{fig:genElongShapeExample}
\end{figure}
The first shape parameterization is an approximate solution given by
\begin{align}
r_{N} \left( \rho, \theta \right) = \sqrt{\psi_{N} \left( \rho \right)} \left( 1 + \sum_{m=2}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + C_{N m} \rho^{m-2} \Cos{m \left( \theta + \theta_{m} \right)}}} - 1 \right) \right) . \label{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong}
\end{align}
This flux surface parameterization is constructed to be consistent with equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol} in the weak shaping limit (i.e. $C_{N m} \ll 1$), to have an $m=2$ mode that exactly corresponds to an ellipse, and to include all shaping modes. However, because we are interested in the lowest order shaping effects, in this work we will only need the $m=2$ and $m=3$ terms. This parameterization is somewhat unrealistic because we will use fairly strong, ITER-like shaping. Since we are no longer respecting the weak shaping limit, equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong} can lead to concave regions in the flux surface shape (see figure \ref{fig:genElongShapeExample}), which are difficult to achieve experimentally. For this reason, we will only use the parameterization of equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong} to test the sensitivity of our results to the exact shape of the flux surface.
The second shape parameterization takes advantage of the fact that, when we only include the $m=2$ and $m=3$ modes, equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol} becomes a cubic in $r$. This can be inverted exactly to find a more complicated parameterization for the shape of each flux surface:
\begin{align}
r_{N} \left( \rho, \theta \right) &= \frac{1 + C_{N 2} \Cos{2 \left( \theta + \theta_{2} \right)}}{3 C_{N 3} \Cos{3 \left( \theta + \theta_{3} \right)}} \left( \Cos{\frac{\vartheta \left( \rho, \theta \right)}{3}} + \sqrt{3} \Sin{\frac{\vartheta \left( \rho, \theta \right)}{3}} - 1 \right) , \label{eq:fluxSurfSpecGlobal}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\Tan{\vartheta \left( \rho, \theta \right)} \equiv ~ & 3 C_{N 3} \sqrt{3 \psi_{N} \left( \rho \right)} \Cos{3 \left( \theta + \theta_{3} \right)} \times \label{eq:rAng} \\
&\frac{\sqrt{4 \left( 1 + C_{N 2} \Cos{2 \left( \theta + \theta_{2} \right)} \right)^{3} - 27 C_{N 3}^{2} \psi_{N} \left( \rho \right) \cos^2 \left( 3 \left( \theta + \theta_{3} \right) \right)}}{2 \left( 1 + C_{N 2} \Cos{2 \left( \theta + \theta_{2} \right)} \right)^{3} - 27 C_{N 3}^{2} \psi_{N} \left( \rho \right) \cos^{2} \left( 3 \left( \theta + \theta_{3} \right) \right)} . \nonumber
\end{align}
We expect this second geometry specification to produce experimentally-practical flux surface shapes to lowest order in the large aspect ratio expansion. To show why, we first note that equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol} is a solution to the Grad-Shafranov equation in both the vacuum and plasma regions. The only difference is that $j_{\zeta} = 0$ in vacuum, causing the inhomogeneous $r_{N}^{2}$ term to disappear. Studying equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol}, we see that the low $m$ terms dominate in the $r_{N} \rightarrow 0$ limit. In fact, the $r_{N}^{m}$ dependence implies that high $m$ shaping modes are exponentially less effective at maintaining their effect over large distances in vacuum and plasma \cite{BallDoctoralThesis2016}. Hence, if the shaping coils are very far from the plasma (as would be preferable in a reactor), the only feasible shapes are those composed of the lowest-order modes in equation \refEq{eq:gradShafSol}. Equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGlobal} is precisely that.
\begin{figure}
\begin{flushleft}
(a) \hspace{0.47\textwidth} (b)
\end{flushleft}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figs/coilCurrents.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Global free-boundary MHD equilibria (black, solid) created by the (a) TCV or (b) ITER poloidal shaping coils (green, rectangles) compared to the target ``optimal'' boundary shape (red, dashed, thick) along with the first wall (blue, solid, thick).}
\label{fig:coilCurrents}
\end{figure}
To investigate experimental feasibility, we took the TCV \cite{HofmannTCVOverview1994} and ITER \cite{AymarITERSummary2001} coil sets and calculated the coil currents that most closely create our ``optimal'' flux surface shape. This ``optimal'' shape will be shown to maximize intrinsic rotation from up-down asymmetry, is parameterized by equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGlobal}, and is shown in figure \ref{fig:cutawayTokamak}. To calculate the necessary coil currents, we must solve the inverse free-boundary equilibrium problem, which will be done in two ways. First, we used the FBT code \cite{HofmannFBT1988}, a free boundary MHD equilibrium code used to design magnetic geometries for the TCV experiment. This produced the TCV configuration shown in figure \ref{fig:coilCurrents}(a), which closely matches our ``optimal'' shape and respects all TCV coil limits for values of the plasma current up to 400 kA. Second, we employed VMEC calculations \cite{HirshmanVMEC1983} and performed a least-squares minimization to best approximate the target flux surface shape. This method is explained in the discussion of figure 9 in reference \cite{LandremanShapeCreation2016}. Our results (shown in figure \ref{fig:coilCurrents}(b)) demonstrate that the ITER coil set is capable of matching the ``optimal'' shape. However, we see that the mismatch between the plasma and vacuum vessel shapes leads to a reduction in the total plasma volume (compared to a nominal ``D''-shaped plasma).
\section{Intrinsic rotation driven by turbulence}
\label{sec:intrinsicRotation}
To model turbulent transport we will use gyrokinetics \cite{LeeGenFreqGyro1983, LeeParticleSimGyro1983, DubinHamiltonianGyro1983, HahmGyrokinetics1988, SugamaGyroTransport1996, SugamaHighFlowGyro1998, BrizardGyroFoundations2007, ParraGyrokineticLimitations2008, ParraLagrangianGyro2011, AbelGyrokineticsDeriv2012} because experimental measurements \cite{McKeeTurbulenceScale2001} indicate that it accurately treats turbulence in the core of tokamaks. Gyrokinetics is a fully-kinetic description based on an expansion of the Fokker-Planck and Maxwell's equations in $\rho_{\ast} \ll 1$. It specifically investigates behavior much slower than the ion gyrofrequency, but still allows the size of the turbulent eddies perpendicular to the magnetic field to be comparable to the gyroradius. In this regime, we can gyroaverage over the fast particle gyromotion. This removes one dimension of velocity space as well as the gyrofrequency timescale, which makes the model computationally tractable.
To further simplify, we will assume the turbulent fluctuations are electrostatic, implying that the magnetic field is not perturbed by the turbulent fluctuations. This is justified when the ratio of the thermal pressure to the magnetic pressure is small (i.e. the plasma beta is $\beta \ll 1$), which is fairly well satisfied in most experiments. We also assume that the turbulent fluctuations, which have perpendicular sizes similar to the ion gyroradius, are much smaller than the equilibrium gradients in density and temperature. Additionally, we are interested in mechanisms that cause a stationary plasma to begin rotating, so we will take the rotation and rotation shear to be zero (i.e. $\Omega_{\zeta} = d \Omega_{\zeta} / d \psi = 0$). Next, we will neglect particle collisions and instead use hyper-viscosity to provide enhanced numerical diffusion. This is done to reduce computational cost and because previous work suggested that it has little effect on our results \cite{BallMastersThesis2013}. Lastly, we will separate the perturbation in the distribution function due to turbulence $\delta f_{s}$ and assume it to be small by one order in $\rho_{\ast}$ compared to the background distribution function $F_{M s}$ (which we assume to be Maxwellian). Here the subscript $s$ indicates either the ion or electron species.
Given these assumptions, the gyrokinetic equation is given by \cite{BarnesCriticalBalance2011}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial \left\langle \delta f_{s} \right\rangle_{\varphi}}{\partial t} + \left( v_{||} \hat{b} + \vec{v}_{B} + \left\langle \vec{v}_{E} \right\rangle_{\varphi} \right) \cdot \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \left( \left\langle \delta f_{s} \right\rangle_{\varphi} + \frac{Z_{s} e \left\langle \phi \right\rangle_{\varphi}}{T_{s}} F_{M s} \right) = - \left\langle \vec{v}_{E} \right\rangle_{\varphi} \cdot \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} F_{M s} .
\end{align}
This is solved together with the gyroaveraged, perturbed quasineutrality equation (i.e. Gauss's law)
\begin{align}
\sum_{s} Z_{s} e \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} d v_{||} \int_{0}^{\infty} d \mu \oint d \varphi ~ \delta f_{s} = 0
\end{align}
for the perturbed distribution function and the electrostatic potential $\phi$. Here $t$ is the time, $\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle_{\varphi}$ is the gyroaverage at fixed guiding center position, $v_{||}$ is the component of the velocity parallel to the magnetic field unit vector $\hat{b}$, $\vec{v}_{B}$ is the magnetic drift velocity, $\vec{v}_{E}$ is the $\vec{E} \times \vec{B}$ drift velocity, $Z_{s}$ is the particle charge number, $e$ is the proton charge, $T_{s}$ is the background temperature, $\mu$ is the magnetic moment, and $\oint d \varphi$ signifies the gyroaverage at fixed particle position.
By running the code GS2 \cite{DorlandETGturb2000} on supercomputers, we can solve the gyrokinetic equation in a flux tube, a long narrow simulation domain that follows a single magnetic field line on a single flux surface of interest. This allows us to calculate the local radial fluxes of energy and toroidal angular momentum (per unit area) according to
\begin{align}
Q_{s} &\equiv \left\langle \left\langle \left\langle \int d^{3} v \left( \frac{m_{s} v^{2}}{2} \right) \vec{v}_{E} ~ \delta f_{s} \cdot \frac{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi}{\left| \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi \right|} \right\rangle_{\Delta} \right\rangle_{\psi} \right\rangle_{t} \\
\Pi_{\zeta} &\equiv \left\langle \left\langle \left\langle \int d^{3} v \left( m_{i} R^{2} \vec{v} \cdot \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \zeta \right) \vec{v}_{E} ~ \delta f_{i} \cdot \frac{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi}{\left| \ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}} \psi \right|} \right\rangle_{\Delta} \right\rangle_{\psi} \right\rangle_{t}
\end{align}
respectively. Here $m_{s}$ is the particle mass, $v$ is the speed, $\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle_{\Delta}$ indicates a coarse-grain average over a spatial scale that is larger than the turbulence and smaller than the device, and $\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle_{t}$ indicates a time average over the turbulent timescale. The flux surface average is defined by $\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle_{\psi} \equiv \int_{\psi} dS \left( \ldots \right)/\int_{\psi} dS$, where $S$ is the entire flux surface. However, to evaluate this in a local code, we restrict the integral to just the domain of our flux tube. This is acceptable because the flux tube (which runs from $0$ to $2 \pi$ in poloidal angle) can be extrapolated to fill in the entire surface (due to axisymmetry).
In general, to calculate the rotation profile in statistical steady-state one must invert
\begin{align}
\Pi_{\zeta} \left( \Omega_{\zeta}, \frac{d \Omega_{\zeta}}{d \psi} \right) = 0 \label{eq:momFluxCond}
\end{align}
on every flux surface \cite{ParraIntrinsicRotTheory2015}. However, we can calculate a simple estimate of the level of rotation using local values of $\Pi_{\zeta}$ and $Q_{i}$ \cite{BallShafranovShift2016}. First, we assume that the energy flux is dominated by the diffusion of a temperature gradient \cite{FreidbergFusionEnergy2007pg452},
\begin{align}
Q_{i} = -D_{Q} n_{i} \frac{d T_{i}}{d \psi} .
\end{align}
Here we have neglected the drive from the density gradient, which should be acceptable given that we are focusing on toroidal ITG turbulence. Next, expanding equation \refEq{eq:momFluxCond} around $\Omega_{\zeta} = d \Omega_{\zeta} / d \psi =0$ and neglecting the term proportional to $\Omega_{\zeta}$ (which can only enhance the rotation \cite{PeetersMomPinch2007}) gives
\begin{align}
\Pi_{\zeta} \left( 0, 0 \right) = D_{\Pi} n_{i} m_{i} R_{0}^{2} \frac{d \Omega_{\zeta}}{d \psi} .
\end{align}
Here $n_{i}$ is the ion number density, while $D_{Q}$ and $D_{\Pi}$ are the energy and momentum diffusion coefficients respectively. We can couple the energy and momentum transport by assuming a constant turbulent Prandtl number $Pr \equiv D_{\Pi} / D_{Q} \approx 0.7$, which is motivated by the results of previous numerical simulations \cite{BallMomUpDownAsym2014,BarnesFlowShear2011,HighcockRotationBifurcation2011}. This produces the estimate
\begin{align}
\frac{R_{0}}{v_{th, i}} \frac{d \Omega_{\zeta}}{d \psi} \approx \frac{-1}{2 Pr} \left( \frac{v_{th, i}}{R_{0}} \frac{\Pi_{\zeta}}{Q_{i}} \right) \frac{d}{d \psi} \Ln{T_{i}} , \label{eq:rotationGradEst}
\end{align}
where $v_{th, i}$ is the ion thermal velocity. This equation highlights the importance of the parameter $\left( v_{th, i} / R_{0} \right) \Pi_{\zeta} / Q_{i}$, which previous results indicate is fairly independent of the temperature gradient \cite{BallMomUpDownAsym2014,BallMomFluxScaling2016}. We see that, by finding the shape that maximizes $\left( v_{th, i} / R_{0} \right) \Pi_{\zeta} / Q_{i}$ at $\Omega_{\zeta} = d \Omega_{\zeta} / d \psi =0$, we can maximize the intrinsic rotation.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:numResults}
To investigate the momentum transport in flux surfaces with both elongation and triangularity, we will first use the more realistic geometry of equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGlobal} and perform a two dimensional scan in $\theta_{2}$ and $\theta_{3}$. We choose to fix $C_{N 2} = 0.45$ and $C_{N 3} = 0.1$ because these values approximate the ITER boundary shape when $\theta_{2} = 0$ and $\theta_{3} = \pi / 3$. By setting $\rho = 0.75$, we select a flux surface that is in the core, but is close enough to the boundary to have substantial triangularity (specifically it selects the third flux surface from the center in Figs. \ref{fig:cutawayTokamak} and \ref{fig:coilCurrents}). The major radius of $R_{0} = 3$ and minor radius of $a = 1$ are selected to give the tokamak a conventional aspect ratio. The safety factor of $q = 1.4$, magnetic shear of $\hat{s} \equiv \left( \rho / q \right) d q / d \rho = 0.8$, and background density gradient of $d \Ln{n_{s}} / d \rho = - 0.733$ are taken from the widely-used Cyclone base case \cite{DimitsCycloneBaseCase2000}. Note that setting this value of the magnetic shear is formally inconsistent with the constant current assumption used to derive our flux surface specification. However, all geometrical quantities appearing in gyrokinetics are calculated using the Miller local equilibrium model \cite{MillerGeometry1998}, which minimizes this error in the vicinity of our flux surface of interest.
Because the flux surfaces are so strongly shaped, we will use a large background temperature gradient of $d \Ln{T_{s}} / d \rho = - 3.0$ to ensure that the turbulence is driven unstable. For these values of the gradients, the dominant drive of turbulence is the ion temperature gradient (ITG). Additionally, these simulations treat the electrons as gyrokinetic, so the effects of the electron temperature gradient (ETG) and trapped electron modes (TEM) are included. However, no attempt was made to study these sub-dominant modes. That being said, we don't expect ETG to drive rotation because the ions (which carry most of the momentum of the plasma) behave adiabatically at the electron gyroradius scale. Additionally, we believe that the momentum driven by TEM modes should behave similarly to ITG (i.e. have the same sign and similar dependences). This is because (as we will soon see) the dominant effect driving rotation appears to be the interaction between shaping and toroidicity. The effect of toroidicity, that the modes peak on the outboard side of the device, is the same for ITG and TEM modes. However, this is speculative and more work is needed to explore this.
Because of the strong shaping, these simulations are computationally expensive. Properly resolving the sharp features of the flux surface required a fine grid along the magnetic field line. The simulations used 128 grid points, a factor of four larger than conventional. The radial wavenumber grid had 127 points and varied from $k_{r} \rho_{i} \in \left[ -2.52, 2.52 \right]$ in steps of $\Delta k_{r} \rho_{i} = 0.04$. Similarly, the poloidal wavenumber grid (which parameterizes the direction perpendicular to the field line, but within the flux surface) had 22 points and varied from $k_{p} \rho_{i} \in \left[ 0, 0.84 \right]$ in steps of $\Delta k_{p} \rho_{i} = 0.04$. These grid spacings were chosen using a convergence study, though the poloidal grid spacing is somewhat larger than usual (corresponding to seven ion gyroradii). To double-check, our results were verified by rerunning the code with a finer poloidal grid for two of the geometries. The remaining coordinates used more typical resolutions. In velocity space, the energy grid had 12 points and the untrapped pitch angle grid had 20 points. The trapped pitch angle resolution was determined by making each point in the poloidal grid a bounce point for particles traveling in both directions along the magnetic field line. Therefore, near the location of the maximum magnetic field there are only 2 trapped pitch angles, while near the location of the minimum magnetic field there are 129 trapped pitch angles.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{0pt}
(a) \raisebox{-\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/nonlinearAvgIonRatioGlobal.pdf}}
(b) \raisebox{-\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/nonlinearAvgTotHeatFluxGlobal.pdf}}
\caption{Values of (a) the normalized momentum transport $100 \times \left( v_{th, i} / R_{0} \right) \Pi_{\zeta} / Q_{i}$ and (b) the total energy flux $\left( Q_{i} + Q_{e} \right) / Q_{gB}$ are indicated by the numbers/colors for various non-mirror symmetric (solid lines) and mirror symmetric (dotted lines) flux surfaces created with elongation and triangularity (specified using equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGlobal}). The thick gray bands indicate geometries with up-down symmetric envelopes. For comparison, purely elongated flux surfaces are shown in quadrant \romanNum{2}, a circular flux surface is shown in quadrant \romanNum{3}, and purely triangular flux surfaces are shown in quadrant \romanNum{4}. Repeating several of these simulations indicates that the statistical error from averaging over the turbulent timescale is $\pm 0.5$ for the energy flux and $\pm 1$ for the normalized momentum transport (which is consistent with the small, but non-zero results of the up-down symmetric geometries).}
\label{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}(a) shows how the intrinsic rotation generated by the two-mode geometries compares with that generated by flux surfaces with only elongation or triangularity. We see that configurations shaped by only elongation produce significant momentum transport, unlike configurations with only triangularity. However, the ``optimal'' two-mode geometry (i.e. the $\theta_{2} = \pi / 8$, $\theta_{3} = \pi / 24$ case) has almost double the momentum transport of any single-mode geometry. Performing an additional simulation of the ``optimal'' geometry with $\left( R_{0} / v_{th, i}\right) d \Omega_{\zeta} / d \rho = 0.1$ confirmed that $\Pi_{\zeta} \approx 0$ as predicted by equation \refEq{eq:rotationGradEst}. This gives confidence that the assumptions used in our derivation (i.e. diffusive transport and the invariance of the Prandtl number) are well satisfied. If we assume that $\left( v_{th, i} / R_{0} \right) \Pi_{\zeta} / Q_{i}$ is uniform across the flux surfaces that have a substantial temperature gradient, then we can integrate equation \refEq{eq:rotationGradEst}. Without any edge rotation, this estimate predicts that the on-axis intrinsic rotation in the ``optimal'' geometry will have an $M_{S} \approx 7\%$. This value corresponds to $M_{A} \approx 1.2\%$, given an ITER-like value of $\beta = 0.06$ (i.e. the ratio of the thermal and magnetic pressures). This level of rotation is roughly what is needed to stabilize MHD modes.
One possible explanation for the large difference between the elliptical and two-mode geometries is the breaking of flux surface mirror symmetry. We know that breaking mirror symmetry allows the interaction of different shaping effects to directly drive momentum (which would be the dominant mechanism in a cylindrical device). However, for the aspect ratio of these simulations, this effect appears to be fairly modest. Of the four configurations with the most momentum transport, two of them are mirror symmetric.
Another possible explanation is that the beating between elongation and triangularity creates an $m=1$ mode (i.e. an envelope), which then interacts with toroidicity to drive the extra rotation. This would be the dominant momentum transport mechanism in configurations that only have high $m$ shaping effects. However, for the $m = 2$ and $m = 3$ mode numbers used here, this effect appears to be small. We can see that, of the four configurations with the most momentum transport, two of them have envelopes that are very close to up-down symmetric. This result is intuitive because it is difficult to visually discern any sort of envelope in the flux surface shapes. This is because the envelope is only distinct from the shaping effects when the difference between the two beating modes is much smaller than the mode numbers themselves. Instead, it appears that the intrinsic rotation drive is dominated by the direct interaction of elongation and triangularity with toroidicity.
Figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}(b) shows that the best performing two-mode geometries stabilize turbulence and increase the confinement time. Because these simulations were all run at $\Omega_{\zeta} = d \Omega_{\zeta} / d \psi =0$, figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}(b) shows only the direct effect of the flux surface shape. It does {\it not} include any beneficial effects that high levels of rotation might have on the turbulence. Even so, the ``optimal'' geometry has $25 \%$ less energy transport than the ITER-like shape (i.e. $\theta_{2} = 0$ and $\theta_{3} = \pi / 3$). Furthermore, the turbulence in the geometries with both elongation and triangularity was completely stabilized at the Cyclone base case temperature gradient of $a / L_{T s} = 2.3$, unlike in the circular geometry. This demonstrates that the critical gradient was increased substantially by the strong shaping. Additionally, looking at the effect of positive and negative triangularity, we see behavior that is roughly consistent with TCV results \cite{WeisenShapeOnConfinement1997,MarinoniTCVtri2009}. Elongated configurations see more of a benefit from negative triangularity. Rigorous agreement would not be expected because of the importance of TEM turbulence and electron transport in TCV. In our simulations, the electron energy flux was consistently smaller than the ion energy flux, typically by a factor of four.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{0pt}
(a) \raisebox{-\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figs/nonlinearAvgIonRatioGenElong.pdf}}
(b) \raisebox{-\height}{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figs/nonlinearAvgTotHeatFluxGenElong.pdf}}
\caption{Values of (a) the normalized momentum transport $100 \times \left( v_{th, i} / R_{0} \right) \Pi_{\zeta} / Q_{i}$ and (b) the total energy flux $\left( Q_{i} + Q_{e} \right) / Q_{gB}$ are indicated by the numbers/colors for various non-mirror symmetric (solid lines) and mirror symmetric (dotted lines) flux surfaces created with elongation and triangularity (specified using equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong}). The thick gray bands indicate geometries with up-down symmetric envelopes. For comparison, purely elongated flux surfaces are shown in quadrant \romanNum{2}, a circular flux surface is shown in quadrant \romanNum{3}, and purely triangular flux surfaces are shown in quadrant \romanNum{4}. The error is assumed to be similar to the error in figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}.}
\label{fig:nonMirrorGenElong}
\end{figure}
Lastly, to assess the sensitivity of these numerical results, we repeated the scan using the shape parameterization given by equation \refEq{eq:fluxSurfSpecGenElong} with somewhat different parameters. We increased the aspect ratio of the flux surface of interest by setting major radius to $R_{0} = 3$ and $\rho = 0.54$. This was done because reference \cite{BallShafranovShift2016} indicates that the momentum transport is sensitive to the aspect ratio (specifically, it increases with aspect ratio). Additionally, the magnitude of the shaping was increased somewhat to $C_{N 2} = 0.5$ and $C_{N 3} = 0.4$. The results are shown in figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGenElong}. Because of the differences in shape and aspect ratio, it is not particularly illuminating to compare the exact values between corresponding configurations. However, figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGenElong} supports all of the conclusions we arrived at from figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}. First, pure elongation, unlike pure triangularity, can drive significant momentum transport. Second, adding some triangularity to elongation (at certain tilt angles) can significantly enhance the momentum flux. Moreover, the tilt angles of elongation and triangularity for the best-performing geometries are similar. Third, the effect of non-mirror symmetry and up-down asymmetric envelopes appear to be small. Fourth, many of the tilted configurations display a reduction in energy transport compared to the ITER-like shape (i.e. $\theta_{2} = 0$ and $\theta_{3} = \pi / 3$). We note that in the upper-right region of figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGenElong}(b), there are several configurations with particularly low energy transport. This feature can also be seen in figure \ref{fig:nonMirrorGlobal}(b) (though it is not quite as dramatic).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
This work indicates that up-down asymmetry can drive sufficient intrinsic rotation to stabilize MHD modes in large devices. Our analysis has identified the optimal tilt angles (i.e. $\theta_{2} = \pi / 8$ and $\theta_{3} = \pi / 24$) to maximize the rotation for typical values of elongation and triangularity. Furthermore, we have shown that experimental coil sets can create this shape and, for the parameters used, it has 25\% less turbulent energy transport than a conventional ITER-like shape.
\ack
The authors would like to thank S. Brunner, I. Pusztai, M. Wensing, H. Reimerdes and P. Helander for useful discussions pertaining to this work. This work was funded in part by the RCUK Energy Programme (grant number EP/I501045). It has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training program 2014---2018 under Grant Agreement No. 633053. Computing time for this work was provided by the Helios supercomputer at IFERC-CSC under the projects SPIN, TRIN, and GKMSC. Additionally, we acknowledge the CINECA award under the ISCRA initiative, for the availability of high performance computing resources and support.
|
\section{Some limitations of quantum theory}
\label{sec:1}
Quantum theory is extraordinarily successful, and is not contradicted by any experiment. This is true for its non-relativistic version, as well as for relativistic quantum mechanics, and for quantum field theory. However, its successes should not blind us to the limitations of its theoretical structure, as we understand it today. First and foremost though, it is important to remember, and not often emphasized, that quantum mechanics has not been tested in all parts of the parameter space that are in principle accessible in table-top laboratory experiments. We have in mind tests of quantum linear superposition [Schrodinger cat states] for mesoscopic objects. The largest objects for which the superposition principle has been tested have a mass of about $10^5$ a.m.u. and the smallest objects which are known to behave classically have a mass of about a microgram [i.e. about $10^{18}$ a.m.u.]. In between, there is a technologically challenging range of some thirteen orders of magnitude, where there are no experimental tests of the superposition principle, although significant progress is now taking place since the last few years. [We note that macroscopic superpositions of internal states as in superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates do not negate the previous statement. More on this later.] In this untested intermediate range, maybe there is a quantum-to-classical transition which can be explained by environmental decoherence and the many-worlds interpretation, or maybe by Bohmian mechanics. Alternatively, it maybe the case that there is a new dynamics such as spontaneous collapse, to which quantum and classical mechanics are approximations, and whose effects become significant in this intermediate regime, and which is responsible for the quantum-to-classical transition. To believe that quantum mechanics will definitely not be violated in this yet untested regime is akin to believing, if one were in the nineteenth century, that Newton mechanics will not be violated at high speeds or for small objects, even though the theory was not then tested at high speeds or for small objects. Of course with hindsight we know that such faith in Newtonian mechanics was misplaced, and accordingly we should reserve our judgement about quantum mechanics as well, until these thirteen orders of magnitude have been covered by experiments.
Quantum mechanics is generally taught to students as a `final' theory, with rarely a mention of the unsatisfying aspects of its theoretical construction. Many physicists painfully `unlearn' the theory in their later years, and realise the extreme peculiarity of the structure of the theory. The strangest aspect is the extreme dependence of the theory on its own classical limit, for its very construction and interpretation. One starts from the classical [Lagrangian or Hamiltonian] dynamics of the theory for the chosen degrees of freedom, and one must know the classical action and the Poisson brackets. Then the peculiar procedure `quantize' is invoked: configuration variables and their canonical momenta are raised to the level of operators, and Poisson brackets are replaced by ad hoc quantum commutation relations. It works perfectly, but one is left wondering if the construction is fundamental: one should have been able to write down the principles of quantum theory ab initio, and derive classical mechanics from them, rather than the other way round.
The dependence on classical limit continues when one faces the task of interpreting the results of experiments on quantum systems, giving rise to the infamous quantum measurement problem ~\cite{Wheeler-Zurek:1983}. There is a need for a so-called classical measuring apparatus: an object which is not found in superposition of position states, so that classical pointer states [which define the outcome of a measurement] can be defined. But then we are faced with tough questions. How large should an object be before it can be called classical? Quantum mechanics is silent about this. And the classical apparatus which quantum mechanics so much depends on for its interpretation, is something whose classical properties [in particular, the absence of position superposition of pointer states] should have been derived from quantum mechanics, rather than assuming its existence a priori, as if it had nothing to do with quantum theory per se.
It is well-known of course that things get more difficult from this point on. The evolution of the state of the quantum system is described by the Schr\"{o}dinger equation: this evolution is deterministic and linear. The process of measurement by the classical apparatus breaks both linear superposition and determinism. Although there is no randomness in the initial conditions for the Schr\"{o}dinger evolution, the outcomes of the measurement are random and probabilistic. This is an unparalleled situation in physics: probabilities without random initial conditions. The fact that probabilities arise during measurement, implies that something has to give. It means that either the probabilities are not real but only apparent, or that there is an aspect of randomness in the dynamics, or in the initial conditions, which is not evident in the Schr\"{o}dinger equation.
Not only is there a dependence on its own classical limit, but there is also a dependence of quantum theory on external spacetime structure. We emphasize two aspects of this: one which suggests a possible conflict with special relativity, and the other which strongly suggests that the present formulation of the theory should possess an equivalent, but a more fundamental, formulation. The first of these has to do with the EPR paradox and non-local quantum correlations, which suggest that quantum events influence each other outside the light cone. One possible implication of this is that wave-function collapse in quantum theory
is simply not compatible with the spacetime structure dictated by special relativity, and in order to describe collapse satisfactorily one perhaps needs to introduce a new `quantum' structure of spacetime.
The second aspect, rarely emphasized, has to do with the fact that the time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical spacetime geometry, which geometry is produced by classical macroscopic objects. But these classical objects are in turn a limiting case of quantum theory! Once again, the dependence of the theory on its own limit is evident. Clearly, there then ought to exist an equivalent reformulation of quantum theory which does not refer to a classical time.
We thus see that there are at least three different ways in which quantum mechanics depends on its own classical limit, or on classical spacetime structure. These give rise to the quantum measurement problem, the problem of quantum nonlocality, and the problem of time in quantum theory. In the next three sections we briefly review some developments which address these problems, and their inter-relationship. In the last section we discuss what these problems and their possible resolutions imply for a future quantum theory of gravity.
\section{The quantum measurement problem}
\label{sec:2}
Modern approaches to addressing the measurement problem broadly fall into three classes. The first is to say that collapse of the wave function is only an apparent process, and in reality no collapse ever takes place This is the essence of the many worlds interpretation. There is no need to modify or reformulate quantum theory. The second is to say that there is randomness in the initial conditions, but the evolution by itself is deterministic. This is Bohmian mechanics - a mathermatical reformulation of quantum mechanics. The third is to say that there is randomness in the dynamics, and the deterministic Schr\"{o}dinger evolution is only an approximation to the random dynamics. This is the essence of collapse models.
According to the many worlds interpretation, the evolution is deterministic Schr\"{o}dinger evolution through and through, and upon a measurement the universe, including the observer, `splits' into many branches, with a given branch possessing only one out of the various possible outcomes. The other branches contain, respectively, one or the other outcomes. The different branches do not interfere with each other, presumably because of decoherence. [There is a vast literature on decoherence, including the experiments and models by ~\cite{Brune:96, Harris:81,Gerlich2007kapitza}, books by ~\cite{Joos:03, Schlosshauer:2007, Breuer:2000} and the seminal
papers ~\cite{Zeh:70, Joos:85, Caldeira:81} and ~reviews
~\cite{Schlosshauer:2005, Vacchini:2009, Zurek:91, Zurek:03}, and ~\cite{Bacciagaluppi:2007}.] The collapse of the wave function is only apparent, not real, and there is no need to modify quantum mechanics. The hard part about many worlds is to understand where the probabilities come from? If the evolution is always deterministic Schr\"{o}dinger evolution, then why do the outcomes obey the Born probability rule? Various explanations have been put forward, but they do not appear convincing enough ~\cite{Everett:57, DeWitt:73, Tegmark:2007, Kent:1990, Wallace:2003, Deutsch:1998, Vaidman:2002,Hsu:2011, Saunders2010, Putnam:05, Barrett:12, Bacciagaluppi:2001}.
Bohmian mechanics is a neat and precise reformulation of quantum theory, where additional equations of motion are introduced for the positions of particles. The wave function, which satisfies the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, also enters in the equation of motion of particles. The theory is a deterministic theory of particles in motion. Randomness enters in a classical sense, via random initial conditions, chosen such that the outcomes of experiments obey the Born rule. Bohmian mechanics, as well as many worlds, make the same predictions as quantum theory, and they would be falsified if collapse models, which predict departures from quantum theory, are experimentally verified ~\cite{Bohm:52, Bohm2:52, Bub:1997, Duerr:92, Holland, Bohmbook, Duerr, DGZ}.
Collapse models, first developed in the eighties, propose a stochastic, nonlinear modification of the Schr\"{o}dinger equation, and introduce the new feature that collapse of the wave function is a spontaneous process, not having anything to do per se with the act of measurement ~\cite{Pearle:76, Ghirardi:86, Ghirardi2:90, Pearle:99, Bassi:03}. There is no longer any need for the vaguely defined measuring apparatus, nor an artificial divide between a `quantum system' and a `classical apparatus'. The nonlinear modification breaks linear superposition, while its stochastic nature ensures that the outcome of the broken superposition is random. The structure of the modifying terms is chosen in such a way that the random outcomes are realised according to the Born probability rule. The theory introduces two new constants of nature, a rate constant $\lambda$ which determines the rate of collapse, and a critical length $r_c$ to which the collapsed wave function is confined. The rate constant has been assigned an ad hoc value of $10^{-17}$ sec$^{-1}$
for a nucleon - this means that the wave function of a nucleon undergoes spontaneous collapse once every $10^{17}$ sec. Understandably then, the nonlinear modification is completely negligible for the nucleon and it behaves perfectly quantum mechanically, obeying the Schr\"{o}dinger equation. However, for a particle of mass $m$, the rate constant is assumed to be $(m/m_{N})\lambda$, where $m_N$ is the nucleon mass, and hence the rate constant scales with mass. For macroscopic objects, the wave function collapses extremely rapidly; this explains the classical nature of macroscopic objects, and in particular it explains why pointer position states are classical.
Collapse models thus also provide a natural solution to the measurement problem. Before a quantum system interacts with the measuring apparatus, its microscopic nature ensures that the rate constant is very small, and the superpositions are long lived. Upon its interaction with the so-called measuring apparatus [which is macroscopic] their entangled state represents a macroscopic superposition, which involves the superposition of pointer position states. This state is extremely short lived, according to the model, and very quickly `collapses' to one of the outcomes, while obeying the Born rule.
These models propose that there is a new stochastic dynamics, to which quantum mechanics is the microscopic approximation, and classical mechanics is the macroscopic approximation. The stochastic effect is negligible in the microscopic limit. On the other hand it is extremely prominent in the macro limit, so that quantum evolution effectively appears like classical evolution on trajectories which obey Newtonian dynamics. The quantum to classical transition is naturally explained, and there is no longer any need for a measuring apparatus, to explain the results of measurements.
The most interesting thing about collapse models is not that they are necessarily correct, but rather that they are experimentally testable and that in principle they make predictions which are different from those of quantum mechanics. In the micro regime, the rate constant is so small that the models are indistinguishable from Schr\"{o}dinger evolution and hence make essentially the same experimental predictions as quantum mechanics. In the macro regime the predictions are the same as that of classical mechanics. It is in the
in-between mesoscopic regime - the thirteen orders of magnitude alluded to at the beginning of the
article - that the model predictions markedly differ from that of quantum mechanics. The principle effect is that in this range the lifetime of a quantum superposition is neither too large nor too small, but in a range
suitable for experimental detection. Thus if a mesoscopic object, having a mass of say a billion a.m.u., is prepared in a superposed state by passing it through a diffraction grating, then according to collapse models this superposition will decay before the particle reaches the detecting screen, and hence no interference pattern will be seen. If this happens, it of course violates quantum mechanics, and is evidence for collapse models. Experiments of this nature form the subject of matter wave interferometry, and they have played a very important role in constraining collapse models and putting bounds on the rate constant $\lambda$ ~\cite{Hornberger2011review}. A great technological challenge is to eliminate`impurities' such as ambient radiation and gas which cause environmental decoherence, and mask and mimic the loss of superposition caused by collapse models. The largest objects for which superposition has been verified through interferometry have a mass of about $10^{5}$ a.m.u. and this puts an upper bound on $\lambda$ of about $10^{-5}$ sec$^{-1}$ ~\cite{RMP:2012}.
A different class of experiments which are becoming important in testing and constraining collapse models have to do with a side effect of these models. Namely, the stochastic process which introduces randomness in the dynamics also causes stochastic heating of the affected quantum particle, and hence a very tiny violation of energy momentum conservation ~\cite{Adler3:07}. The fact that such a violation has not been observed in laboratory experiments and in astronomical observations puts powerful bounds on $\lambda$, the strongest current bound being that $\lambda < 10^{-8}$ sec$^{-1}$ ~\cite{Vinante:2016}.
Various new experiments have been proposed to test the effects of stochastic heating ~\cite{PEARLE5,Bera:15, Bahrami:2014a,Goldwater:2015}.
Eventually, in order to verify or rule out collapse models, experiments must push this bound all the way down to $10^{-17}$, below which value collapse models may not be able to solve the measurement problem, and other explanations such as many worlds and Bohmian mechanics would start to appear more favorable.
Collapse models do indeed have some limitations, which call for their better theoretical understanding. The models are purely phenomenological in nature, having been proposed with the express purpose of solving the quantum measurement problem. The mathematical structure of the stochastic nonlinearity is designed so as to give rise to the Born probability rule. In that sense the models do not predict or prove the Born rule; rather they have the Born rule built into them. Thus the question as to what is the fundamental origin of the probabilities still remains uanswered. [The same is true of the many worlds picture, and of Bohmian mechanics as well.] We really do not know what is the cause of this randomness. Why should there be in nature this stochastic noise field which these models employ?
Two ideas which bear on this question in a serious way deserve mention. One is that this stochasticity has to do with gravity and spacetime structure. Gravitational fields are produced by macroscopic bodies, and the latter obey the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. It seems plausible [though not fool-proof] that this introduces an uncertainty in the produced gravitational field, and hence fluctuations in the spacetime geometry. This might be the source of randomness sought for by collapse models. It is then natural to ask how these fluctuations in the geometry affect the motion of a quantum particle which obeys Schr\"{o}dinger evolution? Various model studies have shown that spacetime fluctuations produce gravitationally induced decoherence of the wave function, with the effect becoming more prominent as the mass of the quantum particle is increased ~\cite{Karolyhazi:66,Karolyhazi:86, Karolyhazy:74, Karolyhazy:90, Karolyhazy:95, Karolyhazy:1982, Frenkel:77, Frenkel:90, Frenkel:95, Frenkel:2002, Frenkel:97, Diosi:87, Diosi:07, Diosi:89, Diosi:87a, Penrose:96, Penrose:98, Penrose:00, Diosi:84,Bernstein:98,giulini2011gravitationally,Harrison:2003,Moroz:98,Ruffini:69,Giulini2012,Giulini2013,Hu2014,Anastapoulos:2014, Bahrami:2014, Colin2014,Bera:2015,Bera:2015b,Bera:2016a,Derakhshani:2014}.
While these results are very encouraging, they do not yet provide a collapse model. Gravity can cause decoherence, but it is not yet clear how (if at all) it causes collapse of the wave function (selection of one of the various outcomes) and how it explains the Born probability rule. The conceptual status of gravity in such models is also not very clear: is gravity classical, quantum, semiclassical, or something else? Nonetheless, since we know that gravity exists, it is very promising to investigate if it is the source of the nonlinear stochasticity in collapse models.
The second idea for a fundamental origin of collapse models is to consider if quantum theory is an approximation to a deeper underlying theory, and if the nonlinear stochastic modification arises as a higher order correction to the leading approximation. That quantum theory should perhaps be formulated differently, starting from some fundamental principles, is already indicated by the extreme dependence of the current formulation of the theory on its own classical limit. This is the essence of the theory of Trace Dynamics [TD], developed by Adler and collaborators ~\cite{Adler:94, Adler:04, Adler-Millard:1996, Adler:06a}.
TD is the classical dynamics of matrices $q_r$ whose elements can either be odd grade [fermionic sector F] or even grade [bosonic sector B] elements of Grassmann numbers. The Lagrangian in this dynamics is defined as the trace of a polynomial function of the matrices and their time derivatives. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics can then be developed in the conventional manner. In TD, the matrix-valued configuration variables $q_r$ and their conjugate momenta $p_r$ all obey arbitrary commutation relations amongst each other. However, as a consequence of a global unitary invariance of the dynamics there occurs in TD an important conserved charge, known as the Adler-Millard charge
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C} = \sum_B [q_r,p_r] -\sum_F \{q_r,p_r\}
\end{equation}
whose existence is central to the subsequent development of the theory.
Assuming that one is not examining the dynamics exactly, one develops an equilibrium statistical thermodynamics for the classical dynamics described by TD. If one considers a sufficiently large system [of many, many
particles, each particle being a matrix, as if there were a gas of matrices], the `system point' can in the long run be assumed to scan all of phase space. The phase space probability distribution achieves equilibrium [i.e. a uniform distribution over phase space]. The equilibrium distribution can be determined by maximising the entropy, as is done in statistical mechanics. The equipartition of the Adler-Millard charge leads to certain Ward identities, which in turn lead to the important result that thermal averages of canonical variables obey quantum dynamics and quantum commutation relations. In particular, the emergent $q$ operators commute with each other, and so do the $p$ operators. This is how quantum theory is seen as an emergent phenomenon. The quantum state satisfying the Schr\"{o}dinger picture is recovered as usual, by implementing a transition from the Heisenberg picture to the Schr\"{o}dinger picture.
TD is a classical deterministic theory, and time evolution of the matrices is described in the standard way, with respect to a flat Minkowski spacetime background. However, TD is {\it not} a hidden variable theory, because the matrix variables exist at a distinctly different underlying level, as compared to the quantum theoretical degrees of freedom, with the latter arising only upon statistical
coarse-graining, in the conventional sense of statistical mechanics. Hence the arguments of Bell's theorem against local hidden variable theories do not apply to TD.
Furthermore, if one considers the inevitable statistical fluctuations of the Adler-Millard charge about equilibrium, this leads to a collapse model type modification of the nonrelativistic Schr\"odinger equation.
These fluctuations are the sought for source of randomness.
One does not understand TD well enough to uniquely predict the modified theory. In particular one still does not have a proof of the origin of Born probability rule in TD, but TD is perhaps the only theory to date, apart from gravity, which provides a fundamental explanation for randomness, by way of the statistical fluctuations. The collapse models, which are highly successful phenomenologically, are one possible modification admitted by TD.
The modification, ignorable for microscopic objects but significant for large objects, solves the quantum measurement problem and leads to emergent classical behavior in macroscopic systems. The fluctuations of the conserved charge about its equilibrium value carry crucial information about the arbitrary commutation relations amongst the configuration variables and their momenta in the underlying TD.
Coming back to collapse models, another of their limitations is that they are non-relativistic. Various attempts to construct relativistic collapse models face difficulties, a feature shared also by Bohmian mechanics. Perhaps this is an indicator that collapse may not be compatible with special relativity, especially in the light of quantum non-locality related issues which we discuss in a subsequent section below.
We take this occasion to mention that macroscopic quantum states such as superconductors and Bose-Einstein condensates, which are made from superposition of internal degrees of freedom, do not invalidate collapse models. The constraints on the rate constant $\lambda$ from such systems are rather weak.
We conclude this section by noting that important theoretical and experimental progress is currently being made on the quantum measurement problem, and on removing this aspect of the dependence of the theory on its classical limit. We can expect some exciting developments in this problem in the coming decade or so.
\section{The problem of time in quantum theory}
\label{sec:3}
The time in quantum theory is part of a classical spacetime geometry, which geometry is produced by macroscopic bodies, which in turn are a limiting case of quantum objects, whose evolution is described with respect to this very time! It is evident that in order to avoid this self-reference there ought to exist an equivalent reformulation of quantum theory, which does not refer to classical time. This problem is no less severe than the measurement problem, but somehow it gets far less attention, if any at all.
In searching for such a reformulation we are guided by the assumption that such a reformulation should also throw light on the quantum measurement problem. After all both these problems arise from the dependence
of quantum theory on its classical limit, and a common explanation is not implausible. We are also motivated by the fact that Trace Dynamics already seeks to obtain quantum theory, and its stochastic nonlinear modification, from underlying deeper principles, albeit while retaining the classical structure of spacetime. From our point of view however, as expressed above, the dependence of quantum theory on classical time seems to be a limitation, and we have made preliminary attempts to extend TD to remove the dependence on classical time. This is still work in progress and we summarize below what has been understood so far ~\cite{Singh:2012,Lochan-Singh:2011,Lochan:2012}.
To achieve a formulation of quantum theory without classical time, we first generalized Trace Dynamics so as to make space-time coordinates also into operators. Associated with every degree of freedom there now are coordinate operators $(\hat{t}, \hat{\bf x})$ with arbitrary commutation relations amongst them. From these we construct a Lorentz invariant line-element $d\hat{s}^2$, and we define the important notion of Trace time $s$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = Tr d\hat{s}^2 \equiv Tr[d\hat{t}^2 - d\hat{x}^2 - d\hat{y}^2 - d\hat{z}^2]
\label{nsr}
\end{equation}
A Poincar\'e invariant dynamics is constructed, in analogy with ordinary special relativity, and in analogy with TD, but with the difference that evolution is now defined with respect to trace time $s$. The theory, as before, admits a conserved Adler-Millard charge, and the degrees of freedom now involve bosonic and fermionic components of space-time operators as well. Because the space-time operators have arbitrary commutation relations, there is now no point structure or light-cone structure, nor a notion of causality, although the line-element is Lorentz invariant.
From this generalized TD, we constructed its equilibrium statistical thermodynamics, as before. The equipartition of the Adler-Millard charge results in the emergence of a generalized quantum dynamics [GQD] in which evolution is with respect to the trace time $s$, and the thermally averaged space-time operators $(\hat{t}, \hat{\bf x})$ are now a subset of the configuration variables of the system. It is significant that these averaged operators commute with each other. This is the originally sought after reformulation of quantum theory which does not refer to classical time. In the non-relativistic limit we recover the generalized
Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}
i\hbar \frac{d\Psi(s)}{ds} = H\Psi (s)
\label{gqd}
\end{equation}
To go beyond special relativity, one must invoke an operator structure for the spacetime metric. Here the program runs into difficulties. It has been argued by Adler that the metric must retain its classical [non-operator] structure in TD. If a way can be found around this, we expect the development to proceed along the following lines.
To demonstrate the equivalence of the reformulation [GQD] with standard quantum theory, one must first explain how the classical Universe, with its classical matter fields and ordinary space-time, emerges from the GQD in the macroscopic approximation. Like in TD, one would next allow for inclusion of stochastic fluctuations of the Adler-Millard charge, in the Ward identity. This should result in a non-linear stochastic Schr\"odinger equation, but now with important additional consequences. One considers the situation where matter starts to form macroscopic clumps (as for example in the very early universe, right after the Big Bang). These stochastic fluctuations become increasingly significant as the number of degrees of freedom in the clumping system increases. As in collapse models, these fluctuations result in macroscopic objects being localized, but now not only in space, but in time as well! This means that the time operator associated with every object becomes classical (i.e. it takes the form: a $c$-number times a unit matrix).
The localization of macroscopic objects is thus accompanied by the emergence of a classical space-time. This is in accordance with the Einstein hole argument: classical matter fields and the metric they produce are required to give physical meaning to the point structure of spacetime. If, and only if, the Universe is dominated by macroscopic objects, as is the case in today's Universe, can one also talk of the existence of a classical space-time. When this happens, the trace proper time $s$ can be identified with classical proper time. After the Universe reaches this classical state, it sustains this state, because of the continuous action of stochastic fluctuations on macroscopic objects, thereby simultaneously achieving the existence of a classical space-time geometry. Since the underlying generalized TD is Lorentz invariant, the emergent classical space-time is locally Lorentz invariant too. However there is a key difference: unlike in the underlying theory, now the light-cone structure, and causality, are emergent features, because the space-time coordinates have become $c$-numbers now.
Irrespective of this pre-existing classical spacetime background, a microscopic system in the laboratory is described at a fundamental level in terms of its own non-commutative space-time (\ref{nsr}), via the generalized TD associated with it. Subsequent to coarse-graining, this results in the system's GQD (\ref{gqd}) with its trace time. If we assume that stochastic fluctuations can be ignored, this GQD has commuting $\hat t$ and $\hat {\bf x}$ operators. These, because of their commutativity, can be mapped to the $c$-number $t$ and ${\bf x}$ coordinates of the pre-existing classical universe, and trace time can then be mapped to ordinary proper time. This is hence a mapping to ordinary special relativity, and one recovers standard relativistic quantum mechanics in this way, as well as its non-relativistic limit. If this program can be fully implemented, it will establish as to how standard quantum theory is recovered from the reformulation which does not depend on classical time.
Thus in our scenario the problem of time and the problem of measurement are related to each other. If one starts from a formulation of quantum theory which does not have classical time, then, in order to recover classical time and spacetime geometry from it, one must also recover from this formulation the macroscopic limit of matter fields. This is because classical geometry and classical matter fields go hand in hand. And to recover the classical limit for macroscopic objects is the same thing as solving the measurement problem. Because the latter problem can be restated as: why are macroscopic objects not found in superposition of position states? The measurement problem is a subset of the larger question: how does the classical structure of spacetime and matter emerge from an underlying quantum theory of spacetime and matter?
\section{Quantum non-locality and space-time structure}
\label{sec:4}
The essence of the EPR paradox is that measurement on one part of a quantum system instantaneously influences another part of the same (correlated) quantum system, even if the two sub-systems are
space-like separated. To Einstein, this suggested that quantum theory is incomplete.
However, experimental measurements on entangled quantum states indeed demonstrate non-local correlations and indeed suggest the existence of an acausal action at a distance across space-like separated regions. This has been confirmed by increasingly precise loophole free tests of violation of Bell's inequalities by quantum systems. Although such correlations cannot be used for superluminal signaling, the acausal nature of the influence suggests the possibility of a conflict with special relativity and Lorentz covariance. This so-called spooky action at a distance has been debated extensively, but numerous investigations over decades have not provided a satisfactory resolution of the issue. On the other hand, a remarkable experiment shows that even if one assumes that the influence travels causally in a hypothetical privileged frame of reference, its speed would have be at least four orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. That in itself could lead to problems with special relativity. Furthermore, we have seen above that attempts to construct relativistic versions of collapse models run into difficulties. To us this is possibly a signal that wave function collapse is not compatible with classical spacetime structure [light-cones, and causality].
A possible resolution might come from the underlying noncommutative structure of spacetime that we have proposed, and which was discussed above, in the context of the problem of time. It may well be that trying to describe collapse from the viewpoint of ordinary spacetime is not the right thing to do, when one goes over from the absolute Newton time of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, to the relative time of special relativity ~\cite{Bera:2016}. Collapse is perceived as instantaneous in terms of ordinary time, but there is nothing to say that this is the correct time to use. We have to pay heed that this classical time is external to quantum theory.
Let us go back to the Generalized Quantum Dynamics [GQD] where evolution of the quantum system is described with respect to trace time $s$. Before the measurement takes place, the stochastic fluctuations of the Adler-Millard charge can be neglected for the quantum system [since it is microscopic], and as we observed above, its GQD can be mapped to standard quantum theory. However, when the measurement is done, the collapse inducing stochastic fluctuations in the space-time operators $\hat{t}, \hat{\bf x}$ associated with the quantum system become significant. These operators now carry information about the arbitrary commutation relations of the underlying generalized TD and they no longer commute with each other. This implies that they cannot be mapped to the ordinary space-time coordinates of special relativity. Here, simultaneity can only be defined with respect to the trace time $s$, and there is no special relativistic theory of wave function collapse. In this picture, collapse and the so-called non-local quantum correlation takes place only in the non-commutative space-time (\ref{nsr}), which lacks point structure, lacks light-cone structure, and is also devoid of the notion of distance. Therefore one can only say that collapse takes place at a particular trace time, which is Lorentz invariant, and it is not physically meaningful to talk of an influence that has travelled, nor should one call the correlation non-local. In this picture the wave function does not know distance - it just is. We once again see that getting rid of classical spacetime from quantum theory removes another one of its peculiarity, the so-called spooky action at a distance.
If, as is conventionally done, one tries to view and describe the measurement on the entangled quantum state from the view-point of the Minkowski space-time of special relativity, the process inevitably appears acausal and non-local. However, such a description should not be considered valid, because there is no map from the fluctuating and noncommuting
${\hat t}, \hat{\bf x}$ operators to the commuting $t$ and ${\bf x}$ coordinates of ordinary special relativity. No such map exists in the non-relativistic case either. However, in the non-relativistic case, because there is an absolute time, it becomes possible to model the fluctuations as a stochastic field on a given space-time background, as is done in collapse models, and collapse is instantaneous in this absolute time; however it does not violate causality.
We see that while on the one hand the problem of time is related to the measurement problem, on the other hand, the resolution of the time problem can alleviate the mysterious nature of quantum non-locality. It will be interesting to investigate if one can make an experimental proposal to verify if noncommutative spacetime is indeed the way to understand the spooky action at a distance.
Undoubtedly, much more work needs to be done, to put the ideas of the present and the previous section on a firm footing.
\section{Implications for a quantum theory of gravity?}
\label{sec:5}
The three problems that we have discussed here could all be called a conflict between quantum theory and general relativity. The measurement problem has to do with the classical [as opposed to quantum] nature of macroscopic objects. These objects are intimately tied up with spacetime geometry through the laws of general relativity. To the extent that quantum theory does not explain the properties of macroscopic objects, it maybe said to be in conflict with general relativity. The problem of time is a direct conflict of course, because quantum objects do not produce a classical spacetime geometry. And also, quantum non-locality does not seem consistent with classical spacetime structure.
Given all this, should we aim to construct a quantum theory of gravity by `quantizing' classical general relativity? It seems rather unnatural to do so. It is a fine thing to quantize other fundamental forces, because they take spacetime structure as given, and because they do not face the kind of conflict that gravity faces with quantum theory. By quantizing general relativity, we seem to violate the rules of the game. There is this classical spacetime sructure whose existence is pre-assumed while writing down the quantum rules: how can these rules then be applied to that very structure? It does not seem a logical thing to do, and there is no guarantee that the correct quantum theory of gravity will emerge in this way.
Rather, we see pressing reasons - measurement problem, time problem, non-locality - which suggest the need to modify both quantum theory and spacetime structure, when one starts trying to resolve the conflict between classical and quantum. We should not quantize gravity; rather there is an underlying theory - perhaps a combination of noncommutative geometry and Trace Dynamics as suggested here - or something else, from which both quantum theory and gravitation are emergent. Gravitation emerges in the full classical limit, when both matter and gravity are treated classically. Quantum theory emerges, upon coarse graining the underlying theory, when only the gravity sector is treated classically. It maybe that this underlying theory is arrived at by demanding that physical laws be covariant under general coordinate transformations of
non-commuting coordinates, thus bringing together the element of general covariance from relativity, and the element of noncommutativity from quantum theory. Given the nonlinearity of gravitation, it seems rather unlikely that the principle of quantum linear superposition can survive such a union!
\bigskip
\begin{acknowledgement}
It is my pleasure to thank my collaborators on these topics - Angelo Bassi, Hendrik Ulbricht, Saikat Ghosh, Shreya Banerjee, Srimanta Banerjee, Sayantani Bera, Suratna Das, Sandro Donadi, Suman Ghosh, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Priyanka Giri, Navya Gupta, Bhawna Motwani, Ravi Mohan and Anushrut Sharma.
\end{acknowledgement}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{spphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
All graphs in this paper are considered to be finite and simple.
We refer the reader to \cite{bondy2008} for basic terminology and
notation. In particular, we use $P_k$ and $C_k$ to denote the path
and cycle on $k$ vertices, respectively. A graph is a {\em cograph}
if it is $P_4$-free.
A {\em polar partition} of a graph $G$ is a partition of
the vertices of $G$ into parts $A$ and $B$ in such a
way that the subgraph induced by $A$ is a complete
multipartite graph and the subgraph induced by $B$
is a disjoint union of cliques, with no other edges. A
graph $G$ is {\em polar}, if it admits a polar partition,
and is $(s,k)${\em -polar} if it admits a polar partition
$(A,B)$ in which $A$ has at most $s$ parts and $B$
at most $k$ parts. In particular, when $s=k$, we use
the term $k${\em -polar partition} and $k${\em -polar
graph}. Note that $1$-polar graphs are precisely
split graphs. It was shown by Foldes and Hammer
\cite{foldesSECGTC} that a graph is split if and only
if it does not contain $2K_2, C_4$ or $C_5$ as an
induced subgraph; as a consequence, testing
whether a given graph is split can be done in
polynomial time.
The concept of a matrix partition unifies many
interesting graph partition problems, including
$(s,k)$-partition. Given a symmetric $n \times n$
matrix $M$, with entries in $\{ 0, 1, \ast \}$, an
$M$-{\em partition} of a graph $G$ is a
partition\footnote{As it is usual in graph theory,
we do not require every part of the partition to
be non-empty.} $(V_1, \dots, V_n)$ of $V(G)$
such that, for every $i, j \in \{ 1, \dots, n \}$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $V_i$ is completely adjacent to
$V_j$ if $M_{ij} = 1$,
\item $V_i$ is completely non-adjacent
to $V_j$ if $M_{ij} = 0$,
\item There are no restrictions if $M_{ij}
= \ast$.
\end{itemize}
It follows from the definition that, in particular, if
$M_{ii} = 0$ ($M_{ii} = 1$), then $V_i$ is a stable
set ($V_i$ is a clique). The $M$-{\em partition
problem} asks whether or not an input graph $G$
admits an $M$-partition. It is easy to verify that,
e.g., the $k$-colouring and split partition problems
are matrix partition problems. See \cite{survey} for
a survey on the subject. It is also easy to see that an
$(s,k)$-partition of $G$ is a matrix partition in which
the matrix $M$ has $s+k$ rows and columns, the
principal submatrix induced by the first $s$ rows
is obtained from an identity matrix by exchanging
$0$'s and $1$'s, the principal submatrix induced
by the last $k$ rows is an identity matrix, and all
other entries are $\ast$. Therefore, it follows
from \cite{federSIAMJDM16} (as explicitely
observed in \cite{ekimDAM156}), that for any
fixed $s$ and $k$, the class of $(s,k)$-polar
graphs can be recognized in polynomial time.
On the other hand, it was shown by Chernyak and
Chernyak \cite{chernyakDM62} that the recognition
of general polar graphs is $\mathcal{NP}$-complete.
Interestingly, the class of polar graphs that admit an
$(s,k)$-partition with $s=1$ or $k=1$ (sometimes
called {\em monopolar graphs}), is also
$\mathcal{NP}$-complete to recognize (as proved
by Farrugia \cite{farrugiaEJC11}). It was shown
recently that this remains true even in severely
restricted graph classes, for instance Le and
Nevries \cite{leTCS528} have shown that both
$\mathcal{NP}$-completeness results hold for
triangle-free planar graphs of maximum degree $3$.
Notice that having an $M$-partition is a hereditary
property, and hence, the family of $M$-partitionable
graphs admits a characterization in terms of forbidden
induced subgraphs. A minimal $M${\em -obstruction}
is a graph which does not admit an $M$-partition, but
such that every proper induced subgraph does.
Feder, Hell and Hochst\"attler proved in \cite{feder2006}
that, for any matrix $M$, there are only finitely many
minimal $M$-obstructions which are cographs. (This
can also be derived from \cite{damaschkeJGT14}.) In
other words, when we restrict the $M$-partition problem
to the class of cographs, there are only finitely minimal
$M$-obstructions, and, consequently, any $M$-partition
problem is solvable in polynomial time for cographs.
Thus, in particular, for any $s$ and $k$, there are only
finitely many minimal $(s,k)$-polar obstructions that
are cographs. For $s=k=1$, an explicit list follows from
the result of Foldes and Hammer mentioned above:
only $2K_2$ and its complement ($C_4$) are cograph
minimal $1$-polar obstructions. In this paper we
provide a compact description of cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions. We believe the ideas generated
might yield at least some kind of description of all cograph
minimal $(s,k)$-polar obstructions, and thus for a fairly
wide class of matrix partition problems. Moreover,
we believe that knowing the minimal obstructions
might lead to a certifying algorithm for the recognition
of these graphs.
It is worth noticing that Ekim, Mahadev and de Werra
proved in \cite{ekimDAM156} that it is possible to
recognize polar and monopolar graphs in polynomial
time in the class of cographs. Moreover, they proved
that there are only finitely many cograph minimal polar
obstructions (eight), and cograph minimal monopolar
obstructions (eighteen). In the same paper, they
propose the problem of finding a characterization of
$2$-polar cographs by forbidden subgraphs as a
natural continuation of their work.
We will denote the complement of $G$ by $\overline{G}$.
Cographs can be characterized as those graphs $G$
such that they are either trivial, or one of $G$ or
$\overline{G}$ is disconnected, and its components
are cographs. It follows from this characterization that if
$G$ is a cograph, then so is $\overline{G}$. Observe
that $G$ is a $k$-polar cograph if and only if
$\overline{G}$ is a $k$-polar cograph as well. Therefore,
if $H$ is a cograph that is a minimal $k$-polar obstruction
then so is $\overline{H}$. Hence, we can focus our
attention in disconnected cograph minimal $k$-polar
obstructions $H$. We denote the components of $H$
by $B_1, \dots, B_m$. We say that a component of
$H$ is {\em trivial} or an {\em isolated vertex} if it is
isomorphic to $K_1$.
Given graphs $G$ and $H$, the disjoint union of $G$
and $H$ is denoted by $G + H$, and the join of $G$
and $H$ is denoted by $G \oplus H$.
Every pair of non-adjacent vertices of a $C_4$ are
called {\em antipodal} vertices. A {\em wheel} $W_k$
is a $C_k$ together with a universal vertex.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section \ref{sec:Prelim}, we will prove some basic
facts on the structure of $k$-polar obstructions for
any positive integer $k$. In Section \ref{sec:Switch}
we will introduce an operation that preserves the
$2$-polarity of a graph, proving some of its basic
properties. Section \ref{sec:Main} is devoted to
prove our main result, exhibiting the complete
list of cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:Conclusions}, we
present our conclusions and future lines of
research.
\section{Preliminar results}\label{sec:Prelim}
A minimal $k$-polar obstruction is {\em extremal}
if it has exactly $(k+1)^2$ vertices; the reason for
this name will be clear from Theorem \ref{upper} in
Section \ref{sec:Main}. Our first lemma
states the possible number of components of a
minimal $k$-obstruction, as well as some
general facts about their structure.
There is one argument that we will be using in many
of our proofs. Let $H$ be a minimal $k$-polar
obstruction, and let $v$ be a vertex in $H$. Thus,
$H - v$ has a $k$-polar partition $(V_1, \dots, V_{2k})$.
We will assume that $A = \bigcup_{i=1}^k V_i$ induces a
multipartite graph with parts $V_1, \dots, V_k$.
Notice that, if at least two of these parts are
non-empty, then all the vertices in $A$ are contained
in a single component of $H - v$. Otherwise, either
$A$ is empty, or only one of its parts is non-empty,
but, since these two cases can be usually handled
in a very similar way, we will often assume without loss
of generality that one of these parts is non-empty.
\begin{lemma} \label{kp-genres}
Let $H$ be a minimal $k$-polar obstruction. The following
statements are true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H$ has at most $k+2$ components;
\item $H$ has at least one non trivial component;
\item $H$ has at most $k+1$ trivial components;
\item If $H$ has at least one trivial component, then $H$ has at
most one non-complete component.
\item If $H$ is not an extremal minimal $k$-polar obstruction, then every complete component is isomorphic to $K_1$ or $K_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For {\em 1.}, suppose, by contradiction, that $H$ has more than $k+2$
components. If there are isolated vertices in $H$, consider $v$, one
of them. Thus, $H-v$ has at least $k+2$ components, and by the
minimality of $H$, it has a $k$-polar partition $P = (V_1, \dots, V_{2k})$.
If there is a unique non empty stable set in this partition, then we can
assume without loss of generality that this set is $V_1$, and hence,
$(V_1 \cup \{ v \}, V_2, \dots, V_{2k})$ is a $k$-polar partition of $H$,
a contradiction. Thus, the subgraph induced by $\bigcup_{i=1}^k V_i$
is connected, and hence contained in a single component of $H-v$.
But in this case, the rest of the $k+1$ components should be covered
by $k$ cliques, which is impossible.
If there are no isolated vertices in $H$, consider any vertex $v$ of
$H$. Let $P = (V_1,\ldots, V_{2k})$ be a $k$-polar partition of $H-v$.
Note that $H-v$ has at least $k + 3$ components of which at least
$k+2$ are not trivial. Hence, $(H-v)-\bigcup_{i=1}^k V_i$ has at
least $k+2$ components that should be covered by $k$ cliques, a
contradiction.
Item {\em 2.} follows from the fact the any empty graph is trivially $k$-polar. Item {\em 3} follows from {\em 1.} and {\em 2}.
For {\em 4.}, suppose that $H$ has one trivial component and let
$v$ be an isolated vertex of $H$. By contradiction, suppose that
$B_1$ and $B_2$ are two non-complete components of $H$.
Since a $k$-polar partition $P= (V_1,\ldots, V_{2k})$ of $H-v$
has necessarily two non-empty stable sets (otherwise, if we add
$v$ to the unique non-empty stable set of $P$, or to any stable set
of $P$ if all of them are empty, we would obtain a $k$-partition of
$H$, a contradiction), and $B_1$ and $B_2$ cannot be covered
only by cliques, $\bigcup_{i=1}^k V_i$ belongs to one of $B_1$ or
$B_2$, let us say, $B_1$. Now, $B_2$ cannot be covered only by
cliques, since it is connected. But it also has no vertex belonging to
$V_1,\ldots, V_k$. By consequence, $H-v$ has no $k$-polar
partition, a contradiction.
For {\em 5.}, let $B_1$ be any complete component with more than
$2$ vertices. Let $v$ be any vertex of $B_1$ and let $P = (V_1,
\dots, V_{2k})$ be a $k$-polar partition of $H - v$. If $V(B_1 - v)
\cap V_i \ne \varnothing$ for some $i \in \{ k+1,\ldots, 2k \}$, then
$(V_1, \ldots, V_i \cup \{ v \}, \ldots, V_{2k})$ is a $k$-partition for $H$,
contradicting $H$ to be a minimal obstruction. Thus, $V(B_1 - v) =
\bigcup_{i=1}^k V_i$, with $V_i \ne \varnothing$ for $1 \le i \le k$,
else, we could place $v$ in one of the empty stable sets to obtain a
$k$-polar partition of $H$, a contradiction. Now, all the other
components of $H$ have to be complete, and cannot have less
than $k+1$ vertices, otherwise by covering $B_1$ by a clique and
any smaller clique by $k$ completely adjacent stable sets would
lead to a $k$-partition of $H$, a contradiction. As a conclusion,
every other component is a complete graph with at least $k+1$
vertices and there are at least $k+1$ components, otherwise $H$
would be $k$-polar. Therefore $H$ is the extremal $k$-polar
obstruction $(k+1)K_{k+1}$.
\end{proof}
The following Lemma describes the family of graphs with exactly
$k+2$ components and at least one of them being trivial.
\begin{lemma} \label{k+2comp}
Let $\ell$ be an integer such that $1 \le
\ell \le k+1$. Up to isomorphism, there
is exactly one minimal $k$-polar
obstruction with $k+2$ components
and precisely $\ell$ of them trivial, and it
is isomorphic to
$$\ell K_1 + (k-\ell+1) K_2 + K_{\ell, \ell}.$$
Moreover, every minimal $k$-polar
obstruction with $k+2$ components
has at least one trivial component.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider a $k$-polar minimal
obstruction $H$ satisfying the
requirements of the Lemma. Let $v$
be an isolated vertex of $H$. The
graph $H-v$ admits a $k$-polar partition
$P=(V_1, \dots, V_{2k})$, such that, at least
two of the stable sets are non-empty.
Otherwise, if we add $v$ to the only
non-empty stable set of $P$ (if any,
otherwise place $v$ in $V_1$),
then the resulting partition would be a
$k$-polar partition for $H$. Thus, all
the stable sets of $P$ are contained in
the same component of $H-v$. Now,
the remaining $k$ components of $H-v$
should be covered by the $k$ cliques
in $P$. But this means that the
component containing the stable sets
of $P$ is a complete multipartite graph.
Thus, $H$ is the disjoint union of
$\ell K_1$, $(k-\ell+1)$ non-trivial
cliques, and a complete $m$-partite
graph $K$, with $2 \le m \le k$.
Now, let $u$ be a vertex in $K$.
Again, $H-u$ has a $k$-polar
partition $P' = (W_1, \dots, W_{2k})$.
Since $H-u$ has at least $k+2$
components, and the cliques of
$P'$ can cover at most $k$ different
components, it must be the case
that only one of the stable sets
of $P'$ is non-empty, say $W_1$,
and contains all the isolated
vertices of $H$. Hence, $K
- W_1$ must be a disjoint union
of complete graphs, because it
should be covered by the cliques
of $P'$. But this means that
$K-W_1$ is an independent set
with at most $k - (k - \ell + 1) =
\ell - 1$ vertices. Thus, $K$ is
a complete bipartite graph.
It is easy to observe that if
$K$ is smaller than $K_{\ell,
\ell}$, then $H$ admits a $k$-polar
partition. Finally, it follows from
Lemma \ref{kp-genres} that the
remaining $(k-\ell+1)$ non-trivial
complete components are copies
of $K_2$.
For the final statement, it is easy
to verify that $K_1 + (k+1) K_2$
is a minimal $k$-polar obstruction.
Thus, any graph with $k+2$
non-trivial components properly
contains this obstruction.
\end{proof}
\section{Switching and partial complementation} \label{sec:Switch}
As we have mentioned in the introduction, $k$-polar
cographs are a very convenient class of $(k,l)$-polar
cographs in terms of forbidden induced subgraph
characterization; in order to find all the cograph minimal
$k$-polar obstructions, it suffices to find only the
disconnected ones. The family of $2$-polar cographs
enjoys an additional property not shared by $k$-polar
cographs with $k > 2$. Specifically, there are two very
natural operations preserving the $2$-polarity of a graph,
which lead to a much more compact list of minimal
obstructions, cf. Theorem \ref{reducedObs}.
Given a graph $H$ and one of its vertices $v$, a graph
$H'$ can be obtained from $H$ by a {\em switching} on
$v$, that is, by making $N_{H'}(v) = V(H) - N_{H}(v)$,
while the rest of the graph remains unaltered. A {\em
partial complement} of $H$ is a graph obtained by
splitting the components of $H$ into two graphs, $H'$
and $H''$, and taking separately the complement of
each of them. Notice that if $H$ is connected, then
one of $H'$ or $H''$ is empty, and the other one is
$H$; in this case, the partial complement coincides
with the complement. Observe that a disconnected
graph $H$ with three or more components has several
different ways of taking partial complementation, but,
as long as both $H'$ and $H''$ are non-empty the
resulting graph will always be disconnected.
Notice that partial complementation can be defined
in terms of switching and regular complementation in
the following way. Consider a disconnected graph
$H$, and split its components into two graphs $H'$
and $H''$. Now, perform switches on every vertex of
$H'$ (this will leave us with a graph which has the
same edges as $H$, plus all the edges between $H'$
and $H''$), and then, take the complement of the
resulting graph. Clearly, this procedure yields the
same result as taking a partial complement with
$H'$ and $H''$.
\begin{lemma} \label{switch-pc}
If $H$ is a $2$-polar graph, and $v$ is a vertex in
$H$, then the graph obtained from $H$ by switching
on $v$ is also $2$-polar. If additionally $H$ is a
disconnected cograph, then any partial complement
of $H$ is again a disconnected $2$-polar cograph.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $(V_1, V_2, V_3, V_4)$ be a $2$-polar partition
of $H$. We will assume that $v \in V_1$, the
remaining cases can be dealt similarly. Since
$V_1 \cup V_2$ induces a complete bipartite graph
(where $V_2$ is possibly empty), $v$ is adjacent
to every vertex in $V_2$ and non-adjacent to every
vertex in $V_1$. Thus, after switching on $v$, it
is clear that $(V_1 \setminus \{ v \}, V_2 \cup \{ v \},
V_3, V_4)$ is a $2$-polar partition of the resulting
graph.
For the second statement, split the components of
$H$ into $H'$ and $H''$. From the remark previous
to this lemma, and the previous paragraph, it is clear
that taking the partial complement of $H$ with $H'$
and $H''$ yields a $2$-polar graph. Since $H$ is
a cograph, $H'$ and $H''$ are also cographs, as well
as their complements. Thus, the partial complement
of $H$ is a disjoint union of cographs, which is again
a disconnected cograph.
\end{proof}
Since in general switching does not preserve the
property of being a cograph, but partial complementation
does, we will restrict ourselves to the use of the latter.
It follows from Lemma \ref{switch-pc} that if $H$ is a
cograph minimal $2$-polar obstruction, then any
partial complement of $H$ is also a cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstruction. Since partial complements are
reversible, if we define two graphs to be related if one
can be obtained by a sequence of partial
complementations from the other, then this defines
an equivalence relation. In particular, it follows by
the previous remark that the family of cograph
minimal $2$-polar obstructions admits a partition into
equivalence classes under this relation.
Let $\mathcal{H}_7, \mathcal{H}_{8A}, \mathcal{H}_{8B}$
and $\mathcal{H}_9$ be the families of graphs depicted
in Figures \ref{(2,2)-obs7}, \ref{(2,2)-obs9}, \ref{(2,2)-obs8A},
and \ref{(2,2)-obs8B}, respectively, and
together with their respective complements.
\begin{lemma} \label{closure}
The families $\mathcal{H}_7, \mathcal{H}_{8A},
\mathcal{H}_{8B}$ and $\mathcal{H}_9$ are families
of cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions closed
under partial complementation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is a simple exercise to verify that each of the depicted
graphs is a cograph minimal $2$-polar cograph, and,
although it takes a while, it is simple as well to verify
that every possible partial complement of every member
of each of the families, belongs again to the same family.
We will mention how to obtain the rest of the disconnected
members of $\mathcal{H}_7$ by a sequence of partial
complementations from $F_1$, the rest of the families
can be dealt in a similar way.
Recall that $F_1$ is isomorphic to $3K_2 + K_1$.
Notice that $F_2$ is isomorphic to $\overline{2K_2}
+ \overline{K_2 + K_1}$, $F_5$ is isomorphic to
$\overline{3K_2} + K_1$, and $F_4$ is isomorphic
to $\overline{K_2} + \overline{2K_2 + K_1}$. Thus,
$F_2, F_4$ and $F_5$ can be obtained from $F_1$
by a single partial complementation. Now, observe
that the $\overline{K_2}$ in $F_4$ is just a $2K_1$,
so we can get $F_3$ as $\overline{\overline{2K_1 +
K_1} + K_1} + K_1$.
\end{proof}
The following simple observation will be very
useful in the next section. If $H$ is a minimal
$(s,k)$-polar obstruction, then it should contain
a minimal $(n,m)$-polar obstruction for every
$n \le s$ and every $m \le k$. Otherwise $H$
would admit an $(n,m)$-polar partition, which
is also an $(s,k)$-polar partition. In particular,
each minimal $2$-polar obstruction should
contain a polar split obstruction (a $2K_2$ or
a $C_4$), a minimal $(2,1)$-polar cograph
obstruction or a minimal $(1,2)$-polar cograph
obstruction. Hence, it will be useful to reproduce,
in Figure \ref{(2,1)-obs}, the complete list of
cograph minimal $(2,1)$-polar obstructions
obtained by Bravo et al. in \cite{bravo}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure1}
\caption{Cograph $(2,1)$-polar minimal obstructions.} \label{(2,1)-obs}
\end{figure}
\section{$2$-polar cographs}\label{sec:Main}
The following theorem, giving an upper bound
on the number of vertices of a cograph minimal
$k$-polar obstruction, is implicitely proved in
\cite{feder2006} by Feder, Hell and
Hochst\"attler.
\begin{theorem} \label{upper}
Let $H$ be a cograph minimal $(s,k)$-polar obstruction.
Then, $H$ has at most $(s+1)(k+1)$ vertices.
\end{theorem}
It follows from Theorem \ref{upper} that cograph
minimal $k$-polar obstructions have at most
$(k+1)^2$ vertices, and thus, obstructions attaining
this upper bound are called extremal. In particular,
cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions have at
most nine vertices. The following lemma gives a
lower bound on the number of vertices of a minimal
$2$-polar obstruction (not necessarily a cograph),
as well as a structural property about the minimal
obstructions attaining this bound.
\begin{lemma} \label{7v-lemma}
Let $H$ be a minimal $2$-polar obstruction.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $H$ has at least seven vertices.
\item If $H$ has seven vertices and three
connected components, then at least
one of them is an isolated vertex.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a graph on at most $6$ vertices.
If $H$ is a split graph, then it is $2$-polar.
So, suppose that $H$ contains one of the
minimal split obstructions as an induced
subgraph. If $H$ contains an induced
$C_5$ and, if (provided it exists) the
remaining vertex is adjacent to two of its
consecutive vertices, then we can find a
$(2,1)$-polar partition of $H$, consisting of
a $P_3$ and a $K_3$. On the other hand, if
the remaining vertex is non-adjacent to two
of its consecutive vertices, we can also find a
$2$-polar partition consisting of a $P_3$, a
$K_1$ and a $K_2$. Now suppose that $H$
contains an induced $C_4$ and the
remaining two vertices, if they exist, are
mutually adjacent. Then we can find a
$(2,1)$-polar partition consisting in the
$C_4$ and a $K_2$. On the other hand, if
the two remaining vertices are non-adjacent,
we can find a $2$-polar partition consisting
of the $C_4$ and $2K_1$. The case when
$H$ contains an induced $2K_2$ is
analogous to the previous one.
For the second statement, let $H$ be a graph
on $7$ vertices with three connected components
and without isolated vertices. It is easy to observe
that two components of $H$ are $K_2$ and the
remaining one is either $P_3$ or $K_3$. In
either case, it is immediate to verify that $H$
admits a $2$-polar partition.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[]{Figure2}
\caption{Cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions on $7$ vertices.} \label{(2,2)-obs7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{2-obs7}
The disconnected cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions on $7$ vertices are
exactly $F_1, \dots, F_5$, see Figure
\ref{(2,2)-obs7}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a cograph minimal $2$-polar
obstruction on $7$ vertices. If $H$ has four
components, then, according to Lemma
\ref{k+2comp}, it must be $F_1$.
It follows from Lemma \ref{closure} that if
$H$ can be transformed into a graph
with four components through a sequence
of partial complementations, then it is one
of $F_i$ for $i \in \{ 1, \dots, 5 \}$. So, let
us suppose that none of the graphs that
can be obtained from $H$ by partial
complementations has more than three
components. Notice that any graph with
two components can be transformed into
a graph with at least three components
using partial complementation. Thus, let
us suppose without loss of generality that
$H$ itself has three components $B_1,
B_2, B_3$. Then, by Lemma \ref{7v-lemma},
$H$ has an isolated vertex. Let us suppose
that $B_3$ is the trivial component of $H$.
By taking the partial complementation
$\overline{B_3} + \overline{B_1 + B_2}$,
we obtain a graph with two components,
one of them being an isolated vertex.
Again, let us suppose that $H$ is such
graph.
It is clear that $H$ contains an induced
copy of $E_i$ for some $i \in \{ 1, \dots,
9 \}$ (see Figure \ref{(2,1)-obs}). Since
$H$ has two components, one of which
is an isolated vertex, $i \notin \{ 2, 8, 9 \}$.
If $i = 4$, then $G$ is $F_5$. If $i = 5$,
then $H$ is $(1,2)$-polar: take the middle
non-adjacent vertices of $E_5$ together
with the isolated vertex in a stable set, and
a $2K_2$.
If $i = 3$, since $H$ has only two
components and $E_3$ has three
components, then the vertex of $H$
which is not in the copy of $E_3$
should be adjacent to one of the
isolated vertices of $E_3$.
The resulting $K_2$, together with
the isolated vertex and the $C_4$
contained in $E_3$ conform a
$2$-polar partition of $H$,
contradicting the assumption that it is an
obstruction.
If $i = 6$, again, since $H$ has
two components, the vertex of
$H$, let us say, $x$, not in $E_6$,
should be adjacent to the
$4$-wheel contained in $E_6$.
If $x$ is adjacent to the middle
vertex of the wheel, let us say $y$,
then the resulting $K_2$, together
with the isolated vertex of $H$ and
the $C_4$ contained in $E_6$,
conform a $2$-polar partition of
$H$, a contradiction. So, $x$ must
be adjacent to some vertex in the
$C_4$, let us say $w_1$, and thus,
in order to not contain an induced
$P_4$, it should be adjacent to
a pair of antipodal vertices. If $x$
is only adjacent to a pair of
antipodal vertices, then $H$ admits
a $2$-polar partition, which is a
$K_{2,3}$ and a $2K_1$. Else, if
$x$ is adjacent all the vertices of
the $C_4$ but one, let us say
$w_2$, then $xw_1yw_2$ is an
induced $P_4$, a contradiction.
Then, $x$ is adjacent to every
vertex of the $C_4$ and so, $H$
is $F_5$.
If $i = 7$, as in the previous case,
the vertex of $H$ not in $E_7$,
let us say $x$, cannot be adjacent
to the vertex in the center of the
$C_4$, let us say, $y$. Also, we
have a case similar to the previous
one when $x$ is adjacent to only
two antipodal vertices. So $x$ is
adjacent to at least three vertices
of the $C_4$. Hence, $x$ and $y$
have at least two common
neighbors in the $C_4$. Let us call
$w_1$ the non-neighbor of $y$ in
the $C_4$. If $x$ is adjacent to $y$,
then $yw_2w_1x$, where $w_2$ is
any common neighbor of $x$ and
$y$, is an induced $P_4$,
contradiction. So, $x$ and $y$ have
the same set of neighbours in the
$C_4$. Therefore, $H$ admits a
$2$-polar partition consisting of a $P_3$,
a $K_1$ and a $K_3$, a contradiction.
Finally, if $i = 1$, there are two
new vertices besides the vertices
from $E_1$, say $u$ and $v$.
Since $G$ has two connected
components, and recalling that
there are not induced copies of
$P_4$ in $G$, it can be observed
that one of these two vertices, say
$v$, is completely adjacent to the
$2K_2$ in $E_1$. If $u$ is only
adjacent to $v$, then $G$ is $F_3$.
Otherwise, it follows from the fact
that $G$ is a cograph that $u$
should be adjacent to $v$ and the
two vertices of one of the $K_2$.
But these four vertices induce a
$K_4$, which together with the
isolated vertex and the remaining
$K_2$, conform a $2$-polar
partition of $G$, a contradiction.
Since the cases are exhaustive,
the result follows.
\end{proof}
Although it may look a bit odd, we
will deal with the cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions on $9$ vertices
before dealing with the ones on $8$
vertices. This is because we will use
the same proof strategy for both cases,
which is easier to explain in the case of
nine vertices. We consider
$H$ a cograph minimal $2$-polar
obstruction. As in the proof of Lemma
\ref{2-obs7}, we may assume that $H$ has
three components, one of which is an
isolated vertex $v$. From the minimality
of $H$, $H-v$ has a $2$-polar partition
$P$. Analyzing the cases for the parts
of $P$, it can be proved that one of the
remaining components of $H$ is a clique,
and the other one is a $(2,1)$-polar graph
which is not a split graph. Until now, we
have that one component contains an
induced copy of either $2K_2$ or $C_4$,
and there is at least one vertex in each of
the remaining components of $H$, i.e.,
six vertices are completely determined.
The rest of the proof is an analysis of
cases for the remaining vertices. Since
in the case when $H$ has nine vertices
there are three remaining vertices, it has
a more complex analysis, which actually,
``includes'' the case where there are only
to vertices remaining.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[]{Figure3}
\caption{Cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions on $9$ vertices.} \label{(2,2)-obs9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{2-obs9}
The disconnected cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions on $9$ vertices are
exactly $F_{21}, \dots, F_{24}$, see Figure
\ref{(2,2)-obs9}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a disconnected cograph
minimal $2$-polar obstruction on $9$
vertices. If $H$ can be transformed
by means of partial complementation
into a graph with four components,
then it follows from Lemma \ref{closure}
that $H$ is one of $F_{21}, \dots,
F_{24}$. Otherwise, notice that we
can obtain from $H$, through a
sequence of partial complementations,
a graph with three components, one
of which is an isolated vertex. Thus,
we may assume that $H$ has three
components $B_1, B_2, B_3$, and
$B_3$ is an isolated vertex.
Let $v$ be the isolated vertex of $H$.
It follows from the minimality of $H$
that $H-v$ has a $2$-polar partition
$P = (V_1, V_2, V_3, V_4)$. Notice
that $V_2 \ne \varnothing$, else,
$(V_1 \cup \{ v \}, V_2, V_3, V_4)$ is
a $2$-polar partition of $H$.
Analogously, $V_1 \ne \varnothing$.
Thus, $H [V_1 \cup V_2]$ is
connected, and it should be contained
in one of the two non-trivial components
of $H$, say, $B_1$. Thus, $B_2$ is
covered by one of the cliques of $P$,
without loss of generality suppose
that $V_3 = V(B_2)$. Note that $V_4
\ne \varnothing$, otherwise $(V_1,
V_2, V_3, \{ v \})$ is a $2$-polar
partition of $H$. Hence, $B_1$ is
a $(2,1)$-polar graph, which is not
a split graph, because $V_1$ and
$V_2$ are both non empty.
Suppose first that $|V_3| \ge 2$.
Since $B_1$ is not a split graph, it
should contain an induced copy of
$2K_2$ or an induced copy of $C_4$.
The former case cannot occur, since
such copy of $2K_2$ together with
two vertices in $V_3$ and the vertex
$v$ would induce a copy of $F_1$,
contradicting the minimality of $H$.
For the latter case, notice that $B_1$
has at least five vertices, because
$V_4 \ne \varnothing$. Let $u$ be
the fifth vertex of $B_1$ (not in
$C_4$). Since $G$ is a cograph,
$u$ should be adjacent to two
antipodal vertices, three vertices,
or four vertices in $C_4$. If it is
adjacent to three or four vertices,
then $H$ contains $F_7$ or $F_4$
as an induced subgraph,
respectively. In the remaining
case, if $|V_3| = 3$, then $B_1$ is
complete bipartite, and $G$ admits
a $2$-polar partition. If $|V_3| = 2$,
then there is an additional vertex
$u'$ in $B_1$. By the same
argument as above, $u'$ should
be adjacent to two antipodal
vertices of $C_4$. If $u$ and $u'$
are adjacent to the same pair of
vertices in $C_4$, and $u$ is not
adjacent to $u'$, then $B_1$ is
again a complete bipartite graph.
If $u u' \in E(G)$, then $H$
contains an induced copy of
$F_7$. Thus, $u$ and $u'$ should
be adjacent to different pairs of
vertices in $C_4$. Again, in order
for $H$ to be a cograph we need
$u$ to be adjacent to $u'$. But
now, $B_1$ is isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$.
Consider now the case $|V_3| = 1$.
Since $B_1$ is a connected cograph,
it should be a join of two smaller
cographs $T_1$ and $T_2$. If $T_i$
is a complete graph on at least two
vertices for some $1 \le i \le 2$, then
$\overline{B_1} + \overline{B_2+
B_3}$ has at least four components,
contradicting the choice of $H$. Thus,
either $T_1$ and $T_2$ both contain
an induced $P_3$, or we assume
without loss of generality that $T_1$
consists of a single vertex. In the
former case, we may assume without
loss of generality that $T_1$ is
isomorphic to $P_3$, and thus,
$\overline{B_1} + \overline{B_2
+ B_3}$ has at least four components.
In the latter case, $\overline{B_1}
+ \overline{B_2+ B_3}$ has three
components, one of them isomorphic
to $K_2$, and one of them an isolated
vertex, so we are in the case $|V_3| =
2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Figure4}
\caption{Family A of cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions on $8$ vertices.} \label{(2,2)-obs8A}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Figure5}
\caption{Family B of cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions on $8$ vertices.} \label{(2,2)-obs8B}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma} \label{2-obs8}
The disconnected cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions on $8$ vertices are
exactly $F_6, \dots, F_{20}$, see Figures
\ref{(2,2)-obs8A} and \ref{(2,2)-obs8B}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a disconnected cograph
minimal $2$-polar obstruction on $8$
vertices. If $H$ can be transformed
by means of partial complementation
into a graph with four components,
then $H$ is one of $F_{13}, \dots,
F_{20}$.
Otherwise, an argument analogous
to the one used in Lemma \ref{2-obs9}
shows that $H$ can be transformed
through a sequence of partial
complementations into $F_7$ and
hence it is one of $F_6, \dots, F_{12}$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to state our two main results.
\begin{theorem} \label{char}
There are exactly $48$ cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstructions. All the disconnected
cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions are
$F_1, \dots, F_{24}$, see Figures \ref{(2,2)-obs7},
\ref{(2,2)-obs9}, \ref{(2,2)-obs8A}, and
\ref{(2,2)-obs8B}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows directly from Lemmas \ref{2-obs7},
\ref{2-obs9}, and \ref{2-obs8}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{reducedObs}
All cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions are $F_1,
F_6, F_{13}, F_{21}$ and every graph obtained from
these by partial complementation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows directly from Theorem
\ref{char} and Lemma \ref{closure}.
\end{proof}
The existence of the partial complementation operation
substantially reduces the number of minimal obstructions
we need to consider in order to characterize $2$-polar
cographs. It would be great to find natural operations
preserving $k$-polarity for values of $k$ greater than
$2$.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:Conclusions}
We present a complete list (up to complementation)
of cograph minimal $2$-polar obstructions. As
mentioned in the introduction, it is interesting to have
this list for at least two reasons. First, now we have
a list of {\em no-certificates} in the case we would like
to obtain a certifying algorithm for recognition of
$2$-polar cographs. Second, now the complete
list of cograph minimal obstructions are known for
$(1,1)$-polarity, $(2,1)$-polarity, $(1,2)$-polarity, and
$(2,2)$-polarity. From here, some observations can
be made regarding the structure of cograph
minimal $(s,k)$-polar obstructions, e.g., it is often
the case that adding disjoint copies of $K_1$ or
$K_2$, or adding universal vertices in some
components of a cograph minimal $(s,t)$-polar
obstruction, we obtain a ``higher order'' minimal
obtruction. In fact, we were able to generalize
each of our $24$ disconnected cograph minimal
$2$-polar obstruction to a cograph minimal
$k$-polar obstruction for any positive integer $k$.
This results in $24$ families of graphs, each of
which has as members precisely a cograph
minimal $k$-polar obstruction for every $k \ge 2$.
Although even for $k = 3$ this list fails to produce
all the cograph minimal $k$-polar obstructions,
we give it here because we think it is interesting
to look at how these families grow.
\begin{lemma}
For every positive integer $k \ge 2$, the corresponding
element of each of the following families is a cograph
minimal $k$-polar obstruction.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{F}_1 = \{ K_1 + (k+1) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_2 = \{ C_4 + P_3 + (k-2) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_3 = \{ F_3 + (k-2) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_4 = \{ \overline{2 K_2 + (k-1) K_1} + k K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_5 = \{ \overline{(k+1) K_2} +(k-1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_6 = \{ 2 P_3 + (k-1) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_7 = \{ \overline{P_3 + K_2} + (k-1) K_2 + K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_8 = \{ \overline{2 P_3} + k K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_9 = \{ ((P_3 + K_2) \oplus K_1) + k K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{10} = \{ ((\overline{K_2 + (k-1) K_1} + K_2) \oplus \overline{K_2}) + (k-1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{11} = \{ (2 P_3 \oplus K_1) + (k-1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{12} = \{ (K_1 \oplus (K_1 + (2K_1 \oplus (K_2 + K_1)))) + (k-1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{13} = \{ C_4 + (k-1) K_2 + 2 K_ 1\colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{14} = \{ \overline{ K_2 + k K_1} + k K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{15} = \{ (2 K_k \oplus \overline{K_2}) + (k-1) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{16} = \{ (2 K_2 \oplus K_1) + P_3 + (k-2) K_ 2\colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{17} = \{ (2 K_2 \oplus K_2) + k K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{18} = \{ (2 K_k \oplus P_3) + (k-1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{19} = \{ ((K_2 + \overline{K_2}) \oplus \overline{K_2}) + \overline{K_2} + (k-2) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{20} = \{ F_{20} + (k-2) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{21} = \{ K_{k+1,k+1} + (k+1) K_1 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{22} = \{ (k+1) K_{k+1} \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{23} = \{ (2 K_{k+1} \oplus K_1) + (k-1) K_2 \colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\item $\mathcal{F}_{24} = \{ (2 K_{k+1} \oplus K_2) + (k-1) K_1\colon\ k \ge 2 \}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
In a work in progress, we analyze the structure of
disconnected cograph minimal $k$-polar obstructions
for any positive integer $k$. As one would expect,
the number of cograph minimal $k$-polar obstructions
grows fast in terms of $k$, so it is increasingly difficult
to provide complete lists of minimal obstructions.
Nonetheless, it looks possible to describe a few families
of minimal obstructions that would completely classify
all the cograph minimal $k$-polar obstructions; this is
our next step.
|
\section{Introduction}
This \color{black} paper concerns nonautonomous dynamical systems on a parametrised family of $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphisms on a closed smooth Riemannian manifold $M$ with $r\geq 1$.
Given a mapping $\theta : \Omega \to \Omega$ on base set $\Omega$, a \emph{nonautonomous dynamical system} (abbreviated NDS henceforth) on $M$ over $\theta$ is given as a mapping $F:\mathbb N_0\times \Omega \times M\to M$ satisfying $F(0,\omega ,\cdot )= \mathrm{id} _M$ for each $\omega \in \Omega$ and the cocycle property
\[
F(n+m , \omega ,x ) = F(n , \theta ^m \omega , F(m , \omega , x )) ,\quad n,m\in \mathbb N_0, \quad \omega \in \Omega ,\quad x\in M.
\]
Here $\theta \omega$ denotes the value $\theta (\omega )$, and $\theta $ is called a \emph{driving system}.
The notation of nonautonomous dynamical systems has emerged as an abstraction of
\emph{random dynamical systems} (see Remark \ref{rmk:1} for the precise definition of random dynamical systems; a standard reference is the monograph by Arnold \cite{Arnold}, see also \cite{BDV04, JKR2015} for representation of Markov chains of random perturbations by random maps).
For general properties of NDS, we refer to Kloeden and Rasmussen \cite{KR2011}.
Here it is merely stated that if we denote $F(n,\omega , \cdot )$ and $F(1,\omega , \cdot )$ by $f^{(n) }_\omega $ and $f_\omega$, respectively, then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:basic}
F(n,\omega ,\cdot )\equiv f^{(n) }_\omega = f_{\theta ^{n-1} \omega } \circ f_{\theta ^{n-2} \omega } \circ \cdots \circ f_\omega.
\end{equation}
Conversely, it is straightforward to see that given a mapping $f: \Omega \times M \to M$: $(\omega ,x)\mapsto f_\omega (x)$,
a mapping $F: \mathbb N_0 \times \Omega \times M\to M$ defined by \eqref{eq:basic}
is an NDS over $\theta$. We call it the \emph{NDS induced by $f$} over $\theta$.
A naive expectation
from \eqref{eq:basic} is that once we impose an appropriate condition on $\omega \mapsto f_\omega$, the statistical properties of the driving system $\theta$ (with respect to a given probability measure $\mathbb P$ on $\Omega$) will be transmitted to those of $\{ f^{(n)} _\omega \}_{n\geq 0}$ ($\mathbb P$-almost surely).
A celebrated result in the direction is established by Ara\'ujo \cite{Araujo2000} for historic behaviour in the i.i.d.~case,
which inspires the work in this paper.
(For another result in the direction from the viewpoint of mixing property or limit theorems, refer to \cite{MK2006, NTW2016, AA2017} and the references therein.)
To state his and our result, we define historic behaviour for $F$.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfn:hb}
For given $\omega \in \Omega$, we say that the forward orbit of $x\in M$ at $\omega$
has \emph{historic behaviour} if there exists a continuous function $\varphi :M\to \mathbb{R}$ for which the time average
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hb1}
\lim _{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \sum _{j=0} ^{n-1} \varphi (f^{(j)} _{\omega} (x))
\end{equation}
does not exist.
For short, we call $x$ a point with historic behaviour at $\omega$.
\end{dfn}
The concept of historic behaviour was introduced by Ruelle \cite{Ruelle2001} for autonomous dynamical systems: Let $f_0 : M\to M$ be a $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphism on $M$ and $f_0^n$ the usual $n$-th iteration of $f_0$ with $n\geq 0$. Then, $\mathbb N_0\times M\ni (n, x) \mapsto f_0^n(x)$ is an (autonomous) dynamical system, and
a point $x\in M$ is said to have
\emph{historic behaviour} if there exists a continuous function $\varphi :M\to \mathbb{R}$ for which the time average
$
\lim _{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \sum _{j=0} ^{n-1} \varphi (f_0^j (x))
$
does not exist.
Since several statistical quantities are given as the time average of some function $\varphi$,
it is natural to investigate the observability of historic behaviour in the sense of the existence of a positive Lebesgue measure set consisting of point with historic behaviour. \color{black}
In the autonomous situation, Bowen's famous folklore example \cite{Takens1994} tells
that there is a $\mathscr{C} ^\infty$ diffeomorphism on a compact surface for which the set of points with historic behaviour is of positive Lebesgue measure.
However, his example was not stable under small perturbations.
Hence, Takens asked in \cite{Takens2008}
whether there is a persistent class of $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphisms for which the set of points with historic behaviour is of positive Lebesgue measure (called \emph{Takens' Last Problem}):
Very recently it was affirmatively answered by the first and third authors in \cite{KS2017}, that will be briefly restated (in a slightly stronger form) in Theorem \ref{thm:Newhouse}.
Furthermore, this was applied to detect a persistent class of 3-dimensional flows having a positive Lebesgue measure set consisting of points with historic behaviour in \cite{LR2016}.
The reader is asked to see \cite{Takens1994, Ruelle2001, Takens2008, BDV04} for the background of historic behaviour in the autonomous situation.
In the nonautonomous situation, the first result about historic behaviour was obtained by Ara\'ujo for parametrised perturbations of $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphisms under i.i.d.~noise:
if a parametrised perturbation of a $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphism $f_0$ given as an i.i.d.~NDS $F$ is \emph{absolutely continuous}, then the set of points with historic behaviour is a zero Lebesgue measure set
(see Appendix \ref{appendix:araujo} for the definition of absolute continuous i.i.d.~NDS's and the precise statement of Ara\'ujo's theorem).
We can choose the unperturbed system $f_0$ as a $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphism for which the set of points with historic behaviour is persistently of positive Lebesgue measure, that means the disappearance of historic behaviour under i.i.d.~noise (although the existence of a residual set consisting of points with historic behaviour for expanding maps is preserved under any random perturbations, refer to \cite{Nakano2017}).
Our purpose in this paper is to show the appearance of historic behaviour under some ``historic'' noise.
\subsection{Setting and result}\label{subsection:setting}
Let $M$ be the circle given by $M =\mathbb{R} /\mathbb{Z}$. We endow $M$ with a metric $d_{M}(\cdot ,\cdot)$, where $d_{M}(x, y)$ is the infimum of $\vert \tilde x-\tilde y \vert$ over all representatives $\tilde x,\tilde y$ of $x,y \in M$, respectively.
Let $\pi _{M}:\mathbb{R} \to M$ be the canonical projection on the circle, i.e., $\pi _{M} (\tilde x)$ is the equivalent class of $\tilde x\in \mathbb{R}$.
We write $I_0$ for $\pi _{M}\left([\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}]\right)$. Let $f_0$ be a $\mathscr{C}^r$ diffeomorphism on $M$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:n1}
f_0(x) =\frac{1}{2} x+\frac{1}{4} \mod 1,\quad x\in I_0,
\end{equation}
and that $\inf _{x\in M} Df_0(x) > 0$ (see Figure \ref{Fig_1_2}).
We also assume that $f_0$ has exactly
one source.
Then, it is not difficult to see that the set of points with historic behaviour for $f_0$ is an empty set, in particular, a zero Lebesgue measure set. (Note that basin of attraction of $\pi _M(\frac{1}{2})$ is the whole space $M$ except the source.)
Next we introduce our main hypothesis for driving systems.
Let $\Omega$ be a metric space equipped with the Borel $\sigma$-field, and $\mathbb P$ a probability measure on $\Omega$. Let $\theta : \Omega \to \Omega$ be a continuous mapping.
Given an integer $\nu \geq 0$,
$\omega \in \Omega$
and an open set $U \subset \Omega$,
we say that an integer $j $ is in a \emph{$\nu$-trapped period} of
$\omega$ for $U$
if $j \geq \nu$ and $\theta ^{j-i} \omega \in U $
for all $i\in [0, \nu ]$.
For
$n\geq 1$, we set
\begin{equation*}
N _{\nu }( \omega , U; n) = \# \{ j \in [0 ,n-1] \; : \; \text{$j$ is in a $\nu$-trapped period of $\omega $ for $U$} \} .
\end{equation*}
Let $U_\delta (\omega )$ be the ball of $\omega \in \Omega$ with radius $\delta >0$.
We will assume the following condition:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(H)] There is a $\mathbb P$-positive measure set $\Gamma \subset \Omega$ and distinct points $p$ and $\hat p$ such that for any integer $\nu \geq 0$ and positive number $\delta$, one can find two distinct real numbers $\lambda _1$ and $\lambda _2$ in $[0, 1]$ and subsequences $\{ n_1(J) \} _{J\geq 1}$ and $\{ n_2 (J) \} _{J\geq 1}$ of $\mathbb N$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_{\nu } ( \omega , U_\delta (p) ; n _i(J)) }{n _i (J)} =1 -\lambda _i , \quad \lim _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_{\nu } (\omega , U_\delta (\hat p) ; n _i (J)) }{n _i(J)} = \lambda _i
\end{equation*}
for $i=1, 2$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\kappa :\Omega \to [-1,1]$ be a surjective continuous function such that $\kappa (p) \neq \kappa (\hat p)$ and that the pushforward $\kappa _* \mathbb P$ of $\mathbb P$ by $\kappa$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mathrm{Leb} _{\mathbb R}$.
Fix a noise level $0< \epsilon <\frac{1}{8}$.
We define a parametrised perturbation $f: \Omega \times M\to M$ of $f_0$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defoffepsilon}
f_\omega (x) \equiv
f(\omega , x) = f_0(x)+ \epsilon \kappa (\omega ) \mod 1, \quad (\omega , x) \in \Omega \times M .
\end{equation}
Now we can provide our main theorems:
\begingroup
\setcounter{tmp}{\value{thm}}
\setcounter{thm}{0}
\renewcommand\thethm{\Alph{thm}}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Suppose that $\theta$ satisfies the condition (H).
Let $F$ be the NDS induced by $f$ in
\eqref{eq:defoffepsilon} over $\theta$.
Then for any $\omega \in \Gamma $, there exists a positive Lebesgue measure set (including $I_0$) consisting of points with historic behaviour at $\omega$.
\end{thm}
For an application of Theorem \ref{thm:main},
we will show that the condition (H) can be satisfied by the classical Bowen example.
Let $\Omega $ be a compact surface and $\mathbb P$ the normalised Lebesgue measure of $\Omega$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:Bowen}
The time-one map $\theta$ of the Bowen flow (definition given in Subsection \ref{subsection:Bowen}) on $\Omega$ satisfies the condition (H).
\end{thm}
We will also show that the persistent driving systems in \cite{KS2017} satisfy the condition (H).
Let $\mathrm{Diff}^{\tilde r} (\Omega ,\Omega )$ be the set of all $\mathscr C^{\tilde r}$ diffeomorphisms on $\Omega$ endowed with the usual $\mathscr C ^{\tilde r}$ metric with $2 \leq \tilde r < \infty$, and let $\mathcal N \subset \mathrm{Diff}^{\tilde r}(\Omega , \Omega )$ be a Newhouse open set.\footnote{
For each $\tilde \theta \in \mathrm{Diff} ^{\tilde r}(\Omega ,\Omega)$ with a saddle fixed point $\tilde p$ with $\tilde r\geq 2$, one can find an open set $\mathcal{N}$ in $\mathrm{Diff} ^{\tilde r}(\Omega ,\Omega)$ (called a \emph{Newhouse open set})
such that the closure of $\mathcal N$ contains $\tilde \theta$ and
any element of $\mathcal{N}$ is arbitrarily $\mathscr C ^{\tilde r}$-approximated by a diffeomorphism
$\theta $ with
a homoclinic tangency associated with
the continuation $p$ of $\tilde p$, and moreover $\theta $ has a $\mathscr C ^{\tilde r}$-persistent tangency associated with some
nontrivial hyperbolic set $\Lambda $ containing $p$
(i.e.~there is a $\mathscr C ^{\tilde r}$ neighborhood of $\theta $ any element of which has a homoclinic tangency
for the continuation of $\Lambda$). See \cite{Newhouse79}.
}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:Newhouse}
There exists a dense subset $\mathcal D$ of $\mathcal N$ such that all $\theta \in \mathcal D$ satisfies the condition (H).
\end{thm}
\endgroup
\setcounter{thm}{\thetmp}
\subsection{Problem}
Before starting the proofs of main theorems, we briefly consider historic behaviour for nonautonomous contraction mappings in more general setting.
Let $f_0$ be as in \eqref{eq:n1}.
Let $(\Omega , \mathcal F, \mathbb P)$ be a probability space.
Let $\kappa$ be a measurable function on $\Omega$ with values in $[-1, 1]$ $\mathbb P$-almost surely.
We define $f: \Omega \times M\to M$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defoffepsilon2}
f_\omega (x) \equiv f(\omega , x) = f_0(x)+ \epsilon \kappa (\omega ) , \quad (\omega , x) \in \Omega \times M .
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we assume that $\theta$ is nonsingular with respect to $\mathbb P$ (i.e.,~$\mathbb P(\theta ^{-1} \Gamma )=1$ if $\Gamma$ is measurable and $\mathbb P(\Gamma ) =1$).
We say that the driving system $\theta$ is
\emph{historic}
if there exists a positive measure set $\Gamma$ with respect to $\mathbb P$ such that for each $\omega \in \Gamma$, one can find an integrable function $b:\Omega \to \mathbb R$ whose time average $\lim _{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum _{j=0}^{n-1} b (\theta ^j \omega )$ does not exist.
Otherwise, we say that $\theta$ is \emph{non-historic}.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:1}
A measurable NDS $F$ over a measurable driving system $\theta$
is said to be a \emph{random dynamical system} (abbreviated RDS) if $\theta$ is measure-preserving (refer to \cite{Arnold}; important examples of random dynamical systems are i.i.d.~NDS's, see Appendix \ref{appendix:araujo}).
It follows from Birkhoff's ergodic theorem that any measure-preserving driving system is non-historic.
That is, any random dynamical system is an NDS over a non-historic driving system.
See Figure \ref{fig-0}.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics[clip]{fig-0}}
\caption{Classification of nonautonomous dynamical systems.}
\label{fig-0}
\end{figure}
The following proposition can be shown by a standard graph-transformation argument, but might be suggestive for historic behaviour of nonautonomous contraction mappings. See Appendix \ref{appendix:proof} for the proof.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:4}
Let $\theta$ be measurably invertible.
Let $f$ be as in \eqref{eq:defoffepsilon2} and
$F$ the NDS induced by $f$ over a driving system $\theta$.
Suppose that $\theta$ is non-historic.
Then for $\mathbb P$-almost every $\omega$, the set of points in $I_0$ with historic behaviour at $\omega$ is an empty set, in particular, a Lebesgue zero measure set.
\end{prop}
Comparing Theorem \ref{thm:main} with proposition \ref{prop:4}, one may naturally ask the following problem.
\begin{problem}\label{prob:2}
Let $f$ be as in \eqref{eq:defoffepsilon2} and
$F$ the NDS induced by $f$ over a driving system $\theta$.
Suppose that $\theta$ is historic.
Then under some mild condition on $\kappa$, can one find a positive measure set $\Gamma$ with respect to $\mathbb P$ such that there exists a positive Lebesgue measure set (including $I_0$) consisting of points with historic behaviour at $\omega$ for any $\omega \in \Gamma$?
\end{problem}
\begin{remark}
Apart from driving systems, one can consider generalisations of Theorem \ref{thm:main} to other unperturbed systems $f_0$:
It is highly likely that the existence of a positive Lebesgue measure set consisting of points with historic behaviour
remains true for any $\mathscr{C} ^r$ diffeomorphism on any closed smooth Riemannian manifold $M$, only by requiring that $f_0$
has a sink (with an appropriate modification on the formulation of small perturbation $f$ in higher dimension; see Example 2 in \cite{Araujo2000}).
It might also be possible (and of great interest) to explore generalisation to hyperbolic mappings $f_0$ by considering their transfer operators, refer to \cite{BKS}.
However, in order to keep our presentation as transparent as possible, we restricted ourselves to
the concrete example given in \eqref{eq:n1}.
\end{remark}
\section{Proofs}\label{section:proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}
We start the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} by noting that $f _\omega (I_0) \subset I_0$ and $f_\omega |_{I_0} :I_0\to I_0$ has a unique fixed point, denoted by $X_\omega$, for each $\omega \in \Omega$.
In particular, for $\omega =p,\hat p$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn_XpXp}
X_p=\frac12+2\epsilon \kappa(p),\quad
X_{\hat p}=\frac12+2\epsilon \kappa(\hat p) .
\end{equation}
See Figure \ref{Fig_1_2}.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics[clip]{Fig_1_2-new}}
\caption{Locally contraction mappings $f_0$ and $f_\omega$.}
\label{Fig_1_2}
\end{figure}
We need the following elementary lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:1}
For any $n\in \mathbb{N}_0$, $x\in I_0$ and $\omega ,\omega ^\prime \in \Omega$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lem1}
d_{M}\left( f^{(n)} _{\omega}(x) ,X_{\omega ^\prime } \right) \leq \frac{1}{2^n} +6\epsilon \max_{0\leq j\leq n-1} \left\vert \kappa(\theta ^j \omega ) - \kappa(\omega ^\prime )\right\vert .
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $n\in \mathbb{N}_0$, $x\in I_0$ and $\omega ,\omega ^\prime \in \Omega$.
Noting that $X_{\omega ^\prime }=\pi _{M}(\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon \kappa(\omega ^\prime))$ together with \eqref{eq:basic}, we have
\begin{align*}
d_{M}\left(f^{(n)}_{\omega } (x) ,X _{\omega ^\prime }\right)
&\leq d_{M}\left( f_{\theta ^{n-1} \omega }( f^{(n-1)}_{\omega } (x) ) , f_{\theta ^{n-1}\omega } (X_{\theta ^{n-1} \omega })\right) + d_{M}\left( X_{\theta ^{n-1}\omega }, X_{\omega ^\prime}\right)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}d_{M}\left( f^{(n-1)}_{ \omega } (x) , X _{\theta ^{n-1} \omega }\right) +2\epsilon \left\vert \kappa(\theta ^{n-1}\omega )-\kappa(\omega ^\prime)\right\vert .
\end{align*}
Reiterating this argument, we finally get that $d_{M}\left( f^{(n)} _{\omega } (x) ,X _{\omega ^\prime}\right)$ is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2^n}d_{M}\left( x , X _{\omega }\right) +2\epsilon \left(\sum _{j=1}^{n-1}\frac{\vert \kappa(\theta ^{n-j-1} \omega )-\kappa(\theta ^{n-j}\omega )\vert }{2^j} +\left\vert \kappa(\theta ^{n-1}\omega )-\kappa (\omega ^\prime ) \right\vert \right).
\end{align*}
Hence, the conclusion follows from the triangle inequality
$$\vert \kappa(\theta ^{n-j-1}\omega )-\kappa(\theta ^{n-j}\omega )\vert\leq \vert \kappa(\theta ^{n-j-1}\omega )-\kappa(\omega ')\vert
+\vert \kappa(\omega ')-\kappa(\theta ^{n-j}\omega )\vert.$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We continue the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
We let $V(X_p)$ and $V(X_{\hat p})$ be the $\rho _0$-neighbourhoods of
$X_p$, $X_{\hat p}$ in $M$, respectively, with $\rho _0 =\frac{\epsilon\vert \kappa(p) -\kappa (\hat p) \vert }{2}$.
By \eqref{eqn_XpXp}, $V(X_p)\cap V(X_{\hat p})=\emptyset$.
Fix a positive integer $\nu _0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:e0324a}
\frac{1}{2^{\nu _0} }\leq \frac{\rho _0}{3}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we let $\delta _0^\prime $ be a positive number such that $d_\Omega (\omega ,p_1 )<\delta _0^\prime $ implies $\vert \kappa (\omega )-\kappa (p_1) \vert \leq \frac{\rho _0 }{18} $ with $p_1 =p$ and $\hat p$, and set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn_delta}
\delta _0=\min\left\{\delta _0^\prime ,\frac{\mathrm{dist}_\Omega (p,\partial \Omega)}2, \frac{\mathrm{dist}_\Omega (\hat p,\partial \Omega)}2\right\} ,
\end{equation}
so that $U_{\delta _0}(p)\cap U_{\delta _0}(\hat p)=\emptyset$
and $(U_{\delta _0}(p)\cup U_{\delta _0}(\hat p))\cap \partial \Omega=\emptyset$.
Let $j$ be in a $\nu _0$-trapped period of $\omega \in \Omega $ for $U_{\delta _0} ( p )$.
Then,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn_dSfX2}
\max _{0\leq i \leq \nu _0 } d_\Omega (\theta ^{j -i}\omega , p )\leq \delta _0 .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, applying \eqref{eq:lem1} with $n ,x, \omega$ and $\omega ^\prime$ replaced by $\nu _0$, $f^{(j-\nu _0)}_{\omega }(x)$, $\theta ^{j-\nu _0}\omega$ and $p$ together with \eqref{eq:basic}, we have
\[
d_{M}(f_{\omega }^{(j)} (x), X_{p}) \leq \frac{1}{2^{\nu _0}} +6\epsilon \max _{0\leq i \leq \nu _0 } \left\vert \kappa(\theta ^{j -i}\omega ) -\kappa (p )\right\vert
\]
for all $x\in I_0$.
Therefore, it follows from \eqref{eq:e0324a}, \eqref{eqn_delta}
and \eqref{eqn_dSfX2} that
\[
d_{M}(f_{\omega }^{(j)} (x), X_{p}) \leq \frac{2}{3} \rho _0 ,
\]
that is, $f_{\omega }^{(j)} (x) \in V(X_p)$.
A similar argument implies that if $j$ is in a $\nu _0$-trapped period of $\omega \in \Omega $ for $U_{\delta _0} (\hat p)$, then $f_{\omega }^{(j)} (x) \in V(X_{\hat p})$ for any $x\in I_0$.
We assume that $\lambda _1<\lambda _2$ without loss of generality.
Let $\varphi _0 :M \to [0,1] \subset \mathbb{R} $ be a nonnegative-valued continuous function such that $\varphi _0(x) =1$ if $x$ is in $V(X_p)$ and $\varphi _0(x)=0$ if $x$ is in $V(X_{\hat p})$.
For each $x\in I_0$ and $\omega \in \Gamma$, by the condition (H) together with observation in the previous paragraph, we have
\[
\frac{1}{n_1(J)} \sum _{j=0}^{n_1(J)} \varphi _0 (f_\omega ^{(j)}(x))
\geq \frac{ \# \{ 0\leq j\leq n_1(J) \mid f^{(j)}_\omega (x) \in V(X_p)\} }{n_1(J)} \to 1- \lambda _1
\]
and
\[
\frac{1}{n_2(J)} \sum _{j=0}^{n_2(J)} \varphi _0 (f_\omega ^{(j)}(x))
\leq 1- \frac{ \# \{ 0\leq j\leq n_2(J) \mid f^{(j)}_\omega (x) \in V(X_{\hat p})\} }{n_2(J)} \to 1- \lambda _2
\]
as $J\to \infty$.
Therefore, we get
\[
\liminf _{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \sum ^{n}_{j=0} \varphi _0(f_{\omega } ^{(j)} (x) )\leq 1-\lambda _2 <1 - \lambda _1 \leq \limsup _{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n} \sum ^{n}_{j=0} \varphi _0(f_{\omega } ^{(j)} (x) )
\]
for all $(\omega ,x)$ in $\Gamma \times I_0$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Bowen}}\label{subsection:Bowen}
It is mentioned in \cite{Takens1994} that Bowen considered a surface flow $\{ \theta ^t \} _{t\in \mathbb R}$
generated by a smooth (at least $\mathscr C ^3$) vector field with two saddle points $p$ and $\hat p$ and two heteroclinic orbits $\gamma $ and $\hat \gamma $ connecting the points, which are included in the unstable and stable manifolds of $p$ respectively, such that the closed curve $\gamma := p \sqcup \hat p \sqcup \gamma \sqcup \hat \gamma $ is
attracting in the following sense: if we denote the expanding and contracting eigenvalues of the linearised vector field around $p$ by $\alpha _+$ and $-\alpha _-$, and the ones around $\hat p$ by $\beta _+$ and $- \beta _-$, then
$\alpha _- \beta _- > \alpha _+ \beta _+$.
Let $\Gamma$ be the intersection of the basin of attraction of $\gamma$ and the open set surrounded by $\gamma$, which is a nonempty open set of $\Omega$.
Furthermore, we take sections $\Sigma $ and $\hat \Sigma $ transversally intersecting $\gamma$ and $\hat \gamma $, respectively.
See Figure \ref{Bowen-eye} for configuration.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics[clip]{Bowen-eye-new}}
\caption{The Bowen flow.}
\label{Bowen-eye}
\end{figure}
Fix $\omega \in \Gamma$.
Let $\{ t_j \} _{j\geq 1}$ be successive times at which the forward orbit of $\omega $ by $\{ \theta ^t\} _{t\in \mathbb R}$ intersects $\Sigma $ and $\hat \Sigma $.
By taking the sections smaller, one can assume that $\theta^{t_{j}}\omega \in \Sigma $ if $j$ is odd and $\theta^{t_{j}}\omega \in \hat \Sigma $ if $j$ is even.
Let $T^{(p)}_j= t _{2j+1}- t_{2j}$ and $T^{(\hat p)}_j= t_{2j}- t_{2j-1}$.
It was shown in
\cite{Takens1994} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rrrr1}
\lim _{j\to \infty } \frac{T^{(p)}_{j} }{T^{(\hat p)} _{j}} = \sigma _1, \quad \lim _{j\to \infty } \frac{T^{(\hat p)} _{j+1}}{T^{( p)} _{j}} = \sigma _2
\end{equation}
with $\sigma _1= \frac{\beta _-}{\alpha _+}$ and $\sigma _2= \frac{\alpha _-}{\beta _+}$,
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rrrr1b}
\lim _{j\to \infty} \frac{T^{(p)}_{\delta ,j}}{T^{(p)}_j} = \lim _{j\to \infty} \frac{T^{(\hat p)}_{\delta ,j} }{T^{(\hat p)}_j} =1
\end{equation}
for each $\delta > 0$, where
$T^{(p)}_{\delta ,j}$ and $ T^{(\hat p)}_{\delta ,j}$ are the lengths of $ \{ t_{2j} \leq t\leq t_{2j+1} \mid \theta ^t \omega \in U_\delta (p) \}$ and $ \{ t_{2j-1} \leq t\leq t_{2j} \mid \theta ^t \omega \in U_\delta (\hat p) \}$, respectively,
when the lengths are well-defined (in particular, for each sufficiently large $j$).
Let $n_1(J) = [\hat T_{2J-1}]$ and $n_2(J) = [\hat T_{2J}]$ with the notation $[t]$ for the integer
part of $t\in \mathbb R$.
Given $\delta >0$ and $\nu \geq 0$, let $J_0$ be an integer such that $\min \{T_{\delta , J_0}^{(p)} , T_{\delta , J_0} ^{(\hat p)} \} \geq \nu +2$.
Then, for any $J\geq J^\prime \geq J_0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (p) ; n_1(J) )}{ n_1(J) } &\geq \frac{\sum _{j=J^\prime } ^J (T_{\delta ,j} ^{(p)} -2 - \nu )}{ \sum _{j=1} ^J (T_j^{(p)} + T_j^{(\hat p)} ) } \\
&=(1-Z_1) \cdot \frac{\sum _{j=J^\prime } ^J T_{\delta ,j} ^{(p)} }{ \sum _{j=J^\prime } ^J (T_j^{(p)} + T_j^{(\hat p)} ) } -Z_2 ,
\end{align*}
where $Z_1= \sum _{j=1}^{J^\prime -1} (T_j^{(p)} +T^{(\hat p)} _j) / \sum _{j=1}^{J} (T_j^{(p)} +T^{(\hat p)} _j) $ and $Z_2 =(2+\nu) /\sum _{j=1}^{J} (T_j^{(p)} +T^{(\hat p)} _j)$, both of which go to $0$ as $J\to \infty$ for any fixed $J^\prime$.
Hence, by \eqref{eq:rrrr1} and \eqref{eq:rrrr1b}, it is straightforward to see that for any $\tilde \epsilon >0$, there is an integer $J_{\tilde \epsilon } \geq J_0$ such that for each $J\geq J_{\tilde \epsilon}$,
\[
\frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (p) ; n_1(J) )}{ n_1(J) } \geq (1-\tilde \epsilon )\cdot \frac{(\sigma _1-\tilde \epsilon) T_{J} ^{(\hat p)}\sum _{j=0} ^{J-J_{\tilde \epsilon} } \{ (\sigma _1 -\tilde \epsilon )(\sigma _2 -\tilde \epsilon ) \} ^{-j}}{(1+(\sigma _1+\tilde \epsilon ) ) T_{J} ^{(\hat p)}\sum _{j=0} ^{J-J_{\tilde \epsilon} } \{ (\sigma _1 +\tilde \epsilon )(\sigma _2 +\tilde \epsilon ) \} ^{-j}} -\tilde \epsilon .
\]
Since $\tilde \epsilon$ is arbitrary, we have
\[
\liminf _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (p) ; n_1(J) )}{ n_1(J) } \geq \frac{\sigma _1}{1+\sigma _1} .
\]
In a similar manner we can show that
\[
\liminf _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (\hat p) ; n_1(J) )}{ n_1(J) } \geq \frac{1}{1+\sigma _1}.
\]
and that
\[
\liminf _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (p) ; n_2(J) )}{ n_2(J) } \geq \frac{1}{1+\sigma _2} , \quad \liminf _{J\to \infty} \frac{N_\nu (\omega ,U_\delta (\hat p) ; n_2(J) )}{ n_2(J) } \geq \frac{\sigma _2}{1+\sigma _2} .
\]
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Bowen} with $\lambda _1 = \frac{1}{1+\sigma _1}$ and $\lambda _2 = \frac{\sigma _2}{1+\sigma _2}$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Newhouse}}
In \cite{KS2017}, we have actually shown that, for sufficiently large positive integers $z_0$, $n_0$, $k_0$,
there exists an element $\theta=\theta_{\boldsymbol{z}}$ in any small neighbourhood of any $\mathscr{C} ^{\tilde r}$ diffeomorphism in the Newhouse open set $\mathcal N$
associated with any sequence $\boldsymbol{z}
=\{z_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$ of integers each entry of which is either $z_0$ or $z_0+1$
and there exists a sequence $\{R_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$ of mutually disjoint rectangles in $\Omega$ with $\mathrm{Int}R_{k_0}=\Gamma$
and satisfying the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{C\arabic{enumi}}
\item\label{R1}
$\lim_{k\to\infty}\mathrm{diam}\,(R_k)=0$.
\item\label{R2}
There are sequences $\{a_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$, $\{b_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$ of positive integers
with
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{k\to\infty}\dfrac{a_k}{k}<\infty\quad\text{and}\quad\limsup_{k\to\infty}\dfrac{b_k}{k}<\infty
\end{equation*}
and such that, for any $\delta >0$ and \color{black} $\omega \color{black} \in R_k$ with sufficiently large $k\geq k_0$,
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\theta^{a_k+n_0+j}\color{black} \omega \color{black} \in U_\delta(p)$ if $j\in \{0,\dots,z_kk^2-2n_0\}$,
\item
$\theta^{a_k+n_0+z_kk^2+j}\color{black} \omega \color{black} \in U_\delta(\hat p)$ if $j\in \{0,\dots,k^2-2n_0\}$,
\item
$\theta^{m_k}\color{black} \omega \color{black} \in \mathrm{Int}R_{k+1}$
for $m_k=(z_k+1)k^2+a_k+b_k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\color{black} Furthermore, $n_0$, $k_0$, $\{a_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$ and $\{b_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$ can be taken independently of $\boldsymbol{z}
=\{z_k\}_{k=k_0}^\infty$. \color{black}
See Figure \ref{Fig_3} for the situation.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics[clip]{Fig_3}}
\caption{Travel from $R_k$ to $\mathrm{Int}R_{k+1}$ via $\theta^{m_k}$.
The case where the eigenvalues of $D\theta(p)$ are positive and those of $D\theta(\hat p)$ are negative.}
\label{Fig_3}
\end{figure}
For a given monotone increasing sequence $\{ k(J^\prime ) \}_{J^\prime =1} ^\infty$ of integers with $k(1) >k_0$,
the sequence $\boldsymbol{z}=\{ z_k\} _{k=k_0}^{\infty}$ is constructed to satisfy
\begin{equation*}
z_k=z_0\quad\text{if $J'$ is odd\quad and}\quad z_k=z_0+1\quad\text{if $J'$ is even}
\end{equation*}
for any $k(J'-1)< k\leq k (J')$.
Now we will show that the sequence $\{ k(J^\prime )\}_{J^\prime =1}^\infty$ can be taken so that
the following inequality holds: For any $\nu \geq 0$ and $\delta >0$, there is an integer $J^\prime _0\geq 1$ such that if $J^\prime \geq J^\prime _0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:e0326c}
\frac{N_{\nu } (\omega , U_\delta (p) ; \hat m_{k(J')})}{\hat m_{k(J')}} \geq \frac{z_*}{z_*+1} -2^{-J'},
\end{equation}
where $z_*=z_0$ if $J^\prime $ is odd and $z_*=z_0+1$ if $J^\prime $ is even.
It follows from (C2)
that
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:e0326b}
\frac{N_{\nu } (\omega , U_\delta (p) ; \hat m_{k(J')})}{\hat m_{k(J')}} &\geq \frac{\sum _{k= k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} (z_k k^2 -2n_0 -\nu ) }{\hat m_{k(J')}}\\
&= \frac{\sum _{k= k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} (z_k k^2 -2n_0 -\nu ) }{\sum _{k= k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} ((z_k+1)k^2 +a_k +b_k)} \left(1 - \frac{\hat m_{k (J' -1)}}{\hat m_{k(J')}}\right),
\end{align*}
for each $\nu \geq 0$, $\delta >0$ and sufficiently large $J^\prime \geq 1$.
On the other hand, it is easy to check that
\[
\frac{\sum _{k= k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} (z_k k^2 -2n_0 -\nu ) }{\sum _{k= k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} ((z_k+1)k^2 +a_k +b_k)}
= \frac{z_* -Z_1}{z_*+1+Z_2},
\]
where $Z_1=\sum _{k=k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} (2n_0+\nu) / \sum _{k=k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} k^2$ and $Z_2 =\sum _{k=k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} (a_k + b_k )/\sum _{k=k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} k^2$.
By taking $k(J^\prime )$ sufficiently larger than $k(J^\prime -1)$, one can suppose that
all of $\hat m_{k(J^\prime -1)}/\hat m_{k(J^\prime )}$, $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are arbitrarily close to zero.
Thus
there exists a sequence
$\{ k(J^\prime )\}_{J^\prime =1}^\infty$ satisfying \eqref{eq:e0326c}.
In a similar manner, we also can get that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:e0326d}
\frac{N_{\nu } (\omega , U_\delta (\hat p) ; \hat m_{k(J')})}{\hat m_{k(J')}} \geq \frac{\sum _{k=k(J'-1)+1}^{k(J')} \left( {k}^2-2n_0 -n_1 \right)}{\hat m_{k(J')}} \geq \frac{1}{z_*+1}-2^{-J'}.
\end{equation}
Since $\frac{z_*}{z_*+1}+\frac{1}{z_*+1} =1$, \eqref{eq:e0326c} and \eqref{eq:e0326d} completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Newhouse} with $\lambda _1= \frac{1}{z_0+1}$, $\lambda _2= \frac{1}{z_0+2}$ and $n_1(J) =\hat m_{k(2J-1)}$, $n_2(J) =\hat m_{k(2J)}$.
|
\section{Introduction}
Motion compensation is a fundamental technology in video coding to remove the temporal redundancy between video frames.
The existing video coding standards, including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), mostly adopt block-based motion compensation for inter prediction, which assumes the block to be coded can be retrieved from the previously coded frames, and the corresponding location of the retrieved block is indicated by a motion vector (MV).
Due to the inherent spatial sampling of digital video, MV is probably not integer, and thus the corresponding block may need to be generated instead of simply retrieved.
Typically, generating non-integer samples is performed by kinds of interpolation, which can be viewed as fitting a continuous curve through a set of discrete samples, and picking out the new values at specific positions on the curve.
The problem of fractional sample interpolation for video coding has been widely studied \cite{MOMS}.
A theoretical analysis is conducted in \cite{Girod} about the influence of fractional-pel accuracy on the efficiency of motion compensated prediction, using a Gaussian power spectral density model.
Practically, the video coding standards mostly adopt fixed interpolation filters. For example, MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 uses the 6-tap filter to perform half-pel interpolation and the simple average filter to perform quarter-pel interpolation for luma component \cite{wiegand2003overview}. In HEVC, the DCT-based interpolation filter (DCTIF) is adopted \cite{sullivan2012overview}. HEVC uses a ``7q+8h'' DCTIF for luma component, that is a 7-tap DCTIF used for quarter-pel samples, and a 8-tap DCTIF for half-pel samples. Lv \emph{et al.} \cite{DCTIF} give the derivation process of DCTIF in detail, and compare the frequency responses between the interpolation filters in HEVC and H.264.
The fixed interpolation filters have been designed according to the signal processing theory, with the premise that the video signal is an ideal low-pass one. However, the video signal is indeed not low-pass and not stationary. Further study has been conducted to design different interpolation filters. For example, a motion compensated hybrid video coding scheme using an adaptive filter is presented in \cite{wedi2001adaptive}, where the filter coefficients are estimated during motion compensation for each frame. Wittmann \emph{et al.} \cite{wittmann2008separable} present a separable adaptive interpolation filter to reduce the computational cost while maintaining the coding efficiency of non-separable adaptive filter. Nonetheless, the previous works adopted hand-crafted filters, leaving a space for further improving the accuracy of motion compensation.
Recently, deep learning has achieved great success in computer vision. Convolutional neural network (CNN) based models led to a series of breakthroughs in high-level computer vision tasks, such as image classification \cite{AlexNet} and object detection \cite{GoogleNet}. Later on, CNN is also utilized in some low-level computer vision tasks. For example, Dong \emph{et al.} \cite{dong2014learning} propose a CNN approach for image super-resolution, termed SRCNN, which learns an end-to-end mapping between low- and high-resolution images. SRCNN has achieved significant boost of performance in both subjective and objective quality, compared to the previous methods without CNN. SRCNN is then extended to cope with the problem of artifact reduction \cite{ARCNN}. More recently, Dai \emph{et al.} \cite{VRCNN} propose to learn a CNN for post-processing in video coding, and demonstrate on average 4.6\% bit-rate reduction than HEVC baseline. All these works seem to open up a new direction that adopts CNN into video coding to further improve the coding efficiency.
In this paper, we present a CNN approach for fractional sample interpolation in video coding. We expect the CNN to automate the discovery of interpolation filters rather than to design them manually. However, a key difficulty here is how to generate training data for CNN. In previous studies concerning CNN, the ground-truth labels are provided comprehensively in the training data. However, for fractional sample interpolation, we have no ground-truth label because the fractional samples actually do not exist. Our solution for this problem is to derive the labels by smoothing high-resolution images, which is verified to be effective in experiments. We then reuse the network architecture of SRCNN, considering the similarity between super-resolution and fractional interpolation, but train the network with our derived training data. After training, the CNN-based interpolation filter (CNNIF) is integrated into HEVC for testing its performance in video coding. Currently, the CNNIF is applied only to half-pel samples of luma component. Experimental results show that the proposed CNNIF leads to up to 3.2\% and on average 0.9\% bits saving under low-delay P configuration.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II provides the details of the proposed CNNIF. Section III gives the experimental results, and Section IV concludes the paper.
\section{Proposed Method}
\subsection{Overview of the Proposed Method}
In this work, we propose a CNN approach for half-pel interpolation of luma component. Fig. \ref{fig:pos} illustrates the integer and half-pel positions during interpolation. The positions labeled with A$_{i,j}$ stand for the available luma samples at integer locations, whereas the other positions labeled with b$_{i,j}$, h$_{i,j}$ and j$_{i,j}$ represent samples at half-pel locations, which need to be interpolated from integer-location samples. In HEVC, these three positions are derived using uniform 8-tap DCTIF. Taking into account the positional relation between the integer and the half-pel samples, we propose to train three CNN models to perform the interpolation of horizontal half-pel, vertical half-pel, and diagonal half-pel samples, respectively. That is, we train CNNIF\_H, CNNIF\_V and CNNIF\_D, for the interpolation of b$_{i,j}$, h$_{i,j}$, and j$_{i,j}$, respectively.
It is very important to have abundant training data in store for supervised deep learning. However, in this fractional interpolation task, we cannot obtain the real ground-truth for training, i.e. the fractional samples do not exist actually. Without the ground-truth, it is not possible to carry out the training task, let alone expecting performance improvement in video coding. To overcome this contradiction, in this work, we design a method for generating training data, which will be introduced in Section II-C.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figs/Fractional.pdf}
\caption{Integer and fractional sample positions during luma interpolation. A, b, h, and j stand for integer, horizontal half-pel, vertical half-pel, and diagonal half-pel positions, respectively.}
\label{fig:pos}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Network Architecture}
In this work, we reuse the existing Convolutional Neural Network for Super-Resolution (SRCNN) in \cite{dong2014learning} to carry out the half-pel interpolation task. Fig. \ref{fig:arch} depicts the architecture of SRCNN.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{figs/SRCNN-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The architecture of super-resolution convolutional neural network (SRCNN) \cite{dong2014learning}, also used in this work.}
\label{fig:arch}
\end{figure}
SRCNN consists of three convolutional layers. The output of $i$-th layer ($i=1,2$) is the result of a linear transform of the previous layer followed by a Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) \cite{ReLU}, and this process can be expressed as:
$$
F_{i} = \max(0,W_{i} * F_{i-1}+B_{i}) \eqno{(1)}
$$
where $W_{i}$ and $B_{i}$ are the convolutional filter kernel and bias of the $i$-th layer, respectively, and `*' means convolutional operation. For SRCNN, the three layers are claimed to perform three steps, respectively \cite{dong2014learning}:
\begin{itemize}
\item The first layer is used for patch extraction and representation, extracting the features from low-resolution image. Here, $W_{1}$ is of size $9\times9\times 64$ and $B_{1}$ is a 64-dimensional vector.
\item The second layer can be seen as non-linear mapping, which converts the features of low-resolution image to those of high-resolution. Here, $W_{2}$ is of size $1\times 1\times 32$ and $B_{2}$ is a 32-dimensional vector.
\item The third layer, where $W_{3}$ is of size $5\times5\times1$, is used to recover the high-resolution image from the high-resolution features.
\end{itemize}
In the super-resolution task, a low-resolution image is firstly up-scaled to the desired size using bicubic interpolation, the interpolated image is denoted as $Y$. The goal is to recover an image $F(Y)$ to be as similar as possible to the ground-truth image $X$. While in our fractional interpolation task, the input of the network is the image consisting of integer-position pixels, denoted by $Y_{int}$, and the output is the interpolated image of fractional positions, $F_{h}$, which has the same size with the input image:
$$
F_{h} = W_{3}*F_{2} + B_{3} \eqno{(2)}
$$
Please note that fractional sample interpolation is related to but different from super-resolution: the former tries to generate only fractional samples, while the latter is to generate a complete high-resolution image. If we simply reuse super-resolution for fractional sample interpolation, the integer-position samples cannot be guaranteed to be identical. Our experimental results also show that the simple reusing does not work well.
\subsection{Derivation of Training Data}
The derivation of training data is performed in two steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item Blurring a training image with a low-pass filter.
\item Extracting input and label for CNNIF\_H, CNNIF\_V, and CNNIF\_D, respectively.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Image Blurring}
Like image super-resolution, fractional interpolation is also an ill-posed problem. One of the most difficult issues in training the CNN for fractional interpolation is the absence of ground-truth, since the fractional pixels are not available. It is infeasible for training the CNN if we do not have the ground-truth.
The generation of digital images is a process of sampling from the analog signal, which is essentially a process of low-pass filtering followed by decimation. Therefore, analogous to the derivation of digital images, we propose to firstly blur the training images with a low-pass filter to simulate the process of sampling. And intuitively, this operation can increase the correlation between neighboring pixels, so the relation between two neighboring pixels is more like that between integer and half-pel samples.
\subsubsection{Data Extracting}
After blurring the training images, the correlation between the neighboring pixels of the images is more like that between integer and half pixels. Fig. \ref{fig:gt} shows the process of extracting input and labels for training. The pixels of phase zero (red points in the figure) are extracted as the input image of CNN and regarded as integer pixels. The pixels of phase one (black points) are used as the horizontal half pixels. Similarly, the pixels of phase two and phase three (green and purple points) are used as vertical and diagonal half pixels, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{figs/extraction-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{The process of generating labeled training data. A high-resolution image is blurred and then odd and even positions are regarded as integer and half-pel positions, respectively. A, b, h, and j correspond to those in Fig. \ref{fig:pos}.}
\label{fig:gt}
\end{figure}
It is noticeable that the fractional interpolation is performed upon the reconstruction of the previously coded frames. For lossy video coding, especially with high quantization parameter (QP), significant reconstruction error will be introduced, and thus the interpolation accuracy will deteriorate. To correct this, the pixels of phase zero (red points in Fig. \ref{fig:gt}) are firstly coded and reconstructed by HEVC intra coding, and the reconstruction results are used as the inputs of CNNIF. In other words, we hope the CNNIF to generate the half-pel pixels from the compressed integer pixels.
Up to now, we have generated the training data of the three CNN models for half-pel interpolation. The pairs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:gt} (Input, horizontal half-pel), (Input, vertical half-pel) and (Input, diagonal half-pel) are used as the training data of CNNIF\_H, CNNIF\_V, and CNNIF\_D, respectively.
\subsection{Training Method}
In this task, the three CNN models are trained in the same way, and the loss function is optimized using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation. The training of CNN is actually a process of adjusting the parameters set $\varTheta$, i.e. $(W_{1},W_{2},W_{3},B_{1},B_{2},B_{3})$ for SRCNN, to minimize the loss function over the training set. Let $F$ denotes the output of the CNNIF, and the labels are denoted as $\{Y^i\}_{i=1}^N$. Here, we use the Euclidean distance as the loss function:
$$
L = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|F^i-Y^i\|^2 \eqno{(3)}
$$
where $N$ is the total number of training data items.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Training Stage}
We use the deep learning framework Caffe \cite{Caffe} to train the CNNIFs on an NVIDIA Tesla K40C graphical processing unit (GPU). The training set we use is the same as that in \cite{ARCNN}, which is a collection of 400 natural images. All the images are processed using the method depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:gt}, and after that we have 400 sub-images as input and 1200 sub-images for the labels (400 sub-images for each CNNIF). In this implementation, each sub-image as input is compressed by HEVC intra coding at four different QPs: 22, 27, 32, and 37. For each QP and each half-pel position, a separate network is trained. Therefore, we finally train 12 CNNIFs. During the process of compression, a CNNIF will be selected according to the slice QP and the corresponding half-pel position. The nearest QP among 22, 27, 32, and 37 to the current slice QP will be considered.
\subsection{Comparison with HEVC Baseline}
The proposed method is implemented based on HEVC reference software HM 16.7. Currently, only the process of half-pel interpolation of the luma component is replaced by CNNIFs. The low delay P (LDP) configuration is tested in the experiment under the HEVC common test conditions. BD-rate is used to measure the rate-distortion (RD) performance. The experimental results are summarized in Table I. As can be observed, the proposed method achieves on average 0.9\% BD-rate reduction. For the test sequence \texttt{BQTerrace}, the BD-rate reduction can be as high as 3.2\%, 1.6\%, 1.6\% for Y, U, V components, respectively. Since the fractional interpolation of chroma components is still DCTIF, the performance of chroma components is not prominent. In the future work, we will train CNN models for the chroma components.
\begin{table}
\center
\caption{BD-Rate Results of Our CNNIF Compared to HEVC Baseline}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Class}& \multirow{2}{*}{Sequence}&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{BD-rate}\\
\cline{3-5}
&&Y (\%) & U (\%) &V (\%)\\
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Class B} & Kimono & -1.1&0.1 &0.2\\
\cline{2-5}
&ParkScene &-0.4 &-0.3 &-0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&Cactus &-0.8& 0.0& 0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&BasketballDrive & -1.3 &-0.2 &-0.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&BQTerrace & -3.2& -1.6& -1.6\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Class C}& BasketballDrill &-1.2& -0.6& 0.2\\
\cline{2-5}
&BQMall & -0.9& 0.2& 0.7\\
\cline{2-5}
&PartyScene &0.2 &0.5 &0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&RaceHorses &-1.5& -0.5 &-0.1\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Class D} & BasketballPass & -1.3& -0.4& 0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&BQSquare & 1.2& 2.9& 3.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&BlowingBubbles & -0.3& 0.4& 0.8\\
\cline{2-5}
&RaceHorses & -0.8& -0.9& 0.0\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Class E}& FourPeople & -1.3& -0.4& 0.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&Johnny & -1.2& -0.4& -0.7\\
\cline{2-5}
&KristenAndSara & -1.0& 0.3& 0.2\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Class F}& BasketballDrillText & -1.4& -0.2& 0.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&ChinaSpeed & -0.6& -0.5& -0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&SlideEditing & 0.0& 0.3& 0.4\\
\cline{2-5}
&SlideShow & -0.7& -0.1& -0.2\\
\cline{2-5}
\hline
\multirow{5}{*}{Class Summary}
&Class B&-1.4& -0.4& -0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&Class C&-0.9& -0.1& 0.3\\
\cline{2-5}
&Class D&-0.3& 0.5& 1.0\\
\cline{2-5}
&Class E&-1.2& -0.2& -0.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&Class F&-0.7& -0.1& 0.0\\
\hline
\textbf{Overall} &\textbf{All}& \textbf{-0.9} & \textbf{-0.1}&\textbf{0.2}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison with Super-Resolution}
We also compare our proposed method with super-resolution method. As an anchor, the reconstructed frame is up-scaled to a larger one by the pre-trained SRCNN model \cite{SRCNNModel} with a factor of 2. From the enlarged frame, the phase one, phase two and phase three pixels are used as the interpolated half-pel samples. We integrate this anchor method into HM 16.7. Table II shows the results of the HEVC test sequences Class C and Class D of the anchor method compared to HEVC baseline. It can be observed that all the sequences suffer from significant loss. For the test sequence \texttt{BQSquare}, the loss can be as high as 8.2\% for luma component. Therefore, despite the similarity between fractional interpolation and image super-resolution, they are indeed not the same task, and it is not appealing to directly apply super-resolution method to fractional interpolation, as validated by the experimental results.
\begin{table}
\center
\caption{BD-Rate Results of SRCNN \cite{SRCNNModel} Compared to HEVC Baseline}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Class}& \multirow{2}{*}{Sequence}&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{BD-rate}\\
\cline{3-5}
&&Y (\%) & U (\%) &V (\%)\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Class C}& BasketballDrill &0.8& 1.2& 2.1\\
\cline{2-5}
&BQMall & 2.8& 2.7& 3.0\\
\cline{2-5}
&PartyScene &3.6 &3.4 &3.7\\
\cline{2-5}
&RaceHorses &2.4& 2.1 &2.0\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{Class D} & BasketballPass & 1.7& 1.3& 2.0\\
\cline{2-5}
&BQSquare & 8.2& 7.9& 6.8\\
\cline{2-5}
&BlowingBubbles & 3.2& 3.5& 4.2\\
\cline{2-5}
&RaceHorses & 3.6& 2.0& 2.3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\enlargethispage{-18.3mm}
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents a convolutional neural network based fractional interpolation for inter prediction in HEVC. We use the existing SRCNN structure, but retrain interpolation CNN models for the three half-pel positions of luma component. A blurring followed by extracting method is proposed to generate training data, especially the missing labels. Experimental results show that the proposed CNNIF can achieve on avearge 0.9\% bits saving. Our further work will focus on two aspects. First, to design a more efficient network architecture that is more suitable for the interpolation task. Second, we will investigate how to generate better labels for training, especially for the quarter-pel interpolation.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Point processes are a branch of spatial statistics whose main aim is to study the geometrical structure of patterns formed by objects (called events) that are distributed randomly in number and space. This type of data arise in many different fields such as ecology, \cite{Illian2009} and \cite{Law2009}; epidemiology, \cite{Diggle1990cancer} and \cite{Gatrell1996}; astronomy, \cite{Astrostatistics} and \cite{Kerscher2000}; forestry, \cite{Stoyan2000}; seismology, \cite{Ogata1988}, \cite{Ogata1998}, \cite{OgataZhuang2006} and \cite{Schoenberg2011}. General theory on point processes as well as some classical applications, can be found in \cite{DaleyVereJones1988}, \cite{Moller2003}, \cite{Illianbook}, \cite{Diggle2013} and \cite{Baddeley2015}.
Modelling the first-order intensity function is one of the main aims in point process theory. Assuming a parametric model for the intensity function may be a way of estimating it, using for instance a likelihood score such as the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), see \cite{Vanlis2000}, \cite{Moller2003} and \cite{Diggle2013} or pseudolikelihood procedures, see \cite{Waagepetersen2007}. In the Bayesian context \cite{Illian2012} proposed some models based on log-Gaussian Cox processes. However, these techniques can provide inappropriate estimates when the assumed model does not fit the real intensity function. Hence, there is an alternative through nonparametric methods such as quadrat counts and kernel estimation.
\cite{Diggle1985} proposed the first kernel intensity estimator, based on the structure of the common kernel density estimator defined by \cite{Parzen1962} and \cite{Rosenblatt1956}, with the inclusion of an edge correction term. The main drawback of Diggle's proposal is its lack of consistency, which has almost li\-mi\-ted its use to exploratory analysis. To overcome this problem, \cite{CucalaThesis} developed asymptotic theory for Diggle's estimator, introducing the concept of ``density of events locations'' which is based on the idea that the intensity and the density functions differ only in a constant.
The use of nonparametric methods implies to choose a bandwidth value, which determines the degree of smoothness to be considered in the estimation. The choice of the bandwidth parameter is crucial and it has motivated several papers in the literature in the recent decades, see for example \cite{Marron1988}, \cite{Scott1992} and \cite{Silverman1986} for an earlier full description of the problem. There has been great theoretical developments on this problem in areas of statistics such as density estimation and regression, meanwhile in the context of point processes it has received less attention. \cite{Diggle1985} proposed a bandwidth selector based on the minimisation of the mean squared error (MSE) of his estimator. Later, \cite{DiggleMarron1988} showed the equivalence, for Cox processes in the real line, between that procedure and the standard least-squares cross-validation method used in kernel density estimation. This is an example of the strong connection between this two problems of density and intensity estimation. \cite{Brooks1991} proved the optimality of the least-squares cross-validation bandwidth for one-dimensional nonhomogeneous Poisson point processes. \cite{Isa2015} develop an extension of Cucala's theory to the two-dimensional case, and propose a two-dimensional bandwidth selection method based on bootstrap.
Marks and covariates are two different ways of including some extra information in a point process models, \cite[Chap. 5]{Illianbook}. The main difference between them is that marks are directly linked to the events, while covariates include information about the whole observation region. This second scenario is what we consider in this paper. \cite{Guan2008} develop a kernel intensity estimator, assuming that the intensity depends on some observed covariates through a continuous unknown function. This estimator turns out to be consistent under some hypotheses concerning the kernel, the boundary of the region and the pair correlation function. The author also deals with the problem of high-dimensional covariates proposing a method, based on sliced inverse regression, to reduce the number of them before applying the kernel techniques. \cite{Baddeley2012} also use information coming from covariates but in a slightly different way. They assume that the intensity depends on a continuous covariate and propose some intensity estimators based on local likelihood and kernel techniques. In the latest, the bandwidth parameter is chosen using the common rule-of-thumb for density estimation, \cite{Silverman1986}, directly applied to the point process pattern.
There is an important methodological gap in point process with covariates that we are trying to fill. Our idea is to exploit the relationship between the density and the intensity functions and apply nonparametric techniques, frequently used in the density context, to improve the existing estimates for the first-order intensity function. Indeed, we want to provid point processes with covariates, particularly the first-order intensity function, with a well defined framework to guarantee the consistency of the proposed estimates and all the required tools, such as data-driven bandwidth selection methods, to be able to apply them in practice.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we make a brief overview on the existing methods in kernel intensity estimation. Section 3 is devoted to set up the new framework for kernel intensity estimation with covariates and to develop asymptotic theory for it. In Section 4 we propose a new smooth bootstrap method and we prove its consistency. Section 5 includes two new data-driven bandwidth selection methods: a rule-of-thumb based on assuming normality and a bootstrap bandwidth selector. An extensive simulation study is carried out in Section 6 to analyse the our new proposals and to compare them with the existing competitors. In Section 7, we apply all these methods to a real data set of wildfires in Canada. We finally draw some conclusions in Section 8.
\section{Kernel intensity estimation}
Let $X$ be a point process defined in a region $W\subset\mathbb{R}^2$, where $W$ is assumed to have finite positive area. Let $X_1, \ldots, X_N$ be a realisation of the process where $N$ is the random variable counting the number of events. The first-order intensity, from now on referred as intensity, is defined following \cite{Diggle2013} as:
\begin{equation*}
\lambda(x)=\lim_{|dx|\to 0}\frac{E[N(dx)]}{|dx|},
\end{equation*}
where $|dx|$ denotes the area of an infinitesimal region containing the point $x\in\mathbb{R}^2$.
There is an extensive literature on parametric point process models and intensity estimation in this case, see \cite{Schoenberg2005}. However it is well known that we can obtain unreliable estimates when the assumed parametrisation deviates from the true intensity. This is the main reason that supports the use of nonparametric techniques. \cite{Diggle1985} proposed the first kernel intensity estimator for one-dimensional point processes, which has been easily extended to the plane:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\lambda}^D_H(x)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^NK_H\left(x-X_i\right)}{p_H(x)}, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}^2
\end{equation*}
where $H$ is a bandwidth matrix, $K$ denotes a kernel function, $K_H(x)=|H|^{-1/2}K\left(H^{-1/2}x\right)$ and $p_H=\int_W{|H|^{-1/2}}K(H^{-1/2}(x-y))dy$ is an edge correction term.
This estimator has been widely used during decades for exploratory a\-na\-ly\-sis, but the inference performed with it has been limited due to its lack of consistency. To overcome this problem, \cite{CucalaThesis} defined the ``density of events locations'' as $\lambda_0(x)=\lambda(x)/m$, where $m=\int_W{\lambda(x)dx}$ is the expected number of events lying on W. He proposes a kernel estimator:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\lambda}_{0,h}(x)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{h}K\left(\frac{x-X_i}{h}\right)1_{\{N\neq0\}}, x\in\mathbb{R}
\end{equation*}
with $1_{\{\}}$ denoting the indicator function and $h$ a one-dimensional bandwidth parameter. He proves its consistency under an infill structure asymptotic framework. \cite{Isa2015} extended these ideas to the two-dimensional situation using bandwidth matrices, as it has been done in the context of multivariate density estimation.
Now, let $Z:W\subset \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a spatial continuous covariate that is exactly known in every point of the region of interest $W$ and $Z_1,\ldots, Z_N$ the realisation of the transformed process, i.e, $Z_i=Z(X_i)$. In practice, following the indications of \cite{Baddeley2012}, this covariate will commonly be know in an enough amount of points spread over the region, so the values for the rest of the points can be interpolated and it can be assumed that these values are indeed the real ones.
Once it is assumed that the spatial point process intensity depends only on the covariate, see \cite{Baddeley2012}, the following can be established
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int_rho}
\lambda(u)=\rho(Z(u)), \: u \in W\subset \mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is an unknown function. As $Z$ is known, only $\rho$ needs to be estimated in order to obtain an estimate of $\lambda$, which is the target.
To this purpose it is necessary to deal with the transformed univariate point process, $Z(X)$, and establish the theoretical relationship between this one and the original spatial point process $X$. If $X$ is a Poisson point process in $W\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with intensity function \eqref{eq:int_rho}, then $Z(X)$ is a Poisson point process in $\mathbb{R}$ with intensity $\rho g^\star$ and with the same expected number of events, where $g^\star$ is the non-normalised version of the derivative of the spatial cumulative distribution function (see Appendix A for details on this).
The proposals in \cite{Guan2008} and \cite{Baddeley2012}, following assumption \eqref{eq:int_rho}, are similar kernel intensity estimators. \cite{Guan2008} develops a kernel estimator based on the definition of the distance between two points by the distance through their covariates values:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\lambda}^G_{h}(u)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N K_h(||\mathbf{Z}(u)-\mathbf{Z}(X_i)||)}{q_h(u)},
\end{equation*}
with $q_h(u)=\int_W{K_h(||\mathbf{Z}(u)-\mathbf{Z}(s)||)ds}$ the edge correction term, where \linebreak $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_1,\ldots,Z_p):W\subset \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ where every $Z_i$ fulfils the same conditions as $Z$.
Considering the increasing domain asymptotic framework and adding also some suitable assumptions, the consistency of his proposal is proved. A bandwidth selection criterion using cross-validation techniques is defined, as well as a dimension reduction tool that allows to handle with high-dimensional covariates.
\cite{Baddeley2012} propose two types of nonparametric intensity estimators, one based on local likelihood and the other on kernel theory. We will focus on the latter, particularly on a kernel intensity estimator for the $\rho$ function with a one-dimensional covariate using weights:
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{equation}\label{Bad_reweighted}
\hat{\rho}_W(z)=\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i)}K_h(z-Z_i),
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
To obtain the bandwidth parameter $h$, \cite{Baddeley2012} use the common Silverman's rule-of-thumb for density estimation applied to the transformed data.
Our aim in this paper is not only to define a good kernel estimator for the intensity function under assumption \eqref{eq:int_rho}, but to be able to set a theo\-re\-ti\-cal framework in which we could prove its consistency and develop optimal bandwidth methods. In short, we want to be able to characterise the intensity estimator in an proper theoretical framework with all the required tools to be able to apply it in practice. This framework is described in the following section.
\section{A consistent theoretical framework for kernel intensity estimation based on covariates}
In this section we work under the transformed space assuming \eqref{eq:int_rho}, and the point process obtained from the original one, $X$, through the covariate, $Z(X)$, defined in the previous section and detailed in Appendix A.
First of all we need to introduce some definitions and notation. The spatial cumulative distribution function of $Z$ is defined as
\begin{equation*
G(z)=\frac{1}{|W|}\int_W{1_{\{Z(u)\leq z\}}du},
\end{equation*}
where $|W|$ denotes the area of the region $W \subset \mathbb{R}^2$. Let assume that $G$ has a first derivative $g$, for which we need $Z$ to be differentiable with non-zero gradient and let denote the non-normalised versions by $g^\star(\cdot)=|W|g(\cdot)$ and $G^\star(\cdot)=|W|G(\cdot)$. The results detailed in Appendix A reach to the fact that $\rho g^\star$ is the intensity function of the transformed point process, $Z(X)$.
Now, following the idea of \cite{CucalaThesis} we use the close relationship between the intensity and the density function. Hence, we can define the following ``artificial'' density function based on the relative density of the transformed point process $Z(X)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dens_int}
f(\cdot)=\frac{\rho(\cdot)g^\star(\cdot)}{m}.
\end{equation}
We propose in this work to take profit of this relationship by firstly estimating the density and then going back to our target problem, that is the intensity estimation, multiplying just by a constant.
Following the pre-established notation, let define the estimator of the re\-la\-ti\-ve density as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dens_est}
\hat{f}_{h}(z)=g^\star(z) \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i)}K_h\left(z-Z_i\right)1_{\{N\neq 0\}},
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a kernel function and $K_h(\cdot)=\frac{1}{h}K\left(\frac{\cdot}{h}\right)$. This is an estimate of $f$, and once we have it, we can go back to the intensity function just by plug-in and letting $\hat{\lambda}(u)=\hat{\rho}_h(Z(u))$, where $\hat{\rho}_h$ can be replaced by for example \eqref{Bad_reweighted}.
In the following statement we obtain the value of the pointwise mean and variance of $\hat{f}_h$ with the corresponding error rates, as well as its mean squared error (MSE), which is defined as follows:
\[MSE(h,z)=E\left[\left(\hat{f}_h(z)-f(z)\right)^2\right].\]
Hereafter we will establish that our point process $X$ is a nonhomogeneous Poisson point process in $W \subset \mathbb{R}^2$. Although the intensity estimator we propose, as well as the bandwidth selectors, can be applied to non-Poisson processes, the previous assumption is required to prove the consistency of the estimator.
We also need to introduce some regularity conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A.1)]{$\int_{\mathbb{R}}K(z)dz=1$; $\int_{\mathbb{R}}zK(z)dz=0$ and $\mu_2(K):=\int_{\mathbb{R}}z^2K(z)dz<\infty$.}
\item[(A.2)]{$\lim_{m\to\infty}h=0$ and $\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{A(m)}{h}=0$, where $A(m):=\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{N}1_{\{N\neq 0\}}\right]$.}
\item[(A.3)]{$G$ is three times differentiable.}
\item[(A.4)]{$z$ is a continuity point of $\rho$.}
\item[(A.5)]{$\rho$ is three times differentiable.}
\end{itemize}
Notice that we use an infill structure asymptotic framework, which means that the observation region remains fixed while the sample size increases. In this scenario the bandwidth $h$ is considered as a function of the expected sample size, this is, $h \equiv h(m)$ and hence a sequence of values when $m\to \infty$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:mse}
Under conditions (A.1) to (A.4) we have that:
\begin{align*}
E\left[\hat{f}_h(z)\right]&=\frac{g^\star(z)(K_h \circ \rho)(z)}{m}\left(1-e^{-m}\right)\qquad \mbox{and}\\
Var\left[\hat{f}_h(z)\right]&=A(m)\frac{(g^\star(z))^2}{n}\left(K^2_h \circ \frac{\rho}{g^\star}\right)(z)\\
&-(A(m)+e^{-2m}-e^{-m})(g^\star(z))^2(K_h\circ \rho)^2(z),
\end{align*}
where $\circ$ denotes the convolution between two functions. Moreover, adding condition (A.5) we have:
\begin{align*}
MSE(h,z)&=e^{-2m}f^2(z)+(1-e^{-m})^2\frac{h^4}{4}\left(\frac{\rho^{''}(z)g^\star(z)}{m}\right)^2\mu_2^2(K)\nonumber\\
&-e^{-m}(1-e^{-m})h^2\mu_2(K)\frac{(g^\star(z))^2\rho(z)\rho^{''}(z)}{m^2}+\frac{A(m)}{h}f(z)R(K)\nonumber \\
&+o(h^2(1-e^{-m})e^{-m})+o(h^4(1-e^{-m})^2)+o\left(\frac{A(m)}{mh}\right),
\end{align*}
where $R(K)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}{K^2(z)dz}$.
\end{theorem}
The proofs of this result and the others in the paper are detailed in Appendixes B and C.
Now, defining the mean integrated square error (MISE) as
\begin{equation}\label{MISE}
MISE(h)=E\int{\left(\hat{f}_h(z)-f(z)\right)^2dz},\end{equation}
and denoting by $AMISE$ its asymptotic version, the following result is a consequence of Theorem \ref{th:mse}:
\begin{corollary}\label{th:mise}
Under conditions (A.1) to (A.3) and (A.5),
\begin{align*}
MISE(h)&=e^{-2m}R(f)+(1-e^{-m})^2\frac{h^4}{4}R\left(\frac{\rho^{''}g^\star}{m}\right)\mu_2^2(K)\nonumber \\
&-e^{-m}(1-e^{-m})h^2\mu_2(K)\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{g^\star(z)\rho^{''}(z)f(z)}{m}dz+\frac{A(m)}{h}R(K)\nonumber \\
&+o(h^2(1-e^{-m})e^{-m})+o(h^4(1-e^{-m})^2)+o\left(\frac{A(m)}{mh}\right) \qquad \mbox{and}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
AMISE(h)&=(1-e^{-m})^2\frac{h^4}{4}R\left(\frac{\rho^{''}g^\star}{m}\right)\mu_2^2(K)+\frac{A(m)}{h}R(K).
\end{align*}
As a consequence, the optimal bandwidth value which minimises $AMISE$ is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hamise}
h_{AMISE}=\left(\frac{A(m)R(K)}{\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-m})^2R\left(\frac{\rho^{''}g^\star}{m}\right)}\right)^{1/5}=\left(\frac{R(K)}{\mu_2^2(K)R(\rho^{''}g^\star)}\frac{A(m)}{(1-e^{-m})^2}\right)^{1/5}.\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\section{Resampling bootstrap method}
Nonparametric bootstrap procedures have been widely used in different contexts to perform inference and calibrate the distribution of statistics in goodness-of-fit tests. The smooth bootstrap procedure for point processes with covariates proposed in this section is based on the works of \cite{Cao1993} for kernel density estimation, and \cite{Cowling1996}, for the intensity estimation of a Poisson point process.
Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ be a realisation of the spatial point process $X$, construct $Z_1,\ldots,Z_n$ the associated realisation of the transformed univariate process, let $\hat{f}_b$ be the density estimator in \eqref{eq:dens_est} and $\hat{\rho}_b$ the estimator defined in the previous section, where $b$ is a pilot bandwidth.
Now, conditional on $Z_1,\ldots,Z_n$, let $N^\ast \sim Poiss\left(\hat{m}\right)$ with $\hat{m}:=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\hat{\rho}_b(z) g^\star(z)dz$, ge\-ne\-ra\-te $n^\ast$ a realisation of this random variable $N^\ast$ and then draw $Z_1^\ast, \ldots, Z_{n^\ast}^\ast$ by sampling randomly with replacement $n^\ast$ times from the distribution with density proportional to $g^\star\hat{\rho}_b$, i.e. $\tilde{f}_b=\frac{\hat{\rho}_b g^\star}{\hat{m}}$.
Denote by $Z^\ast$ the random variable generated by the bootstrap method presented above and from the bootstrap sample define the density estimator as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dens_est_boot}
\hat{f}_{h}^\ast(z)=g^\star(z) \frac{1}{N^\ast}\sum_{i=1}^{N^\ast}\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i^\ast)}K_h\left(z-Z_i^\ast\right)1_{\{N^\ast\neq 0\}},
\end{equation}
hence, using equation \eqref{eq:dens_int} we get the associated estimator of $\rho$:
\[\hat{\rho}_h^\ast(z)=\sum_{i=1}^{N^\ast}\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i^\ast)}K_h\left(z-Z_i^\ast\right),\]
and then we plug-in it in \eqref{eq:int_rho} to obtain an estimator of $\lambda$.
The following result provides the expression of the mean, variance and mean squared error of $\hat{f}^\ast_h$ under the bootstrap distribution; hereafter we use $E^\ast$, $Var^\ast$ and $MSE^\ast$ to refer to the mean, variance and mean squared error respectively, under the bootstrap distribution.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:mseboot}
Under conditions (A.1) to (A.4) we get:
\begin{align*}
E^\ast\left[\hat{f}_h^\ast(z)\right]&=\frac{g^\star(z)}{\hat{m}}(K_h\circ \hat{\rho}_b)(z)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})\qquad \mbox{and}\\
Var^\ast\left[\hat{f}^\ast_h(z)\right]&=\frac{(g^\star(z))^2}{\hat{m}}\left(K_h^2 \circ \frac{\hat{\rho}_b}{g^\star}\right)(z)A(\hat{m})-\frac{(g^\star(z))^2}{\hat{m}^2}(K_h\circ \hat{\rho}_b)^2(z)(A(\hat{m})\\
&+e^{-2\hat{m}}-e^{-\hat{m}}),
\end{align*}
where $A(\hat{m}):=E^\ast\left[\frac{1}{N^\ast}1_{\{N^\ast \neq 0\}}\right]$. Moreover, adding condition (A.5) we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:mseboot}
&MSE^\ast(h,z)=e^{-2\hat{m}}(\tilde{f}_b(z))^2+\frac{h^4}{4}(\hat{\rho}_h^{''}(z))^2\frac{(g^\star(z))^2}{\hat{m}^2}\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2\nonumber \\
&-e^{-\hat{m}}(1-e^{-\hat{m}})h^2\tilde{f}_b(z)\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}(z)g^\star(z)}{\hat{m}}\mu_2(K)+\frac{A(\hat{m})}{h}R(K)+o_P(h^4(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2)\nonumber \\
&+o_P(h^2(1-e^{-\hat{m}})e^{-\hat{m}})+o_P\left(\frac{A(\hat{m})}{\hat{m}h}\right);
\end{align}
remind that we have defined $\tilde{f}_b(\cdot)=\frac{\hat{\rho}_b (\cdot)g^\star(\cdot)}{\hat{m}}$.
\end{theorem}
In the same way as we have done for Corollary \ref{th:mise}, the integrated and asymptotic version of the $MSE^\ast$ can be easily deduced from the previous result in the next Corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{th_miseboot}
Under conditions (A.1) to (A.3) and (A.5),
\begin{align*}
&MISE^\ast(h)=e^{-2\hat{m}}R(\tilde{f}_b)+\frac{h^4}{4}R\left(\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}}\right)\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2\\
&-e^{-\hat{m}}(1-e^{-\hat{m}})h^2\mu_2(K)\int{\frac{\tilde{f}_b(z)\hat{\rho}_b^{''}(z)g^\star(z)}{\hat{m}}dz}+\frac{A(\hat{m})}{h}R(K) \\
&+o(h^4(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2)+o_P(h^2(1-e^{-\hat{m}})e^{-\hat{m}})+o_P\left(\frac{A(\hat{m})}{\hat{m}h}\right) \qquad \mbox{and}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&AMISE^\ast(h)=\frac{h^4}{4}R\left(\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}}\right)\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2+\frac{A(\hat{m})}{h}R(K).
\end{align*}
Therefore the asymptotic expression of the optimal bootstrap bandwidth is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq_hamiseboot}
h_{AMISE^\ast}=\left(\frac{A(\hat{m})R(K)}{\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2R\left(\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}}\right)}\right)^{1/5},
\end{equation}
which is a plug-in version of \eqref{eq:hamise}.
\end{corollary}
All these results above lead to the following Corollary.
\begin{corollary}Under assumptions (A.1) to (A.4) $MISE^\ast$ and $AMISE^\ast$ are consistent estimators of $MISE$ and $AMISE$, respectively.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
The theory developed in this section is restricted to the context of spatial point processes, i.e., processes in $\mathbb{R}^2$. A generalisation to the $\mathbb{R}^p$ space can be done without much more complexity but the increased dimension of the involved parameters, however it does not seem to be of great practical value.
\end{remark}
\section{Data-driven bandwidth selection}
In this section we describe two new bandwidth selection methods for the intensity estimation based on \eqref{eq:dens_est}. These methods consist of adaptations of common selectors in the field of density estimation that have not yet been defined nor implemented in the point process framework. We propose a Normal scale rule (rule-of-thumb) and a bootstrap selector derived from the consistent resampling bootstrap procedure detailed in the previous section. All these proposals are based on estimating the infeasible optimal expression \eqref{eq:hamise} in which the unknown elements are $m$, $A(m)$ and $\rho^{''}$.
\subsection{Rule-of-thumb for bandwidth selection}
The basis idea of this method is the same as in \cite{Silverman1986}: we assume that the underlying density \eqref{eq:dens_int} is Normal, $N(\mu,\sigma)$, with the parameters being estimated from the data, and in this way we replace the unknown values in \eqref{eq:hamise}.
In the point processes framework the computation is slightly different from the one used in the context of density estimation, because here the density is only a feature to get the intensity. To begin with, we have to remark that in our context, \eqref{eq:hamise} has some other unknown elements apart from $f$, such as $m$ and $A(m)$. The first one is the expected number of points, that in practice can be estimated by the sample size $n$, and the second one by $1/n$.
The only unknown element left is $\rho^{''}$. However, assuming that $f=\frac{\rho g^\star}{m}$ is Normal, we can derive that
\[\rho{''}(z)=m\left(\frac{f^{''}(z)}{g^\star(z)}-\frac{2f^{'}(z)(g^\star(z))^{'}}{(g^\star(z))^2}-\frac{f(z)(g^\star(z))^{''}}{(g^\star(z))^2}+\frac{2f(z)((g^\star(z))^{'})^2}{(g^\star(z))^3}\right),\]
and then compute $R\left(\frac{\rho^{''}g^\star}{m}\right)$ using numerical integration methods. Replacing all those estimates in \eqref{eq:hamise} we have the rule-of-thumb bandwidth selector that we will denote by $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$.
\subsection{Bootstrap for bandwidth selection}
The asymptotic expression of the optimal bootstrap bandwidth can be considered to
derive a consistent bandwidth estimate. \cite{Cao1993} suggested such approach for kernel
density estimation with complete data and \cite{BorrajoLengthBiased} detail the result for length-biased data, as well as some remarks to extend it to general weighted data.
In the expression \eqref{eq:eq_hamiseboot} that we use to build this selector,some quantities need to be computed: $\hat{m}$, $A(\hat{m})$ and $R(\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}})$. The first two can be easily calculated through numerical integration methods such as Simpson's rule, while the last one requires some more effort.
The main challenge in the estimation of $R(\frac{\hat{\rho}_b^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}})$ is to obtain an appropriate value for the pilot bandwidth $b$. Regarding \cite{Cao1993} and \cite{BorrajoLengthBiased} we can assume that the order of that bandwidth in our context is $m^{-1/7}$, and that the constant has a slight influence on the final result. Hence we propose to use as pilot bandwidth a re-scaled version of the rule-of-thumb previously defined:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{b}=\frac{m^{-1/5}}{m^{-1/7}}\hat{h}_{RT}.
\end{equation*}
Obviously in practice we do not know the value of $m$, so we use the best approximation we can have which is the sample size of the corresponding realization of the point process.
Then, the bootstrap bandwidth we propose is:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{h}_{\mbox{Boot}}=\left(\frac{A(\hat{m})R(K)}{\mu_2^2(K)(1-e^{-\hat{m}})^2R(\frac{\hat{\rho}_{\hat{b}}^{''}g^\star}{\hat{m}})}\right)^{1/5}.
\end{equation*}
\section{Finite sample study}
In this section we perform a simulation study to analyse the behaviour of the methods proposed in this paper. Firstly we analyse the performance of the intensity estimator defined in (\ref{Bad_reweighted}), using our two bandwidth selection pro\-po\-sals: the rule-of-thumb, $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$, and the bootstrap method, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$. We compare these with the only bandwidth selector that has been previously proposed by \cite{Baddeley2012} for this intensity estimator, which is the common Silverman's rule-of-thumb for density estimation denoted here as $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$. We also added in this comparison a least-squares cross-validation bandwidth selection method defined for our estimator in the same way as it is done for common density estimation, i.e., using least-squares cross-validation and this will be denoted by $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$. Secondly we extend the comparison to the intensity estimator proposed by \cite{Guan2008} for which also a cross-validation bandwidth selector was suggested.
We have chosen three different models, all under assumption \eqref{eq:int_rho}. These models are nonhomogeneous Poisson point processes in the unit square with intensity function given by
\begin{equation*}\lambda(u)=exp(\beta_0+\beta_1Z(u)), \quad u \in W=[0,1]\times[0,1],
\end{equation*}
where $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are known parameters, and $Z$ denotes a covariate.
The three models are constructed using two different covariates that are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:covariates}. The first covariate on the left, $Z1$, is a realisation of a Gaussian random field, with zero mean and exponential covariance structure with parameters $\sigma=0.1$ and $s=0.1$, so the covariance function is given by $C(r)=\sigma^2exp(-r/s)$. The second covariate on the right, dR, is a rescaled version into the unit square of the ``distance to letter R'' defined in \cite{Baddeley2012}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=90]{z1.pdf}
\hspace*{1cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=90]{dR.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the covariates used in the three models, $Z1$ on the left and dR on the right.} \label{fig:covariates}
\end{figure}\vspace*{-0.5cm}
The three models are defined by the following three intensity functions:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_1(u)&=&\exp{(6+4Z1(u))} \\
\lambda_2(u)&=&\exp{(6+4(Z1+e1)(u))}\\
\lambda_{3}(u)&=&\exp{(5-3\mbox{dR}(u))}
\end{eqnarray*}\vspace*{-0.5cm}
The second model includes an error term to perturb the covariate, in order to see how the estimators perform using only partial information on the real covariate generating the process. We have generated this error term considering a different realisation of the same Gaussian random field we have defined for $Z1$. A plot of this error term is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:e1}, and the three intensity functions are represented in Fig. \ref{fig:models}.\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32,angle=90]{e1.pdf}
\caption{Plot of the error term used to perturb the information given to the estimator by the real covariate.} \label{fig:e1}
\end{figure}\vspace*{-1cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Model 1]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.26,angle=90]{lambda1.pdf}}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\subfigure[Model 2]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.26,angle=90]{lambda2.pdf}}\hspace*{0.1cm}
\subfigure[Model 3]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.26,angle=90]{lambda3.pdf}}
\caption{Intensity functions characterising the three simulated models.} \label{fig:models}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have simulated 500 realisations for each model and different expected sample sizes covering a wide range of possibilities, $m=50, 100, 250 \mbox{ and } 500$. Notice that the underlying model generating these samples is not exactly the same, we need to rescale the intensity function to guarantee that the mean number of events in the unit square is $m$.
From the simulated samples, we have evaluated the performance of the intensity estimator in (\ref{Bad_reweighted}) with different bandwidth choices through three error criteria, $e_1$, $e_2$ and $e_3$, defined below.
Our final aim is to estimate the intensity function and so we want to show the performance of the resulting intensity estimators for each bandwidth selector. For two-dimensional intensity estimates we consider the relative integrated squared error defined as:
\begin{equation} \label{ISErel}
\mbox{ISE}_{\mbox{rel}}=\int_W{\left(\frac{\hat{\lambda}(u)-\lambda(u)}{\lambda(u)}\right)^2du},
\end{equation}
and define the first two performance measures as:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{c}
e_1=\textup{mean}\left(\textup{ISE}_{\mbox{rel}}(\hat{h})\right) \ \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \ e_2=\textup{std}\left(\textup{ISE}_{\mbox{rel}}(\hat{h})\right) ,
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
which represent the average relative error and the variability around, respectively.
On the other hand, our bandwidth selectors aim to estimate the infeasible optimal bandwidth that minimises the $MISE$ criterion defined in (\ref{MISE}). So it is natural to consider such infeasible value as a benchmark in our simulations, and measure how close our estimates are from such value. This motivates our third performance measure that is the relative bias of the bandwidth selectors defined as:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{c}
e_3=\textup{mean}\left((\hat{h}-\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}})/\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}\right),
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ is the minimiser of the Monte Carlo approximation (based on the 500 simulated samples) of criterion \eqref{MISE}.
The simulation results are summarised in Tables \ref{tb1}, \ref{tb2} and \ref{tb3}.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Simulation results for Model 1. Performance measures $e_1$ to $e_3$ are reported for the intensity estimator with bandwidths $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$.} \label{tb1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textit{Model 1}} \\
& $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$ \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=50$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0662 & 0.1222 & 0.0881 & 0.0656 & 0.2688 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0735 & 0.1089 & 0.0848 & 0.0701 & 0.0699 \\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.6132 &-0.4352 & 0.0533 & 6.2584 \\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=100$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0388 & 0.0706 & 0.0518 & 0.0391 & 0.2665 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0345 & 0.0494 & 0.0391 & 0.0342 & 0.0499 \\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.6238 &-0.4577 & 0.0686 & 6.5941\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=200$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0248 & 0.0443 & 0.0332 & 0.0250 & 0.2731 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0220 & 0.0339 & 0.0268 & 0.0225 & 0.0347 \\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.6274 &-0.4706 & 0.0859 & 8.1597\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=500$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0127 & 0.0231 & 0.0173 & 0.0131 & 0.2768\\
$e_2$ & 0.0091 & 0.0159 & 0.0120 & 0.0093 & 0.0201\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.6254 &-0.4690 & 0.1566 & 10.1974 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Simulation results for Model 2. Performance measures $e_1$ to $e_3$ are reported for the intensity estimator with bandwidths $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$.}\label{tb2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textit{Model 2}} \\
& $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$ \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=50$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.3070 & 0.3414 & 0.3115 & 0.3045 & 0.2708\\
$e_2$ & 0.1451 & 0.1567 & 0.1436 & 0.1470 & 0.0501\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.4386 &-0.2109 & 0.4183 & 0.2839\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=100$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.2574 & 0.2830 & 0.2708 & 0.2810 & 0.2660\\
$e_2$ & 0.1270 & 0.1109 & 0.1061 & 0.1092 & 0.0329\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.9252 &-0.8985 &-0.8111 & 0.4187\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=200$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.2269 & 0.2514 & 0.2453 & 0.2617 & 0.2685\\
$e_2$ & 0.0717 & 0.0727 & 0.0660 & 0.0665 & 0.0247\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.9334 &-0.9099 &-0.8290 & 0.5097\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=500$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.2065 & 0.2281 & 0.2264 & 0.2421 & 0.2710 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0313 & 0.0363 & 0.0355 & 0.0368 & 0.0157 \\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.9419 &-0.9252 &-0.8540 & 0.5688\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Simulation results for Model 3. Performance measures $e_1$ to $e_3$ are reported for the intensity estimator with bandwidths $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$. }\label{tb3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccccc} \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textit{Model 3}} \\
& $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$\\ \hline
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=50$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0970 & 0.1173 & 0.1012 & 0.1001 & 0.1798\\
$e_2$ & 0.0845 & 0.1013 & 0.0877 & 0.0855 & 0.0621\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.3810 &-0.1910 & 0.2486 & 2.3346\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=100$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0669 & 0.0735 & 0.0679 & 0.0704 & 0.1689\\
$e_2$ & 0.0419 & 0.0507 & 0.0441 & 0.0396 & 0.0407\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.2854 &-0.1001 & 0.3110 & 3.4686\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=200$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0446 & 0.0460 & 0.0447 & 0.0487 & 0.1632\\
$e_2$ & 0.0237 & 0.0251 & 0.0234 & 0.0227 & 0.0293\\
$e_3$ & --- &-0.1730 & 0.0243 & 0.4022 & 4.8131\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$m=500$} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0244 & 0.0244 & 0.0251 & 0.0283 & 0.1587\\
$e_2$ & 0.0094 & 0.0093 & 0.0088 & 0.0090 & 0.0183\\
$e_3$ & --- & -0.0003 & 0.2245 & 0.5455 & 0.5229\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
An overview of the values in Tables \ref{tb1}, \ref{tb2} and \ref{tb3} indicates that in general, the bootstrap bandwidth seems to perform better than the others in most of the cases, and when this does not occur, our procedure is still competitive. Any of the other rule-of-thumb are not far away from it, even though the one specifically designed for spatial point processes show a slightly better behaviour than the Silverman's, specially for small sample sizes. The cross-validation criteria is only competitive in Model 2, where the covariate information provided to the estimator is contamined with an error term.
In terms of variability, measured by criteria $e_2$, the four compared methods are similar, even though the bootstrap estimates shows in general smaller values.
Looking at the bias of bandwidth estimates, measured through criterion $e_3$, for Model 1, the bootstrap bandwidth selector outperforms far more better than the others; for Model 2, the cross-validation reaches the smaller values, while for Model 3 the rule-of-thumb outperforms the others. Notice also that the rule-of-thumb and Silverman's procedures show the bias in the same direction, to be more specific all of them tend to choose smaller bandwidths than the optimal one. And also remark that this measure is not completely fair for the cross-validation criterion because its objective is not the optimal bandwidth in terms of MISE but in terms of ISE, which might also explain the high values shown in this measure.
To complete our analysis, we have carried out a parallel simulation study to compare our proposals to the competitor described in \cite{Guan2008}.
The simulation results are summarised in Table \ref{tb4}, where we report the performance measures $e_1$ and $e_2$, for the intensity estimator proposed by Guan and our proposal in this paper. For Guan's intensity estimator we have considered two bandwidth choices: the (Monte Carlo approximated) optimal MISE bandwidth, $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_\textup{Guan}}$, which is considered as a benchmark for this estimator, and the practical least-squares cross-validation bandwidth, $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}_\textup{Guan}}$, proposed in his paper. For our proposal we have considered the intensity estimator with the benchmark $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ defined above, and our bootstrap bandwidth selector, $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Comparison with Guan's estimator. Measures $e_1$ and $e_2$ are reported for our intensity estimator with bandwidths $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$, and compared to Guan's estimator with optimal-MISE bandwidth, $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_{\textup{Guan}}}$, and a cross-validation estimate, $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}}$.}\label{tb4}
\centering
\resizebox*{\textwidth}{!}{\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc} \hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$m=50$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$m=100$} \\ \hline
& $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_{\textup{Guan}}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}_\textup{Guan}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_{\textup{Guan}}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}_\textup{Guan}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{ \textit{Model 1}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0815 & 0.1855 & 0.0662 & 0.0656 & 0.0481 & 0.1885 & 0.0388 & 0.0391 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0786 & 0.1367 & 0.0735 & 0.0701 & 0.0412 & 0.1034 & 0.0345 & 0.0342 \\
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\textit{Model 2}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.3316 & 0.4479 & 0.3070 & 0.3045 & 0.2777 & 0.4027 & 0.2574 & 0.2810 \\
$e_2$ & 0.1804 & 0.2474 & 0.1451 & 0.1470 & 0.1092 & 0.1756 & 0.1270 & 0.1092 \\
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\textit{Model 3}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0518 & 0.0737 & 0.0970 & 0.1001 & 0.0309 & 0.0442 & 0.0669 & 0.0704 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0530 & 0.0822 & 0.0845 & 0.0855 & 0.0305 & 0.0457 & 0.0419 & 0.0396 \\
&&&&&&&&\\\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$m=200$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$m=500$} \\ \hline
& $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_{\textup{Guan}}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}_\textup{Guan}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_{\textup{Guan}}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{CV}_\textup{Guan}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ & $\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{ \textit{Model 1}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0288 & 0.2358 & 0.0248 & 0.0250 & 0.0147 & 0.2407 & 0.0127 & 0.0131 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0243 & 0.0892 & 0.0220 & 0.0225 & 0.0097 & 0.0640 & 0.0091 & 0.0093 \\
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\textit{Model 2}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.2482 & 0.3804 & 0.2269 & 0.2617 & 0.2283 & 0.3593 & 0.2065 & 0.2421 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0707 & 0.1303 & 0.0717 & 0.0665 & 0.0393 & 0.0825 & 0.0313 & 0.0368 \\
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\textit{Model 3}} \\
$e_1$ & 0.0181 & 0.0356 & 0.0446 & 0.0487 & 0.0092 & 0.0227 & 0.0244 & 0.0238 \\
$e_2$ & 0.0152 & 0.0274 & 0.0237 & 0.0227 & 0.0064 & 0.0155 & 0.0094 & 0.0090 \\
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
The results in Table \ref{tb4} are derived from the same 500 simulated samples considered in previous tables for the four sample sizes $m=50, 100, 200$ and $500$. We want to point out the computational burden of performing cross validation for Guan's estimator, along with the numerical integration that this estimator requires. It seems to be a drawback of this approach that is well known for cross-validation methods. Another issue that we have observed in this context is the non existence of a global minimum for the cross-validation score in a number of samples. In our simulations this issue has leaded to the selection of the bandwidth at the boundary of the minimisation interval, which has occurred between 45 and 213 times out of 500, depending on the model and the sample sizes (it is more likely for smaller sizes).
If we ignore these issues of the practical proposal by Guan, we can see from the numbers reported in Table \ref{tb4} that our proposal performs considerably better than Guan's for the two first simulated models. In the best situation for the intensity estimators, i.e., calculating the intensity estimators with the infeasible benchmarks, $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\textup{MISE}_\textup{Guan}}$, our estimator achieves smaller relative errors with slightly lower variability. Considering the practical bandwidth choices for each estimator our bootstrap approach clearly beats the cross-validation method. On the other hand, Model 3 seems to be a good scenario for Guan's estimator and his practical cross-validation method, but even in this case our bootstrap proposal is still competitive.
\section{Canadian wildfires}
Forest fires are one of the most important natural disturbances since the last Ice Age and they represent a huge social and economic problem. Canada has quite a long tradition on recording information about their wildfires; and also studies from many different perspectives have been carried out: \cite{CanadaFires_Clouds}, \cite{CanadaFires_HighLatitudeCooling}, \cite{CanadaFires_SmokeMediterraneanSea}, \cite{CanadaFires_Meteorological}. It is quite well known that fire activity in Canada mostly relies on meteorological elements such as long periods without rain and high temperatures.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfigure{\resizebox*{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Canada_FiresJun2015.pdf}}}
\hspace*{0.5cm} \subfigure{\resizebox*{.4\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Canada_FiresJun2015W.pdf}}}
\caption{Wildfires in Canada during June 2015, over the whole country (left) and only on the observation region (right).}\label{fg:incjun2015}
\end{figure}
It is important to note that for inferential purposes we have removed two regions (Northwest Territories and Nunavut) from the whole observation region (Canada) because there are no fires registered on those regions and we cannot do any inference with such a lack of information.
We are interested in studying the spatial influence on some of these me\-teo\-ro\-lo\-gi\-cal variables on the distribution of wildfires. The wildfire data set and also a complete meteorological information from the last decades is available at the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System website (\url{http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/home}). The fire season in Canada lasts from late April until August, with a peak of activity in June and July, hence we are interested in analysing the influence of meteorological covariates on wildfires during June 2015 (see Fig. \ref{fg:incjun2015}), and we focus our attention on temperature and precipitation (see Fig. \ref{fg:cov}).
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\subfigure[Third quartile of the temperature registered in June 2015 after a Gaussian smoothing with $\sigma=2$ (in Celsius degrees)]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90]{Canada_TempJun2015.pdf}}}
\hspace*{0.6cm}
\subfigure[Mean noon-24 houre precipitation registered in June 2015 after a Gaussian smoothing with $\sigma=2$ (in millimetres).]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=90]{Canada_PrecipJun2015.pdf}}}
\caption{Covariates to be used in the intensity estimation of the wildfires in Canada during June 2015.}\label{fg:cov}
\end{figure}
Our theoretical context \eqref{eq:int_rho}, is defined to use one single one-dimensional covariate in the model. As the temperature seems to have a higher influence on the distribution of the wildfires, we perform the estimation including it as the explanatory covariate; remark that instead of considering the maximum value during June in every point of the region, we have computed the third quartile in order not to deal with extreme values. We want to compare not only the results obtained using the different bandwidth selectors described in the previous sections but also, in order to detect the influence of the covariate, we have included the nonparametric kernel intensity estimation proposed in \cite{Diggle1985} that uses only the point pattern coordinates to compute the intensity estimation.
Regarding Fig. \ref{fg:incjun2015} and Fig. \ref{fg:esttemp} we can assure that the information given by the temperature is relevant for the estimation. Indeed, we can see in (a) that Diggle's proposal can barely identify the area with more fires, while when using this extra information, the estimation seems to be more suitable with the point process pattern. Among the three bandwidth selectors we cannot identify in this specific example one of them outperforming better than the others, actually the resulting estimates are very similar because the bandwidth values are close.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Diggle]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.24]{Canada_IntensidadDiggle_TempJun2015.pdf}}}\hspace*{0.6cm}
\subfigure[$\hat{h}_{\textup{Silv}}$]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.24]{Canada_IntensidadSilverman_TempJun2015.pdf}}}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\subfigure[$\hat{h}_{\textup{RT}}$]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.24]{Canada_IntensidadRT_TempJun2015.pdf}}}\hspace*{0.6cm}
\subfigure[$\hat{h}_{\textup{Boot}}$]{
\resizebox*{.45\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.24]{Canada_IntensidadBoot_TempJun2015.pdf}}}
\caption{Diggle's estimation without covariate information (a), and estimations with the different bandwidth selectors using the temperature as the covariate ((b), (c) and (d)).}\label{fg:esttemp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Section \ref{sc:ext} we detail some possible procedures to be able to use several covariates in this context. One possibility is to perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for a set of covariates keeping the first principal component for the estimation. In this particular example of wildfire in Canada, the result is $\textup{ACP1}=0.991*\texttt{Temp} + 0.131*\texttt{Precip}$, which explains the 93\% of the total variance and the correlations with Temperature and Precipitation were, respectively, $0.9993$ and $0.4323$. This leads to the fact that temperature and the first principal component are almost equal, so we will obtain similar results.
In that same section related to multi-dimensional covariates, we also propose a multivariate extension of our model, where the use of several covariates is allowed. See the model description in \eqref{eq:int_multiv} and the multivariate intensity estimator in \eqref{eq:dens_est_multiv}. So, even if the asymptotic theory is not yet done for the multivariate context, we have developed the tools to be able to apply the multivariate extension in a practical context, including in this example temperature and precipitation all together in the estimation.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=90]{Multiv_Estimate_Hpi.pdf}
\caption{Intensity estimation performed with two covariates, temperature and precipitation.}\label{fg:estmultiv}
\end{figure}
We have to remark that we need a two-dimensional bandwidth matrix to be able to compute our multivariate estimator. To develop specific asymptotic theory supporting bandwidth selection in this multivariate context is beyond the scope of this paper. For this example we just consider the multivariate plug-in rule defined for density estimation in \cite{DuongHazelton} and implemented in the function \texttt{Hpi} of \cite{ks}. Note that his choice is not optimally designed for our estimator but it allows to complete our illustration.
Fig. \ref{fg:estmultiv} shows the result of this multivariate estimation. Comparing it with Fig. \ref{fg:esttemp}, we can see that the resulting intensity seems to better represent the wildfire point pattern in Fig. \ref{fg:incjun2015}. This indicates that actually, both covariates seem to contribute significantly in the wildfire distribution.
\section{Further extensions}\label{sc:ext}
\subsection{Spatio-temporal point processes}
Spatio-temporal point processes are the most common generalisation of the spatial ones. To the extent of our knowledge spatio-temporal point processes have not been addressed so far for the covariate model we are focused on in this work, even though ths extension seems still natural.
As a first approach let us define a spatio-temporal intensity depending on a covariate:
\[\lambda(u,t)= \rho(Z(u,t)),\]
where $u$ and $t$ are, respectively, the spatial and temporal coordinates, $Z: W\times T \subset \mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the covariate and $\rho$ is an unknown real function. As it has been done before, we assume that $Z$ is known so, we only need to estimate $\rho$ in order to obtain an estimator of $\lambda$.
As we have in this situation a covariate define in the spatio-temporal domain, the theory previously developed in this paper can be immediately applied to this new situation, reproducing all the results just taking into account the change of dimension in the domain of the covariate.
Another possible framework in this spatio-temporal context can be the covariate having only a spatial or a temporal dependence, i.e, that $Z$ is either a function of space or either a function of time but not both together. Hence, the intensity function is
\[\lambda(z,t)=\rho(Z(x),t)) \mbox{ or } \lambda(x,z)=\rho(x,Z(t)).\]
Remark that now $\rho$ is still a real function but with multivariate domain. In this case, following the literature about kernel intensity estimation in general spatio-temporal point processes, we propose the following estimators:
\[\hat{\rho}(z,t)=\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i)}K_h\left(z-Z_i\right)K_s(t-t_i) \mbox{ and }\]
\[ \hat{\rho}(x,z)=\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{g^\star(Z(t_i))}|H|^{-1/2}L\left(H^{-1/2}(x-X_i)\right)K_s(Z(t)-Z(t_i)),\]
where $(X_1,t_1),\ldots, (X_N,t_N)$ is the spatio-temporal pattern, $s$ is a univariate bandwidth parameter, $L$ is a radially symmetric bivariate density function, $H$ is a two-dimensional bandwidth matrix, and $Z_i$ and $g^\star$ are previously defined in the manuscript. The theoretical developments done in this work may be extended to these situations with the appropriate regularity conditions.
\subsection{Higher covariate dimension}
Although the framework we have set up in this paper is defined to use one single one-dimensional covariate, it is of interest to think about how this can be extended to the multivariate case. Hence, let us denote by $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_1, \ldots, Z_p)$ a $p$-dimensional covariate providing possible significant information about the process, where $Z_i:W\subset \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are one-dimensional continuous covariates, $\forall i \in \{1,\ldots,p\}$ fulfilling the same conditions as the initial $Z:W\subset \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
\subsubsection{Combinations of covariates}
A first approach to include the $p$ univariate covariates in the model, is to define a linear combination $a_1Z_1+\ldots+a_pZ_p$, where a procedure to estimate the coefficients needs to be determined, for example performing a principal component analysis (PCA) as we have illustrated in the previous section for our real data set. We choose the first component and we use its information in the estimation procedure, following our methodology previously presented in this paper. Note that the optimality criterion for selecting the best linear combination based on a direct PCA on the vector of covariates does not take into account its influence on the point process of interest, so other specific approaches should be explored to obtain better combinations.
\subsubsection{Multivariate framework}
Another possible solution to include several covariates is linked to the idea we have taken advantage from of the relationship between the density and the intensity functions. Hence, a multivariate version of \eqref{eq:dens_est} can be defined, where the use of several covariates would be allowed:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int_multiv}
\lambda(u)=\rho(\mathbf{Z}(u)).
\end{equation}
Here we will briefly introduce the results to perform this extension, even though, as it is out of the scope of this paper, we are not developing everything in detail.
We need to introduce some notation generalising the one used in Section 3. The spatial cumulative distribution function in this multivariate context can be defined as
\begin{equation*
G(z)=\frac{1}{|W|}\int_W{1_{\{\mathbf{Z}(u)\leq z\}}du},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{Z}(u)\leq z$ refers to $(Z_1(u)\leq z_1)\cap \ldots \cap(Z_p(u)\leq z_p)$ with $z\in\mathbb{R}^p$. We still use $g$ to denote its first derivative, and $G^\star$ and $g^\star$ their non-normalised versions.
Now we aim an extension of Theorem A.1 and Theorem A.2 in Appendix A to the multivariate case, for which we recall the results in \cite{DaleyVereJones1988} and \cite{Reiss2012}.
\begin{theorem}
Let $X$ be a spatial point process in $W\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ with intensity function of the form \eqref{eq:int_rho} for some real-valued function $\rho$ and $\mathbf{Z}:W\subset \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ a continuous function. Then $\mathbf{Z}(X)$ is a $p$-dimensional point process in $\mathbb{R}^p$ with intensity function $\rho g^\star$. Moreover, if the original point process is Poisson, then the transformed one is also Poisson.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $W\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a bounded subset, $\mathbf{Z}:W\subset \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ a measurable, Lipschitz and differentiable function with non-zero Jacobian in every point of $W$, $J\mathbf{Z}(u)\neq0$. Then, for any integrable function $l:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, in our particular case $l(u)=\lambda(u)(J \mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$, it holds:
\[\int_W\lambda(u)du=\int_W\lambda(u)(J \mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}J\mathbf{Z}(u)du=\int_{\mathbb{R}^p}\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)}\lambda(u)(J \mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)dy,\]
where $\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)=\{u\in W / \mathbf{Z}(u)=y\}$ and $dH^p$ is the $p$-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
\end{theorem}
Applying this result to the non-normalised version of the spatial cumulative distribution function defined above, we have:
\begin{equation*}
G^{\star}(z)=\int_{-\infty}^{z_1}\cdots\int_{-\infty}^{z_p}\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)} (J\mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)dy_1,\ldots dy_p,
\end{equation*}
and deriving with respect to $z$, we get $g^\star(z)=\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(z)}(J\mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)$.
We can now rewrite the relationship between the original spatial point process intensity and the transformed one through an integral, in a similar way we have done in the Appendix A for the univariate case, implying that the expected number of events in the corresponding region is the same in both processes:
\begin{align*}
& m:=\int_W{\lambda(u)du}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^p}\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)}\lambda(u)(J \mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)dy\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^p}\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)}\rho(\mathbf{Z}(u))(J\mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)dy=\int_{\mathbb{R}^p}\rho(y)\int_{\mathbf{Z}^{-1}(y)}(J\mathbf{Z}(u))^{-1}dH^p(u)dy\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^p}\rho(y)g^{\star}(y)dy.
\end{align*}
Once we have established the appropriate framework, we propose the following estimator for the associated ``artificial'' multivariate density, $f(\cdot)=\frac{\rho(\cdot)g^\star(\cdot)}{m}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dens_est_multiv}
\hat{f}_{h}(z)=g^\star(z) \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i)}\mathbf{K}_H\left(z-Z_i\right)1_{\{N\neq 0\}},
\end{equation}
and the extension of Baddeley's proposal to estimate $\rho$ can be derived as:
\begin{equation}\label{rhoestmultiv}
\hat{\rho}_H(z)=\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{g^\star(Z_i)}\mathbf{K}_H(z-Z_i),
\end{equation}
where now $\mathbf{K}$ should be a multivariate radially symmetric kernel function and $H$ a $p$-dimensional bandwidth matrix.
The analogous theoretical developments presented in Section 3 and Section 4 can be extended to the multivariate situation following the steps we have already detailed and also applying some specifically designed statistical tools for the multivariate analysis used in \cite{Scott1992}, \cite{CucalaThesis} and \cite{Isa2015}.
\section{Conclusions}
We have considered kernel intensity estimation in the context of spatial point processes with covariates. We have set up an innovative theoretical framework that has allowed us to detail the expressions of the MSE, MISE and AMISE for our intensity estimator. Furthermore we have proposed a consistent smooth bootstrap procedure, and two new data-driven bandwidth selection methods. We have also studied their behaviour and compare them with the previous methods used in this context through an extensive simulation study; the overall conclusion being a better performance of the bootstrap-based bandwidth. The application to a real data set also shows that our proposals are competitive with the existing ones and even better than kernel intensity estimators based only on information provided by the locations of the events. Also in terms of computational cost our proposals are faster or competitive with the existing ones. Finally we propose some extensions of our methodology for spatio-temporal point processes and in the field of multivariate analysis including several covariates in the model.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge the support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through grants number MTM2013-41383P and MTM2016-76969P, which includes support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Support from the IAP network StUDyS from Belgian Science Policy (P6/07), is also acknowledged. M.I. Borrajo has been supported by FPU grant (FPU2013/00473) from the Spanish Ministry of Education. The authors also acknowledge the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System for their activity in recording and freely providing all the real data used in this paper.
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
The so called ``Slashdot Effect'' (Adler 1999,Halavais (2001)), known
since the end of the 90s, is the name attributed to the increase in
pageviews that the websites experience when mentioned by publications
like \href{http://slashdot.org}{Slashdot}, one of the most visited in
the area of technology and especially programming. This effect provokes
a peak in visits, especially directed to a single webpage, that in a lot
of cases and more obscure ages in which there were not any publication
of content networks, had a similar effect of a denial of service attack.
In Spain we have also referred to the ``Efecto Menéame'' (Dans 2008),
because of the influence of this aggregator of news and even, before and
in a lesser measure, the ``Efecto Barrapunto'' (Blanco 2009) originated
by mentions to the web Barrapunto.com, a Spanish Slashdot.
However, to the extent of our knowledge, until now there has not been
many studies analyzing a similar effect aroused by mentions in social
networks, maybe due to the fact that such an effect is not caused by a
single website and might be eventually directed to many different pages;
even lesser is the effect they have in the search or mindshare of the
concepts. Indeed, web analytics is currently far more complex and
generally the visits on a page, say, of a newspaper or ecommerce site
are not public. And besides, instead of studying the effect of a single
link, nowadays it is of more interest to study the topics that pop up in
the social networks. Nevertheless, the effect these have in the
mindshare of the public and its behaviour while surfing the Net has not
received so much attention as the behavior of the trending topics
themselves.
At the start of 2017, an anecdote in a Wise Men from Orient parade in
Madrid, in which a video newscaster referred to a character in a float
as Colon, to which he answered ``I am Copernico!'' in an amusing tone,
\href{http://verne.elpais.com/verne/2017/01/07/articulo/1483785572_720611.html}{as
is narrated (in Spanish) in Verne}, gave way to a storm of memes, which
increased on the following days when a journalist and a politician
discussed in a TV program about what did Copernico really do.
In a series of articles and figures written in Spanish (Merelo 2017b,
Merelo (2017c), Merelo (2017a),Benito (2017)) that show the temporary
evolution of this mindshare through the visits to the Wikipedia page of
Copernico (Wikipedia 2017) we have analyzed the change in the number of
visits, especially looking for the duration of this phenomenon by means
of studying the daily number of visits. In this article, that closes the
series, we try to find the causes of that duration, comparing it with
other phenomenons of visits to the Wikipedia which have happened in a
similar time frame.
As far as we know, there have been no studies that focus on the temporal
dimension of an Internet meme. (Adamic et al. 2016) focuses on how
information evolves and how this evolution is time dependent, and
(Naaman, Becker, and Gravano 2011) analyzes other features such as the
decay in the number of occurrences of trending topics and how people
interact with it.
The rest of the paper is organized in the following way: first we
present the methodology that has been followed in order to capture and
study the data is presented. In the next section the visits to the
Wikipedia page of Copernico and other related webpages is analyzed,
along with the evolution in its ranking of viewed pages in the
Wikipedia. We will also examine the visits to the pages of other persons
that have become notorious due to several reasons. Finally, we will draw
some conclusions.
\subsection{Methodology}\label{methodology}
The Wikipedia, through its application programming interface (API),
allows access to the visits of each and every one of the different pages
it hosts. It is a REST interface which can be directly accessed without
any authentication. For the purposes of this paper, we tap this API
using a script that, along with the rest of data and programs, is free
software and hence can be downloaded from GitHub (Merelo 2017a). The
script uses \texttt{curl} for downloading the file, just by codifying as
URL the name of the page, next to \texttt{all-agents}, and selecting as
parameters the two dates in which we are interested, from the start of
2017 until now. Due to the fact that the Wikipedia API returns a file in
JSON, we pull the data we are interested in out by means of the
\texttt{jq} utility, that allows to make complex queries to JSON files.
That way, we extract the views, and we put it in data files, which will
also be attached to this paper. The rest of the data analyzed in this
paper is extracted in the same way, via shell scripts that download an
URL and the use of \texttt{jq}.
Nonetheless, in order to extract the ranking of the one thousand most
visited pages, a script that gets the position in the ranking and the
number of visits, along with the title of the article, is used. Then,
the information is filtered, leaving only the ``content'' articles that
are in the ranking, deleting special pages. Furthermore the ranking is
once again calculated. Last, these rankings are processed to calculate
the evolution in the position of the page as the days go by, saving in a
file a number with the position that a specific page occupies each day.
The results of analyzing the data are shown in the following section.
\subsection{Visits to the page of Nicolás Copérnico and other related
pages}\label{visits-to-the-page-of-nicolas-copernico-and-other-related-pages}
Data is processed in this paper using R; scripts can be accessed in the
source to this paper.
First we will focus on the anecdote that originated this paper by
analyzing the visits to the Nicolás Copérnico page in the Spanish
Wikipedia during 2017 and the same period in 2016. This period falls
outside the school year in Spain, with classes starting just next to
that day. That might account for a certain interest in the page, which
implies that there will be some daily variation in the number of visits
anyway. Comparing the visits for two years will help us discount that
effect.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/imagen-1.pdf} It is
noticeable that, after reaching a peak the first day, it descends the
second one and even quicklier the third one. Nevertheless, from the
fourth day the fall is much softer, until having approximately the same
data a week later. In fact, there is some variation also in the previous
year, that is why we compare the relationship between last and this
year´s visits in the next chart.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/ratio-1.pdf} From an
initial situation where the number of visits is similar, though slightly
superior, it goes to having 20 times more visits, number that slowly
drops to 10 times three days past the peak. On the fifth day the rate is
of a 50\% more visits; a little bit over last year´s on the same date,
taking into account that last year´s tendency was of a gradual growth in
the number of visits. Eventually, the number of visits reaches a
plateau.
It is interesting to have a look at the evolution of some pages linked
to the same concept, especially the one of the main achievement of
Copérnico, the heliocentric theory, which motivated the following day a
debate on TV.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/helio-1.pdf} The number
of visits moves in a different scale and thus there are more
fluctuations along the day. However, like in the previous case, even
though initially the visits were very much alike or even inferiors,
presumably in five days it went back to its initial value, with a small
variation. In five days it has less visits than last year, the same
situation that the previous day to the incident.
What also changes is the correlation between the number of people that
visit a web and the ones that visit the other. We have a look at it in
the next graphic.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/ratiohc-1.pdf}
In the year 2016 there is a rate inferior to 2, consequently the page of
the heliocentric theory receives more or less half the visits that
Copérnico´s, with little variations. We suppose that there is more
interest in the character than in its contribution, though not a lot. On
the other hand, when the issue ``Copérnico-Ojeda'' breaks out, all of a
sudden the people get curious about the character, without caring much
about his contribution to the scientific world. It is important to point
out that we do not know whether they are the same people that visit the
webpage, because of the fact that the path they follow in Wikipedia is
not returned by the API. Anyway, it is reasonable to suppose that a big
percentage of the people that visit whichever of the pages will end up
following the links in order to visit the other one. The link to the
heliocentric theory appears in the first lines of Copérnico´s page and
it is the thirteenth link from the start of the page, while Copérnico
shows up int the second paragraph of the theory page, being the tenth
link in this case.
Let´s also see another page, Galileo Galilei´s, who spread the
heliocentric theory. His name does not show up in any way in the
incident but checking the visits here would be relevant to study the
interest these kind of pages have and whether there is a offshoot of
interest from one to another.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/galileo-1.pdf}
Apart from the curiosity on how do they evolve in the same way, with a
considerable drop the seventh day, there is neither an obvious tendency
nor can we suppose that pages of this kind of content could have an
increased interest. In fact, the twelfth day there were less visits in
Galileo´s page than last year. Although there is a chance of a transfer
of attention and hence of visits from one to another, since Galileo´s is
linked to Copérnico´s, and as there are not changes in the same way as
in Copérnico´s a sudden interest in the Renaissance Science and the
heliocentric theory like a cause of the rise in visits that will be then
attributable to the incident is ruled out.
From this analysis we can conclude that the interest in a particular
Wikipedia page famous through a meme in the social networks lasts around
seven days, and that it is a shallow interest extending exclusively to
the page itself, not any concepts related to it. Let us see next what
happens to other similar pages.
\subsection{Duration of notability in other Wikipedia
pages.}\label{duration-of-notability-in-other-wikipedia-pages.}
We also examine the visits to the page of Meryl Streep, whose speech
during the Golden Globes had a considerable impact, in the same way as
the elected president´s reaction did. In this case it is an example of a
page that on its own has a lot of visits. We plot it side by side the
visits to the page of John Hurt, who died on January 21st, 2017.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/meryl-1}
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/meryl-2}
The number of visits reached by John Hurt's Wikipedia page is almost 3
times as high as the one reached by Meryl Streep. The mechanism at work
here must go in the opposite direction of fame: John Hurt was not
probably known by name, so people looked him up much more than Meryl
Streep, who is a household name and whose movies are shown continuously,
even in Spanish TV channels. But even with the different scales, the
\emph{relaxation time} hovers around 7 days, a few more in the case of
Meryl Streep (left). Besides, when the visits plateau the \emph{new
normal} is slightly superior to the visits achieved in the previous year
or before the incident that initiated the sudden fame. Let us see this
in the second case, the John Hurt page.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/ratiojohn-1.pdf}
We plot the \emph{y} axis in a logarithmic scale to see more clearly the
ration after \emph{relaxation}. The straight line goes through the ratio
== 1. Although there are variations, for a few days after the peak ratio
is still slightly higher than 1, which seems to imply that the
\emph{mindshare} of this particular meme follows two different phases:
one of sharp decline, that lasts the aforementioned 7-10 days, followed
by a plateau where the decline is much slower, and stays stationary with
a ratio higher than one, in the same way as was seen before.
These tho regimes, duration and notability need not take the same time,
and will probably vary along time. We have also examined the cases of
three other memes: from left to right, the death of Robert Vaughn in
November 2016 and Carrie Fisher and George Michael in December 2016. Our
intention was, looking at these events taking place a few months before,
to see whether there is any variation.
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/carrie-1}
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/carrie-2}
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/carrie-3}
Let us first look at the first chart on the left, representing visits of
the Robert Vaughn page. Being not so well known in pop culture, the peak
reached is relatively small, but still visits multiplied 100-fold when
his death was known. Carrie Fisher (center) and George Michael (right),
being better known, had a higher level of visits, but the visits reached
multiply 200-fold, and in this case the two regimes can be observed:
sharp decrease that lasts 10 days followed by a plateau where the ratio
to visits before the event is around 2-3. The same type of behaviours
can be observed about the visits to the page of George Michael.
Finally, let us look at similar events that happened later along the
time line: the viral sensation of Winona Ryder showing a range of facial
expressions during a gala (left), and the death of a journalist and
famous 80s musical TV anchor in Spain, Paloma Chamorro (right).
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/winona-1}
\includegraphics{visits-arxiv_files/figure-latex/winona-2} The chart on
the left, although with some \emph{noise}, shows more or less the same
phenomenon of a sharp peak followed by rapid decrease in visits, that
take between 7 and 10 days. The lower number of visits reached probably
accounts for the fact that the meme was self-contained (a series of
faces) and did not need additional information on the person. However,
the one on the right is entirely familiar in scale and size, with
\emph{rebounds} probably due to published obituaries and settling to a
number of visits that is slightly superior than originally.
Eventually, all visit graphs resemble a ``witch´s hat'', with a
noteworthy peak and a more gradual decrease in the number of visits in
approximately a week´s time, although usually a bit longer. We will
examine this findings in the next section, where we present our
conclusions.
\subsection{Conclusion and
discussion.}\label{conclusion-and-discussion.}
By examining the visits of Wikipedia pages through its open API we
intend to look for patterns in these visits and, through them, establish
the duration of Internet memes, assuming that when one particular person
or concept becomes noticeable, people will check out their Wikipedia
page as first source of information.
We have done it by looking at nine different pages corresponding to 9
different persons that have become trending topics in social networks,
though specially in Spain, starting with a very local event that
actually initiated this research. What we have found analyzing visit´s
data is that noteworthiness lasts for at least a week, and sometimes a
bit more, up to 10 days; from then on, visits go back to the usual rate
but at a much slower pace. The headline would thus be ``Fame in social
networks lasts for only a week'', but this would have some caveats that
would be worth checking out in the future, such as the relationship with
the nature of the meme itself (due to an unexpected event in the life of
the person, for instance, or some other thing). A secondary finding is
that the magnitude of the increase in visits is related to prior fame:
``those who have, will get more'', reaching a much higher ration between
prior and post-event visits.
The fact that the duration for this type of memes or trending topics is
in a very narrow band is consistent with the findings of Adamic and
coauthors (Adamic et al. 2016), in the sense that memes evolve and its
original intention or reference concepts change in time; they are also
obviously substituted by other, more recent, events. The fast initial
decay and lower decrease afterwards is also consistent with the study of
(Naaman, Becker, and Gravano 2011) over a wide range of trending topics,
although no measurements on this duration are made. In this sense, this
is the first study, although focused on a few and mostly regional
events, that has studied the duration and mid-term secondary effects of
memes on society's mindshare as reflected in visits to Wikipedia pages.
In general, the use of this API by Wikipedia opens a whole world of
possibilities for the research of collective behavior. One of them would
be to analyze what part of these visits were done using different
devices, and which ones correspond to edits or simple visits. The
difference between the rise in visits of life-changing events or other
kind of memes might be due to this fact. This could be an interesting
venue of research in the near future, as well as checking if there is in
fact some change in this one-week duration of memes.
\subsection{Note}\label{note}
All files, data and scripts needed to generate this paper are available
at \href{http://github.com/JJ/Cop-rnico-visitas}{the GitHub repository
for this paper} and can be used with a free license. If you use in any
scientific publication we are grateful for referencing this paper or the
other papers working on the same data included in the bibliography.
\subsection*{References}\label{references}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{References}
\hypertarget{refs}{}
\hypertarget{ref-adamic2016information}{}
Adamic, Lada A, Thomas M Lento, Eytan Adar, and Pauline C Ng. 2016.
``Information Evolution in Social Networks.'' In \emph{Proceedings of
the Ninth Acm International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining},
473--82. ACM.
\hypertarget{ref-adler1999slashdot}{}
Adler, Stephen. 1999. ``The Slashdot Effect: An Analysis of Three
Internet Publications.'' \emph{Linux Gazette} 38: 2.
\hypertarget{ref-copernicoooo}{}
Benito, Juan Cruz. 2017. ``Copernicoooo.'' Universidad de Salamanca.
\url{http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/juan-cb/copernicoooo/blob/2c469c6efdf61d7c94a17aba8ea714c76fa1e76d/copernicoooo.ipynb}.
\hypertarget{ref-blanco2009blog}{}
Blanco, Sonia Ruiz. 2009. ``Del Blog Al Microblog: El Devenir Del
Receptor En Generador Y Emisor de Contenidos En La Web 2.0.''
PhD thesis, Universidad de Málaga.
\hypertarget{ref-dans2008anatomia}{}
Dans, E. 2008. ``Anatomía Del Efecto Menéame.'' \emph{Recuperado a
Partir de Http://Www. Enriquedans.
Com/2008/08/Anatomia-Del-Efecto-Meneame. Html}.
\hypertarget{ref-halavais2001slashdot}{}
Halavais, Alexander M Campbell. 2001. ``The Slashdot Effect: Analysis of
a Large-Scale Public Conversation on the World Wide Web.'' PhD thesis.
\hypertarget{ref-Merelo2017:figshare}{}
Merelo, Juan J. 2017a. ``Análisis de la duración de la fama de la página
de Nicolás Copérnico en la Wikipedia española,'' January.
doi:\href{https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4535372.v3}{10.6084/m9.figshare.4535372.v3}.
\hypertarget{ref-merelo17}{}
---------. 2017b. ``Copérnico Famoso Por Un Día.'' 1. GeNeura team,
Universidad de Granada.
\hypertarget{ref-merelo17:2}{}
---------. 2017c. ``Evolución de La Notoriedad de La Página de Nicolás
Copérnico En La Wikipedia Española.'' 2. GeNeura team, Universidad de
Granada.
\hypertarget{ref-naaman2011hip}{}
Naaman, Mor, Hila Becker, and Luis Gravano. 2011. ``Hip and Trendy:
Characterizing Emerging Trends on Twitter.'' \emph{Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology} 62 (5). Wiley Online
Library: 902--18.
\hypertarget{ref-wiki:Copernico}{}
Wikipedia. 2017. ``Nicolás Copérnico --- Wikipedia, La Enciclopedia
Libre.''
\url{https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicol\%C3\%A1s_Cop\%C3\%A9rnico\&oldid=96120597}.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Some researchers including one of the authors of this work (H.\,S.) have been working on flavor physics, assuming that some discrete symmetry plays an important role in its understanding~\cite{ref1};
$S_3, S_4, A_4$, etc.
But the outcome is very limited and so far we have no clear understanding of flavor physics.
Topological definition of Higgs Yukawa coupling also has not led to any useful prediction on the flavor physics {to date}~\cite{ref6}.
On the mathematical side,
a dramatic phenomenon called ``moonshine" {has been described}~\cite{ref2},
in which a discrete symmetry (specifically, dimensions of representation of the monster group) is manifested in a modular form in a rather unexpected manner.
When this happens,
we may use this fact for the discrete symmetry in flavor physics: We start by assuming that the symmetry of flavor physics is manifested in a certain modular form.
Corresponding to each flavor we assume {such a}
modular form.
The modular forms must contain all the information
{about} flavor physics with the understanding that all this
information
is contained in the Higgs coupling to leptons and hadrons.
More precisely, we assume that the particle masses (the mass ratios), rather than dimensions of a representation of discrete group, are directly written in the Fourier coefficients of these modular forms --- the flavor moonshine hypothesis.
The mass ratios are scale independent quantities~\cite{ref3} and do not
{vary with} energy scale.
We observe that at least in the lowest order perturbation calculations
the logarithmic scale dependence
cancels out completely both in QCD and in EW theory,
although it does not exclude the renormalization effect proportional to such terms as
$\log(m_1/m_2)$.
We refer to the reference~\cite{ref3} here for the non-perturbative calculations.
Therefore, the mass ratio is an appropriate quantity to discuss physics even at the highest energy scale. The gauge particle masses must also be written as some modular forms but we will not discuss
{that matter} in this work.
In pure mathematics, we anticipate generalization of conventional ``moonshine" from single variable modular form to multi-variable modular form.
Certain mathematical ``object,''
perhaps the representation matrix of a certain group
rather than
the dimension of the monster group, must be written in the Fourier expansion of the multi-variable modular forms.
We will identify the mass matrix {with} this ``object.''
The question {arises}:
What are those modular forms
{that} manifest the discrete symmetry
{appearing} in flavor physics?
For the time being, we postpone the question of justifying our
{adoption of a} certain modular form to each flavor based on a general formalism such as string theory, but rather we proceed backward and
investigate {instead} what the experimentally acceptable modular forms are.
We then
determine what kind of geometry can
{yield} such a modular form when we consider the compactification of the string theory.
We define the flavor modular form in the following way.
Suppose we have a two variable modular form to each flavor.
Then it can be Fourier expanded as
\be \label{eq1}
J(q,r) = \frac{1}{g}\sum_{i=0, j=-\infty}^\infty g_{ij} q^i r^j
\ee
where $g_{ij}$ for $i\geq 0$ and $g_{i,-j}=g_{ij}$ for the symmetric modular form~\cite{ref4}.
The $g_{ij}$ is supposed to correspond to the Higgs coupling of $i$ and $j$ quarks or to the corresponding leptons.
By solving the equation (\ref{eq1}) backwards we have
\be
g_{ij} = g\int_0^1 \int_0^1 J(q,r) q^{-i} r^{-j} d\tau d\sigma
= \frac{g}{(2\pi i)^2} \int_C \int_C J(q,r) q^{-i-1} r^{-j-1} dq dr.
\ee
Here, $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$ and $r=e^{2\pi i\sigma}$.
The integration is done along the circle $C$ of radius 1 with the center at the origin.
It is important that we
{integrate} over the modular variables to
{obtain} the coefficient.
If the modular form is based on the ring of integers, the forms are numerous and it is hard to pinpoint the appropriate form.
Fortunately, if we generalize the integer ring appropriately
{to constrain} the possible forms,
{then} in the case we are considering where $g_{i,-j}=g_{ij}$, called the symmetric modular form, it is known that all the modular forms can be constructed rather easily~\cite{ref4}.
Specifically, as the simplest generalization, we use $\SL(2,\bbZ(\sqrt{2}))$ to define the flavor modular group of the two variable modular form rather than $\SL(2,\bbZ)$.\footnote{
When we thought of flavor moonshine, it was clear that the relevant modular form must have more than one variables.
It also seemed the $\SL(2,\bbZ)$ is
{insufficiently constrained, allowing} too many choices for the forms.
Therefore, we looked for some work enlarging $\SL(2,\bbZ)$ so that the choice becomes manageable, and we encountered a paper by H. Cohn and J. Deutsch~\cite{ref4}
{where we} learned that there are only three generators for the entire $\SL(2,\bbZ(\sqrt{2}))$, which is the simplest kind of $\SL(2,\bbZ)$ extension.
To our great surprise, we found its modular form in the lowest level ($k=1$) describes the charged lepton mass ratios correctly (in section \ref{sec:2.1}).}
We put
\be
q = e^{\pi i(z+z')},\quad
r=e^{\pi i(z-z')/\sqrt{2}};\quad
2\tau = z+z',\quad
2\sqrt{2}\sigma=z-z'.
\ee
Then the condition for the modularity is the transformation property:
\be
J(e^{2\pi iz}, e^{2\pi iz'})
~\to~
J(e^{2\pi iz}, e^{2\pi iz'})\left((\gamma z+\delta)(\gamma'z'+\delta')\right)^{2k}
\ee
under
\be \label{eq4}
(z,z')\to\left(\frac{\alpha z+\beta}{\gamma z+\delta}, \frac{\alpha' z'+\beta'}{\gamma' z'+\delta'}\right), \quad
\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta,\ldots \in \bbZ(\sqrt{2})
\ee
and $\alpha = a+b\sqrt{2}, \alpha' = a-b\sqrt{2}, \ldots$
with $a,b:$ integer.
$2k$ is called the ``level''.
Cohen-Deutsch~\cite{ref4} shows that there are only three generator modular forms in this case.
They are given by $G_2,G_4,G_6$ with $k=1, 2, 3$.
What we use are the coefficients in Fourier expansion of these modular forms.
We may also choose different combinations $H_2,H_4,H_6$
{that} are given by
\be
H_2=G_2,\quad
H_4=\frac{11G_2^2-G_4}{576},\quad
H_6=\frac{361G_2^3-G_6-50976G_2H_4}{224640}.
\ee
We have only one modular form for $k=1$: $G_2$,
two forms for $k=2$: $G_4$ and $G_2^2$,
and three forms for $k=3$: $G_6, G_2^3$ and $G_2G_4$.
Linear combination of {forms of the} same level $2k$
is again a modular form.
Therefore all modular forms up to the level 6 ($k=3$) are given by
\be
k=1 &:&\quad G_2 \label{eq6}\\
k=2 &:&\quad G_4+a_4G_2^2 \label{eq7}\\
k=3 &:&\quad G_6+a_6G_2^3+b_6G_2G_4 \label{eq8}
\ee
where $a_4,a_6$ and $b_6$ are complex numbers.
In order to write down the Higgs coupling of quarks and leptons, we define the following:
First we define, for the Higgs coupling of a certain flavor,
\be\label{eq9}
F(q^{-1},r^{-1})\equiv gH\lim_{G\to\infty} \sum_{i,j=0}^{G-1} \overline\psi_{Rj}\psi_{Li} q^{-i} r^{-j}
\ee
where $H$ is the Higgs field and $\psi_L, \psi_R$ are quark or lepton fields.
The Yukawa coupling is given by
\be
Y&=&\int J(q,r)F(q^{-1},r^{-1})d\tau d\sigma
=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^2}\int J(q,r)F(q^{-1},r^{-1})\frac{dqdr}{qr} \notag\\
&=&H\sum_{i,j=0}^{\infty} g_{ij}\overline\psi_{Rj}\psi_{Li}
=gH\sum_{i,j,k=0}^{\infty} U^\dagger_{Lik}\lambda_k U_{Rkj}\overline\psi_{Rj}\psi_{Li}
\ee
where
$U_L, U_R$ are unitary matrices and $\lambda$ denotes elements of diagonalized $g_{ij}$ matrix, i.e.,
\be\label{eq11}
g_{ij}=g \lim_{G\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{G-1} U_{Lik}^\dagger\lambda_kU_{Rkj}
\ee
for $i,j=0,1,\ldots,G-1$.
Then we have
\be\label{eq12}
Y=gH \lim_{G\to\infty}
\sum_{k=0}^{G-1} \lambda_k \overline\chi_{Rk}\chi_{Lk}
\ee
where
$\chi_{Lk}=U^\dagger_{Lik}\psi_{Li}$ and $\chi_{Rk}=\psi_{Rj}U^\dagger_{Rjk}$.
To
{maintain} the modular invariance of the Yukawa coupling, we assume the transformation property:
\be
F(q^{-1},r^{-1})=F(z,z')
~\to~
\left((\gamma z+\delta)(\gamma' z'+\delta')\right)^{-2k+2}
F(z,z')
\ee
under the modular transformation (\ref{eq4}).
The level $-2k+2$ is to take care of the transformation property of $dq dr/qr$:
\be
\frac{dqdr}{qr} = \frac{d\tau d\sigma}{(2\pi i)^2}
=\frac{dzdz'}{2\sqrt{2}(2\pi i)^2}
~\to~
(\gamma z+\delta)^{-2} (\gamma' z'+\delta')^{-2}
\frac{dzdz'}{2\sqrt{2}(2\pi i)^2}.
\ee
If the original $\tau,\sigma$ are real, so are the transformed $\tau,\sigma$.
Therefore, the unit circle goes to the unit circle and the modular invariance is maintained.
Some remarks are in order:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
This construction suggests the definition of the fields:
\be\label{eq16}
\psi_L(x,q)=\lim_{G\to\infty}\sum_{i=0}^{G-1}\psi_{Li}q^{-i},\quad
\psi_R(x,r)=\lim_{G\to\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{G-1}\psi_{Ri}r^{-j}.
\ee
We do not need to assume any specific transformation property of the individual field under modular transformation,
while the bilinear form expressed in equation (\ref{eq9}) must transform covariantly under the modular transformation.
We also note that the transformation property (\ref{eq9}) is consistent only when
the number of generation $G$ is infinite.
Finite $G$ violates the modular invariance of the Yukawa coupling.
\item
We treat here, just for simplicity, {a pristine} Higgs field $H$.
However, in section \ref{sec:4},
we will define and use the modular form corresponding to the Higgs field:
\be
J_H(w)=\sum_k h_kw^k
\ee
corresponding to $J(q,r)$. We can also define the field
\be\label{eq16'}
H(w^{-1})=\sum_k H_k w^{-k}
\ee
with the Higgs field $H=H_0$.
\item
Our modular variables $q, r$ eventually become the moduli of Calabi-Yau manifold as will be shown later in section \ref{sec:4}.
The usual treatment of these variables is to regard them as a scalar field in the four-dimensional space-time and to try to find a way to stabilize them.
We regard them as variables to distinguish different vacua, and we integrate over them as in equation (\ref{eq12}) to
{obtain} the Yukawa coupling.
This roughly corresponds to superposing all possible {equivalent} vacua.
The Yukawa interaction resolves this degeneracy, {so that}
each value of generation $G$ corresponds to a different vacuum.
We have $G=3$ in this work
as {it concerns} the low energy experimental data.
It may happen that
{a} phase transition occurs at high energy,
{in which case} the particle masses would change suddenly at that energy scale.
\item
Our definition of the ``generation" is not the same as the usual one in string theory.
It corresponds to the expansion coefficient of the modulus dependent fields defined in equations (\ref{eq16}) and (\ref{eq16'}).
\end{enumerate}
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:2}
Equation (\ref{eq11})
shows that $g_{ij}$ is a mass matrix, and equation (\ref{eq1}) shows it is just the Fourier coefficient of the modular form $J(q,r)$.
In this section we consider each case of equations (\ref{eq6}), (\ref{eq7}) and (\ref{eq8}), separately.
\subsection{Case of $k=1$}
\label{sec:2.1}
The modular form $J(q,r)=G_2$ in this case.
From a table given by Cohn and Deutsch~\cite{ref4},
we have
\be
g_{ij} = g \begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0&0&0&\cdots\\
144&48&0&0&0&\cdots\\
720&384&336&0&0&\cdots\\
1440&864&1152&480&144&\cdots\\
3024&1536&2688&1152&1488&\cdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
From now on we restrict ourselves to the $G = 3$ case:
\be
g_{ij} = g \begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
144&48&0\\
720&384&336
\end{pmatrix}
=: gM_3.
\ee
The mass square matrix is given by $gg^\dagger$ and it will be diagonalized as
\be\label{eq:gg}
(gg^\dagger)_{ij} = g^2U_{Lik}^\dagger |\lambda_k|^2 U_{Rkj}
\ee
with
sum over the indices $k$.
We diagonalize the mass square matrix $M_3^2$ and find its
square root
is
\be
\sqrt{M_3 M_3^T} = \begin{pmatrix}
0.2929&0&0\\
0&61.63&0\\
0&0&893.3
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
By normalizing the lowest mass to be the electron mass of 0.5110 MeV, we
obtain
\be
\left(\sqrt{M_3 M_3^T}\right)_\text{normalized}=\begin{pmatrix}
0.5110&0&0\\
0&107.5&0\\
0&0&1558
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
This shows that the modular form $G_2$
{embodies} the charged lepton masses in its Fourier coefficients.
There is no free parameter in this case except for the entire normalization which is
{of course} scale dependent, unlike the mass ratios~\cite{ref3}.
The corresponding experimental data are in appendix~\ref{sec:app}:
the central values of $\mu$ and $\tau$ masses are
$(m_\mu, m_\tau) = (105.7, 1776)$ MeV.
Deviations of our results are at most $12.32{\%}$, so we may say that
our calculations reproduce the experimental data well.
In the following, we mainly use the central values of the experimental results,
i.e., we neglect the errors just for simplicity.
\subsection{Case of $k=2$}
\label{sec:2.2}
In this case, we have the modular form
\be
J(q,r)=G_4+a_4G_2^2.
\ee
For the time being we ignore the second term (i.e., put $a_4=0$).
Then we have, for the three generation case,
\be
G_4 \to M_3
= \begin{pmatrix}
11&0&0\\
4320&480&0\\
280800&165120&35040
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
The normalized and diagonalized mass matrix becomes
\be
\left(\sqrt{M_3 M_3^T}\right)_\text{normalized}=\begin{pmatrix}
0.000163&0&0\\
0&0.964&0\\
0&0&173
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
Here we used top quark mass of 173 GeV as the input mass.
Then the charm quark mass is obtained as 0.964 GeV,
which is a little smaller than the actual mass 1.27 GeV (by 24.1{\%}).
The up quark mass turns out to be 0.163 MeV, which is too small compared with the QCD calculations.
We have one complex parameter $a_4$ in this case and we must work out its effect:
The detailed fit to the quark masses and also CKM matrix will be given in appendix~\ref{sec:app}.
This discussion justifies that the modular form of $k=2$ (level 4) writes down the charge $+2/3$ quark masses in its Fourier coefficients.
\begin{comment}
In this case we have one comlex parameter Subscript[a, 4]. It turns out that this case corresponds to the charge 2/3 quarks. In case we put Subscript[a, 4]= 0, we get top quark mass of about 220GeV for the input of 1.3 GeV charm quark mass.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Case of $k=3$}
\label{sec:2.3}
In this case, we have
\be
J(q,r)=G_6+a_6G_2^3+b_6G_2G_4.
\ee
Suppose {for the sake of argument} we take
\be
J(q,r) = H_6=\frac{361G_2^3-G_6-50976G_2H_4}{224640},
\ee
then we
{find}
\be
H_6\to M_3
=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0\\
1&0&0\\
12&-16&-2
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
We regard the modular form of $k=3$ as an expression of the charge $-1/3$ quark masses.
{With the} QCD calculated bottom quark mass of 4.18 GeV as an input mass,
{we obtain}
\be
\left(\sqrt{M_3 M_3^T}\right)_\text{normalized}=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0\\
0&0.167&0\\
0&0&4.18
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
The down quark mass is zero and the strange/bottom mass ratio is
{off by a} factor of $1.6$.
Of course we have two complex parameters $a_6,b_6$ to be fixed in this case, and we must adjust these parameters to get more precise fit to the experimental data.
As shown above, in the case of $k=1$ where there is no adjustable parameter the fit is almost perfect, and the other two cases require refinement but it is amazing that the values obtained in these cases also are not that distant from the experimental data.
Now we need to choose appropriate values for $a_4, a_6$ and $b_6$.
In fact, these complex parameters are needed to fit the CKM matrix which contains some phase factor to explain the CP violation.
See appendix~\ref{sec:app} for the concrete calculation.
\subsection{Case of $k=4$}
\label{sec:2.4}
In this case, we assume the modular form describes the neutrino masses.
The neutrino has two possibilities: 1. Dirac neutrino and 2. Majorana neutrino.
In the case of pure Dirac neutrino,
the mass matrix becomes
\be\label{eq28}
M_D = a_8G_2^4+b_8G_4^2+c_8G_4G_2^2+G_6G_2
\ee
where
\be
G_2^4 &=& \begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
576&192&0\\
154944&84480&15168
\end{pmatrix},\quad
G_4^2 = \begin{pmatrix}
121&0&0\\
95040&10560&0\\
25300800&7779840&1001280
\end{pmatrix} \nt
G_4G_2^2 &=& \begin{pmatrix}
11&0&0\\
7488&1536&0\\
1911744&878592&113856
\end{pmatrix},\quad
G_6G_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
361&0&0\\
85248&18336&0\\
39242304&18822912&1235136
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
In the case of Majorana neutrino with seesaw approximation,
the mass matrix is given as
\be\label{eq29}
M_M = M_D M_R^{-1} M_D^T.
\ee
Although the right-handed Majorana mass $M_R$ has the same form as in equation (\ref{eq28}), it turns out that it has the following unique form
since it must be a symmetric matrix,
\be\label{eq29a}
M_R = d_8 \begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0\\
0&-720&0\\
0&0&-82080
\end{pmatrix}.
\ee
In this work we discuss these two limiting cases:
one is the pure Dirac case corresponding to Majorana mass $= 0$
and the other is the seesaw case where Majorana mass is much larger than Dirac mass.
The actual data fitting is done in appendix~\ref{sec:app}.
\subsection{Case of $k\geq 5$}
For $k=5$, for example, we have the modular forms
$G_2^5, G_2^3G_4, G_2G_4^2, G_2^2G_6, G_4G_6$.
This sort of new flavor particles presumably has
{neither} charges nor color charges, but they may have some week interactions in addition to gravitational interactions.
Therefore, they
{may} be a good candidate for the dark matter.
\section{Some additional considerations}
\subsection{Lagrangian}
We may write down the kinetic energy part of the Lagrangian using the fields defined in equation (\ref{eq16}).
We have
\be
K_R(z) &=&
\sum_{i,j=-\infty}^\infty \overline\psi^{a,\alpha}_{Rj}\left(D^{b,\beta}_{a,\alpha}\right)_\mu \gamma^\mu \psi_{b,\beta,Ri}e^{-2\pi iz}e^{2\pi jz} \\
K_L(z') &=&
\sum_{i,j=-\infty}^\infty \overline\psi^{a,\alpha}_{Lj}\left(D^{b,\beta}_{a,\alpha}\right)_\mu \gamma^\mu \psi_{b,\beta,Li}e^{-2\pi iz'}e^{2\pi jz'}
\ee
where the indices $a, b$ indicate flavor type and $\alpha,\beta$ are indices for the gauge group representation.
The right and left modes can belong to different representations.
The covariant derivative includes the gauge field $A_\mu$:
\be
\left(D^{b,\beta}_{a,\alpha}\right)_\mu = i\delta^b_a\delta^\beta_\alpha\partial_\mu
+\left(A^{b,\beta}_{a,\alpha}\right)_\mu.
\ee
Then the kinetic part of the Lagrangian density is given by
\be
\int K_R(z) dz + \int K_L(z') dz'.
\ee
To
{maintain} the modular invariance we must impose the modular transformation:
\be
K_R(z) ~\to~ (\gamma z+\delta)^2K_R(z),\quad
K_L(z') ~\to~ (\gamma' z'+\delta')^2K_L(z'),
\ee
which means the kinetic term is a single variable modular form of level 2 in contrast to the Yukawa coupling.
\subsection{Supersymmetrization}
We may trivially write the Lagrangian in a supersymmetric
{form}.
Corresponding to equation (\ref{eq9}), we define
\be
F(q^{-1},r^{-1})=gH\sum_{i,j=0}^{G-1}\Phi_{Rj}\Phi_{Li}q^{-i}r^{-j}.
\ee
Corresponding to equation (\ref{eq12}), we
obtain
\be\label{Ysusy}
Y=\sum_{i,j=0}^{G-1}g_{ij}\Phi_{Rj}\Phi_{Li}H\big|_{\theta\theta}
=g\sum_{i,j=0}^{G-1}U_{Lik}^\dagger\lambda_kU_{Rkj}\Phi_{Rj}\Phi_{Li}H\big|_{\theta\theta}
\ee
where $\Phi_{Rj}$ and $\Phi_{Li}$ are the chiral fields corresponding to a certain flavor.
Then we have
\be
g_{ij}=gU_{Lik}^\dagger \lambda_k U_{Rkj}
\ee
for $i,j=0,1,\ldots,G-1$.
Using a standard form for the chiral field
$\Phi=A+\sqrt{2}\theta\psi+\theta\theta F$~\cite{ref5}, we get
\be
\Phi_{Rj}\Phi_{Li}H\big|_{\theta\theta}
=\left(F_{Rj}A_{Li}+A_{Rj}F_{Li}\right)H+A_{Rj}A_{Li}F_H
-\left(A_{Rj}\psi_{Li}-\psi_{Rj} A_{Li}\right)\psi_H-\psi_{Rj}\psi_{Li} H. \nt
\ee
Then the Yukawa coupling (\ref{Ysusy}) can be written as
\be
Y=g\sum_{k=0}^{G-1}\lambda_k\left[
\chi_{Lk}\chi_{Rk}H +
\left(B_{Lk}\chi_{Rk}-\chi_{Lk}B_{Rk}\right)\psi_H
+\left(G_{Lk}B_{Rk}+B_{Lk}G_{Rk}\right)H
+B_{Lk}B_{Rk}F_H
\right]\nt
\ee
where
\be
\chi_{Lk}&=&U^\dagger_{Lik}\psi_{Li},\quad \chi_{Rk}=\psi_{Rj}U_{Rjk},\nt
B_{Lk}&=&U^\dagger_{Lik}A_{Li},\quad B_{Rk}=A_{Rj}U_{Rjk},\nt
G_{Lk}&=&U^\dagger_{Lik}F_{Li},\quad G_{Rk}=F_{Rj}U_{Rjk}.
\ee
The kinetic energy part is given by
\be
K_R &=& \sum_{i=0}^\infty \Phi^\dagger_{Ri}\Phi_{Ri}\big|_{\theta\theta\overline\theta\overline\theta},\nt
K_L &=& \sum_{i=0}^\infty \Phi^\dagger_{Li}\Phi_{Li}\big|_{\theta\theta\overline\theta\overline\theta},\nt
K_H &=& \sum_{i=0}^\infty \Phi^\dagger_{H}\Phi_{H}\big|_{\theta\theta\overline\theta\overline\theta},
\ee
with
\be
\Phi^\dagger_{Ri}\Phi_{Ri}\big|_{\theta\theta\overline\theta\overline\theta}
=
G^\dagger_{Ri}G_{Ri} + B_{Ri}^\dagger \Box B_{Ri}
+i\partial_m\overline\chi_{Ri}\overline\sigma^m\chi_{Ri}
\ee
and the similar forms for $\Phi_{Li}, \Phi_H$.
\section{Calculation of the geometry of the moduli space of Calabi-Yau manifold}
\label{sec:4}
In superstring theory, the generation number is customarily explained as the number of zero modes determined by a topological quantity.
Our approach is different from this interpretation as explained in Introduction.
We integrate over the modular variables when we define the low energy Lagrangian
{that includes} Yukawa couplings among Higgs and fermions.
Identifying the modular variables with the Calabi-Yau moduli, this means that we superpose vacuum states defined by each modulus.
Yukawa couplings resolve the degeneracy of the vacua and each vacuum is defined by the number of generations $G$.
At low energy we know that $G=3$,
but there may be phase transitions when we go to high energy.
At the highest energy we may even {reach} $G\to\infty$.
Another
{observation if} we want to interpret our result in the
{context of} string theory is that our case may not be consistent with the grand unification.
In fact, each flavor
corresponds to a modular form of different level: level 2 for charged leptons, level 4 for $+2/3$ quarks, level 6 for $-1/3$ quarks
and level 8 for neutrinos.
It is not entirely excluded that it is consistent with the grand unification, because we may have finite number of generation $G$ even at grand unified scale, and we may not worry about maintaining the modular invariance anyway.
With these conceptual modifications, our Yukawa coupling before the modular variable integration may be interpreted as coming from the compactification of the superstring theory.
First, we assume that the following formula derived first by Strominger and Witten~\cite{ref6} is correct in spite of above conceptual modifications:
\be\label{eq41}
J(q,r,w)=J(q,r)J_H(w)
=\frac{1}{g}\sum_{i,j,k}g_{ij}h_k q^ir^jw^k
=\int_K a^\mu\wedge b^\nu\wedge c^\rho\wedge \Omega_{\mu\nu\rho}.
\ee
where $K$ is a certain Calabi-Yau Manifold and $\Omega$ is a holomorphic 3-form.
The $a,b,c$ originate from gauge fields (principal or vector bundle) in the compactified Calabi-Yau space and {are} interpreted as harmonic (massless) $(0,1)$-form.
If we restrict to the case of moduli corresponding to the complex structure deformation, rather than the K\"{a}hler structure deformation, the $(0,1)$-form $a,b,c$ must originate in the $(2,1)$-form.
The gauge group $A$ is the maximal subgroup such that, for example,
\be
E_8\otimes E_8 \supset A\otimes SU(3)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1).
\ee
We restrict ourselves to this case, and then it is shown by Candelas and de la Ossa~\cite{ref7} that the rightmost hand side of equation (\ref{eq41}) can be written as
\be
\int_K a^{\alpha\mu}\wedge b^{\beta\nu}\wedge c^{\gamma\rho}\wedge \Omega_{\mu\nu\rho}
=\frac{\partial^3 \cG}{\partial z^\alpha \partial z^\beta \partial z^\gamma}.
\ee
Here the moduli variables $z^\alpha$ ($\alpha=1,2,\ldots,\text{Betti number }b_{2,1}$)
are chosen to be the periods themselves:
\be
z^\alpha = \int_{A^\alpha} \Omega
\ee
where $A^\alpha$ is an appropriate homology basis.
By identifying our modular variables with the
complex structure variables $z^\alpha$~\cite{ref7}, we can explicitly calculate $\cG$ and, therefore,
the K\"{a}hler potential $K$ is
\be
e^K = -i\left(
z^\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline z^\alpha}\overline \cG
-\overline z^\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial z^\alpha}\cG
\right)
\ee
and the K\"{a}hler metric of the moduli space of the Calabi-Yau manifold is
\be
G_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^\alpha \partial z^\beta}\cG.
\ee
The precise relation between our modular variables $q,r$ and $w$ and the period $z^\alpha$ must respect the scaling behavior under $z\to\lambda z$:
\be
\cG(\lambda z) = \lambda^2\cG(z),\quad
\frac{\partial^3 \cG}{\partial z^\alpha \partial z^\beta \partial z^\gamma}
\to
\lambda^{-1}
\frac{\partial^3 \cG}{\partial z^\alpha \partial z^\beta \partial z^\gamma},
\ee
whereas the scaling behavior of a modular form depends on its level.
Here we consider the $\SL(2,\bbZ(\sqrt{2}))$ transformation (\ref{eq4})
with $\beta,\gamma,\beta',\gamma'=0$:
\be
z\to \frac{\alpha}{\delta} z = \alpha^2 z,\quad
z'\to \frac{\alpha'}{\delta'} z' = \alpha'{}^2 z'.
\ee
With $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}, r=e^{2\pi i\sigma}$ and $w=e^{2\pi i\rho}$, we have
\be
\tau\to\alpha^2\tau,\quad
\sigma\to\alpha^2\sigma,
\ee
since $\alpha$ must be equal to $\alpha'$ so that $\tau$ and $\sigma$ have the same scaling factor.
This means that the $\sqrt{2}$ term in $\alpha = a+b\sqrt{2}$ must be zero and the scaling is guaranteed only for integers.
If one allows this, then we obtain
\be
J(q,r)\to\left(\delta\delta'\right)^{2k}J(q,r) = \left(\alpha\alpha'\right)^{-2k}J(q,r)
=\alpha^{-4k} J(q,r)
\ee
and
\be
\rho\to\alpha^2\rho,\quad
J(w)\to\alpha^{-h}J(w)
\ee
where $h$ is the level of the Higgs modular form.
Therefore,
\be
J(q,r)J(w)\to
\alpha^{-h-4k}J(q,r)J(w),
\ee
then we can put
\be
\alpha^{-h-4k} =: \lambda^{-1}
\ee
and
\be
\tau\t
\lambda^\frac{2}{h+4k}\tau,\quad
\sigma\to\lambda^\frac{2}{h+4k}\sigma,\quad
\rho\to\lambda^\frac{2}{h+4k}\rho.
\ee
This shows that the period variables $z^\alpha$ are given by our modular variables:
\be\label{eq54}
z^\alpha=\left(\tau^\frac{h+4k}{2},\sigma^\frac{h+4k}{2},\rho^\frac{h+4k}{2}\right).
\ee
There are four of these combinations corresponding to
charged leptons ($k = 1$), charge $+2/3$ quarks ($k = 2$), charge $-1/3$ quarks ($k=3$),
and neutrinos ($k=4$):
\be
\cG=\sum_{f=1}^4 \cG_f.
\ee
Although $\rho$ corresponds to the Higgs field, each combination has a different relation
{between} $\rho$ and $z^\alpha$ as in equation (\ref{eq54}) because each combination has its own value of $k$. This means that there are
{multiple} modular variables corresponding to the Higgs particle, which is acceptable because these variables
{turn out} just {to be} integration variables.
We obtain
\be
J(q,r,w)&=&J(q,r)J_H(w)=\frac{1}{g}\sum_{i,j,k}g_{ij}h_kq^ir^jw^k \nt
&=&\frac{\partial^3\cG_f}{\partial z^\alpha\partial z^\beta\partial z^\gamma}
=\frac{\left(\frac{2}{h+4k}\right)^3}{\sqrt{(\tau\sigma\rho)^{h+4k-2}}}
\frac{\partial^3\cG_f}{\partial\tau\partial\sigma\partial\rho}.
\ee
Therefore,
\be
\cG_f=\left(\frac{h+4k}{2}\right)^3
\int^{\tau_f}\int^{\sigma_f}\int^{\rho_f}\sqrt{(\tau\sigma\rho)^{h+4k-2}}
J(q,r)J_H(w)d\tau d\sigma d\rho.
\ee
Then the metric of the moduli space of the Calabi-Yau manifold is given by
\be\label{g_moduli}
G_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{f=1}^4G_{\alpha\beta,f}
=\sum_{f=1}^4\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^\alpha\partial z^\beta}\cG_f.
\ee
For example,
\be
G_{\tau\sigma,f}
=\frac{\left(\frac{2}{h+4k}\right)^2}{\sqrt{(\tau_f\sigma_f)^{h+4k-2}}}
\frac{\partial^2\cG_f}{\partial\tau_f\partial\sigma_f}
=\frac{h+4k}{2}J(q_f,r_f)\int^{\rho_f}\sqrt{\rho_f^{h+4k-2}}J_H(w)d\rho.
\ee
We remark that the other derivatives such as
$
\frac{\partial^3\cG_f}{\partial\tau^3},
\frac{\partial^3\cG_f}{\partial\tau^2\partial\sigma},
$
etc.
can correspond to some Yukawa couplings, but all these seem not to appear in physics because of the gauge symmetry of the theory.
For example,
$\frac{\partial^3\cG_f}{\partial\tau^3}$
{could} potentially correspond to the triple Higgs coupling, but it is forbidden by the standard model symmetry.
The K\"{a}hler metric of the moduli space (\ref{g_moduli}) is related to the Calabi-Yau metric through the equation:
\be\label{eq60}
G_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2V}\int_M
g^{\kappa\overline\mu} g^{\lambda\overline\nu}\left(
\frac{\partial g_{\kappa\lambda}}{\partial z^\alpha}
\frac{\partial g_{\overline\mu\overline\nu}}{\partial z^\beta}
+
\frac{\partial B_{\kappa\lambda}}{\partial z^\alpha}
\frac{\partial B_{\overline\mu\overline\nu}}{\partial z^\beta}
\right) d^6x
\ee
where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the Calabi-Yau metric, $B_{\mu\nu}$ is a 2-form related to
$g_{\mu\nu}$ by supersymmetry,
and $V$ is the volume of the Calabi-Yau manifold.
For example,
\be
G_{\tau\sigma,f} = \frac{1}{2V}
\frac{\left(\frac{2}{h+4k}\right)^2}{\sqrt{(\tau_f\sigma_f)^{h+4k-2}}}
\int_M
g^{\kappa\overline\mu} g^{\lambda\overline\nu}\left(
\frac{\partial g_{\kappa\lambda}}{\partial \tau_f}
\frac{\partial g_{\overline\mu\overline\nu}}{\partial \sigma_f}
+
\frac{\partial B_{\kappa\lambda}}{\partial \tau_f}
\frac{\partial B_{\overline\mu\overline\nu}}{\partial \sigma_f}
\right) d^6x.
\ee
If we restrict to the minimum Calabi-Yau manifold, meaning that
all of its moduli are
directly determined by the experiments as above, we may be able to determine its metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ by solving equation (\ref{eq60}) together with the Ricci flat and K\"{a}hler constraints for $g_{\mu\nu}$.
We would like to come back to this issue in a future publication.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
As we have shown above, the hypothesis of flavor moonshine is at least correctly realized experimentally to some extent.
We need to use multi-variable modular forms for this purpose.
These forms are well studied in mathematics as a brunch of number theory and they constitute a part of more general forms called Hilbert modular form~\cite{ref8}.
\item
We use only the Fourier coefficients of these forms to define the Yukawa coupling and the modular invariance of the total Lagrangian is assumed~\cite{ref9}.
As such, it corresponds to the procedure of integrating over the modular variables which are identified as Calabi-Yau moduli if we combine our model
{with} string theory.
We do not regard these moduli as scalar fields to be stabilized.
{Insofar as we can see}, there seems to be no justification
{for regarding} them as scalar fields.
Therefore, our treatment of
{them as} moduli to be integrated out when we define the low energy action seems to be a natural process.
\item
Of course, there are many mysteries to be solved.
Why nature seems to choose a very specific form such as the one we used
{that} is based on $\SL(2, \bbZ(\sqrt{2}))$?
Why $k=1$ for charged leptons, $k=2$ for charge $+2/3$ quarks, $k=3$ for charge $-1/3$ quarks, and $k=4$ for neutrinos?
There remain a lot of works to be done:
How good or bad are the other modular groups like $\SL(2, \bbZ(\sqrt{N
}), \SL(2, \bbZ(i))$ etc.?
Can we extend the modular form to be
{more} than two variables?
What exactly is the mathematical moonshine for the modular form of two variables?
If we understand the mathematical implication of the matrices which appear in the Fourier coefficients of two variable modular forms, we will be able to prove the flavor moonshine by understanding the physical principle
{that identifies} mass matrices with these matrices.
\item
Probably more urgent work from the string theory standpoint is to find out the specific Calabi-Yau metric by solving equation (\ref{eq60}) and
{to elucidate} its other physical consequences.
{Further} questions {arise such}
as:
Do we have a grand unified scale?
Do we have a phase transition from $G=3$ to $G\geq 4$ at some point in higher energy?
\item
Experimentally, we need to explore the property of Higgs particle in more detail,
especially its coupling to low mass particles such as $u, d, e, \mu$ and even neutrinos.
Construction of ILC, therefore, is urgent.
A good neutrino facility is also highly desirable.
The Higgs particle is indeed the ``God particle," the term coined by Leon Lederman~\cite{ref10}, in the sense that its Yukawa couplings determine the highest energy physics without
{the need to perform} the highest energy experiments.
\item
It is possible that the whole idea of flavor moonshine is just nonsense~\cite{ref11},
although the agreement with the experimental data seems to us
too good to be just an accident.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:sec1}
The interplay between disorder and interaction attracts a lot of attention in condensed matter and statistical physics. A certain degree of disorder is ubiquitous in all condensed matter, but a thorough understanding of these systems is impeded by a poor control over the disorder and competing interactions. On the other hand, ultracold atoms, especially bosons in an optical lattice become an important way to simulate condensed matter systems~\cite{Inguscio2010, DeMarco2009PRL, DeMarco2010Nature, Schneble2011, DErrico:2014gc, Rapsch:1999bw, Ceperley1991, Soyler:2011ik, Ceperley2011, Zhang:2015it, Zhang:2017ei, Niederle:2013jy, Zhang:2018ew}. In these experiments, interactions and disorder can be tuned independently. The short-range interaction can be realized using Feshbach resonances, while the long-range interactions have been studied using ultracold gases of particles with large magnetic or electronic dipole moments~\cite{Booth:2015fp, DePaz:2013ff, Lu:2011hl}, polar molecules~\cite{Yan:2013fn, Hazzard:2014bx}, atoms in Rydberg states~\cite{Saffman:2010ky, Lw:2012ct, Gunter:2013fv}, or cavity-mediated interactions~\cite{Baumann:2010js, Landig:2016il}. Random potentials are usually produced using speckle patterns~\cite{CreatDisorder1, DeMarco2009PRL, AAspect2012}, while quasi-periodic potentials can be generated using bichromatic lattices~\cite{Fallani:2007ir}. Other possibilities to engineer disorder include the introduction of localized atomic impurities~\cite{Schneble2011} and holographic techniques which produce point-like disorder~\cite{Morong:2015gha}.
Theoretically, a paradigmatic model to describe the interacting bosonic particles in an optical lattice is the Bose-Hubbard model (BHM). The BHM without disorder and only on-site repulsion features two phases: a superfluid (SF) phase and a Mott insulator (MI) phase. The so-called extended BHM includes nearest-neighbor and/or long-range interactions, as for instance dipolar interactions and cavity-mediated interactions. The phase diagram of the extended BHM with dipolar interactions has been calculated in Ref~\cite{CapogrossoSansone:2010em, Zhang:ws}. In contrast to dipolar interactions which decays as $1/r^3$, cavity-mediated long-range interactions are global, which means that the interaction strength between two bosons does not decay with the distance between them. The ground state phase diagram of the extended BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interactions has been investigated extensively with the help of mean-field theory~\cite{Keller_2017, Li:2013bn, Niederle:2016fi, Dogra:2016hy, Chen:2016kv}, Gutzwiller ansatz~\cite{Sundar:2016ie, Flottat:2017gn}, quantum Monte Carlo~\cite{Habibian:2013eh, Dogra:2016hy, Flottat:2017gn, Habibian:2013kw}, Variational Monte-Carlo~\cite{Bogner:2019ij}, and exact diagonalization~\cite{Blass:2018iw, Igloi:2018ig} in 1D, 2D, and 3D. The results show that by adding cavity-mediated long-range interactions, the extended BHM exhibits a richer phase diagram with additional density wave (DW) and supersolid (SS) phases.
Introducing disorder into the standard BHM leads to the emergence of the gapless Bose glass (BG) phase, characterized by finite compressibility and absence of off-diagonal long-range order, always intervenes between the SF phase and MI phase~\cite{Pollet2009BG, Gurarie:2009it}. The phase diagram of the disordered extended BHM with nearest-neighbor interactions was calculated for 3D~\cite{Lin:2017cz, Kemburi:2012jw}, and the phase diagram of the disordered BHM with dipolar interactions was calculated for 2D~\cite{Zhang:2017ei}.
However, the study of the extended BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interactions in the presence of disorder is still lacking. Whether the disordered potential enhances or suppresses the DW and SS phases here is still unknown.
In this paper, we use quantum Monte Carlo simulations based on the worm algorithm~\cite{Prokofev:1998gz} to study the phase diagram of the two-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with cavity-mediated long-range interactions and uncorrelated disorder. The paper is organized as follows: in section~\ref{sec:sec2}, we introduce the Hamiltonian of the system with cavity-mediated long-range and nearest-neighbor interactions. In section~\ref{sec:sec3}, we discuss various phases and the corresponding order parameters. In section~\ref{sec4.1}, we present the phase diagrams of the 2D extended BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interactions and uncorrelated disorder. On the mean-field level the BHM with cavity-mediated interactions is identical to the BHM with nearest-neighbor repulsion - up to a renormalization of the chemical potential and the on-site potential~\cite{Dogra:2016hy}. Therefore, for comparison, we study in section~\ref{sec4.2} the phase diagram of the extended BHM with nearest-neighbor interactions in the presence of uncorrelated disorder. The extended BHM with nearest-neighbor interactions was experimentally realized in~\cite{Baier:2016ga}. Finally, section~\ref{sec:sec5} concludes this paper.
\section{Hamiltonian}
\label{sec:sec2}
In the following, we consider bosons trapped in an optical lattice with both short-range on-site and cavity-mediated long-range interactions in the presence of disordered potential.
The system is described by the Hamiltonian~\cite{Habibian:2013eh, Habibian:2013kw, Niederle:2016fi}:
\begin{align}
\nonumber H& =-t\sum_{\langle i, j\rangle }(a_i^\dagger a_j+a_i a_j^{\dagger})+\frac{U_s}{2}\sum_i n_i(n_i-1) \\
&-\frac{U_l}{L^2} \Big{(}\sum_{i \in e} n_i - \sum_{j \in o} n_j \Big{)} ^2+ \sum_i (\varepsilon_{i}-\mu)n_i \;\; ,
\label{Eq1}
\end{align}
where the first term is the kinetic energy characterized by the hopping amplitude $t$. Here $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes nearest neighboring sites on an underlying square lattice of linear size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions, $a_i^\dagger$ ($a_i$) are bosonic creation (annihilation) operators satisfying the bosonic commutation relations. The second term is the short-range on-site repulsive interaction with interaction strength $U_s$. Here, $n_i=a_i^{\dagger}a_i$ is the particle number operator. The third term is the cavity-mediated long-range interaction with interaction strength $U_l$, the summations $i \in e$ and $j \in o$ denote summing over even and odd lattice sites respectively~\cite{Niederle:2016fi}. The fourth term is the chemical potential term with chemical potential $\mu$ shifted by the on-site random disordered potential $\varepsilon_{i}$, where $\varepsilon_{i}$ is uniformly distributed within the range $[-\Delta, \Delta]$. $\Delta$ is the disorder strength. We set the unit of energy and length to be the hopping amplitude $t$. For each $U_l/t$, $U_{s}/t$, and $\Delta/t$, we average over 100-200 realizations of disorder.
On the mean-field level the BHM with cavity-mediated interactions is identical to the BHM with nearest-neighbor repulsion - up to a renormalization of the chemical potential and the on-site potential~\cite{Dogra:2016hy}. In order to check this, we also consider the disordered 2D BHM with nearest-neighbor interactions defined by the Hamiltonian:
\begin{align}
\nonumber H& =-t\sum_{\langle i, j\rangle }(a_i^\dagger a_j+a_i a_j^{\dagger})+\frac{U_s}{2}\sum_i n_i(n_i-1) \\
&+U_{nn} \sum_{\langle i, j\rangle} n_i n_j+ \sum_i (\varepsilon_{i}-\mu)n_i \;\; .
\label{Eq2}
\end{align}
Here, the first term is the kinetic energy with hopping amplitude $t$. The second term is the short-range on-site interaction with the interaction strength $U_s$. The third term is the repulsive interaction with interaction strength $U_{nn}$ between bosons on nearest neighboring sites. The fourth term is the disordered potential term coupled with the chemical potential term. For each $U_{nn}/t$, $U_s/t$, and $\Delta/t$, we average over 500-1000 realizations of disorder.
\section{Phases and order parameters}
\label{sec:sec3}
In this section, we list the phases we find in model~\ref{Eq1} and~\ref{Eq2} and the corresponding order parameters in table~\ref{Table1}. Each of the phases listed in table~\ref{Table1} corresponding to a unique combination of the order parameters. Here, three order parameters are needed to separate those quantum phases: superfluid stiffness $\rho$, structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, and compressibility $\kappa$.
\begin{table}[h]
\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 6cm 7cm 3cm, clip=true, width=0.48\textwidth]{FIG5.pdf}
\caption{Quantum phases and the corresponding parameters: superfluid stiffness $\rho$, structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, and compressibility $\kappa$.
}
\label{Table1}
\end{table}
A non-vanishing superfluid stiffness $\rho$ signifies off-diagonal long-range order, and it is easily accessible in QMC simulations using world line algorithms by calculation the winding number~\cite{Winding}. The superfluid stiffness is then given by:
\begin{equation}
\rho=\langle \mathbf{W}^2 \rangle /dL^{d-2}\beta \;\; .
\end{equation}
Here, $\mathbf{W}$ is the winding number. $d$ is the dimension of the system and here, $d=2$. $L$ is the linear system size and $\beta$ is the inverse temperature.
The structure factor characterizes diagonal long-range order and is defined as:
\begin{equation}
S(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r'}} \exp{[i \mathbf{k} (\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'})]\langle n_{\mathbf{r}}n_{\mathbf{r'}}\rangle}/N \;\;.
\end {equation}
Here, $\mathbf{k}$ is the reciprocal lattice vector with $\mathbf{k}=(\pi, \pi)$ for the density wave with a checker board pattern and $N=L\times L$ is the system size.
The compressibility measures the density fluctuations and it is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\kappa=\beta (\langle n^2\rangle -\langle n \rangle ^2 ) \;\;.
\end{equation}
\section{Ground state phase diagrams}
\label{sec4}
\begin{figure*}[th]
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip=true, width=0.85\textwidth]{FIG1.pdf}
\caption{(a)-(c) Ground state phase diagrams of model~\ref{Eq1} as a function of on-site interaction strength $U_s/t$ and disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at cavity-mediated long-range interaction $U_l/t=5$, $U_l/t=10$, and $U_l/t=16$, respectively. (d)-(f) Ground state phase diagrams of model~\ref{Eq2} as a function of on-site interaction strength $U_s/t$ and disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at nearest-neighbor interaction $U_{nn}/t=5$, $U_{nn}/t=7$, and $U_{nn}/t=10$, respectively. Here, PS indicates a region of phase separation.}
\label{FIG1}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we present the ground state phase diagram for fixed particle density $\langle n_i \rangle=1$ (note that in this case the chemical potential in model (1) and (2) is superfluous) for cavity-mediated long-range interactions (Fig.~\ref{FIG1} (a)-(c)) and nearest-neighbor interactions (Fig.~\ref{FIG1} (e)-(g)). The x-axis is the on-site interaction $U_s/t$ and the y-axis is the disorder strength $\Delta/t$, here we set the hopping amplitude $t=1$. Table~\ref{Table1} summarizes the quantum phases in Fig.~\ref{FIG1} and the corresponding order parameters: superfluid stiffness $\rho$, structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, and compressibility $\kappa$.
The phase boundary is determined by considering cuts through the x-axis ($U_s/t$) and calculating the above three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{FIG2} and~\ref{FIG4}.
\subsection{Long-range interaction}
\label{sec4.1}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 4.4cm 18cm 0cm, clip=true, width=0.35\textwidth]{FIG2.pdf}
\caption{Model 1 (cavity-mediated long-range interactions): superfluid stiffness $\rho$ (red circles), structure factor $S(\pi,\pi)$ (orange triangles), and compressibility $\kappa$ (purple rectangles) as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=20$ for $U_l/t=5$ (a), $U_s/t=20$ for $U_l/t=10$ (b), and $U_s/t=30$ for $U_l/t=16$ (c). }
\label{FIG2}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{FIG1} (a)-(c) shows the phase diagrams of the disordered BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interactions at interaction strength $U_l/t=5$, 10, and 16 at filling factor $\langle n_i \rangle =1$. Without long-range interactions, the phase diagram of the disordered BHM at filling factor $\langle n_i \rangle=1$ contains three phases: an SF phase, a MI phase, and a BG phase~\cite{Soyler:2011ik}. We use system size $L=16$ and measure the three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ for various on-site interactions $U_s/t$ to determine the phase diagrams. Other system sizes have also been used to make sure the transition points are within the error bars. Figure~\ref{FIG2} (a) shows the superfluid stiffness $\rho$ and compressibility $\kappa$ as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=20$ for $U_l/t=5$. The structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$ is zero at fixed $U_s/t=20$ for different disorder strength. When the disorder strength $\Delta/t < 4$, the system is in the MI phase with zero superfluid stiffness and zero compressibility. At disorder strength $4<\Delta/t< 6$, the system is in the BG phase with finite compressibility but no superfluidity. As the disorder strength increases, the system goes to the SF phase at disorder strength $6<\Delta/t< 50$. Finally, at large disorder strength $\Delta/t>50$, the superfluidity is destroyed and the system enters the BG phase. Figure~\ref{FIG1} (a) shows the phase diagram at the interaction strength $U_l/t=5$. Compared with the phase diagram of the disordered BHM without long-range interactions, the shape of the phase boundaries at $U_l/t=5$ does not change but the region of the SF phase shrinks. For example, at $U_s/t=20$, the SF phase disappears around disorder strength $\Delta/t \sim 50$, while for the disordered BHM without long-range interactions, the SF phase exists up to $\Delta/t \sim 70$~\cite{Soyler:2011ik}. This is because the cavity-mediated long-range interaction tends to localize the particles in a `checkerboard' pattern which suppresses superfluidity.
Figure~\ref{FIG1} (b) shows the phase diagram at the interaction strength $U_l/t=10$. Compared with Fig.~\ref{FIG1} (a), the shape of the phase diagram boundaries does not change but with the SS phase emerges inside the SF phase at lower disorder strength. The SS phase has both diagonal long-range order and off-diagonal long-range order and is characterized by a finite superfluid stiffness $\rho$ and a finite structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$. Figure~\ref{FIG2} (b) shows the three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=20$ for $U_l/t=10$. At disorder strength $9<\Delta/t < 20$, the system has a finite superfluid stiffness $\rho$ and a finite structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, implying that the system is in the SS phase. In the absence of disorder, at $U_l/t=10$,
the DW to SF phase transition happens around $U_s/t \sim 15.5$~\cite{Bogner:2019ij}.
Interestingly, by adding disorder to the system, the DW phase is transformed to the SS phase at weak disorder strength and the SS phase exists even around $U_s/t \sim 22$, implying that weak disorder enhances the SS order. Here, disorder transfers a solid into a percolating supersoli
~\cite{Lin:2017cz, Kemburi:2012jw} which is a percolating superfluid coexists with a solid.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 8cm 0cm 8cm, clip=true, width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG3.pdf}
\caption{Model 1 (cavity-mediated long-range interactions): density maps at $U_l/t=16$, $\Delta/t=26$, for different on-site interactions $U_s/t=25$ (a), $U_s/t=30$ (b), and $U_s/t=35$ (c), respectively. }
\label{FIG3}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{FIG1} (c) shows the phase diagram at the interaction strength $U_l/t=16$, where the superfluid phase has vanished and all bosons are localized. Interestingly, besides the DW and BG phase, a new glassy phase appears with finite compressibility and finite structure factor but no superfluidity. It is denoted as a disordered solid (DS). Figure~\ref{FIG2} (c) shows the three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=30$ for $U_l/t=16$. At disorder strength $16<\Delta/t < 32$, the system has finite compressibility $\kappa$ and finite structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, which shows that the system is in the DS phase.
We find that, at lower $U_s/t$, we have the DW solid to DS phase transition first and then the DS to BG phase transition. This can be explained by the theory of inclusions~\cite{Pollet2009BG, Gurarie:2009it}, which states that a compressible glassy phase, the DS phase is surrounded incompressible phase, the DW phase. The glassy phase here is the DS since both of the DS phase and DW phase have finite structure factor. Figure~\ref{FIG3} shows the density maps at fixed $U_l/t=16$ and $\Delta/t=26$ for on-site interaction $U_s/t=25$, 30, and 35, respectively. The radius of a red circle at a given site is proportional to the density at that site. At on-site interaction $U_s/t=25$, the density map shows clearly the density wave pattern. As the on-site interaction increases, the system losses the density wave pattern and the structure factor decreases. By further increases the disorder strength, the DS phase is destroyed in favor of the BG phase.
For model~\ref{Eq1}, the region of parameter space corresponding to $U_s/t < 18$ has not been explored extensively. The reason is that the finite-size effects are much more pronounced at small on-site interactions, and at the same time, the long-range interaction term in the Hamiltonian slows down the worm update in the algorithm more and more when the system size increases such that systems sizes beyond L=16 are computationally inaccessible to us.
\subsection{Nearest-neighbor interaction}
\label{sec4.2}
In this subsection, we study the ground state phase diagram of model~\ref{Eq2}. On the mean-field level the BHM with cavity-mediated interactions is identical to the BHM with nearest-neighbor repulsion - up to a renormalization of the chemical potential and the on-site potential - and the mean-field phase diagrams are identical~\cite{Dogra:2016hy}. Here we demonstrate that the true phase diagram, for 2D in the presence of disorder, are only vaguely similar and actually shows significant differences.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 1cm 20cm 0cm, clip=true, width=0.4\textwidth]{FIG4.pdf}
\centering
\caption{Model 2 (nearest-neighbor repulsive interactions): superfluid stiffness $\rho$ (red circles), structure factor $S(\pi,\pi)$ (orange triangles), and compressibility $\kappa$ (purple rectangles) as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=16$ for $U_{nn}/t=5$ (a), $U_s/t=28$ for $U_{nn}/t=7$ (b), and $U_s/t=30$ for $U_{nn}/t=10$ (c). The dotted line represents the PS region. (d) shows the density map at $U_s /t =28$ and $\Delta /t =6$.}
\label{FIG4}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{FIG1} (d)-(f) shows the phase diagrams of the disordered BHM with nearest-neighbor interaction at the interaction strength $U_{nn}/t=5$, 7, and 10 at filling factor $\langle n_i \rangle =1$, respectively.
For the clean system without disorder, in the classical limit $U_s/t \rightarrow \infty$, the ground states are known~\cite{Sengupta:2005hq, BinXi:2011ig, Iskin:2011cr}. At filling factor $\langle n_i \rangle =1$, when the nearest-neighbor interaction and on-site interaction satisfy $zU_{nn}/U_s < 1$, the ground state is the MI state. While for $zU_{nn}/U_s > 1$, the ground state is the DW state. Here $z$ is the coordination number and $z=4$ in 2D.
Figure~\ref{FIG4} (a) shows the superfluid stiffness $\rho$, structure factor $S(\pi,\pi)$, and compressibility $\kappa$ as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=16$ for $U_l/t=5$ and $L=16$. The structure factor decreases as the disorder strength $\Delta/t$ increases. At lower disorder strength $\Delta/t < 6$, the system is in the DW phase with zero superfluid stiffness, zero compressibility, but finite structure factor. At disorder strength $6<\Delta/t< 12$, the system is in the SS phase with finite superfluid stiffness and finite structure factor. Large disorder tends to destroy the DW order and the system goes in the SF phase at disorder strength $12<\Delta/t< 32$. Further increasing the disordered potential results in the destruction of the SF phase in favor of the BG phase. Figure~\ref{FIG1} (d) shows the phase diagram at interaction strength $U_{nn}/t=5$. When the on-site interaction $U_s/t >20$, there exists SF, MI, and BG phases, while when $U_s/t < 20$, there exists DW, SF, BG, and DS phases. For the clean system, the SS phase exists when the on-site interaction strength $U_s/t<5$~\cite{Bogner:2019ij}. At weak disorder strength, we find that the SS phase exists around $10< U_s/t <18$. Here, weak disordered potential enhances the SS phase~\cite{Lin:2017cz, Kemburi:2012jw}.
Figure~\ref{FIG4} (b) shows the three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=28$ for $U_{nn}/t=7$. At lower disorder strength $0<\Delta/t<10$, the system is in a region displaying phase separation (PS).
At larger disorder strength $\Delta/t>10$, the SF phase appears. The emergence of the SF phase for increasing disorder is due to the formation of a percolating SF cluster as described in~\cite{Kemburi:2012jw}.
Finally, strong disorder destroys the SF phase in favor of the BG phase. Figure~\ref{FIG4} (d) shows the density map of PS at $U_s /t =28$ and $\Delta /t =6$, where the DW phase is separated from the MI phase.
Figure~\ref{FIG1} (e) shows the phase diagram at the interaction strength $U_{nn}/t=7$. Compared with the phase diagram in FIG.~\ref{FIG1} (d), as we increase the nearest-neighbor interaction, the SF phase shrinks and we find a region displaying PS at lower disorder strength around $U_s/t \sim 28$.
Figure~\ref{FIG4} (c) shows the three order parameters as a function of disorder strength $\Delta/t$ at $U_s/t=30$ for $U_{nn}/t=10$. At disorder strength $16<\Delta/t < 24$, the system has finite compressibility $\kappa$ and finite structure factor $S(\pi, \pi)$, which shows that the system is in the disordered solid (DS) phase. Figure~\ref{FIG1} (f) shows the phase diagram at the interaction strength $U_{nn}/t=10$. At this interaction strength, there is no SF phase anymore and all bosons are localized. Phase separation occurs around $U_s/t \sim 40$ at lower disorder strength. Interestingly, in addition to the DW and BG phases, a disordered solid phase emerges.
At lower $U_s/t$, the DW goes to DS and then BG phase as the disorder increases. The DS phase intervenes between the DW and BG phases since both the DW and DS phases have a finite structure factor.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:sec5}
Comparing the phase diagrams of model~\ref{Eq1} and~\ref{Eq2}, we can see that the phase diagrams of the extended BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interactions and nearest-neighbor interactions only vaguely similar and actually display many significant differences. The main difference is that weak disorder leads to the PS in the nearest-neighbor interaction case. And in the weak disorder region, the phase diagram for the nearest-neighbor interaction changes around $zU_s/U_{nn}\sim 1$, where the DW dominates for $zU_s/U_{nn}<1$ while MI dominates for $zU_s/U_{nn} > 1$. There is no such change for the extended BHM with cavity-mediated long-range interaction. Here one always finds the DW phase for small $U_s$ and the MI phase for large $U_s$. In conclusion, the phase diagrams for the disordered BHM with cavity-mediated long-range and nearest-neighbor interactions are vaguely similar but with significant differences in the size of phases and the existence of the region of phase separation.
{\textit{Acknowledgements}}
This work was performed with financial support from Saarland University. We would like to thank B. Capogrosso-Sansone for enlightening discussions. The computing for this project was performed at the OU Supercomputing Center for Education $\&$ Research (OSCER) at the University of Oklahoma (OU) and the cluster at Saarland University.
|
\section{CURE-TSD-Real Dataset}
\label{sec:cure}
\subsection{General Information}
\label{subsec:cure_general}
Among the datasets analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:related}, BelgiumTS \cite{Timofte2009} and LISA \cite{Mogelmose2012} are the only datasets that provide partial video sequences. When this study was conducted, tracks in the LISA dataset were available but not the video sequences. Therefore, we utilized the BelgiumTS \cite{Timofte2009} dataset to obtain video sequences. We selected a subset of the traffic signs in the BelgiumTS dataset as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: sign_type} and labeled consecutive frames only for these sign types. Sign types were selected according to the compatibility with the synthesized part of the CURE-TSD dataset, which is not considered in this paper. In total, there were four main sequences in BelgiumTS, which included 3,001, 6,201, 2,001, and 4,001 frames. We grouped 300 consecutive frames as individual videos and obtained a total of $49$ videos. In the BelgiumTS dataset, annotations were provided for specific frames and annotating the missing frames could have resulted in an inconsistency among the labels. Therefore, we annotated all the frames including the ones with existing labels and extended the number of annotated frames from 9,006 to 14,700 using the Video Annotation Tool from Irvine, California (VATIC) \cite{vatic2}. Specifically, we utilized the {\href{https://dbolkensteyn.github.io/vatic.js/}{JavaScript version}} on the browser and labeled a traffic sign if half of the sign was visible. We considered the original video sequences as baseline and added challenging conditions at different levels to test the performance limits of traffic sign detection algorithms.
\begin{center}
\input{Figs/fig_challenges.tex}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10mm}
\subsection{Challenging Conditions}
\label{subsec_chal_types}
We processed original video sequences with 12 challenge types to obtain challenging video sequences as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}. Postproduction of challenging conditions scaled up the dataset size from 14,700 images to 896,700 images. We adjusted the level of challenging conditions through visual inspection rather than numerical progression. Challenge-free sequences were considered as level 0 and we added five different levels for each challenge type. Levels were adjusted according to the following rules: \emph{level 1 does not affect the visibility of traffic signs perceptually, level 2 affects the visibility of small and distant traffic signs, level 3 makes the visibility of small and distant traffic signs difficult, level 4 makes the visibility of small and distant traffic signs challenging, and level 5 makes the visibility of small and distant traffic signs nearly impossible.} Simulated conditions and implementation details are listed as follows:
\begin{itemize}[label=\textcolor{orange}{\FilledSmallSquare},leftmargin=*]
\item $Decolorization$ tests the effect of color acquisition error, which was implemented using \texttt{Black \& White} color correction filter version 1.0. The filter settings were: \texttt{Reds}$=40$, \texttt{Yellows}$=60$, \texttt{Greens}$=40$, \texttt{Cyans}$=60$, \texttt{Blues}$=20$, and \texttt{Magentas}$=80$. We utilized multiple adjustment layers to compound the effect of the color correction filter and created multiple distinct levels.
\item $Lens/Gaussian~blur$ tests the effect of dynamic scene acquisition. $Lens~blur$ was implemented with the \texttt{Camera Lens Blur} filter version $1.0$ whose radius was set to $2$, $4$, $6$, $8$, and $10$ along with Hexagan \texttt{Iris Shape}. For the $Gaussian~blur$ challenge, \texttt{Gaussian Blur} filter version $3.0$ was used whose \texttt{Bluriness} levels were set to $5, 10, 15, 20,$ and $25$. On contrary to lens~blur, Gaussian~blur is distributed in all directions, which leads to less structured blurred objects.
\item $Codec~error$ tests the effect of encoder/decoder error, which was implemented using \texttt{Time Displacement} filter version $1.6$. \texttt{Max Displacement Time} was set to $0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4,$ and $0.5$.
\item $Darkening~(underexposure)$ tests the effect of underexposure, which was implemented using \texttt{Exposure} filter version $1.0$. The master channel \texttt{Exposure} parameter was set to $-1, -3, -5, -7,$ and $-9$.
\item $Dirty~lens$ tests the effect of occlusion because of dirt over camera lens, which was implemented by overlaying a set of dusty lens images.
\item $Exposure~(overexposure)$ tests the effect of overexpsoure in acquisition, which was implemented with the \texttt{Exposure} filter version $1.0$. The master channel \texttt{Exposure} parameter was set to $1$, $3$, $5$, $7$, and $9$.
\item $Noise$ tests the effect of acquisition noise, which was implemented using the \texttt{Noise} filter version $2.6$. The \texttt{Amount of Noise} parameter was set to $20$, $40$, $60$, $70$, and $71$.
\item $Rain$ tests the effect of occlusion due to rain, which was implemented using the \texttt{Gradient Ramp} generator version $3.2$ with colors \texttt{\# 0F1E2D} and \texttt{\# 5A7492} to create a blueish hue over the video, and \texttt{CC Rainfall} generator from Cycore Effects HD 1.8.2 version $1.1$. The \texttt{Opacity} level was set to $25\%$ with $5$ adjustment layers and the \texttt{Drops} option was set to $10000$, $20000$, $50000$, and $100000$.
\item $Shadow~(occlusion)$ tests the effect of non-uniform lighting due to shadow. Based on the description of Merriam Webster \cite{Webster2019}, shadow refers to \emph{partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body}. In this study, darkness/obscurity refers to the vertical patterns and space refers to the traffic sign. In Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, we can observe that shadow partially occludes the traffic sign and the levels corresponds to the darkness of the occluded region. The $shadow$ condition was implemented using \texttt{Venetian Blinds} filter version $2.3$. \texttt{Transition Completeness} was $47\%$, \texttt{Direction} was $0x+0.0^{\circ}$, and \texttt{Width} was $142$. Finally, \texttt{Opacity} was set to $15\%, 30\%, 45\%, 60\%$, and $75\%$.
\item $Snow$ tests the effect of occlusion due to snow, which was implemented using the \texttt{Glow} filter version $2.6$ with color \texttt{\# FFFFF} to create a white hue over the video, and \texttt{CC Snowfall} generator from Cycore Effects HD 1.8.2 version $1.1$. \texttt{Glow Threshold} was $55\%$, \texttt{Glow Intensity} was $1.4$, \texttt{Glow Operation} was Screen, and \texttt{Glow Dimension} was Horizontal. \texttt{Drops} option in the \texttt{CC Snowfall} generator was set to $10000, 50000, 100000$, and $140000$ using $9$ adjustment layers.
\item $Haze$ tests the effect of occlusion due to haze, which was implemented using the \texttt{Ellipse Shape Layer} filter version $1.0$ with radial gradient fill using color \texttt{\# D6D6D6} in the center with $100\%$ opacity and color \texttt{\# 000000} at the edges with $0\%$ opacity. The shape and focal point location of the ellipse was manually controlled to closely follow the furthest point in the video, which created a sense of depth to the scene and emulated the behaviour of haze. In addition to \texttt{Ellipse} filter, \texttt{Smart Blur} version $1.0$, \texttt{Exposure} version $1.0$, and \texttt{Brightness \& Contrast} version $1.0$ were utilized. In the \texttt{Smart Blur} filter, \texttt{Radius} was set to $3$, and \texttt{Threshold} was set to $25$. In the \texttt{Exposure} filter, \texttt{Radius} was $-1$ and \texttt{Gamma Correction} was $1$. In the \texttt{Brightness \& Contrast} filter, \texttt{Brightness} was set to $-34$ and \texttt{Contrast} was set to $-13$. \texttt{Solid Layer} was used with a color code of \texttt{\# CECECE} and opacity was set to $10\%$, $20\%$, $30\%$, $40\%$, and $50\%$.
\end{itemize}
Challenge types were selected and synthesized based on the discussion with the Multimedia Signal Processing Technical Committee and IEEE Signal Processing Society during the VIP Cup 2017 competition process. In the original competition proposal, we proposed challenging conditions including $blur$, $exposure$, $rain$, and $snow$. Based on the recommendations of the committee members and follow-up discussions, we added the remaining challenging conditions including $decolorization$, $codec~error$, $dirty~lens$, $noise$, $shadow$, and $haze$. All of the challenging conditions other than $snow$ were observed in the prior real-world traffic datasets \cite{Grigorescu2003,Timofte2009,Timofte2014,Belaroussi2010,Larsson2011,Stallkamp2011,Stallkamp2012,Houben2013,Mogelmose2012,Zhu2016,Yang2016,Zhang2017} as summarized in Table \ref{tab_datasets}, which indicates the relevance and significance of these conditions. To simulate challenging conditions, we utilized the state-of-the-art visual effects and motion graphics software Adobe(c) After Effects, which has been commonly used for realistic image and video processing and synthesis in the literature \cite{Liu2013,Liu2014,Zhuang2017}. We provided the details of challenge generation process including the operators and parameters so that challenging condition synthesis can be reproducible, and researchers can build on top of the initial configurations. Challenging conditions do not have to be used all together and researchers can select the challenging conditions that are relevant and sufficient for their target application. This dataset can be considered as an initial step to assess the robustness of traffic sign detection algorithms under controlled challenging conditions, which can be further enhanced by the research community.
\vspace{-2mm}
\subsection{Benchmark Algorithms}
In this study, we analyze the average performance of two top performing algorithms in the VIP Cup traffic sign detection challenge \cite{Temel2018_SPM,Temel2019}. Both of the algorithms are based on state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNNs) including U-Net \cite{Ronneberger2015}, ResNet \cite{He2015}, VGG\cite{Simonyan2014}, and GoogLeNet \cite{Szegedy2014}. In both algorithms, localization and recognition of the traffic signs are performed by separate CNNs. Details of the finalist algorithms are summarized as follows: First algorithm includes a VGG-based challenge type detection stage followed by a histogram equalization and a ResNet-based denoising depending on the challenge type. Traffic signs are localized by a U-Net architecture and recognized by a custom CNN architecture. Second algorithm extracts features with a pretrained GoogLeNet architecture whose features at the end of Inception 5B layer are fed into the regression layer to obtain sign locations, which are further classified by a custom CNN architecture.
\section{Introduction}
Transportation systems are transformed by disruptive technologies that are based on autonomous systems. In order for autonomous systems to seamlessly operate in real-world conditions, they need to be robust under challenging conditions. In this study, we focus on automated traffic sign detection systems and investigate the effect of challenging conditions in algorithmic performance. Currently, the performance of traffic sign detection algorithms are tested with existing traffic sign datasets in the literature \cite{Grigorescu2003,Timofte2009,Timofte2014,Belaroussi2010,Larsson2011,Stallkamp2011,Stallkamp2012,Houben2013,Mogelmose2012,Zhu2016,Yang2016,Zhang2017}, which have been very useful to develop and evaluate state-of-the-art traffic sign recognition and detection algorithms. However, these datasets are usually very limited in terms of type and severity of challenging conditions. Moreover, there is no metadata corresponding to the types and the levels of these conditions. Traffic sign size can be considered as the only metadata corresponding to the challenge level, which can degrade the detection performance significantly \cite{Yi2018}. Besides the limitations of challenging conditions, it is not feasible to assess the effect of most of the challenging conditions in existing datasets because of limited control over the acquisition process. A number of conditions change simultaneously, which makes it impossible to investigate the effect of a specific condition. To overcome the shortcomings of existing datasets and enable assessing the effect of challenging conditions one at a time, we introduced traffic sign recognition \cite{Temel2017_NIPSW} and detection datasets \cite{Temel2018_SPM,Temel2019}. We hosted the first IEEE Video and Image Processing (VIP) Cup \cite{Temel2018_SPM} within the IEEE Signal Processing Society and obtained an algorithmic benchmark for the CURE-TSD dataset, which is based on video sequences corresponding to real-world as well as simulator environments. In this study, we focus on the real-world sequences denoted as \texttt{CURE-TSD-Real} dataset. Specifically, we investigate the effect of challenging conditions over the average performance of top two benchmark algorithms that are based on deep neural networks.
Recently, adversarial examples have been commonly used in the literature to test the vulnerability of recognition and detection systems \cite{Szegedy2014b,Goodfellow2015}. Even though adversarial examples have been successful in deceiving these generic object recognition and detection systems, they have not been effective in traffic sign recognition and detection systems \cite{Lu2017, Das2017}. Lu \textit{et al.} \cite{Luo2017} showed that adversarial examples deceive traffic sign detection systems only in limited scenarios and Das \textit{et al.} \cite{Das2017} showed that a simple compression stage can minimize the effect of adversarial attacks in traffic sign recognition. Adversarial examples are useful to assess the limits of existing systems with special inputs that are optimized for deception. However, such adversarial examples do not necessarily correspond to real-world challenging conditions. Moreover, previous studies mainly focused on feeding adversarial data directly into the classification model. However, in real world, challenging conditions can directly affect the data acquired by sensors rather than classifiers. In this study, we differentiate from previous studies by focusing on challenging conditions corresponding to adversaries that can naturally occur in real-world environments and systems as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sample_scenes}. On contrary to adversarial studies in the literature that require model information to design input images, we designed challenging conditions independent of the detection algorithms, which enables a black-box performance assessment. Previously, we performed black-box assessment of object detection APIs with realistic challenging conditions in \cite{Temel2018_CUREOR, Temel2019_CUREOR}, and investigated the robustness and out-of-distribution classification performance of traffic sign classifiers in \cite{Prabhushankar2018,Kwon2019}.
In addition to investigating the effect of challenging conditions in traffic sign detection performance, we also analyze the effect of challenging conditions in terms of spectral characteristics. In \cite{VANDERSCHAAF1996}, Van der Schaaf and Van Hateren analyzed the power spectrum of natural images and showed that there is a common characteristic followed by natural images. In \cite{Torralba2003}, Torralba and Olivia extracted more information based on spectrum related to the openness of images, the semantic category of scenes, the recognition of objects, and the depth of scenes. Based on these observations and findings, a direct comparison between spectrum of challenge-free sequences and challenging sequences can be affected by the context of the scene. However, if we first obtain the difference between challenge-free and challenging sequences and then obtain the power spectrum, we can limit the effect of context and concentrate on the change with respect to reference conditions, which is the methodology pursued in this study.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section \ref{sec:related}, we analyze existing traffic sign datasets. In Section \ref{sec:cure}, we provide a general description of the \texttt{CURE-TSD-Real} dataset, describe challenging conditions, and briefly introduce benchmark algorithms. We discuss traffic sign detection performance under challenging conditions and analyze spectral characteristics of these conditions in Section \ref{sec:perf}. Specifically, we explain the performance metrics in Section \ref{subsec:perf_metrics}, describe the training and test datsets in Section \ref{subsec:perf_data}, report performance variation under challenging conditions in Section \ref{subsec:perf_overall}, perform a spectral analysis of challenging conditions in Section \ref{subsec:perf_spectrum}, and analyze the relationship between detection performance and spectral characteristics in Section \ref{subsec:perf_estimation}. Finally, we conclude our work in Section \ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
We analyzed the average performance of benchmark algorithms in the \texttt{CURE-TSD-Real} dataset and showed that detection performance can significantly degrade under challenging conditions. $Codec~error$ and $exposure$ resulted in the most significant performance degradation with more than $80\%$ whereas $shadow$ resulted in the least degradation with around $16\%$. Challenging weather conditions $snow$, $haze$, and $rain$ resulted in at least $48\%$ performance degradation. Around $63\%$ performance degradation in $decolorization$ highlighted the importance of color information for certain algorithms in sign detection. Detection performance degradation based on $darkening$, $noise$ and $blur$ is in between $30\%$ and $48\%$ whereas $dirty~lens$ exceeds $50\%$. Our frequency domain analysis showed that simulated challenging conditions can correspond to distinct spectral patterns and magnitude of these spectral patterns can be used to estimate the detection performance under challenging conditions. Degradation estimation perfomance based on spectral representations was in between $0.64$ and $0.84$ in terms of Spearmen correlation. As future work, adaptive pooling and no-reference spectral analysis are promising research directions that can be further investigated to estimate detection performance of algorithms by solely considering the environmental conditions.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\section{Traffic Sign Detection under Challenging Conditions}
\label{sec:perf}
\subsection{Performance Metrics}
\label{subsec:perf_metrics}
We calculate precision, recall, $F_{0.5}$, and $F_{2}$ metrics to measure the traffic sign detection performance as described in Table \ref{tab:metrics}. A detection is considered correct if intersection over union (IoU), also known as Jaccard index, is at least 0.5. IoU is obtained by calculating the overlapping area between the ground truth bounding box and the estimated bounding box, and diving the overlaping area by the area of the union between these boxes.
\subsection{Training and Test Sets}
\label{subsec:perf_data}
There are 49 reference video sequences with 300 frames per video as described in Section \ref{subsec:cure_general}. Video sequences were split into training and test sequences by following 7:3 splitting ratio, which led to 34 training video sequences and 15 test video sequences. For each reference video sequence, we generated 60 challenging sequences based on 12 challenge types and 5 challenge levels. For each challenge type, there are 170 (34x5) video sequences (51,000 frames) in the training set and 75 (15x5) video sequences (22,500 frames) in the test set. We set the number of video sequences same for each challenge type and level to eliminate any bias towards a specific challenge type or level. Overall, there are 2,074 video sequences (622,200 frames) in the training set and 915 video sequences (274,500 frames) in the test set.
\input{Figs/fig_overall_levels}
\input{Tables/tab_performance_v3.tex}
\subsection{Performance Variation under Challenging Conditions}
\label{subsec:perf_overall}
As reference performance, we calculate the average detection performance of benchmarked algorithms for challenge-free sequences. Then, we calculate the detection performance under varying challenging conditions and levels. Average detection performance under different challenge levels are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_levels}. Y-axis corresponds to detection performance and x-axis corresponds to challenge levels. In addition to reporting average detection performance for each challenge level, we also report the percentage performance degradation under severe challenging conditions (level 5). Based on the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_levels}, detection performance significantly decreases with respect to reference challenge-free conditions. Specifically, detection performance degrades by $20\%$ in precision, $65\%$ in recall, $38\%$ in $F_{0.5}$ score and $61\%$ in $F_{2}$ score.
To understand the effect of challenging condition types over traffic sign detection, we report the performance of top-I team, top-II team, and their average (top-I-II) in Table~\ref{tab_variation}. The detection performance of top-I team degrades by $55\%$ in precision, $80\%$ in recall, $70\%$ in $F_{0.5}$ score, and $78\%$ in $F_{2}$ score. For top-II team, the performance degradation is $18\%$ in precision, $22\%$ in recall, $21\%$ in $F_{0.5}$ score, and $22\%$ in $F_{2}$ score. We can observe that overall performance degradation for each team vary between $18\%$ and $80\%$ in which the variation is higher for top-I team. When team results are averaged (Top-I-II), overall performance degrades by $29\%$ in precision, $68\%$ in recall, $48\%$ in $F_{0.5}$ score, and $65\%$ in $F_{2}$ score. Precision under $noise$ challenge is the only category in which performance remains almost same as reported in top-I-II results. In other challenge categories, precision degradation varies between $8\%$ and $79\%$. Performance degradation in recall is more significant than precision in all challenge categories, which varies between $21\%$ and $93\%$. Performance variation in $F$ score is in between $16\%$ and $93\%$.
Even though almost all the simulated challenging conditions degrade detection performance, there are few exceptions for top-II algorithm in $decolorization$ ($+4\%$~precision), $noise$ ($+1\%$~precision) $lens~blur$ ($+11\%$~recall, $+10\%~F_{2}$, and $+1\%~F_{0.5}$ ), and $Gaussian~blur$ ($+6\%$~recall and $+5\%~F_{2}$). The effect of $decolorization$ significantly depends on the benchmark algorithm and the increase in precision under $noise$ for top-II algorithm does not exceed $1\%$. In the $decolorization$ category, detection performance of top-I algorithm degrades $100\%$ in term of all metrics whereas performance variation of top-II algorithm does not exceed $10\%$. When traffic signs under severe challenging conditions are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, we can observe that structural information including high frequency components mostly remain intact in $decolorization$ category whereas chroma information is distorted. Therefore, we can conclude that top-I algorithm significantly relies on color information whereas top-II does not rely as much. Challenging conditions based on blur filter out high frequency components that can be used to recognize and localize traffic signs. But, at the same time, filtering out high frequency components can eliminate certain false detections, which can explain the minor performance enhancement in the aforementioned exceptional categories.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./Figs/perf_var_est/performance_variation_average_v2.pdf}
\caption{Average detection performance degradation under challenging conditions for each challenge type.}
\label{fig:perf_deg}
\vspace{-4 mm}
\end{figure}
We report the average performance degradation over all the performance metrics and algorithms to understand the overall effect of challenging conditions types in Fig.~\ref{fig:perf_deg}. $Codec~error$ and $exposure$ result in the highest performance degradation in the challenge categories. As observed in sixth row from top in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, $exposure$ condition can significantly saturate descriptive regions of traffic signs that are critical for recognition, which results in a high performance degradation. In case of $codec~error$, we observe visual artifacts that corrupt the structural characteristics of the sign. In addition to the structural artifacts, $codec~error$ challenge can relocate a significant portion of the traffic sign to a new location as shown in the third row from top in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, which would not satisfy the required overlap between the ground truth location and the detected location even though the sign can be recognized accurately. Benchmark algorithms can be vulnerable to challenging weather conditions including $rain$, $haze$, and $snow$, which lead to a performance degradation between $48.2\%$ and $74.5\%$. In real-world scenarios, outer surface of the camera lens or the window surface in front of the camera can get dirty because of the weather and road conditions, which can affect the visibility of traffic signs due to occlusion. Based on the $dirty~lens$ experiments, occlusions can reduce the overall traffic sign detection performance by half. $Blur$, $darkening$, and $noise$ challenges degrade the detection performance between $30.7$ and $48.5\%$ whereas $shadow$ results in the least performance degradation by $16.2\%$. Because of the difficulty of realistic shadow generation, we used a simple periodic pattern to simulate local $shadow$ effect, which can be considered as a partial $darkening$ effect. We can observe that the performance degradation in the $darkening$ category is almost double the degradation in the $shadow$ category, which is proportional to the ratio of the darkened regions when degraded images are compared in both categories as observed in fourth row and tenth row from top in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}. When traffic sign images with high level $darkening$ conditions are observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, images may appear almost entirely dark and can be considered as the most challenging condition perceptually. However, the perceptual level of darkness depends on the display settings and if images are observed under different display configurations, it can be possible to observe descriptive parts of the traffic sign even under high level $darkening$ conditions.
\subsection{Spectral Analysis of Challenging Conditions}
\label{subsec:perf_spectrum}
In this section, we investigate the effect of challenging conditions over the spectral characteristics of video sequences. In the \texttt{CURE-TSD-Real} dataset, there are $49$ challenge-free sequences. Corresponding to each challenge-free reference video, there are $60$ video sequences with distinct challenge conditions ($12$ types $\times$ $5$ levels). For each challenge-free reference video, we obtain the pixel-wise and frame-wise difference between the reference video and challenging video, which results in the residual video. In total, we obtain $2,940$ ($49$ videos $\times$ $60$ challenge configurations) residual videos, which correspond to $245$ residual videos per challenge type. For each residual video, we calculate the power spectrum per frame to obtain a power spectrum sequence. We calculate the power spectrum of a residual frame as
\begin{equation}
Log \left\{\left| {\cal F} \left\{\left| R \right| \right\} \right| \right\} ,
\label{eq:spectrum}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the residual frame, $|$ $|$ is the absolute value, ${\cal F}$ is the $2$-$D$ discrete Fourier transform, and $Log$ is the logarithm. We calculate the pixel-wise average of $245$ power spectrum sequences for each challenge type and quantize them to obtain the average magnitude spectrum maps in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}.
\input{Figs/fig_maps.tex}
In the average magnitude spectrum maps, central region corresponds to low frequency components and corners represent high frequency components. Color coding is based on the magnitude of the frequency components. Color of the spectrum elements varies from dark blue to yellow as their magnitude increases. We can observe that challenging conditions lead to characteristic spectral shapes that can be used to analyze the effect of these conditions. Even though $exposure$ and $darkening$ correspond to perceptually very distinct images as observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, their spectral representations correspond to an almost identical pattern in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(d) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(f). Spectral representation of $exposure$ challenge indicates that high-frequency components remain similar to the challenge-free sequences whereas low-frequency components get significantly distorted. $Exposure$ and $haze$ result in non-uniform deformations that affect the visibility of certain regions in an image, which lead to similar spectral representations. In the $blur$ challenge, lens blur and Gaussian blur lead to a similar pattern in which boundaries of horizontal and vertical regions correspond to cutoff frequencies as observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(b) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(g). Challenging conditions result in dominant vertical patterns in the $rain$ and the $shadow$ challenges as observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, which correspond to a more predominant horizontal pattern in spectral representations as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(i) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(j). Moreover, we observe discrete peeks in the spectral representations of the $shadow$ challenge in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(j) because of the periodic shadow patterns. In the $rain$ challenge, falling particles are the main occluding factor whereas in the $snow$ challenge, piled up snow significantly occludes certain regions, which limits the highest spectral components to a more central region as observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(k). $Noise$ and $decolorization$ challenge lead to a peak at DC along with minor low frequency degradations as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(a) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(h). In the $codec~error$ challenge, we observe local shifts of certain regions in the images as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:challenges}, which leads to an almost symmetric spectral representation in Fig.\ref{fig:spectrum}(c) without the sharp horizontal and vertical lines. On contrary to all other challenges, $dirty~lens$ challenge results in deformation over the images that varies in terms of shape and size, which leads to a granular structure in the spectral representation as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}(e).
\input{Figs/fig_maps_levels.tex}
Previously, we investigated the effect of challenge types in spectral representations of residual videos. To understand the effect of challenge levels in spectral representations, we also need to analyze the changes in spectrum with respect to the severity of challenging conditions. In Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_levels}, we show the average magnitude spectrum maps of video sequences for different challenge levels and types. Minor condition corresponds to level one, medium condition corresponds to level three, and major condition corresponds to level five challenges. Each spectrum corresponds to the average of $49$ video sequences with a specific challenge type and level. The most significant spectral change with respect to challenge levels occur in case of $decolorization$ and $noise$ whereas the least change occur in case of $codec~error$, $darkening$, and $rain$.
In the aforementioned experiments and analysis, we focused on the effect of individual challenging conditions and levels because video sequences in the \texttt{CURE-TSD-Real} dataset include one challenging condition at a time. Therefore, it is not possible to directly assess the effect of concurrent challenging conditions. In order to test the capability of spectral representations under concurrent challenging conditions with an example, we combined $rain$ and $exposure$ conditions and obtained their magnitude spectrums as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}. We obtained each magnitude spectrum map by averaging frame-level magnitude spectrums of 49 video sequences (14,700 frames). Spectral maps corresponding to concurrent $rain$ and $exposure$ conditions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(c) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(f). In addition to spectral maps of concurrent $rain$ and $exposure$ conditions, we included the spectral maps of isolated $rain$ and $exposure$ conditions in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(a), Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(b), Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(d), and Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(e) to visually compare them next to each other.
\input{Figs/fig_maps_rain_expo.tex}
In case of concurrent conditions, we can observe that major condition dominates the spectral representation. Spectral map of concurrent major $rain$ and minor $exposure$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(f)) is similar to the spectral maps of $rain$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(d-e)) in terms of asymmetry between horizontal and vertical components. Moreover, spectral map of concurrent major $exposure$ and minor $rain$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(c)) is similar to the spectral map of major exposure (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(b)). Thus, we can mention that dominant conditions mostly determine the shape of the spectral maps. However, we can still observe differences in the spectral maps when we compare concurrent major and minor condition with solely major condition. For example, spectral map of major $rain$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(e)) and spectral map of concurrent major $rain$ and minor $exposure$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(f)) are still separable from each other in terms of shape and color. Meanwhile, spectral map of major $exposure$ and minor $rain$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(c)) and spectral map of major $exposure$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum_rain_expo}(b)) are separable from each other in terms of color, which reflects differences in terms of spectral magnitude. Based on this example, we can express that spectral maps can reflect the impact of two concurrent conditions, but identification of the concurrent conditions may not be as straightforward as the identification of individual conditions.
\subsection{Detection Performance versus Spectral Characteristics}
\label{subsec:perf_estimation}
Even though challenge levels affect the spectral representations, high level spectral shapes remain similar in majority of the challenging conditions. The intensity of the magnitude spectrums can be used to quantify the changes in spectral representations, which can be an indicator of the detection performance degradations. In Fig.~\ref{fig:perf_est}, we show the relationship between detection performance and mean magnitude spectrum. Specifically, we computed the detection performance under varying challenge levels and calculated the mean magnitude spectrum corresponding to the varying challenge levels. We can observe that an increase in mean magnitude spectrum generally corresponds to a decrease in detection performance. To measure the correlation between traffic sign detection performance and mean magnitude spectrum, we calculated the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient, which is reported for each detection performance metric in Table \ref{tab:perf_est}. Specifically, we measured the correlation between mean magnitude spectrum and detection performance for each challenge category and obtained the average of these correlation coefficients. Based on the experiments, correlation between detection performance and mean magnitude spectrum is $0.643$ for precision, $0.848$ for recall, $0.657$ for $F_{0.5}$ score, and $0.810$ for $F_{2}$ score.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth, trim= 40mm 85mm 40mm 88mm
]{./Figs/perf_var_est/performanceVsSpectrum.pdf}
\caption{Detection performance versus mean magnitude spectrum of residual video sequences.}
\label{fig:perf_est}
\vspace{-4 mm}
\end{figure}
Spectral representations can be used to analyze the changes in images and videos and these changes can be quantified by measuring the changes in spectral representations. A direct mean pooling operation is a straightforward approach to quantify spectrums of residual sequences. However, detection algorithms do not necessarily react identically to changes at different frequencies. Therefore, instead of a direct mean pooling operation, a weighted pooling can be performed by considering the relative importance of frequency bands for traffic sign detection. For example, in JPEG compression \cite{Wallace1992}, the objective is to compress the image as much as possible without visual artifacts. To achieve this objective, quantization tables were designed based on psychovisual experiments to compress signal components according to the their perceptual significance. Similarly, a significance map can be designed for traffic sign detection application to quantify the changes in spectral components according to their algorithmic significance. Spectral analysis approach investigated in this study requires a reference video. Therefore, to estimate the traffic sign detection performance, we need to obtain the images of the same scene at different conditions. Such a system is feasible for a fixed camera setup in which we can capture the same region at different times. To deploy such systems to mobile platforms, we need to focus on no-reference spectral representations in which there is no need for a reference video.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\small
\centering
\caption{Detection performance degradation estimation with mean magnitude spectrum under challenging conditions.}
\label{tab:perf_est}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\textbf{Estimated Metric} & \textbf{Precision} & \textbf{Recall} & $\mathbf{F_{0.5}}$ & $\mathbf{F_{2}}$ \\ \hline
\bf \begin{tabular}[p]{@{}c@{}} Estimation Performance\\ (Spearman Correlation) \end{tabular} & 0.643 & 0.848 & 0.657 & 0.810
\\ \hline \hline
\vspace{-4 mm}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Existing Datasets}
\label{sec:related}
We summarize the main characteristics of existing traffic sign datasets in Table \ref{tab_datasets}, which includes number of video sequences, number of annotated frames/images, number of annotated signs, annotation information, resolution, number of sign types, annotated sign size, acquisition location, and challenging conditions. When a category does not apply to a specific dataset, there is a `not applicable' abbreviation (N/A). We report the characteristics of publicly available datasets based on the reference papers as well as available dataset files. The majority of listed datasets are based on images whereas LISA provides short tracks up to 30 frames per track and BelgiumTS provides 4 videos whose number of frames varies between 2,001 and 6,001. Total number of annotated images varies from 273 to 100,000 in which number of traffic signs is in between 273 and 51,840. Annotations are mainly based on sign types and bounding box coordinates but 3D location, pixel map, visibility status, occlusion condition, and road status are also provided in certain datasets. The resolution of the traffic sign detection datasets is in between 360x270 and 2,048x2,048 and the sign size in all listed datasets vary from 2x7 to 573x557. The number of traffic sign types vary from 3 to 62. Challenging conditions are not annotated or explicitly described in majority of the datasets. Therefore, we visually inspected these datasets to list apparent challenging conditions, which include illumination, occlusion, shadow, blur, reflection, codec error, dirty lens, overcast, haze, and deformation of the traffic signs. The majority of the listed datasets were captured in Europe but recent studies also include China and USA. All of the datasets include images captured with color cameras but LISA dataset also includes grayscale images directly obtained from car cameras.
|
\section{Introduction}
Automating the analysis of live cell morphology is critical for high throughput screening as this facilitates fast and reproducible measurements under inverted microscopy. The crucial step of this automation is to correctly identify cell morphology and distribution on culture plates. This requires detecting the cell locations whose difficulty lies along a wide range, from easy to very challenging, depending on visual characteristics of the cells. This step becomes difficult when cells appear in varying colors, brightness, and irregular shapes. The difficulty further increases when they grow in overlayers, and as a result, appear as cell clumps.
Before the advances in deep learning, the traditional approach for cell detection/segmentation is to employ low-level handcrafted features, reflecting color, edge, and shape characteristics of cells. This approach has given promising results when the features are defined properly, as a good representation of the visual cell characteristics. On the other hand, these characteristics may change from one cell type to another (see Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}) and new features need to be defined to meet the cell characteristics of a new type. Additionally, when there exists heterogeneity in the visual characteristics of the same cell type, using a single model may not be sufficient to detect all cells of this type, particularly for cancer cells which are exploited more in high throughput screening.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}}
\includegraphics[height=2.75cm]{./Fig1_CamaI.png} &
\includegraphics[height=2.75cm]{./Fig1_MDA_MB_453.png} &
\includegraphics[height=2.75cm]{./Fig1_MDA_MB_468.png} \\
(a) & (b) & (c) \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Example subimages from the cell lines used in our experiments: (a) CAMA-1, (b) MDA-MB-453, and (c) MDA-MB-468 breast cancer cell lines. As seen in these examples, visual characteristics show differences from one cell type to another. Moreover, cells of the same type may appear in different looks. For instance, in (b), there are mostly near-circular cells, which sometimes contain mostly bright pixels but sometimes contain dark pixels inside and bright ones outside. However, in (a) and (c), there are near-circular as well as non-circular cells. For such images, it would not be easy to use a single model to detect cells of all these different looks.}
\label{fig:examples}
\end{figure}
Methods based on deep learning, on the other hand, have responded to these issues by having the ability of learning high-level features from image data automatically and reducing the required effort to obtain a generalizable model as a consequence. The majority of the previously reported methods consider cell detection as a classification problem, in which a deep classifier is trained to differentiate cell pixels from those of the background. Since their focus is the classification of cell pixels, these methods treat the pixels taken from the annotated cells in the same way, regardless of their relative positions within the cell, while training their classifier~\citep{xie15b,song17}. On the other hand, the position of a pixel relative to a cell center (or to a cell boundary) may bring about additional information. There exist only a few studies that take this information into account by constructing a regression model~\citep{xie15a,sirinukunwattana16,chen16, xie18a,xie18b}. These studies approach cell detection/segmentation as a \textit{single-task regression problem} where they learn a single distance output for each pixel. On the other hand, it may be difficult to define a single distance metric that comprehends different aspects of the problem and to learn this single distance by a single model.
In response to these issues, this paper introduces a new multi-task learning framework, which we call \textit{DeepDistance}, for the detection of live cells in inverted microscopy images. This \textit{DeepDistance} framework proposes to concurrently learn two distance metrics for each pixel, where the primary one is learned in regard to the main cell detection task and the secondary distance is defined to stress the variability in morphological cell characteristics and learned for the purpose of increasing the generalization ability of the main task. To this end, this paper constructs a fully convolutional network and end-to-end learns two distance maps at the same time, sharing high-level feature representations at the various layers of this network (layers of its shared encoder path), in the context of multi-task learning. Then, for a given image, it achieves cell detection by generating the primary distance map with the trained network and finding its regional maxima. Our experiments on three different cell lines reveal that this proposed multi-task learning framework successfully identifies cell locations, even for the cell line that was not used in training, and improves the results of the previous deep learning approaches.
The contributions of this paper are summarized below:
\begin{itemize}
\item It takes advantage of the multi-task learning approach, in which shared feature representations are used to learn multiple tasks at the same time. This is different than the previously reported regression-based cell detection studies, which do not use such shared representations for learning a regression task. The multi-task approach used by our study is known to be successful for many domains, leveraging the contribution of different tasks to the feature representation learning process~\citep{caruana97}. Concurrent learning of two related tasks with shared representations increases the performance of our model, by better helping it avoid local optimal solutions.
\item It defines a distance metric, \textit{normalized outer distance}, that calculates the normalized distance from each cell pixel to the closest cell boundary. As opposed to the \textit{inner distance}, which is calculated with respect to the cell centers and as a result imposes a one-sized circular shape on the cells, this definition does not have shape and size impositions since it uses the boundary annotations. The normalized outer distance better preserves the shape characteristics of the cells whereas the inner distance better suggests the cell centers. Thus, the proposed model defines inner distance estimation as the main task and considers normalized outer distance estimation as complementary to this main task. It learns these two complementary tasks in parallel by forcing them to share feature representations. This improves the performance of each task, and as a result, leads to more successful cell detection.
\item It shows that one can also include an additional classification task to the proposed multi-task regression network to further increase the performance of the main task. To this end, this study implements another version of the proposed framework where the task of cell pixel classification is added as a parallel task to the regression network. This additional task, which is to be concurrently learned with the two distance maps, aims to construct a classification map from the shared features while learning the regression output maps with a minimum error. This additional task is effective to increase the success of the main cell detection task.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
Traditional cell detection/segmentation studies employ low-level handcrafted features, which are extracted either pixel- or subregion-wise. A large group of pixel-wise studies use intensities to obtain a binary mask by thresholding or clustering~\citep{dima11}. They then use this mask either directly to locate isolated cells or as an input to shape-based methods to split cell clumps. These methods include the use of distance transforms~\citep{jung10}, concavity detection algorithms~\citep{chang13}, and morphological erosion operators~\citep{yang06}. Although it is very common to calculate distance transforms on the obtained binary mask, it is also possible to learn them directly from the handcrafted features~\citep{gao14}. Another group of pixel-wise studies employ pixel gradients to obtain a feature map, on which regional maxima/minima are identified as cell locations. These studies directly use the gradients to define their feature maps~\citep{koyuncu16} or alternatively get pixels voted along their gradient directions and use the votes the pixels take to define their maps~\citep{xing14}. The subregion-wise studies first partition an image into over-segmented subregions (e.g., superpixels), extract handcrafted color, gradient, and shape features from these subregions, and merge them based on their extracted features to obtain cell locations~\citep{genctav12,su13,koyuncu18}.
To reduce the required efforts for manual feature definition, deep learning based methods learn high-level features from image data. These methods, especially convolutional neural networks, have shown significant success in many tasks related to medical image analysis~\citep{litjens17} also including cell detection/segmentation. Earlier studies train their deep models on small patches cropped around individual pixels to generate an output for each pixel separately. More recently, with the implementations of fully convolutional networks~\citep{long15} and the U-net model~\citep{ronneberger15}, studies have started end-to-end training their models to learn the outputs of all pixels at once. Most of these studies consider cell detection as a classification problem and train a classifier to differentiate cell and background pixels. Then, for a given image, they may obtain a binary mask by estimating the class labels of its pixels with the trained classifier and use this mask as an input to the shape-based methods~\citep{song15,song17}. Alternatively, they may use the class posteriors of the pixels and identify cell locations on this posterior map by either thresholding~\citep{xu16} or clustering~\citep{su15} but mostly finding regional maxima~\citep{ciresan13,dong15,xie15b,sadanandan17}.
There exist relatively few studies that consider cell detection/segmentation as a regression problem~\citep{kainz15,xie15a,sirinukunwattana16,chen16, xie18a,xie18b}. These studies define their outputs with regard to the Euclidean distance between a pixel and its closest annotated cell center. Most of them calculate this inner distance using only the dot annotations on cell centers without using any boundary (segmentation) information. Thus, they use a threshold to decide pixels for which the distance will be zero (i.e., determine pixels belonging to the background). This thresholding together with the inner distance definition itself impose a one-sized circular shape on the cells, which may not be true for all cell types. These studies approach the learning of this inner distance as a \textit{single-task regression problem}. Different than all these studies, our proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model defines a secondary distance metric that better preserves the morphological characteristics of cells and considers its learning as a complementary task to the main task of cell detection. Additionally, it proposes a \textit{multi-task regression framework} that uses shared feature representations to concurrently learn these two tasks.
There are only a few studies that use a cascaded network architecture for cell detection/segmentation. \cite{ram18} propose a network that sequentially learns a classification mask on an image and then regresses a density map on this classification mask for cell detection in 3D microscopy images. \cite{kechyn18} uses the architecture proposed by~\cite{bai17} for cell segmentation. This architecture is mainly designed to learn an energy function to be used in a watershed algorithm for the purpose of splitting a map of under-segmented components into their corresponding objects. Thus, it requires obtaining the segmentation map of an image beforehand and takes it as an input together with the image. It first learns a gradient map of a distance transform from these inputs and then learns a map of energy levels from the gradients. As opposed to our proposed multi-task framework, both of these networks cascade their tasks in serial and learns them without sharing any representations. On the other hand, our model proposes to learn two regression maps in parallel, in the context of multi-task learning, which forces these tasks to use shared feature representations. The latter approach is known to be more effective to avoid local optima, and as a result, to obtain a more generalizable model~\citep{caruana97}.
There exists another study that also uses a multi-task framework to detect glands and nuclei in histopathological images. This framework concurrently learns two classification maps, where the first one is the map of gland/nucleus pixels and the other is that of their boundaries. It then combines the two classification maps with a simple fusion function~\citep{chen17}. However, different than our proposed multi-task regression model, this existing study neither considers detection as a regression problem nor learns regression and classification tasks in a single multi-task network. Additionally, its goal is to locate glands/nuclei in fixed and stained histopathological images whereas our aim is to detect cells in inverted microscopy images which is used for high throughput and real-time cell screening.
\section{Methodology}
The proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model relies on formulating cell detection as a regression problem, in which a metric map is estimated to express the degree of pixels suggesting a cell center, and identifying regional maxima on this map as cell locations. This model uses \textit{inner distance} as the primary metric and estimates it by a fully convolutional network (FCN), considering the learning of this metric as the main task in regard to the cell detection problem. On the other hand, as opposed to the previously reported studies, the \textit{DeepDistance} model proposes to approach this learning as a multi-task regression problem, in which multiple regression tasks are learned using shared feature representations. To this end, this model defines a secondary metric, \textit{normalized outer distance}, and considers its learning as a complementary task that represents a different aspect of the problem. The proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model learns this new task in parallel to the main task of cell detection by constructing and end-to-end training an FCN with a shared encoder path, which forces these multiple tasks to learn shared feature representations at various abstraction levels.
The following subsections give the details of the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model. Section~\ref{sec:fcn} mathematically formulates the distance metrics used to define the tasks. It then gives the architecture of the FCN used for learning these tasks and provides the details of its training. Section~\ref{sec:extended-fcn} discusses how to extend the proposed multi-task regression network to cover an additional task(s), by giving the details of another version of the proposed model where cell pixel classification is considered as the additional task. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:cell-detection} presents the detection algorithm that uses inner distances estimated by the FCN to locate individual cells in a given image.
\subsection{Multi-task FCN for Distance Learning}
\label{sec:fcn}
The proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model uses two distance metrics for each pixel $q$. The first one is \textit{inner distance} $d_{inner}(q)$ that is calculated similar to the previous studies. Its learning is considered as the main task; cell locations are detected on the estimated inner distance map of the pixels (see Section~\ref{sec:cell-detection}). The second metric is \textit{normalized outer distance} $d_{outer}(q)$ that is defined by this current study in order to better quantify morphological cell characteristics. Learning of this outer distance is considered as a complementary task, which is used to improve the performance of the main task.
These distances are defined in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:innerdistance} and~\ref{eqn:outerdistance}, respectively, when cell annotations are provided. The annotations are, of course, not available for images whose cells are supposed to be automatically detected. Thus, our \textit{DeepDistance} model proposes to estimate the distances by an FCN that will be trained on the pixels of annotated images. Note that in our experiments, we train this FCN using the annotations of only four training and two validation images.
Let ${\cal A} = \{a_i\}$ be the set of annotated cells in an image, ${\cal P}(a_i) = \{p_{ik}\}$ be the set of pixels belonging to an annotated cell $a_i$, ${\cal B}(a_i) = \{b_{ik}\}$ be the set of its boundary pixels, and ${\cal C}(a_i)$ be its centroid pixel. For pixel $q$,
\begin{equation}
d_{inner}(q) = \left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}l@{~~}l}
\dfrac{1}{1 + \alpha \min\limits_{a_{i} \in {\cal A}}\lVert q - {\cal C}(a_i) \rVert^2} & \mbox{if}~q \in {\cal P}(a_i) \vspace{0.1in} \\
\mbox{0} & \mbox{if}~q \in \mbox{\small{background}}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:innerdistance}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
d_{outer}(q) = \left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}l@{~~}l}
\dfrac{\min\limits_{b_{ik} \in {\cal B}(a_i)}\lVert q - b_{ik} \rVert^2}{\max\limits_{r \in {\cal P}(a_i)} \min\limits_{b_{ik} \in {\cal B}(a_i)}\lVert r - b_{ik} \rVert^2} & \mbox{if}~q \in {\cal P}(a_i) \vspace{0.1in} \\
\mbox{0} & \mbox{if}~q \in \mbox{\small{background}}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:outerdistance}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:innerdistance} is the decay ratio that is empirically selected as 0.1, similar to the previous studies. The denominator in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:outerdistance} corresponds to the maximum distance in the annotated cell $a_i$, which is used as a normalization factor. This normalization is effective to obtain similar distances for cells of different sizes, which will drive the FCN to make better generalizations regardless of the cell size.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{./original.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{./inner.png} \\
(a) & (b)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{./outer.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{./segm.png} \\
(c) & (d)\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{(a) Original subimage, (b) inner distance map that uses distances from pixels to their closest cell centers, (c) normalized outer distance map that uses distances from cell pixels to their closest boundary annotations, and (d) cell pixel annotations.}
\label{fig:dist}
\end{figure}
For an example subimage given in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}a, these distance definitions are illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:dist}b and~\ref{fig:dist}c, respectively. The inner distance definition well indicates the cell centers since it uses the Euclidean distances from pixels to their closest cell centers. However, as it uses the centers as the reference point, the distance decrease from a center to its boundaries is the same for all directions and for all cells. Thus, when it is used alone, this definition imposes a circular and one-sized shape on the cells, as also seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}b. On the contrary, since the normalized outer distance is calculated with a reference to a cell boundary, this decrease may differ from one direction to another as well as from one cell to another, depending on the shape and size of the cell. Thus, it better preserves the morphological characteristics of cells, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}c.
\subsubsection{Network Architecture}
For multi-task learning of these two distance maps, our \textit{DeepDistance} model constructs an FCN architecture consisting of a shared encoder path and two decoder paths (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fcn-architecture}). The encoder path is shared by the two tasks to extract shared feature representations from an RGB image, whose pixels are normalized across the image, at various abstraction layers. The two decoder paths, with symmetric connections to the features in the encoder path (shown with concatenation operators in the figure), are used to separately construct the distance maps from these extracted shared features. This architecture has the convolution layers with $3 \times 3$ filters and uses the rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function. Its pooling/upsampling layers use $2 \times 2$ filters. The number of the layers and the number of the feature maps used in each convolution layer are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fcn-architecture}. Note that these numbers are selected by inspiring with the U-net model~\citep{ronneberger15}. The original U-net model has a single decoder path designed for single-task learning. On the contrary, the \textit{DeepDistance} model has two decoder paths, with symmetric connections to the shared features, for multi-task learning of the two distance maps.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{./multitask.png} \\
\caption{Architecture of the fully convolutional network (FCN) used for multi-task regression of two distance maps, along with an example tile (a) as the input and the predicted (b) \textit{inner distance} map and (c) \textit{normalized outer distance} map as the outputs. Note that the tile used in this figure is not a part of the training set used in our experiments. Each box represents a multi-channel feature map with its dimensions and number of channels being indicated in order on the left side of the box. Each arrow corresponds to an operation which is distinguishable by its color.}
\label{fig:fcn-architecture}
\end{figure*}
This FCN is end-to-end trained on $512 \times 512$ tiles cropped out of the training images. This tile size makes maximum use of the memory on the GPU that we used (GeForce GTX 1080 Ti) when the batch size is selected as 1. The tiles are cropped by a sliding window approach with an increment of 256 pixels. The selection of this increment size ensures that regions stay on the borders of one tile will be close to the central area of another tile.
\subsubsection{Network Training}
The FCN is implemented in Python using the Keras deep learning library. It is trained from scratch with the backpropagation algorithm that uses the mean squared error as its loss function. It follows an early stopping approach based on the loss calculated for the tiles cropped out of the validation images. The contributions of both tasks to the loss function are the unit weight. The batch size is 1 and the drop-out factor is 0.2. The learning rate and the momentum value are adaptively adjusted using the AdaDelta optimizer~\citep{zeiler2012}. The source codes of this implementation are available at http://www.cs.bilkent.edu. tr/$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$gunduz/downloads/DeepDistance.
\subsection{Extending the FCN for Additional Tasks}
\label{sec:extended-fcn}
The proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model considers cell detection as a multi-task regression problem that estimates two distance maps from the RGB image, one for formulating the main task of cell detection and the other as an auxiliary task with the motivation of more effectively learning the main task. The FCN architecture given in the previous section is designed to learn these two regression tasks at the same time. This section discusses how this model can be extended to cover more auxiliary tasks, concurrent learning of which may further increase the performance of the main task. For this purpose, this section implements an extended version of the \textit{DeepDistance} model that comprises an additional task of cell pixel classification. This additional task aims to construct a classification map (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}d) from the shared features of the encoder path\footnote{To take overlapping cells apart, and hence to obtain an improved map, cell boundaries are widen and subtracted from the classification map. This improved map is also used in the comparison methods to make fair comparisons.}. Note that here, instead of defining another regression problem as the additional task, we use a classification problem in order to demonstrate that the model can easily be extended to cover the auxiliary tasks related with regression as well as classification.
The extended version of the \textit{DeepDistance} model uses the FCN that has still one shared encoder path but one extra decoder path, defined for the new classification task. The architecture of this new decoder path is the same with those of the two decoder paths, defined for regressing the distance maps, except that its last convolution layer uses the sigmoid function instead of ReLU. Other than this, it has the same convolution and upsampling layers and uses the same symmetric connections to the features in the encoder path (uses the same concatenation operators). Training of this extended FCN follows the same procedure explained in the previous section, with only a difference of loss calculation. This extended FCN still uses the mean squared error as its loss function and the regression tasks still equally contribute to this loss with a unit weight, but the loss contribution weight of the new classification task is 0.1. The rationality behind using a reduced weight is as follows. Both of the distance outputs, calculated as defined in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:innerdistance} and~\ref{eqn:outerdistance}, are in the range between 0 and 1. However, these distances reach the maximum value of 1 for only a few cell pixels whereas they yield much smaller values for the rest of them. On the other hand, the output of the classification task is always 1 for the cell pixels, which results in calculating a larger mean squared error for this task. Since all tasks are learned at the same time by sharing the same features, to avoid creating an unfair bias towards the learning of the classification task, we reduce its loss contribution weight to 0.1.
\subsection{Cell Detection}
\label{sec:cell-detection}
The last step of the \textit{DeepDistance} model is to detect cells in an unannotated image. For that, this step feeds the tiles cropped out of the image to the trained FCN and identifies cell locations on the input distance maps estimated by this FCN. Since pixels belonging to a cell center are expected to have higher estimated values, the \textit{DeepDistance} model identifies regional maxima on the inner distance maps as the cell centers. In order to suppress possible noise in the estimated distance maps, the model applies the h-maxima transform beforehand and suppresses the maxima whose height is less than the value of $h$.
This step may result in poor estimations for the regions close to the tile edges. As a solution to this problem, our model estimates the inner distance maps for overlapping tiles and then averages all distances calculated for the same pixel. The overlapping tiles are obtained by sliding a window over the image with an increment of 64 pixels. Considering the $512 \times 512$ tile size used by the FCN, this increment size is small enough to ensure that the regions close to the edges of one tile will be close to the central region of some others. It is also large enough to cause only negligible speed-down in the computational time.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Datasets}
We test our \textit{DeepDistance} model on three datasets, each of which consists of live cell images of a different cell line. They are the CAMA-1, MDA-MB-453, and MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cell lines. The images in all datasets were acquired at $20 \times$ magnification and $3096 \times 4140$ pixel resolution. An example image from each dataset is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}. As seen in this figure, cells might be visually different within and across different cell lines.
Three images are randomly selected from each of the CAMA-1 and MDA-MB-453 cell lines and are used for training the FCN as well as for selecting the $h$ parameter of the cell detection step. While training the FCN, the tiles cropped out of four of these six images are used to learn the weights of the FCN and those of the remaining two are used as validation tiles for early stopping. The cells in the rest of the images in these two cell lines are used for testing. In our experiments, these test cells, which belong to CAMA-1 and MDA-MB-453, are considered as dependent test samples since other images/cells of the same cell lines are used for training. To assess the success of our model on an unseen cell line, none of the images of MDA-MB-468 are used for training the FCN or for parameter selection and all of them are used just for testing. Thus, the cells of this MDA-MB-468 cell line are considered as independent test samples. For each cell line, the number of images and the number of cells in the training, validation, and test sets are presented in Table~\ref{table:datasets}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{For each cell line, the number of images and the number of cells in its training, validation, and test sets.}
\label{table:datasets}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{|@{~}l@{~}|c@{~}|@{~}c@{~}|@{~}c@{~}|@{~}c@{~}|@{~}c@{~}|@{~}c@{~}|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|@{~}}{Training} & \multicolumn{2}{c@{~}|@{~}}{Validation} &\multicolumn{2}{c@{~}|}{Test} \\ \cline{2-7}
& Image & Cell & Image & Cell & Image & Cell \\ \hline
CAMA-1 & 2 & 752 & 1 & 84 & 6 & 1253 \\ \hline
MDA-MB-453 & 2 & 522 & 1 & 137 & 4 & 776 \\ \hline
MDA-MB-468 & - & - & - & - & 8 & 1668 \\ \hline
\textbf{\emph{Total}} & 4 & 1274 & 2 & 221 & 18 & 3697 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
The cells are annotated by putting markers to their approximate centers. These markers are used in the cell-level evaluation of our \textit{DeepDistance} model as well as the comparison methods (Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}). In addition to these markers, training cells are also annotated by delineating their precise boundaries since the definition of the normalized outer distance to be learned by the FCN requires knowing the cell boundaries. It is worth to noting that although annotating boundaries requires more effort, our model needs the boundary annotations only for the training and validation images (only for six images in our experiments).
\subsection{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
Each method is quantitatively evaluated on the test cells regarding the f-score metric. This metric is calculated at the cell-level, considering the number of one-to-one matches between the annotated markers and the detected cells (detected regional maxima). For that, each annotated marker is matched to every detected cell if the distance between this marker and the centroid of the detected cell is less than a distance threshold. Similarly, each detected cell is matched to every annotated marker if their distance is less than the same threshold. Afterwards, a detected cell $C$ is considered as one-to-one match (true positive), if it matches with only one marker and this marker matches with only the cell $C$. Considering the image resolution and the cell sizes, this threshold is selected as 30. Then, the precision and recall metrics are obtained on these one-to-one matches, and the f-score is calculated as the harmonic mean of these two metrics.
\subsection{Parameter Selection}
The \textit{DeepDistance} model has one external parameter: The $h$ value used by the h-maxima transform in the cell detection step to suppress possible noise in the estimated inner distance map. The value of this parameter is selected on the six images belonging to the training and validation sets of the CAMA-1 and MDA-MB-453 cell lines. For that, the following values of $h = \{0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5\}$ are considered and the one that yields the highest f-score metric for the cells in these six images is selected. This procedure selects $h = 0.2$ for both the \textit{DeepDistance} model and its extended version. Note that the parameter values are selected similarly for the comparison methods.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{F-score metrics obtained on the test sets by the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} models and the comparison methods.}
\label{table:results}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\cellcolor[gray]{0.75} Dependent test samples} & \cellcolor[gray]{0.75} Independent test samples \\ \cline{2-4}
& ~~~~~~CAMA-1~~~~~~ & ~~MDA-MB-453~~ & MDA-MB-468 \\ \hline
\bf{DeepDistance} & 90.90 & 91.79 & 86.04 \\ \hline
\bf{DeepDistance (extended)} & 91.25 & 92.19 & 86.35 \\ \hline
SingleInner & 87.40 & 89.85 & 82.30 \\ \hline
SingleOuter & 90.80 & 90.78 & 81.43 \\ \hline
SingleClassification & 83.66 & 86.52 & 61.42 \\ \hline
CascadedClassificationInner & 84.49 & 87.76 & 71.43 \\ \hline
MultiClassificationBoundary & 90.03 & 91.47 & 77.37 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\footnotesize{
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}}
\begin{sideways}\bf{~~~Dependent}\end{sideways} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_gold.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_deep.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_extended.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_inner.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_outer.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_segm.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_cascaded.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./cama_1_dcan.png} \\
\begin{sideways}\bf{~~~Dependent}\end{sideways} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_gold.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_deep.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_extended.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_inner.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_outer.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_segm.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_cascaded.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./453_1_dcan.png} \\
\begin{sideways}\bf{~~~Independent}\end{sideways} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_gold.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_deep.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_extended.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_inner.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_outer.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_segm.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_cascaded.png} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_2_dcan.png} \\
\begin{sideways}\bf{~~~Independent}\end{sideways} &
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_gold.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_deep.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_extended.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_inner.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_outer.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_segm.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_cascaded.png}&
\includegraphics[width =0.234\columnwidth]{./468_1_dcan.png} \\
& (a) & (b) & (c) & (d) & (e) & (f) & (g) & (h)\\
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Visual results for illustrative subimages. (a) Annotated cells, (b)-(c) cells correctly identified by the proposed models, and (d)-(h) cells correctly identified by the comparison methods. In particular, cells correctly identified by (b) \textit{DeepDistance}, (c) the extended version of \textit{DeepDistance}, (d) SingleInner, (e) SingleOuter, (f) SingleClassification, (g) CascadedClassificationInner, and (h) MultiClassificationBoundary. Note that this figure shows only the cells correctly identified by the algorithms. It does not show any incorrectly located cell, which does not one-to-one match with any annotated marker. Also note that the first two subimages are taken from the dependent test samples and the last two from the independent test samples, which belong to the cell line that was not used in any part of the training.}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Results}
The quantitative results obtained by the proposed multi-task \textit{DeepDistance} models are given in Table~\ref{table:results}. This table reveals that our models lead to accurate cell detection results on both dependent and independent test samples. It also shows that extending the model by including the additional task of cell pixel classification further improves the results. Additionally, the visual results obtained on exemplary subimages are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}. Note that this figure shows only the cells correctly identified by the models; it does not show any incorrectly located cell, which does not one-to-one match with any annotated marker.
In order to understand the effectiveness of the \textit{DeepDistance} model, which uses a multi-task regression framework, we compare it with three deep learning based methods that use a single-task framework. These methods are designed to separately learn the tasks used by the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} models. In particular, they learn only an inner distance map (\textit{SingleInner}), only a normalized outer distance map (\textit{SingleOuter}), and only a classification map of cell pixels (\textit{SingleClassification}) from the RGB image, respectively. For learning their single-tasks, all these methods use an FCN with a single encoder path, similar to our models, but also only a single decoder path, as opposed to ours. The convolution and pooling/upsampling layers of this single encoder and single decoder path are the same with those specified in Fig.~\ref{fig:fcn-architecture}. They also end-to-end train their FCNs and the training setups are the same with ours. Obviously, since they have only one task to be learned, none of these methods take advantage of learning the shared feature representations. After learning their FCNs, these methods take the same cell detection steps of our model. These steps include estimating a map by the FCN, suppressing its noise by the h-maxima transform, and finding regional maxima on the resulting map. Here the \textit{SingleInner} and \textit{SingleOuter} methods use their estimated distance maps and the \textit{SingleClassification} method uses the estimated posterior map of the cell pixel class. The quantitative results of these methods are given in Table~\ref{table:results} and their visual results on exemplary subimages are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}. These results reveal that concurrent learning of multiple tasks improves the results of single-task learning. It is worth to noting that this improvement is more evident for the independent test samples.
Next, we compare \textit{DeepDistance} with two more methods that use more than one task in designing their models. The first one is the \textit{CascadedClassificationInner} method that uses a cascaded architecture similar to the one proposed by~\cite{ram18}. This cascaded architecture is designed to sequentially learn a classification map of cell pixels from the RGB image and then to regress an inner distance map from the classification map. This method learns these maps in serial by using two serially cascaded FCNs that do not share any feature representation. More specifically, the first FCN takes the RGB image as the input and outputs the classification map whereas the second one takes the classification map as its input and outputs the inner distance map. Each of these serial FCNs has a single encoder and a single decoder path that contains the same convolution and pooling/upsampling layers specified in Fig.~\ref{fig:fcn-architecture}. Although these two FCNs are learned at the same time by backpropagating the error through the entire network in an end-to-end training fashion, they do not learn any shared feature representation. In other words, each FCN has its own encoder path. This method uses the same training setup with our model and takes the same cell detection steps. It detects the cells on the estimated inner distance map. That is, it first suppresses the noise in this estimated map with the h-maxima transform and then finds regional maxima on the noise suppressed map. The results given in Table~\ref{table:results} and Fig.~\ref{fig:results} demonstrate that the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model, which learns multiple tasks in parallel with shared feature representations, gives more accurate results than the \textit{CascadedClassificationInner} method, which learns two tasks in serial without sharing any representation. This indicates the effectiveness of learning shared feature representations from multiple tasks, which is indeed known to be effective for many domains~\citep{caruana97}.
The last comparison is with the \textit{MultiClassificationBoundary} method that approaches cell detection as a multi-task classification problem. Similar to the model proposed by~\cite{chen17}, this method defines two classification tasks, where one is the task of cell pixel classification and the other is the task of cell boundary classification, and learns them in parallel by also using shared feature representations. For learning these tasks, this method uses an FCN whose architecture is the same with the one given in Fig.~\ref{fig:fcn-architecture}. This FCN is end-to-end trained also using the same training setup. To detect the cells in a given image, the \textit{MultiClassificationBoundary} method combines the two classification maps estimated by the FCN with a simple fusion technique that is also used by~\cite{chen17}. For that, the pixels estimated as boundary are subtracted from the estimated cell pixel classification map and the connected components on the resulting map are identified as cells. Since this fusion technique gives small noisy components, which lower the detection accuracy, the components smaller than an area threshold are eliminated. The value of this threshold is also selected on training and validation cells. The results of this method are given in Table~\ref{table:results} and Fig.~\ref{fig:results}. The table shows that this method, which approaches cell detection as a multi-task classification problem, also gives accurate results for the dependent test samples. On the other hand, for the independent test samples, it yields significantly lower accuracies than the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model, which approaches cell detection as a multi-task regression problem. Note that these independent test samples belong to the cell line, any samples of which were not employed in any part of the training process. This significant difference may be attributed to the following. The two regression tasks learned by our model may convey more complementary information than the two classification tasks. Concurrent learning of more complementary tasks typically better helps the model less overfit on the training samples, and as a result, gives a more generalizable model. This may be the reason of our models better performing on the independent test samples taken from an unseen cell line.
\subsection{Parameter Analysis}
The \textit{DeepDistance} model has one external parameter, the $h$ value used by the h-maxima transform to suppress noise in the estimated inner distance map. Small $h$ values do not sufficiently suppress the noise, resulting in false cell detections and oversegmentations. On the other hand, unnecessarily large values suppress too many pixels as the noise, causing not to identify many actual cells and leading to undersegmentations. Both of these cases decrease the performance. This is consistent with our experimental results shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:param-analysis}a and~\ref{fig:param-analysis}b, which depict the test set f-scores as a function of the $h$ value for the \textit{DeepDistance} model and its extended version, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\columnwidth]{./deep_distance.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=0.46\columnwidth]{./deep_distance_extended.eps} \\
(a) & (b)\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Test set f-scores as a function of the $h$ parameter for (a) the \textit{DeepDistance} model and (b) its extended version.}
\label{fig:param-analysis}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multi-task vs. Single-task Learning}
Since the main goal of this work is cell detection, our \textit{DeepDistance} models define the estimation of an inner distance map as the main task and find regional maxima on this estimated map to detect cells. The motivation behind these choices is the fact that the inner distance definition gives sharp increases at cell centers and the locations with these sharp increases can be detected by finding regional maxima. Hence, to obtain accurate detections, one should estimate an inner distance map with distinct differences between the cell centers and their surrounding pixels such that these centers can be identified as regional maxima. That is, one should estimate a map consisting of sharp enough bright regions close to the cell centers. To improve the performance of the task of this inner distance estimation, our models take advantage of multi-task learning approach. This approach helps the models become more robust to avoid overfitting a task, compared to the approach of learning the same task alone with a single-task model~\citep{caruana97}. To get more insight in this multi-task learning approach, this section visually analyzes the estimated maps of single-task and multi-task models.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}}
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./gold_inner3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./only_inner3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./multi_inner3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./extended_inner3.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./gold_inner4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./only_inner4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./multi_inner4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./extended_inner4.png} \\
(a) & (b) & (c) & (d)\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{(a) Maps of calculated inner distances when the ground truths are provided. Inner distance maps estimated by (b) \textit{SingleInner}, (c) \textit{DeepDistance}, and (d) the extended version of \textit{DeepDistance}.}
\label{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}
\end{figure}
For the independent test samples given in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}, Fig.~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}a shows the maps of the calculated inner distances when the ground truths are given. Figs.~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}b,~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}c, and~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}d illustrate the inner distance maps estimated by the \textit{SingleInner} method, the proposed \textit{DeepDistance} model, and its extended version, respectively. \textit{SingleInner} learns its map as a single-task whereas our models define auxiliary tasks and learn the inner distance map in parallel to these auxiliary tasks, forcing them to learn shared representations with a shared encoder path. The latter type of learning, which is an example of multi-task learning, is known to be effective for increasing the performance of individual tasks for many domains. We also observe this performance increase in the estimated maps given in Fig.~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi}. \textit{SingleInner} cannot successfully detect the three cells shown inside red ellipses since it cannot produce sharp enough bright regions (with distinct enough estimated distances) for these cells. Although \textit{DeepDistance}, which uses one auxiliary task, leads to brighter regions for these cells, they are still not sharp enough for two of them to be identified as regional maxima. The extended version of \textit{DeepDistance}, which uses one more auxiliary task, does better job in inner distance estimations such that they have sharp enough bright regions for all of these three cells.
In this figure, it is worth to noting two points: First, all methods apply the h-maxima transform on their estimated maps beforehand to suppress noise, and hence, to prevent over-segmentations and false positives. If it was not applied, \textit{SingleInner} might give regional maxima for some of the three cells even though the distances estimated for their centers were not that distinct (bright). However, that case would also give many over-segmented cells and false positives. Second, none of the methods identify the cell shown inside a blue ellipse although their estimated distances yield bright regions for this cell. It is due to the evaluation method, which matches an annotated marker and a detected cell based on the distance between them since a test set image does not have boundary annotations but just a dot on each cell. In our experiments, a distance threshold is set to 30, considering image resolutions and the average cell size. This threshold may give a few incorrect matchings especially for larger cells, (e.g., the cell shown inside the blue ellipse). Increasing this threshold solves the problem for this particular cell, but this time, it will result in many incorrect matchings of detected cells with distant markers (or vice versa).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\small{
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}}
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./gold_outer3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./only_outer3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./multi_outer3.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./extended_outer3.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./gold_outer4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./only_outer4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./multi_outer4.png} &
\includegraphics[width=0.20\columnwidth]{./extended_outer4.png} \\
(a) & (b) & (c) & (d)\\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{(a) Maps of calculated outer distances when the ground truths are provided. Note that test set images do not have boundary annotations; we draw the boundaries for these two samples for illustration purposes. Outer distance maps estimated by (b) \textit{SingleOuter}, (c) \textit{DeepDistance}, and (d) the extended version of \textit{DeepDistance}.}
\label{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}
\end{figure}
Likewise, Fig.~\ref{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}a shows the maps of calculated outer distances when the ground truths are given. Figs.~\ref{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}b,~\ref{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}c, and~\ref{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}d show the outer distance maps estimated by \textit{SingleOuter}, \textit{DeepDistance}, and its extended version, respectively. It is observed that a single-task \textit{SingleOuter} method is less accurate in estimating outer distances especially for pixels close to cell boundaries. Due to this incorrect estimation, it locates only a single cell for each of the cell pairs shown inside green ellipses, resulting in under-segmentations for these cell pairs. Our multi-task \textit{DeepDistance} models yield better estimations for these boundary pixels. However, it is important to note that our models do not use the estimated outer distances in a detection algorithm but define this estimation as an auxiliary task. Particularly, this distance is defined to represent a different aspect of the problem and its estimation is considered as complementary to the main task. Concurrent learning of two related tasks with a multi-task model, which uses shared feature representations, better helps avoid local optima. In other words, when two related tasks share the same representations (with a shared encoder path), it is more difficult to finetune these representations for only one of these tasks. This is effective to obtain better learning performances for individual tasks, as also shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:inner-single-vs-multi} and~\ref{fig:outer-single-vs-multi}.
\subsection{Extending DeepDistance for Cell Segmentation}
\label{sec:segmentation}
The \textit{DeepDistance} models are designed to identify individual cells by locating their centers without delineating their boundaries. This goal is to address the problem of identifying cells for the purpose of counting (or tracking), which is a very common practice for cell culture research. For instance, cell counting can be used to determine the number of cells in a tissue culture in-real-time within predefined intervals for examining the cell growth under the effects of a cytotoxic treatment. This section discusses how the outputs of \textit{DeepDistance} can be used for cell segmentation. To this end, it presents a simple marker-controlled region growing algorithm that works on the outputs of the extended \textit{DeepDistance} model.
This algorithm has two steps: marker identification and marker growing. Let ${\cal M}_I$ and ${\cal M}_O$ be the estimated maps of the inner and normalized outer distances, respectively, and ${\cal M}_C$ be the estimated classification map. The marker identification step takes the cell locations identified on ${\cal M}_I$ by \textit{DeepDistance} and slightly widens them on ${\cal M}_O$ to obtain better-shaped markers. Since the aim is to obtain better shapes for the markers but not to get their exact boundaries, which will be done by the next step, the markers are widened onto only the pixels close to cell centers but not close to boundaries, by considering only the pixels whose estimated values in ${\cal M}_O > 0.5$. At the end, all widened markers smaller than an area threshold of 50 are eliminated. The next step iteratively grows the remaining markers onto foreground pixels in ${\cal M}_C$ with respect to distances in ${\cal M}_O$. This growing is marker-based such that each iteration selects the ``best'' marker and grows it onto the foreground pixels that are currently adjacent to this selected marker. To do so, for each marker, it calculates the average ${\cal M}_O$ over its adjacent foreground pixels and selects the marker with the highest average. This selection does not consider a marker if its adjacent foreground pixels are less than the half of all pixels that are adjacent to this marker. The growing process stops when there exists no marker to be selected. At the end of the marker growing step, boundaries of the grown markers are smoothed applying a majority filter with a size of 25. The visual results obtained on the exemplary subimages are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:seg-results}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\footnotesize{
\begin{tabular}{@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}c@{~}}
\includegraphics[height =0.262\columnwidth]{./cama_1_segm_res.png} &
\includegraphics[height =0.262\columnwidth]{./453_1_segm_res.png} &
\includegraphics[height =0.262\columnwidth]{./468_2_segm_res.png} &
\includegraphics[height =0.262\columnwidth]{./468_1_segm_res.png} \\
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Visual segmentation results for illustrative subimages, which detection results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results}.}
\label{fig:seg-results}
\end{figure}
This section presents a simple algorithm to discuss the possibility of using the estimated maps for segmentation. However, it is worth to noting that this work designs its multi-task network and the tasks used in this network for the purpose of facilitating the cell detection problem (not the cell segmentation problem). Although the estimated normalized outer distance and classification maps provide some information about the cell boundaries, the primary goal of these maps is to define auxiliary tasks, concurrent learning of which is expected to improve the performance of the main task in the context of multi-task learning~\citep{caruana97}. On the other hand, for more accurate cell segmentation, one needs to design a network that includes additional tasks specifically focused on learning the cell boundaries (e.g., defining the estimation of the cell boundaries as the main task) and to use the estimated boundaries in the region growing process too. Designing such multi-task networks, developing more sophisticated cell segmentation algorithms that work on the outputs of these networks, and conducting systematic experiments to obtain their quantitative results are considered as future work.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents the \textit{DeepDistance} model, which designs a multi-task regression framework for detecting individual cells in microscopy images, and experimentally demonstrates the successful use of this model on 5192 cells of three different cell lines. For the cell detection problem, this is the first proposal of a multi-task regression model that learns multiple regression tasks in parallel by using shared feature representations.
The \textit{DeepDistance} model designs this regression framework to concurrently learn two distance metrics for image pixels in the context of multi-task learning. To this end, it defines the \textit{normalized outer distance} metric to represent a different aspect of the problem and proposes to learn it in parallel to the primary inner distance metric, which is defined in regard to the main cell detection task, for the purpose of increasing the generalization ability of this main task. For this concurrent learning, the \textit{DeepDistance} model constructs a fully convolutional network (FCN) with a shared encoder path, which forces the two tasks to learn shared feature representations at various abstraction levels. Such shared representation learning on multiple tasks is indeed known to be more effective to avoid each task to overfit, and as a result, to obtain more generalized models. Our experiments on three different cell lines also reveal that this multi-task learning together with formulating cell detection as a regression problem lead to accurate results, improving the results of the single-task frameworks as well as the previous deep learning approaches.
This work mainly focuses on the cell detection problem, which corresponds to identifying cell locations in an unannotated image. It does not focus on delineating the precise boundaries of the cells. Designing multi-task networks that include additional tasks specifically focused on cell segmentation and developing algorithms that work on the outputs of these networks are considered as one of the future research directions of this study. We believe that the cell detection method proposed by this study is not limited to static cell images, but it can easily be adapted and used for real-time live images throughout a time dependent experiment under inverted microscopy. The investigation of the latter use is considered as another future research direction of this study.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences under the Distinguished Young Scientist Award Program (T{\"U}BA GEB\.{I}P).
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic reconnection is a universal process where magnetic energy is often explosively released, leading to particle acceleration and heating. Observations suggest that magnetic reconnection and subsequent processes can accelerate electrons to energies of tens or even hundreds of keV’s \citep[e.g.][]{Hoshino2001,Oieroset2002,Vaivads2011,Fu2019}. The particle energization associated with magnetic reconnection is known to take place in several regions: in the inflow region and along the separatrices \citep[e.g.][]{Nagai2001,Egedal2008,Hesse2018_separatrix,Eriksson2018}, inside the ion and electron diffusion regions \citep[e.g.][]{Torbert2018,Hesse2018_rec_efield,Wang2018_energyconversion}, in the magnetic reconnection exhaust \citep[e.g.][]{Bessho2015}, in the vicinity of magnetic islands \citep{Chen2008a,Huang2012}, both during island coalescence \citep{Pritchett2008_pop} and contraction \citep{Drake2006}, and at dipolarization fronts \citep[e.g.][]{Fu2011,Vaivads2011}. Where, how, and to what extent the particles are accelerated depend not only on fundamental properties such as the particle species and the relative composition of species, but also on changing properties, such as the particle's velocity. Two examples of the former is that the presence of heavier ions or cold ionospheric ions can act as energy sinks in addition to reducing the rate at which magnetic flux is being reconnected \citep[e.g.][]{ToledoRedondo2017_energybudget,Tenfjord2019}. One example of the latter is Fermi type B acceleration in the reconnection exhaust or in magnetic islands where the energization is more efficient if the initial velocity is higher \citep{Northrop1963,Drake2006}. A clear indication of the non-uniform energization of a particle species is the fact that the energy partition is generally not uniform, with some particles being accelerated to superthermal energies, while some remain thermal \citep[e.g.][]{Hoshino2001}. How this energy-dependent energization affects the bulk energization of a species is unclear. For example, a study of the change in electron temperature between the magnetosheath and the reconnection exhaust during reconnection at the dayside magnetopause did not show any strong dependence on the initial electron temperature in the magnetosheath \citep{Phan2013}. The acceleration mechanisms can vary between direct acceleration by electric fields, for example the reconnection electric field inside the diffusion regions \citep{Bessho2015}, the already mentioned Fermi acceleration \citep{Fermi1949}, and betatron acceleration \citep[e.g.][]{Northrop1963}. Ultimately, due to the conservation of energy, the final plasma energies must depend on the amount of available magnetic energy compared to the amount of plasma to be reconnected, which varies during the reconnection process \citep{Vaivads2011,Ergun2018}.
In addition, energy transfer does not always occur directly between the magnetic field and the particles, but often in steps, between different plasma populations, mediated by electromagnetic fields. One such example is the Hall magnetic fields, which are due to the different motions of ion and electrons. Observations from the terrestrial magnetotail show that at the separatrices of magnetic reconnection, lower-energy field aligned electrons flow into the reconnection region while higher-energy electrons flow out of the reconnection region \citep{Oieroset2001,Nagai2001,Asano2008} carrying the outward and inward Hall currents, respectively \citep{Nagai2003}. The acceleration leading to the formation of these electron flows and associated currents has by some authors been suggested to be a necessity to maintain quasi-neutrality inside the ion diffusion region \citep[][]{Uzdensky2006,Egedal2008}. It has been explained as following: inside the ion diffusion region, the demagnetized ions are free to move across the magnetic field while the magnetized electrons are tightly bound to the magnetic field lines. As a magnetic flux tube expands while convecting inwards, the ion density can thus remain close to constant while the electron density must decrease. The resulting charge separation produces an electric field that accelerates electrons inward, which can lead to the formation of beams and temperature anisotropies \citep{Egedal2005}. In some cases, the electric field can become localized leading to the formation of double layers \citep{Ergun2009,Wang2014,Egedal2015}. The ultimate effect of electron acceleration along the separatrices remains disputed. For example, \cite{Bessho2015} found that the separatrix acceleration occurring at the inbound leg of an electron trajectory was mostly negated by the decelerating effect when the same electron arrived close to the separatrix on the opposite side of the neutral sheet. Meanwhile, \cite{Egedal2015} argued that the confining nature of the potential could lead to more efficient energization within the exhaust by the reconnection electric field. Furthermore, as mentioned above, an initially higher electron velocity would also lead to more efficient Fermi acceleration.
On a more local scale, electromagnetic waves can mediate energy transfer between different plasma populations. For example, the counter-streaming hot and cold electron populations occurring at reconnection separatrices has been studied extensively with numerical simulations. They have been shown to be unstable to the generation of electrostatic waves, leading to the thermalization of the cold electron beam \citep{Divin2012,Fujimoto2014,Huang2014,Egedal2015,Chen2015_sepwaves}. Depending on the velocity at which the waves are generated, they can interact with different parts of the electron distributions \citep{Omura1996,Graham2015a}, and transfer energy between them. In the nonlinear stages of instabilities, it is common that electron trapping by the strong wave potential leads to electron phase space holes and electrostatic solitary waves (ESWs) \citep[e.g.][]{Mozer2018}. At reconnection separatrices, the interface between the inflowing and outflowing electrons represents a velocity shear. In such an environment, the instabilities developing may lead to transfer of energy not only between different energy ranges, but also across the boundary \citep{Hesse2018_separatrix}. Although electrostatic waves and ESWs are commonly observed at reconnection separatrices in conjunction with electron beams \citep{Cattell2005,Viberg2013} or plateau distributions associated with significant drift speed \citep{Ergun1998b}, their effect on plasma populations has not been firmly established.
In order to determine the importance of the separatrix acceleration and subsequent wave-particle interaction for the overall electron energization during magnetic reconnection, it is necessary to observe these phenomena in space.
In this study we will do so, using high-cadence plasma and field measurements by the four closely separated Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) spacecraft. We are able to make detailed measurements of both the electron acceleration and subsequent wave-particle interaction at separatrix regions in the magnetotail.
\section{Observations}
In this section, we report MMS observations from the plasma sheet boundary layer. The electric field is from the Electric field Double Probes (EDP) \citep{Lindqvist2014,Ergun2014}, the magnetic field is from the FluxGate Magnetometer (FGM) \citep{Russell2014}, the plasma distributions and moments are from the Fast Plasma Investigation (FPI) \citep{Pollock2016}. All times are given in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Unless otherwise stated, positions and vectors are given in Geocentric Solar Ecliptic (GSE) coordinates.
We will first present observations of relatively thin channels of electron jets directed opposite to the broader ion and electron flows that is the exhaust flow of magnetic reconnection. For a few events, we will quantify the level of acceleration and compare it to the thermal energy of the lobe population and the plasma sheet population. We will then investigate the wave activity within these regions of accelerated electrons to infer the wave-particle interaction. We focus on electrostatic waves that propagate predominantly along the ambient magnetic field.
\section{Electron acceleration channel}
In this section we present an event from the magnetotail observed on June 7, 2018 at $[-18,4,2]$ Earth radii, investigated previously by \cite{Huang2019}. Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}a shows the electron differential energy flux (DEF), in which we can identify the lobe at lower energies ($E_e\lesssim1$ keV), and the plasma sheet at higher energies ($E_e\gtrsim1$ keV). The spacecraft are initially located in the southern lobe before they enter the plasma sheet boundary layer and the outer edges of the plasma sheet. The spacecraft make partial exits into the lobe two more times before residing in the plasma sheet until the end of the displayed time interval. During this time, the magnetic field is predominantly tailward ($B_x<0$). However, at 00:54:20 when the spacecraft encounters the plasma sheet for the first time, a significant northward component ($B_z>0$) appears, closely associated with changes in $B_x$ and $B_y$. \cite{Huang2019} interpreted this as a passing flux rope. The ion flow is Earthward ($v_{ix}>0$), indicating the spacecraft are located in the Earthward exhaust of a magnetic reconnection X line. We note that although $v_{ix}$ maximizes at $\sim 800$ km/s during the shown interval, the ion distribution consists of two populations: one cold population with bulk speed close to $v_{ix}=0$ km/s, and another hotter population streaming Earthward at speeds $>1000$ km/s (not shown). At later times (not shown), the ion flow reverses, indicating that the X line is moving tailward. The Earthward ion flow is matched by an Earthward electron flow ($v_{ex}>0$). However, at the edges of the Earthward flow, three shorter intervals of larger amplitude tailward ($v_{ex}<0$) flows are observed. The electron flows are consistent with the current derived from the magnetic field (not shown). These regions are associated with density cavities where $n_e\sim0.01$ cm$^{-3}$ (Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}e). In comparison, the density in the lobes (before 00:54:10) is $n_{e}^{lb}\sim 0.05$ cm$^{-3}$, and the largest density during the interval, which we associate with a plasma sheet population, is $n_e^{sh}\sim0.15$ cm$^{-3}$. We shall henceforth refer to the regions of low densities and large amplitude electron flows as acceleration channels.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure_overview_incl_Eparzoomin_noinfo_noJx_.png}
\caption{Overview of separatrix crossing. The blue and red shaded areas indicate the time intervals from which we extract lobe and plasma sheet parameters, respectively. (a) Energy spectrogram of electron differential energy flux. The black line shows the spacecraft potential, below which spacecraft photoelectrons are present. (b) Magnetic field. (c) Ion velocity. (d) Electron velocity. (e) Electron density. (f) Reduced electron phase space density distribution, integrated over the directions perpendicular to the magnetic field. (g)-(h) Parallel electric field.}
\label{fig:separatrix_environment}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}f shows the phase space density (PSD) of the reduced electron distribution projected onto the magnetic field:
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{e}^{1D}(v_{\parallel}) = \int_{-\infty} ^{-\infty} f_{e}(v_{\parallel},v_{\perp,1},v_{\perp,2})dv_{\perp,1}dv_{\perp,2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Inside the three acceleration channels, we can clearly see the accelerated population for $v_{e\parallel}>0$. These acceleration channels with electron flows directed towards the magnetic reconnection X line, opposite to the exhaust flow, are prominent features seen in the separatrix regions in numerical simulations of magnetic reconnection \cite[e.g.][]{Divin2012,Fujimoto2014,Egedal2015,Hesse2018_separatrix}. The reduced distributions presented in the simulations bear strong resemblance to the reduced electron distributions observed by MMS presented here.
All the acceleration channels occur at the edges of the reconnection outflow, where we expect the separatrices to be. Therefore, consistent with numerical simulations, we identify the acceleration channels as being located at the separatrices of a magnetic reconnection site. However, from numerical simulations, we know that density cavities associated with the accelerated populations do not always extend over the whole length of the separatrices \citep[e.g.][]{Egedal2015}. In addition, in the presence of a guide field the acceleration regions are to some degree suppressed at two opposing of the four separatrices \citep[e.g.][]{Pritchett2004}. Therefore, while accelerations channels and reconnection separatrices are closely related, they are not always coincident. Also, importantly, electron acceleration channels are not exclusively related to magnetic reconnection but can occur in a multitude of plasma environments.
Since we do not observe any reconnection outflow reversals in the immediate proximity of the acceleration channels, we have no straightforward means of determining how far away from the X line they are located.
The acceleration channels are associated with large amplitude parallel (Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}g-\ref{fig:separatrix_environment}h) and perpendicular (shown for a shorter time interval in Figure \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}) electric field fluctuations. Since instabilities driven by parallel beams often result in large amplitude parallel electric fields, we will in sections \ref{sec:waves} and \ref{sec:instability} focus on investigating the relation between the field-aligned electric fields and the parallel streaming populations. First, however, we will quantify in more detail the electron acceleration.
\section{Acceleration potential}
\label{sec:acceleration_potential}
To obtain a quantitative estimate of the acceleration potential that the electrons have passed through, we investigate the reduced electron distribution in more detail. Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example} again shows the reduced electron distribution, now for a slightly shorter time interval. The thinner black line shows the parallel electron bulk speed $v_{e,||}^{bulk}$, and the thin dashed line shows $v_{e||}^{bulk}\pm v_{te,||}$, where $v_{te,||}=\sqrt{2k_BT_{e,||}/m_e}$ is the electron thermal speed based on the parallel temperature.
To estimate the acceleration potential we use the Liouville approach and assume that a lobe population initially at rest has been accelerated to the energy corresponding to the energy where the maximum phase space density is observed, i.e. $e\psi=m_ev_{acc}^2/2$, where $v_{acc}=v_{e,||}(f_e=f_{e,max}^{local})$. To avoid picking up small variations in $f_e$ we have first applied a running average over three full 3-D distributions (the averaged distribution in Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example} can be compared to the original distribution in Figures \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}f or \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a), and thereafter again averaged $v_{acc}$ and the corresponding $\psi$ over three time steps. The obtained speeds $v_{acc}$ are shown as thick solid black lines in Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example}. We note that the phase space density between the lobe and the acceleration channels is not completely conserved, $f_e^{lb}>f_e^{acc}$. This indicates that non-adiabatic processes are at work, for example wave-particle interaction. Although beam thermalization through wave-particle interaction will decrease the average drift velocity of the beam population, it can initially tend to shift the peak phase space density to higher energies \citep[see e.g. Figure 2 in][]{Che2009}. When we find $v_{acc}$, we therefore exclude instances where the beam is thermalized beyond a certain threshold, even if it is possible to find a $f_{e,max}^{local}$. This is for example the case during the last part of the first acceleration channel. We will discuss the implications of this later.
The accelerated populations have larger speeds than the moments calculated from the entire distribution, $v^{acc}>v_{e,\parallel}^{bulk}$. This is due to the presence of an additional electron population close to $v_{e,\parallel}=0$ inside the acceleration channels. Inside the acceleration channels, the temperature (as indicated by the distance between the two dashed lines marking $v_{e,\parallel}\pm v_{te,\parallel}$) is increased relative to the lobes. This initial jump in temperature is also largely due to the presence of the additional population at $v_{e,\parallel}=0$. The population with low parallel speed could be due to wave-particle interactions, or leakage from the plasma sheet or even the lobes.
The maximum potentials associated with $v_{acc}$ for the three acceleration channels are $\psi = [1800, \ 2400, \ 1400]$ V, respectively (also written on top of Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example}). In comparison, characteristic temperatures in the lobe and plasma sheet are $T_e^{lb}=220$ eV and $T_e^{sh}=3700$ eV (obtained from the blue and red intervals shown in Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}). In terms of these characteristic energies, $e\psi\approx[8, \ 11, \ 6] \ T_e^{lb}\approx[0.5 \ 0.6, \ 0.4] \ T_e^{sh}$. Note that the thermal energy of the plasma sheet is usually larger closer to the neutral sheet \citep{Baumjohann1989}. Because $|\mathbf{B}|>15$ nT during the entire shown interval, the spacecraft stay relatively close to the plasma sheet boundary layer, and therefore $T_e^{sh}$ should be considered as a lower bound.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{get_acc_pot_ex11.png}
\caption{Acceleration of electrons through a potential drop as seen from the reduced electron distribution. The intervals shows three acceleration channels, where the electron populations are succesively shifted towards higher energies. The thicker line follows a local maximum of the phase space density. The energy corresponding to the maximum velocity for each channel is taken as the acceleration potential $\psi$ and is written above the respective intervals. The solid thin line is the parallel electron bulk speed $v_{e,\parallel}$. The two bounding thin dashed lines marks $v_{e,\parallel}\pm v_{te,\parallel}$.}
\label{fig:acceleration_potential_example}
\end{figure}
We have performed the same analysis as described above for a few other acceleration channels from a total of five burst intervals during two days in July, 2017, listed in Table \ref{table:acc_pot}. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential} (blue circles). As before, all events we have included from MMS show clear features of a cold population being accelerated through a potential drop. We have not included flat-top distributions, or events in which the entire electron beam has likely been thermalized already. However, many events show evidence of some degree of thermalization. We show the results as a function of electron beta in the lobe $\beta_e^{lb}$. Note that the acceleration channels that are from the same burst interval can correspond to the same lobe and/or plasma sheet intervals. It is also possible that acceleration channels that are observed in close proximity to each other can be channels that are crossed multiple times. For these MMS events we find that $\psi= 1 - 8$ keV, $e\psi/T_e^{lb} = 1-15$ (with one value at 35), and $e\psi/T_e^{sh} = 0.1 - 1.7$. However for the last seven acceleration channels in Table \ref{table:acc_pot}, $T_e^{sh}$ is likely underestimated, as MMS only skirted the plasma sheet boundary layer. Regardless of this, electrons passing these acceleration channels have already reached a substantial fraction of their final energy before entering the magnetic reconnection exhaust proper. In agreement with previous results obtained by Cluster \citep{Borg2012,Egedal2015} (red circles), the acceleration potentials show an inverse dependence on $\beta_e^{lb}$. We note that these two studies seem to cover different ranges of $\beta_e^{lb}$. This could be due to selection bias, or instrumental differences related to the accuracy to which the densities and temperatures can be determined. Another statistical study of electron distributions in magnetic reconnection regions by Cluster found electrons beams directed towards the X line with an occurrence frequency of about 20\% in the off-equatorial region \citep{Asano2008}. The beams had energies of 4-10 keV.
of their events the spacecraft observed electron beams propagating inward towards the X line. They found that the beams had a higher occurrence frequency
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{phi_statistics_epsiTe.png}
\caption{Summary of acceleration potential for a few electron acceleration channels, compared to previous events observed by Cluster \citep{Borg2012,Egedal2015}. Cluster results are adapted from Table 1 in \cite{Egedal2015}. (a) $\psi$ is inversely proportional to $\beta_e^{lb}$, and (b) many times the electron thermal energies per charge in the lobe $T_{e}^{lb}/e$. (c) $e\psi$ is comparable to plasma sheet thermal energies $T_e^{sh}$. Note that in events where the spacecraft only stay at the edge of the boundary layer, $T_e^{sh}$ is likely underestimated, see Table \ref{table:acc_pot}.}
\label{fig:acceleration_potential}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c }
\hline
Acceleration channel time interval & $\psi$ (V) & $T_e^{lb}$ (eV)& $T_e^{sh}$ (eV) & $\beta_e^{lb}$ \\ \hline
2017-07-03T21:54:31.700 - 54:32.700 & 3300 & 270 & 3500 & 0.006 \\ \hline
2017-07-03T21:54:37.200 - 54:40.600 & 4100 & 270 & 4600 & 0.006 \\ \hline
2017-07-03T21:55:04.900 - 55:05.700 & 2100 & 210 & 4500 & 0.007 \\ \hline
2017-07-03T21:55:06.900 - 55:08.800 & 7400 & 210 & 4500 & 0.007 \\ \hline
2017-07-03T21:55:11.400 - 55:12.600 & 2400 & 210 & 4500 & 0.007 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:54:13.900 - 54:15.600 & 1800 & 220 & 3700 & 0.010 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:54:21.700 - 54:23.600 & 2400 & 330 & 3700 & 0.019 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:54:26.900 - 54:27.700 & 1400 & 330 & 3700 & 0.019 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:55:30.000 - 55:30.800 & 100 & 220 & 3400 & 0.021 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:55:32.700 - 55:33.100 & 200 & 220 & 3400 & 0.021 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:55:33.500 - 55:34.100 & 1100 & 220 & 3400 & 0.021 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T00:55:39.900 - 55:42.100 & 1300 & 220 & 3400 & 0.021 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T08:16:38.400 - 16:39.100 & 800 & 350 & 1100 & 0.012 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T13:54:28.900 - 54:29.600 & 1400 & 110 & 1200 & 0.005 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T13:54:33.600 - 54:34.300 & 1400 & 110 & 1500 & 0.005 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T14:07:16.700 - 07:18.100 & 1000 & 150 & 1100 & 0.005 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T14:07:18.900 - 07:19.300 & 1000 & 150 & 1100 & 0.005 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T14:07:20.100 - 07:21.800 & 1400 & 150 & 1100 & 0.005 \\ \hline
2017-07-06T14:07:28.200 - 07:28.800 & 1000 & 150 & 1100 & 0.005 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Acceleration potential $\psi$ obtained from a total of five burst intervals in July 2017. $T_e^{sh}$ is chosen as the largest temperature observed in the proximity of the acceleration channel. In events where the spacecraft only stay at the edge of the boundary layer, $T_e^{sh}$ is underestimated, this is likely the case for the seven last events.}
\label{table:acc_pot}
\end{table}
Similar to previous observational studies of both dayside \citep[e.g.][]{Vaivads2004b} and nightside \citep[e.g.][]{Lu2010,Wang2012} magnetic reconnection, the acceleration channels we study in this paper are associated with density cavities. Figure \ref{fig:density_cavity}a shows the relation between the lobe densities $n_e^{lb}$ and the minimum densities inside the acceleration channels $n_e^{sep}$. For all events, $n_e^{sep}<n_e^{lb}$. We do not show it here, but for all the events, the densities on the plasma sheet side of the acceleration channels are larger than both $n_e^{lb}$ and $n_e^{sep}$. Figure \ref{fig:density_cavity}b shows that the ratio of densities between the lobes and the acceleration channels, $n_e^{sep}/n_e^{lb}$, becomes smaller with increasing acceleration potential $\psi$. The decrease in density between the lobe and the acceleration channels is expected from the conservation of phase space density of an accelerated plasma population \citep[e.g.][]{Schamel1982_phys_script}. The existence of density cavities at the separatrices is also in agreement with numerical simulations of symmetric antiparallel \citep[e.g.][]{Shay2001,Lu2010,Egedal2015}, and guide-field \citep[e.g.][]{Pritchett2004} magnetic reconnection. In the case of guide-field reconnection, the reconnection electric field has a component parallel to the magnetic field. This results in enhanced parallel acceleration by the reconnection electric field, and larger density cavities at two opposing of the four separatrices. In this study, we have not differentiated between strictly antiparallel and guide-field reconnection. However, since all the events are from the tail, it is likely that any guide field, if present, is low or moderate.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{n_cavity_grid.png}
\caption{(a) The densities inside acceleration channels, $n_e^{sep}$, are always lower than the lobe densities $n_e^{lb}$. The gray line marks $n_e^{lb}=n_e^{sep}$. (b) The ratio of densities between the lobes and acceleration channels, $n_e^{sep}/n_e^{lb}$, show an inverse dependence on the acceleration potential $\psi$.}
\label{fig:density_cavity}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Width of acceleration region}
Before we continue, we shall make a rough estimate of the width of the first acceleration channel in Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example}, which had $\psi=1800$ V. For this event, it is not possible to reliably determine the spacecraft trajectory relative to the boundary layer from timing analysis. We therefore take a different approach using the perpendicular electric field. We make the following assumptions: (1) The acceleration potential is electrostatic in nature, and the parallel potential drop is therefore accompanied by a perpendicular potential drop. This is consistent with the divergent electric field $E_{\perp,z}$ centered around the electron flow shown in Figures \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}a and \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}b. We show the original field and the field downsampled to 3 Hz, to highlight the DC variations. We can determine that the field is divergent because MMS cross the southern separatrix from the lobe to the plasma sheet and observes a negative-positive polarity of $E_{\perp,z}$. A divergent electric field is associated with a positive electrostatic potential, consistent with the acceleration of electrons in towards the X line. This can also be seen in numerical simulations of magnetic reconnection \citep[e.g. Figures 4b-4c in][]{Divin2012}. However, some simulations also show that the electron acceleration along separatrices are in part due to inductive electric fields \citep{Egedal2015,Bessho2015}. Figure \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}c shows the obtained potential $\psi$ at the original cadence and downsampled to 3 Hz, like the electric field. (2) The perpendicular profile of the acceleration channel is Gaussian: $\psi_\perp(z) = \psi_0\exp(-z^2/2l_z^2)$, where $z\sim z_{GSE}$ is the coordinate perpendicular to both $\mathbf{B}$ and the main electron flow $\mathbf{v}_e$, and $\psi_0=\psi(z=0)$ is the potential in the center of the acceleration channel. While the Gaussian shape is somewhat arbitrary, we have no way to better determine the exact shape. The perpendicular electric field associated with this potential structure has peaks values $|E_{z}^{max}| = l_z^{-1}\psi_0\exp(-1/2)$ at $z=\pm l_z$, where the potential is $\psi(z=\pm l_z) = \psi_0\exp(-1/2)$. The half width is thus given by
\begin{eqnarray}
l_z=\psi(z=\pm l_z)/|E_{z}^{max}|.
\label{eq:channel_thickness}
\end{eqnarray}
We now choose two time steps from where the electric field is the strongest, marked by yellow squares in Figures \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}b and \ref{fig:acc_channel_thickness}c. At these times, because the observed electric field maximizes here, the spacecraft are presumably located at an intermediate distance from the center of the acceleration channel, close to $l_z$. For the two points $|E_{z}^{max}| = [25,19]$ mV/m, and $\psi(z=\pm l_z)= [700,1300]$ V, giving estimated half widths $l_z=[25,65]$ km, respectively. The estimated thickness of the acceleration channel is thus $L=2l_z = 50 - 130$ km. In comparison, the ion and electron thermal gyroradii ranges between $100-400$ km, and $2-8$ km, respectively, where the smaller (larger) values are taken at the lobe (sheet) side of the acceleration channel. The Debye length is $\sim 0.5$ km in the lobes and reaches 4 km inside the acceleration channel.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{estimate_lz.png}
\caption{Estimation of acceleration channel thickness using data from MMS1. (a) Electron flow $\mathbf{v}_e$. (b) Perpendicular electric field $E_{\perp,z}$ at original sampling rate and downsampled to 3 Hz. $E_{\perp,z}$ reverses around the time where $|\mathbf{v}_e|$ is the largest (marked by vertical dashed line). We therefore take the spacecraft to be located at the center of the acceleration channel at this time. (c) Acceleration potential $\psi$ at original cadence and downsampled to 3 Hz. Applying Eq. \ref{eq:channel_thickness} to the two times marked by yellow squares, we estimate $l_z\sim 25-65$ km, giving an acceleration channel thickness of $50-130$ km.}
\label{fig:acc_channel_thickness}
\end{figure}
\section{Wave activity}
\label{sec:waves}
Inside, and in the vicinity of the acceleration channels, large amplitude parallel electric fields are typically observed. An example is shown in Figure \ref{fig:separatrix_environment}h, where the largest amplitude fields form bipolar pulses, often termed electrostatic solitary waves (ESW) (see also Figure 5 in \cite{Huang2019}).
To quantify to what extent the electric field can affect the electrons and modify their velocity, it is helpful to look at the sum of the kinetic and potential electron energy in the frame of the wave traveling at speed $v_{ph}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
U = \frac{m_e}{2}\left(v-v_{ph}\right)^2-e\phi,
\label{eq:U}
\end{eqnarray}
which is a constant of motion. If $U<0$, the electron is following a trapped trajectory, and if $U>0$, the electron is following a passing trajectory \citep{Bernstein1957}. The electrons can transition from passing to trapped trajectories (or vice versa) if the wave field is growing (or decaying) -- the electrons become trapped (or released). The limiting velocity that separates trapped and passing electron trajectories at the point where the potential is the largest, $v(U=0,\phi=\phi_{max})$, is
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{tr} = v_{ph}\pm\sqrt{2e\phi_{max}/m_e},
\label{eq:vtrap}
\end{eqnarray}
called the trapping velocity. The trapping velocity is a good indication of what part of the electron distribution is likely to interact efficiently with the wave.
To find the trapping velocities, we need to find the propagation velocities $v_{ph}$, and electrostatic potentials $\phi$ of the waves. When the same wave structure is observed by two or more of the spacecraft, we can perform interferometry measurements to obtain the propagating velocity. That is, we measure the delay between the times the structure is observed by the different spacecraft, and compare it to the spacecraft separations. This is possible because the spacecraft separation of about 10 km is comparable to the typical length scale of the wave forms $\sim10 \lambda_{De}$, where $\lambda_{De}=(\epsilon_0k_BT_e/ne^2)^{1/2}$ is the Debye length \citep{Graham2016a}. Inside the acceleration channel $\lambda_{De}=3.3$ km (using $T_e\sim2000$ eV and $n_e=0.01$ cm$^{-3}$).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{trapping_range_incl_o_ab.png}
\caption{Interaction range of wave-field and electron population. (a) Reduced electron distribution. The thicker lines show the trapping range centered around the phase velocity (black dots). (b) Normalized power of $E_{\parallel}$ as a function of $k_\parallel$ and $f$. The lines show the phase velocities of the individual wave structures marked in panel (a). The circles show an estimate of the ESW wavenumber corresponding to a wavelength $\lambda=2l_{pp}$, $k_\circ= \pi/l_{pp}$. }
\label{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a again shows the reduced electron distribution, now only for the time interval corresponding to the first acceleration channel. The black dots show $v_{ph}$ of individual ESWs. We find that $v_{ph}$ is loosely proportional to the velocity of the drifting electron population. Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}b shows the normalized power spectrum of $E_\parallel$ as a function of frequency $f$ and parallel wavenumber $k_{\parallel}$ obtained from four spacecraft interferometry for the time interval shown in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a. The method is described for two points of measurement by \cite{Graham2016a}, but here generalized to four points. This removes the need to assume a given propagation direction. The resolvable $k_{\parallel}$'s are related to the inter spacecraft separation as $k_{\parallel,max} = \pi/\max(\Delta l_{ij,\parallel})$, where $\Delta l_{ij,\parallel}$ is the distance between the individual spacecraft pairs (denoted by indices $i$ and $j$) parallel to the ambient magnetic field. In our case $\max(\Delta l_{ij,\parallel}) = \Delta l_{14,\parallel}=25$ km, giving $|k_{\parallel}|_{max}\approx0.125$ km$^{-1}$. The lower power found at $k_\parallel\lesssim0.05$ km$^{-1}$ and $f\gtrsim0.4$ kHz might be due to spatial aliasing. The black lines mark the phase velocity of the individual ESWs (as shown in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a). While the general trend is that the the phase velocities increase towards the plasma sheet, it is possible to roughly divide the ESWs into two groups based on their speeds: one earlier group with lower speeds and lower $f$ and one later group with higher speeds and higher $f$.
Using $v_{ph}$, we can obtain the distances between the positive and negative peaks of the bipolar electric fields, which we call the peak-to-peak length scale. We find that they vary between $l_{pp}=20$ km and $l_{pp}=120$ km with a mean value of $\left< l_{pp}\right>=57$ km (Figure \ref{fig:phi_lpp}). The wavenumbers corresponding to wavelengths $\lambda=2l_{pp}$ of the individual ESWs, $k_{\circ} \sim \pi/l_{pp}$, are marked by circles in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}. For some of the ESWs, the electric field perpendicular to the ambient magnetic field was comparable or even larger than the parallel field (not shown). This suggest the perpendicular length scales can be comparable to the parallel length scales \citep{Franz2000}. A large range of estimated $l_{pp}$'s are comparable to the estimated width of the acceleration channel, which was $L \approx 50-130$ km.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{phi_waves.png}
\caption{Electrostatic potential and peak-to-peak length scales of ESWs. Since each spacecraft can pass along a different trajectory through the ESW, the four spacecraft can observe different $l_{pp}$ and $\phi_{max}$, respectively. We therefore show the standard deviation centered on the mean value for each ESW. The average values for the entire group of ESWs are $\left< l_{pp}\right>=57$ km, and $\left<\phi_{max}\right>=1500$ V.}
\label{fig:phi_lpp}
\end{figure}
The potential of the waves along the trajectory of the spacecraft are calculated by integrating the parallel electric field, using the parallel component of the measured phase velocity, ${dl = -v_{ph}dt}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi = \int E_{\parallel}v_{ph}dt.
\end{eqnarray*}
The maximum electrostatic potential of each ESW along the spacecraft trajectory $\phi_{max}$ varies between $\phi_{max}=300$ V and $\phi_{max}=4000$ V with a mean value of $\left< \phi_{max}\right>=1500$ V (Figure \ref{fig:phi_lpp}). The corresponding trapping speeds $v_{tr}$ (Eq. \ref{eq:vtrap}) are shown in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a as two black lines bounding $v_{ph}$. At earlier times where $v_{ph}<5\times10^3$ km/s, the trapping range encompasses significant parts of the beam, indicating favorable conditions for strong wave-electron interaction. At later times where $10\times 10^3<v_{ph}<35\times10^3$ km/s, the beam is not as apparent and has likely become significantly thermalized, also indicative of strong wave-particle interaction.
Note that at the later part of the interval, where $v_{ph}$ are larger, the beam has become significantly thermalized. Since we did not take into account significantly thermalized beams when determining $\psi$, the maximum acceleration speed obtained for this acceleration channel ($v_{acc}\sim25\times10^3$ km/s, corresponding to $\psi=1800$ V), is smaller than the observed phase velocities, $v_{acc}<v_{ph}$.
We have performed this analysis for a number of events, and present two more of them in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}. We observe both similarities and differences between the different cases. For example, in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}a, although there is an asymmetry in $f_e(v_\parallel)$ close to the lobe towards the end of the interval, the electron bulk velocity is close to zero, and no distinct beam is observed. However, the phase velocities are proportional to the energy at which the phase space density begins to decrease rapidly (we refer to this energy as the shoulder energy). This might indicate that the beam has already been destroyed by the wave-electron interaction, and that what we observe is the thermalized beam. This is supported by the fact that the trapping range $v_{ph}\pm v_{tr}$ covers a large part of the electron distribution. Because no distinct beam is observed, this time interval is not included in Table \ref{table:acc_pot} or Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential}. Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}c shows an acceleration channel with a distinct beam, which is included in Table \ref{table:acc_pot} and Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential}. Again we find that the phase velocities are proportional to the beam speed and that the wave interaction range covers the beam. Figures \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}b and \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}d show that the phase velocities obtained from timing analysis of individual ESWs correspond well to the maximum wave power in the dispersion relation obtained form four spacecraft spectral analysis. In Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}d, we can see clear indications of spatial aliasing.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{20170718_disprel_fred_clim11_ab.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{20170704_disprel_fred_climfree_cd.png}
\caption{Interaction range of wave field and electron population. (a), (c) Reduced electron distribution. The thicker lines show the trapping range centered around the phase velocity (*). (b), (d) Normalized power of $E_{\parallel}$, as a function of $k_{||}$ and $f$. The lines show the phase velocities the individual wave structures marked in panel (a). The circles show an estimate of the central wave number $k_o\sim \pi/l_{pp}$ assuming the wavelength is given roughly by $\lambda=2l_{pp}$. While only the second case shows a distinct beam, both cases show $v_{ph}$'s that are proportional to the electron energy and interaction ranges $v_{ph}\pm v_{tr}$ that covers a significant part for the electron distributions.}
\label{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}
\end{figure}
\section{Spatiotemporal evolution and instability analysis}
\label{sec:instability}
To investigate whether the observed plasma distributions can account for the generation of the ESWs, we solve the unmagnetized, electrostatic dispersion equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
0 = 1-\sum_s \frac{\omega_{ps}^2}{k^2v_{ts}^2}Z'\left(\frac{\omega-kv_{ds}}{kv_{ts}}\right)
\label{eq:dispeq}
\end{eqnarray}
for the event presented in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}. Here, $Z$ is the plasma dispersion function, and '$s$' denotes the different plasma populations. Based on the observed ESW characteristics, the ESWs in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity} can be divided roughly into two groups. One group with lower $v_{ph}$ observed at earlier times and one group with larger $v_{ph}$ observed at later times. We will therefore investigate different combinations of plasma populations.
We expect the accelerated lobe electron population to be the main driver of the instability. This beam, however, can be in different stages of evolution. Further downstream of the acceleration channel, observations and simulations show that the peak phase space density is shifted toward larger speeds, but also that the beam is weaker, i.e. it has a lower density relative to the electron population at lower speeds (compare the blue stars and purple circles in Figure \ref{fig:disp_rel}a). To the zeroth order, the shift to larger speed is due to the acceleration. However, the wave-particle interaction can also contribute to this as follows: electron trapping removes phase space density from the lower speed edge of the beam, decreasing its density and at the same time shifting the beam peak to higher speeds \cite[e.g.][]{Che2009}. Recall that when acquiring the acceleration potential $\psi$ in section \ref{sec:acceleration_potential}, we did not include significantly thermalized beams. The distribution shown with purple circles in Figure \ref{fig:disp_rel} is an example of such a distribution that was considered too thermalized. Note that a beam drift speed of $35000$ km/s would correspond to an acceleration potential of 3500 eV. The electron population at lower speeds can be plasma sheet electrons that enter the acceleration channel during part of their gyromotion. It can also be the trapped electrons that were originally part of the beam. A large part of the low-velocity electrons are within the trapping range of the ESWs. The ions can be both cold lobe and hotter plasma sheet populations. However, the ion thermal speeds of both lobe and plasma sheet ions are both low in comparison to electron and phase speeds, so in the dispersion analysis we will only consider a single (medium hot) ion population with a temperature of $T_i = 5$ keV, corresponding to a thermal speed of $v_{ti}=980$ km/s. An ion temperature of 10 keV would correspond to a thermal speed of 1380 km/s, which is not a significant difference considering the phase speeds and electron speeds.
We consider two different electron distributions, based on observed distributions at slightly earlier (blue) and later (purple) times where the observed $v_{ph}$ are slower and faster, respectively (Figure \ref{fig:disp_rel}a). The solid lines show fits to the 1-D reduced electron distributions (blue: $n_{e} = [0.055,0.045]$ cm$^{-3}$, $T_e = [900,130]$ eV, $v_d=[0,17000]$ km/s, purple: $n_{e} = [0.080,0.020]$ cm$^{-3}$, $T_e = [800,200]$ eV, $v_d=[0,35000]$ km/s) and are used as input to Eq. \ref{eq:dispeq}. The resulting real and imaginary frequencies $f = f_r + if_i$ obtained from Eq. \ref{eq:dispeq} are shown overlaid with the observed power distribution in Figure \ref{fig:disp_rel}b. For both cases we obtain good matches to the real frequencies $f_r$, while the maximum growth for the faster ESWs are shifted towards higher $k_\parallel$'s. The growth rate for the faster beam is about ten times larger than that for the slower beam. The phase speeds at maximum growth rate are $v_{ph}^{slow} = 2500$ km/s and $v_{ph}^{fast} = 27000$ km/s, respectively, shown as vertical dashed-dotted lines in Figure \ref{fig:disp_rel}a.
For the slower ESWs, depending on small variations of the input parameters, either the ion-electron or electron-electron modes are dominating. The ion-electron mode is essentially a Buneman type mode with a hot electron background that does not interact with the drifting electron population \citep{Norgren2015b}. The slow electron-electron mode is an electron-acoustic wave. The faster ESWs are generated by an electron beam-mode instability with close to constant phase speed regardless of wavenumber. The evolution of instabilities from Buneman to electron beam-mode is similar to what was described by \cite{Che2009} for guide field reconnection. Although the electron beams we study here are not located inside the EDR, the local dynamics can be the same.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{disprel_with_vph_larger_text.png}
\caption{Wave instability analysis. (a) Observed and fitted model distribution during two time intervals corresponding to where the slower (blue) and faster (purple) ESWs are observed, respectively. (b) Observed dispersion relation and real ($f_r$) and imaginary ($f_i$) frequencies obtained by solving Eq. \ref{eq:dispeq} for the two distributions in (a). Both solutions show real frequencies corresponding well to the observed ones. For the slow ESWs the range of $k_{\parallel}$ with positive growth rates $f_r>0$ corresponds to where the wave power is the largest. For the faster ESWs, the peak growth rate is shifted towards larger $k_\parallel$, or equivalently smaller wavelengths.}
\label{fig:disp_rel}
\end{figure}
Since we observe large amplitude highly nonlinear localized structures, we are not observing the waves in the linear stage of instability. The predicted growth is therefore not necessarily expected to coincide with the range of $k_{\parallel}$'s where the linear growth rate maximizes. Although some simulations do show good correspondence between observed wave characteristics and linear instability growth rates \citep[e.g.][]{Fujimoto2006,Chen2015_sepwaves}, ESWs are for example known to merge with each other and grow in size \citep[e.g.][]{Mottez1997}, which would correspond to a shift to smaller $k_{\parallel}$'s. If we would assume that the wave power at the initial stages of the beam-mode instability peaked at $0.15$ km$^{-1}$ but due to coalescence has shifted to $0.05$ km$^{-1}$, this would correspond to a change from a wavelength $\lambda=40$ km to a corresponding length scale of the ESWs of 120 km. Another effect that may play a role in modifying the wave growth is the velocity shear and the perpendicular structure of the flow channel inside which they grow \citep{Che2011b}. The waves can not be considered as plane waves with infinite extent in the perpendicular direction, which Eq. \ref{eq:dispeq} assumes. However, extending the wave analysis to include these effects is beyond the scope of this paper. ESW's are also known to be limited in size by transverse instabilities \citep{Muschietti2000,Graham2016a}. If the bounce frequency of electrons trapped in the potential well of the ESWs exceeds the gyrofrequency, the ESWs tend to become unstable and dissipate. The bounce frequency for a given potential increases with decreasing length scale, or correspondingly larger $k$'s. We have examined this relation here (not shown) and find that the limiting $k$'s are about three times larger than the $k$'s where the wave power maximizes. We therefore do not think this is the deciding factor in determining the range of observed length scales.
\section{Discussion}
We have investigated the electron acceleration and wave-particle interaction in acceleration channels located at magnetic reconnection separatrices in the magnetotail. Generally, we found that the lobe populations were gradually accelerated up to a significant fraction of the thermal energies in the plasma sheet. Nonlinear ESWs that were observed at the same time as the accelerated populations had large enough potentials to interact with a significant part of the electron distribution, including the beam. Here we will discuss how the wave-particle interaction and spatial effects are expected to alter the beam and thereby our estimate of the acceleration potential $\psi$. We will also discuss how the wave properties can be related to the thermalized beam.
The beam represents the free energy of the system. When the waves have grown to amplitudes such that they are able to trap the beam, the beam can become thermalized, and the free energy source is removed. The wave trapping range at saturated wave growth is therefore expected to encompass the beam responsible for the instability growth. This is consistent with our observation: when a distinct beam could be observed, such as seen at earlier times in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a or in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}c, the wave trapping range encompassed a large part or the entirety of the beam:
\begin{eqnarray}
|v_{ph}|<|v_{acc}|<|v_{ph}+v_{tr}|.
\label{eq:deduce_vacc}
\end{eqnarray}
The waves observed at the same time as the beams were highly nonlinear solitary structures, indicating they could be close to saturation.
When we estimated the acceleration potential $\psi$, we studied the beam component of the reduced electron distribution. However, the wave-particle interaction can affect the beam and thereby affect our estimate of $\psi$. For example, electrons will locally be accelerated to higher energies in the potential $\phi$ of the wave. Since the sampling rate of FPI is lower than the time scale of an individual ESW, the beam will appear spread out in velocity space, and the peak of the spread out beam energy will appear at higher energies than what was accounted for by the accelerating potential $\psi$. The waves can also eventually trap electrons, and thus gradually remove electrons from the lower speed edge of the beam. This will further spread out the beam in velocity space and shift the peak phase space density of the beam to higher energies. However, these thermalization effects occur gradually, and can have affected the beam significantly even before the beam has reached its final energy as governed by the larger scale potential $\psi$.
For the case presented in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a, we could clearly see that the closer to the plasma sheet the accelerated population were observed, the weaker, or more thermalized, the beam became. In the region with higher velocity ESWs, it is hard to perceive the beam at all. Since we did not take into account significantly thermalized beams when determining $\psi$, the maximum acceleration speed obtained for this acceleration channel ($v_{acc}\sim25\times10^3$ km/s, corresponding to $\psi=1800$ V) was smaller than many of the observed phase velocities, $v_{acc}<v_{ph}$. However, due to the nature of the generating instabilities, where the phase speeds fall in between the two populations, it is reasonable to assume that the speed of the unthermalized beam was larger than $v_{ph}$ as shown in the inequality in Eq. \ref{eq:deduce_vacc}. For example, for the instability analysis of the faster ESWs in Section \ref{sec:instability}, the drifting component of the electron distribution had a speed of $35\times10^3$ km/s. Therefore, although the beam-wave interaction can make the beam appear at higher energies than what is accounted for by $\psi$, the observed phase speeds should give a minimum value. This is an indication that the maximum potential drop for this acceleration channel was in fact larger than what we estimated in Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential_example}. In Table \ref{table:acc_pot} and Figure \ref{fig:acceleration_potential} $\psi$ could therefore be considered as lower bounds.
Like mentioned above, for the beam in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity}a, the beam thermalization became more prominent when the beam had already been accelerated to larger energies. The point in time when the beam seemed to become significantly thermalized coincided roughly with the appearance of high velocity ESWs. It is possible that the increased thermalization could be related to the generating instabilities. The electron beam-mode instability, which we found could be responsible for the wave generation in the large velocity region had a growth rate roughly ten times larger than the instabilities that were active when the beam had lower speeds. To some extent, the increased thermalization should also be due to the integrated effect of wave-particle interactions along the acceleration channel. That is, the further down the acceleration channel the beam has progressed, the longer distance the wave-particle interaction has had the time to affect the beam.
In other cases where no distinct beam could be observed (we presented one such case in Figure \ref{fig:waves_trapping_velocity_more_examples}a), the phase speeds were instead proportional to the energy at which the phase space density started to decrease rapidly. Due to the similar wave behaviour between the cases with and without distinct beams, it is likely that the presumed beam in the latter case had already been completely thermalized. In such cases where no beam can be identified, but the wave characteristics can be obtained, it could be possible to use the inequality in Eq. \ref{eq:deduce_vacc} to indirectly estimate the beam characteristics and therefore the amount of electron acceleration as well as thermalization. Inferring the characteristics of the generating electron beam after it has already been thermalized has been done in previous studies \cite[e.g.][]{Norgren2015b}. Here, however, we have here tracked the continuous change in the beam, accompanied by the continuous change in wave characteristics, certifying the credibility of such an approach.
We also consider the case where the weakened beam could be partially due to spatial effects perpendicular to the magnetic field. For example, if we assume that the initial lobe population is isotropic, electrons with pitchangles close to $90^\circ$ would cover a larger perpendicular distance throughout their gyromotion than electrons with pitchangles closer to $0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$. The beam would therefore be weaker at the edges of the acceleration channel than at the center. However, the gyroradii of lobe electrons, based on $T_{e}^{lb}=220$ eV and $B^{lb}=20$ nT is $\rho_e=2.5$ km, which is significantly smaller than the estimated thickness of the acceleration channel $L \approx 50-130$ km. For this gyration effect to be important, it is likely that some prior heating and pitch angle scattering would have to had taken place.
\section{Conclusions}
In this study we investigated the electron acceleration and subsequent wave generation and wave-particle interaction at magnetic reconnection separatrices in the magnetotail. We summarize our conclusions below
\begin{itemize}
\item Adjacent to the reconnection exhaust, we found relatively thin regions of electron lobe populations accelerated towards the X line. The electrons were accelerated to energies of 1-7 keV, several times the thermal energies within the lobe, and a significant fraction of the thermal energies inside the outflow.
\item All acceleration regions were associated with density cavities. The decrease in densities from the lobes to the acceleration channels increased with increasing acceleration potential, consistent with theoretical predictions.
\item For two acceleration channels presented in more detail, we could observe how the lobe populations were gradually accelerated. For one of them, the resulting beam became significantly weaker closer to the plasma sheet.
\item Electrostatic solitary waves observed in the acceleration regions had phase speeds proportional to the beam speeds. The potentials of the waves were large enough such that the waves could interact efficiently with a large part of the electron population, including the beam. This indicates that the waves play an important role in controlling the evolution of the beam, aiding to thermalize it.
\item For one acceleration channel we investigated the instability of the evolving electron distribution and found that it could account for the observed wave properties. When the beam had been accelerated to moderate speeds, it was unstable to a combination of competing Buneman and electron acoustic instabilities, generating waves at low phase speeds. When the beam had been accelerated to larger speeds and had become weaker, the distribution was unstable to an electron beam-mode instability, generating waves at larger speeds.
\end{itemize}
For the events that we have examined, these wave-particle interaction ranges presented above represent the typical conditions when ESWs are observed. This shows the efficiency with which waves are able to turn directed drift energy into thermal energy of the plasma. These results are not only applicable to magnetic reconnection, but to any process in which superthermal electron beams form.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\| \cdot \|$ denote the distance to the nearest integer. A sequence $(x_n)\lc$ of real numbers in $\ui$ has Poissonian pair correlations if
$$\frac{1}{N} \#\left\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N-1 : \|x_n - x_l\| \leq \frac{s}{N}\right\} \rightarrow 2s$$
for every real number $s \geq 0$ as $N \to \infty$.
The investigation of pair correlations of sequences was originally motivated by problems in quantum chaos, see e.g. \cite{AAL18} and the references therein. In the last few years, in particular the case of Poissonian pair correlations has also been studied from a purely mathematical point of view as this property is natural for a sequence of independently chosen random numbers drawn from the uniform distribution. Extensive research recently has been done in terms of metrical theory as well as for concrete sequences. An introduction to this topic and a collection of results is provided by \cite{LS2019}.
For example, it is known that any sequence $(x_n)\lc$ in $\ui$ which has Poissonian pair correlations is also uniformly distributed, i.e.
$$\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \#\{0 \leq n \leq N -1: x_n \in [a,b)\} = b-a$$
for all $0 \leq a < b \leq 1$ (this was independently proven in \cite{ALP18,GreLar,Stei17}). However, the converse is not true since for many explicit examples of classical low-discrepancy sequences, such as the Kronecker sequence $(\{n\alpha\})\lc$, the van der Corput sequence and certain digital $(t,1)$-sequences, it has been shown that they do not have Poissonian pair correlations (see e.g. \cite{LS2018}).
A generalization of most previously mentioned results to a multi-dimensional setting has recently been established in \cite{HinrEtAl2018}, see also \cite{Stei19} and \cite{Marklof19} for a slightly different approach and a more general analysis of higher dimensional pair correlations. In this work, we refer to the former concept. Therefore, let $\| \cdot \|_\infty$ denote a combination of the supremum-norm of a $d$-dimensional vector $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)}, \dots, x^{(d)}) \in \R^d$ with the distance to the nearest integer function $\|\cdot\|$ defined by
$$\| \bm{x} \|_\infty := \max(\|x^{(1)}\|, \dots, \|x^{(d)}\|).$$
A $d$-dimensional sequence $\xn \in \ui^d$ has Poissonian pair correlations if
\begin{equation}\label{equ:def_d}
\frac{1}{N} \#\left\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \leq \frac{s}{N^{1/d}}\right\} \rightarrow (2s)^d
\end{equation}
for every real number $s \geq 0$ as $N \to \infty$.
In analogy to the one-dimensional case it could be shown that sequences with this property are uniformly distributed in $\ui^d$ and that the $d$-dimensional Kronecker sequence $(\{n\bm{\alpha}\})\lc$ does not have Poissonian pair correlations for any $\bm{\alpha} \in \R^d$. However, whether the multi-dimensional analogues of other well-distributed one-dimensional point sequences---as Halton or digital $(t,d)$-sequences---have Poissonian pair correlations remained unanswered.
The motivation behind the present paper was to close this gap. Before the presentation of our results, let us briefly review the construction of the considered sequences.
\subsection{Digital $(t,d)$-sequences}
\label{sec:digital_sequences}
A widely used class of low-discrepancy sequences for numerical integration methods are $(t,d)$-sequences that are generated via the digital method:
\\
\textit{
Let $d \in \NN$, let $\F_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements and characteristic $p$ and let $\phi: \F_q \to \{0, 1, \dots, q-1\}$ be a bijection satisfying $\phi(0)=0$. Further, let $C^{(1)},\ldots, C^{(d)}\in\FF_q^{\NN\times \NN_0}$, be given generating matrices, where we assume that each column of such a matrix contains only finitely many nonzero entries. We construct a sequence $\xn$, $\bm{x}_n = (x_n^{(1)}, \dots, x_n^{(d)})$, by generating the $j$-th component of the $n$-th point, $x_n^{(j)}$, as follows. We represent $n = n_0 + n_1q + n_2q^2 + \dots$ in base $q$ and set
$$C^{(j)} \cdot (\phi^{-1}(n_0), \phi^{-1}(n_1), \dots)^\top =: (y^{(j)}_1, y^{(j)}_2, \dots)^\top \in \FF_q^{\NN}$$
and
$$x_n^{(j)} := \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{\phi(y_i^{(j)})}{q^{i}}.$$
}
The distribution properties of the constructed sequence $\xn$ strongly depend on the generating matrices $C^{(1)},\ldots, C^{(d)}$.
If for every $m \in \NN$ and for all $r_1, \dots, r_d \in \NN_0$ with $r_1 + \dots + r_d = m-t$, $t \in \NN_0$,
the set of row vectors
$$\{(c^{(j)}_{r,k})_{0 \leq k < m}: j \in \{1, \dots, d\}, r \in \{1, \dots, r_j\}\}$$
is linearly independent over $\F_q$, then $\xn$ is a $(t,d)$-sequence in base $q$, i.e. for all integers $m > t$ and $s \in \NN_0$ the point set $(\bm{x}_n)_{sq^m \leq n < (s+1)q^m}$ has the property that any elementary interval of order $m-t$, that is any interval of the form
$$I(v_1, \dots, v_d) := \prod_{j = 1}^d \Big[\frac{a_j}{q^{v_j}},\frac{a_j+1}{q^{v_j}}\Big)$$
with $v_1 + \dots + v_d = m-t$ and $a_j \in \{0,1, \dots, q^{v_j}-1\}$,
contains exactly $q^t$ points. For more detailed information on $(t,d)$-sequences and their construction we refer to \cite{DP10,N92} and the references therein.
The more specific notion of $(t, \bse, d)$-sequences, where $t \in \NN_0$ and $\bse = (e_1, \dots, e_d)$, was introduced by Tezuka in \cite{Tez13} and analyzed e.g. in \cite{HoNi13}. For constructing such sequences, for all $r_1, \dots, r_d \in \NN_0$ such that $e_1r_1 + \dots + e_dr_d \leq m-t$, the set of row vectors
$$\{(c^{(j)}_{r,k})_{0 \leq k < t + \sum_{j=1}^{d}e_jr_j}: j \in \{1, \dots, d\}, r \in \{1, \dots, e_jr_j\}\}$$
has to be linearly independent over $\FF_q$.
Then, for all integers $m > t$ and $s \in \NN_0$ the point set $([\bm{x}_n]_{q,m})_{sq^m \leq n < (s+1)q^m}$, where $[\bm{x}_n]_{q,m}$ denotes the coordinate-wise $q$-ary $m$-digit truncation of the point $\bm{x}_n$, satisfies that for any $v_1, \dots, v_d \in \NN_0$ with $e_1v_1 + \dots + e_d v_d \leq m-t$, the elementary interval $I(e_1v_1, \dots, e_dv_d)$ contains exactly $q^{m - (e_1v_1 + \dots + e_d v_d)}$ points.
Note that a $(t,d)$-sequence in base $q$ is identical to a $(t,\bse, d)$-sequence in base $q$ if $\bse = (1, \dots, 1)$. Moreover, it is known that any $(u,\bse,d)$-sequence in base $q$ is a $(t,d)$-sequence in base $q$ with $t = u + \sum_{j = 1}^d (e_j-1)$.
It is a non-trivial task to find or construct matrices satisfying such strict conditions on their rank structure. One famous example was given by Niederreiter \cite{Nie88}.
\\
\textit{
For a given dimension $d \in \NN$ we choose $q_1(x), \dots, q_d(x) \in \FF_q[x]$ to be monic non-constant pairwise co-prime polynomials over $\FF_q$ of degrees $e_j:=\deg{q_j(x)} \geq 1$ for $j \in \{1, \dots, d\}$. Set $\bse=(e_1, \dots, e_d)$. Now the $i$-th row of the $j$-th generating matrix $C^{(j)}$, denoted by $\rho^{(j)}_i$, is constructed as follows. We choose $s \in \NN$ and $r \in \{0, \dots, e_j-1\}$ such that $i = e_j s - r$, consider the expansion
$$\frac{x^r}{q_j(x)^s}=\sum_{k \geq 0} a^{(j)}(s,r,k)x^{-k-1} \in \FF_q((x^{-1}))$$ and set
$\rho^{(j)}_i=(a^{(j)}(s,r,k))_{k\geq 0}$.
}
It is easy to check that the generating matrices are non-singular upper triangular $(NUT)$ matrices over $\FF_q$. Furthermore, they generate digital $(0,\bse,d)$- and $(t,d)$-sequences over $\FF_q$ with $t = \sum_{j = 1}^{d}(e_j-1)$ (see e.g. \cite{Tez13, HoNi13}).
An alternative column by column construction method for generating matrices was introduced in \cite{hofer}.
\\
\textit{
We choose $d \in \NN$ pairwise co-prime, monic non-constant polynomials $q_1(x), \dots, q_d(x) \in\FF_q[x]$ and denote their degrees, which are all positive, by $e_1,\ldots,e_d$. For $k \in \NN_0$, we construct the $k$-th column of the $j$-th generating matrix $C^{(j)}$, denoted by $\sigma^{(j)}_k = (\sigma^{(j)}_{t,k})_{t \geq 1}$, by using the representation of $x^{k}$ in terms of powers of $q_j(x)$, i.e., $x^k = \sum_{s\geq 0} b_s(x) q_j^s(x)$ with $b_s(x) \in \FF_q[x]$ satisfying $\deg{b_s(x)} < e_j$. This representation can be computed as follows:
\begin{align*}
x^k &= a_0(x) q_j(x)+b_0(x),\quad \text{ where } a_0(x), b_0(x) \in \FF_q[x] \text{ such that } \deg{b_0(x)} < e_j,\\
a_0(x) &= a_1(x) q_j(x)+b_1(x),\quad \text{ where } a_1(x), b_1(x)\in \FF_q[x] \text{ such that } \deg{b_1(x)} < e_j,\\
& \,\,\, \vdots \,\,\, .
\end{align*}
Note that there are just finitely many nonzero remainder polynomials $b_s(x)$.
Now we consider the representation of the remainder polynomial $b_s(x)$ in terms of powers of $x$, i.e. $b_s(x) = b_{s,0} + b_{s,1}x + \dots + b_{s,e_j - 1}x^{e_j - 1}$, and set
$$(\sigma^{(j)}_{e_js+1,k}, \sigma^{(j)}_{e_js+2,k}, \dots, \sigma^{(j)}_{e_js+e_j,k}):= (b_{s,0},b_{s,1}, \dots, b_{s,e_j-1}).$$
}
The matrices $C^{(1)}, \dots, C^{(d)}$ are $NUT$ matrices and generate a $(0, \bse, d)$-sequence in base $q$. (Cf. \cite[proof of Theorem~1]{hofer}).
For both of these methods of constructing generating matrices of digital sequences, we analyze the left hand side of \eqref{equ:def_d} and obtain our first main result.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Niederreiter}
The digital $(0, \bm{e}, d)$-sequences with generating matrices $C^{(1)}, \dots, C^{(d)}$ obtained via the Niederreiter construction or the alternative column by column approach do not have Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Halton Sequences}
Other multi-dimensional point sequences which are of wide interest and which can be seen as the extension of the van der Corput sequence to higher dimensions are Halton sequences \cite{halton}.
\\
\textit{
Let $d \in \N$, $b_1, \dots, b_d\geq 2$ be pairwise relatively prime integers and for $b\geq 2$ let $\phi_b: \N_0 \to \ui$ be the $b$-adic radical inverse function, defined as
$$\phi_b(n) := \frac{n_0}{b} + \frac{n_1}{b^2} + \dots$$
where $n = n_0 + n_1b + \dots$ with $n_i \in \{0, \dots, b-1\}$ for $i \in \N_0$ is the unique base $b$ representation of $n$. The Halton sequence in bases $b_1, \dots, b_d$ is the sequence $\xn$ in $[0,1)^d$ whose elements are given by
$$\bm{x}_n = (\phi_{b_1}(n), \dots, \phi_{b_d}(n)).$$
}
Again, see e.g. \cite{DP10} for more details.
The question whether Halton sequences have Poissonian pair correlations was posed in \cite{HinrEtAl2018} and also stated as Problem~5 in \cite{LS2019}, although it was suggested that this is most likely not the case. It turns out that this conjecture indeed is true.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Halton}
The Halton sequence $\xn$ in pairwise relatively prime integer bases $b_1, \dots, b_d$, $d \in \NN$, does not have Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{thm}
Of course, it typically is expected that multi-dimensional versions of sequences have similar qualities as their one-dimensional analogues. However, it should be mentioned that an exceptional behaviour of Halton sequences has been observed for the instance of the $L_p$-discrepancy for $p<\infty$. Recently, Levin proved that higher-dimensional Halton sequences have optimal order of $L_p$-discrepancy \cite{levin}, even though the one-dimensional van der Corput sequence does not satisfy optimal $L_p$-discrepancy bounds (see e.g. \cite{pill}).
\\
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The key ingredient for the proofs of Theorem \ref{thm:Niederreiter} and Theorem \ref{thm:Halton} is a general tool stated as Proposition \ref{thm:general_result} at the beginning of the next section. It identifies regularity conditions of sequences which are sufficient for failing Poissonian pair correlations. Verifying these conditions for both, Niederreiter and Halton sequences, is not trivial and therefore takes the majority of Section \ref{sec:proofs}. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:discussion} we give an outlook to future research tasks and discuss a problem in algebraic number theory and Diophantine approximation that occurred during the investigation of Halton sequences.
\section{Proofs}\label{sec:proofs}
The property of Poissonian pair correlations can be seen as local quality criterion for a sequence $\xn$ to be uniformly distributed. Therefore, one might suggest that deterministically generated sequences which show a certain degree of regularity do not enjoy this feature. In fact, this is the statement of the following proposition, which serves as one of our key tools for the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:Niederreiter} and \ref{thm:Halton}.
\begin{prop}
\label{thm:general_result}
Let $\xn$ be a sequence in $\ui^d$.
If there exists a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers $(N_k)_{k \in \N}$ such that $(\bm{x}_{n})_{0 \leq n < N_k}$ fulfills
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:estimate}
\#\Big\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N_k-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \in \Big(\frac{a}{N_k^{1/d}},\frac{b}{N_k^{1/d}}\Big]\Big\} \geq c N_k
\end{equation}
for all $k$ larger than some index $k_0$ and where $a,b,c > 0$ are real constants which satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:assumption_a_b_c}
c > (2b)^d - (2a)^d>0,
\end{equation}
then $\xn$ does not have Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
To begin with, assume that $\xn$ has Poissonian pair correlations. We use this property for $s = b$ and obtain
$$\frac{1}{N_k} \#\Big\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N_k-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \leq \frac{b}{N_k^{1/d}}\Big\} \rightarrow (2b)^d $$
as $N_k \to \infty$. It holds that
\begin{align*}
\#\Big\{0 &\leq n \neq l \leq N_k-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \leq \frac{b}{N_k^{1/d}}\Big\} \\
&= \#\Big\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N_k-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \leq \frac{a}{N_k^{1/d}}\Big\} \\
&\quad + \#\Big\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N_k-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \in \Big(\frac{a}{N_k^{1/d}},\frac{b}{N_k^{1/d}}\Big]\Big\} \\
&=: A + B.
\end{align*}
Therefore, for any $\varepsilon_1 > 0$ there exists an index $k(\varepsilon_1)$ such that for all $k > k(\varepsilon_1)$ we have
$$\frac{A}{N_k} + \frac{B}{N_k} \leq (2b)^d + \varepsilon_1.$$
For sufficiently large $N_k$ we can use the assumptions \eqref{eq:estimate} and obtain
$$\frac{A}{N_k} \leq (2b)^d + \varepsilon_1 - \frac{B}{N_k} \leq (2b)^d + \varepsilon_1 - c.$$
Now consider $A/N_k$ which tends to $(2a)^d$ as $N_k \to \infty$ by the property of Poissonian pair correlations for $s = a$.
Again this implies that for any $\varepsilon_2 > 0$ there is an index $k(\varepsilon_2)$ such that for all $k > k(\varepsilon_2)$ it holds that
$$\frac{A}{N_k} \geq (2a)^d - \varepsilon_2.$$
By assumption \eqref{eq:assumption_a_b_c}, there exists $\kappa > 0$ such that
$$c = (2b)^d - (2a)^d + \kappa.$$
However, if $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_2$ are chosen such that $\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2 < \kappa$ and provided that $N_k$ is sufficiently large we have
$$(2a)^d - \varepsilon_2\leq \frac{A}{N_k} \leq (2b)^d + \varepsilon_1 - c$$
and
$$c\leq (2b)^d-(2a)^d+ \varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2<(2b)^d - (2a)^d + \kappa=c,$$
which yields the desired contradiction to our assumption that $\xn$ has Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{proof}
In the light of Proposition \ref{thm:general_result}, the key ingredient for proving that Niederreiter and Halton sequences do not have Poissonian pair correlations therefore is to find enough pairs of points, for which the distance between those points can be suitably well calculated and lies in a rather small interval.
\subsection{Application to digital sequences}
For the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Niederreiter} we need some preliminary results.
\begin{lemma}(\cite[Prop.1]{FauTez})\label{lem:2}
Let $C^{(1)},\ldots,C^{(d)}$ be the generating matrices of a digital $(t,\bse,d)$-sequence over $\FF_q$ and $S$ be a $NUT$ matrix in $\FF_q^{\NN_0\times\NN_0}$. Then $C^{(1)}S,\ldots,C^{(d)}S$ are generating matrices of a digital $(t,\bse,d)$-sequence over $\FF_q$.
\end{lemma}
In the following the quantity $L_f$ denotes the maximal row length considering the first $f$ rows of all generating matrices. More precisely, taking the matrix consisting of the first $f$ rows of each of the generating matrices, $L_f-1$ is the index of the last non-zero column (or $\infty$, if none exists).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:S}
Let $C^{(1)},\ldots,C^{(d)}$ be the generating matrices associated to the distinct monic non-constant pairwise co-prime polynomials $q_1(x),\ldots,q_d(x)$ with degrees $e_1,\ldots,e_d$ using one of the two constructions given in Section \ref{sec:digital_sequences}. We set $v:=\lcm(e_1,\ldots,e_d)$ and define the matrix $S\in\FF_q^{\NN_0\times\NN_0}$ as follows.
For $k\in\NN_0$, the $k$-th column $\sigma_k$ of $S$, is given by $\sigma_k = (b_0, b_1, \dots, b_{k-1}, 0, \dots)^\top$ where the $b_n$ are the coefficients of the following monic polynomial of degree $k$,
$$p_k(x)=x^{r_1}\prod_{i=1}^d q_i(x)^{(s_i+s_{i+1}+ \cdots +s_d)v/e_i} = \sum_{n\geq 0}b_nx^{n}.$$
Here the $s_i$ and $r_i$ are defined as follows
\begin{align*}
k &= dv s_d+r_d,& \, r_d \in\{0,\ldots,vd-1 \} \\
r_d &= (d-1)vs_{d-1}+r_{d-1},& \, r_{d-1}\in\{0,\ldots,v(d-1)-1\} \\
&\,\,\,\vdots & \vdots \,\,\, \\
r_2&= v s_1+r_1,& \, r_1\in\{0,\ldots,v-1\}.
\end{align*}
Then the matrices $C^{(1)}S, \dots, C^{(d)}S$ generate a digital $(0,\bse,d)$-sequence and satisfy $L_f\leq d f$ provided that $v|f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the Niederreiter construction see \cite{HoPi12}, for the column by column construction note the linearity of the construction algorithm and the fact that $(1,x,x^2,\ldots,x^k)$ as well as $(1,p_1(x),p_2(x),\ldots,p_k(x))$ form a base of $\{p\in\FF_q[x]: \deg(p)\leq k\}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{refproof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Niederreiter}.]
We again may assume $d\geq 2$ as the one-dimensional case was treated already in \cite{LS2018}. Let $q_j(x)$, $j \in \{1, \dots, d\}$ be monic non-constant pairwise co-prime polynomials over $\FF_q$ of degrees $e_j \geq 1$ and let $C^{(j)}$ denote the corresponding generating matrices constructed via the Niederreiter or the alternative column by column approach. Moreover, let $m$ be a multiple of $v = \lcm(e_1, \dots, e_d)$ times $d$, i.e. $m = kvd$ with $k \in \NN$, let $M_m = q^m$ and $N_m = 2q^m$.
The sequence $(\bsx_n)\lc$ constructed via the digital method is a $(0,\bse, d)$-sequence, therefore any elementary interval with volume $q^{-m}$ of the form
$$I(vk, \dots, vk) = \prod_{j=1}^d\left[\frac{a_j}{q^{vk}},\frac{a_j+1}{q^{vk}}\right)$$
where $0 \leq a_j < q^{vk}$, contains exactly one point $\bsx_n$ with $n \in \{0, 1, \dots, M_m-1\}$ and one point $\bsx_l$ with $l \in \{M_m, M_m +1, \dots, N_m -1\}$. The idea of the proof then is to find infinitely many suitable values of $m$ such that the distances between the elements $\bsx_n$ and $\bsx_l$ are similar for many $n$ and $l$, respectively, in order to apply Proposition \ref{thm:general_result}.
To begin with, for arbitrary $n = n_0 + n_1q + \dots$ and $l = l_0 + l_1q + \dots$ we define
$$\Delta_{n,l} := (\phi^{-1}(l_0), \phi^{-1}(l_1), \dots, \phi^{-1}(l_{m}))^\top - (\phi^{-1}(n_0), \phi^{-1}(n_1), \dots, \phi^{-1}(n_{m}))^\top \in \FF_q^{m+1}.$$
Note that $n_m=0$ and $l_m=1$.
The elements $\bsx_n$ and $\bsx_l$ lie in the same elementary interval $I(vk, \dots, vk)$ if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:last_column_D}
D_{m\times (m+1)}\Delta_{n,l} = (0, \dots, 0)^\top,
\end{equation}
where $D_{m\times (m+1)} \in \FF_q^{m \times (m+1)}$ is the $(m \times (m+1))$-matrix whose rows consist of the rows of each upper left $(kv \times (m+1))$-submatrix of $C^{(j)}$, $j \in \{1, \dots, d\}$. Note that $D_{m\times (m+1)}$ has rank $m$.
Furthermore, let $S_{m+1}$ be the upper left $((m+1) \times (m+1))$-submatrix of $S$ defined in Lemma \ref{lem:S}. Since $S_{m+1}$ is regular we can rewrite
\begin{align*}
D_{m\times (m+1)} \Delta_{n,l} = D_{m\times (m+1)} S_{m+1} S^{-1}_{m+1}\Delta_{n,l}.
\end{align*}
Since $0 \leq n < M_m$, $M_m \leq l < N_m$ and both, $S_{m+1}$ and $S^{-1}_{m+1}$ are $NUT$ matrices with 1s in the diagonal, we have
$$S^{-1}_{m+1}\Delta_{n,l} = \begin{pmatrix}\bm{d}\\\phi^{-1}(1)\end{pmatrix}$$
with $\bm{d} \in \FF_q^m$.
Moreover, from Lemma \ref{lem:S} with $f = kv$ it follows that the last column of the product
$D_{m\times (m+1)} S_{m+1}$
consists of zeros exclusively. From \eqref{eq:last_column_D} it therefore follows that $\bm{d}$ is the zero vector in $\FF_q^m$, i.e.
$$S^{-1}_{m+1}\Delta_{n,l} = \begin{pmatrix} \bm 0 \\ \phi^{-1}(1) \end{pmatrix},$$
or equivalently after multiplying with $S_{m+1}$ from the left,
$\Delta_{n,l}$ equals $\phi^{-1}(1)$ times the $(m+1)$-st column of $S_{m+1}$, which is determined by the representation of the polynomial
$$p_m(x)=\prod_{i=1}^dq_i(x)^{vk/e_i}$$
in terms of powers of $x$.
We now have to find specific choices of $m$ or $k$, respectively, such that we obtain special $\Delta_{n,l}$ in order to apply Proposition \ref{thm:general_result}. Therefore, let
$$\tau_i:=\min \{r \in \NN: q_i^{rv/e_i}(x) \equiv 1 \pmod{q_j^{v/e_j}(x)} \text{ for every } j \neq i\}.$$
Then we use the characteristic $p$ of the finite field $\FF_q$ and the fact that for all $k \in \NN$ and $1 \leq l < p^k$ we have $\binom{p^k}{l}\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$. So whenever $u$ is a power of the characteristic of $\FF_q$ we have for all $f(x), g(x) \in \FF_q[x]$ that
$$(f(x)+g(x))^u=f^u(x)+g^u(x).$$
If we set $\theta:=\lcm(\tau_1 ,\ldots,\tau_d)$, we therefore have
$$q_i^{\theta v/e_i}(x)\equiv 1 \pmod{q_j^{v/e_j}(x)}$$
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prod_congruence}
\prod_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq j}}^{d} q_i^{uv\theta /e_i}(x)\equiv 1 \pmod{q_j^{uv/e_j}(x)}.
\end{equation}
Then let $m = uv\theta d$ and consider $C^{(j)}_{(m+1) \times (m+1)}\Delta_{n,l}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the matrix $C^{(j)}$ is constructed via the Niederreiter approach, then the $k$-th entry of $C^{(j)}_{(m+1) \times (m+1)}\Delta_{n,l}$ is the coefficient of $x^{-1}$ in the Laurent series expansion of
$$\phi^{-1}(1) \frac{x^r}{q_j^s(x)} \prod_{i = 1}^{d}q_i^{uv\theta/e_i}(x),$$
with $k = e_js - r$ and $r \in \{0,1, \dots, e_j-1\}$.
For $s \leq uv\theta/e_j$ and any admissible value of $r$, the expression above is a polynomial and therefore the coefficient of $x^{-1}$ in its Laurent series expansion is 0. For $uv\theta/e_j < s \leq uv\theta/e_j + uv/e_j$ we use \eqref{eq:prod_congruence} to get
$$\frac{x^r}{q_j^{s}(x)}\prod_{\substack{i = 1}}^{d}q_i^{uv\theta/e_i}(x) = x^rb(x) + \frac{x^r}{q_j^{s-uv\theta/e_j}(x)},$$
for some polynomial $b(x) \in \FF_q[x]$. Remember that $x^rq_j^{-(s-uv\theta/e_j)}(x)$ exactly determines row $e_j(s-uv\theta/e_j)-r$ of $C^{(j)}$ and that the coefficient of $x^{-1}$ of this expression is the entry in the first column. Since $C^{(j)}$ is a $NUT$ matrix with 1s in the diagonal we obtain
$$C^{(j)}_{m+1 \times m+1}\Delta_{n,l} = (\underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{uv\theta}, \phi^{-1}(1),\underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{uv-1}, a, \dots)^\top,$$
with $a \in \FF_q$.
\item In case that the matrix $C^{(j)}$ is constructed via the column by column approach, the entries of $C^{(j)}_{(m+1) \times (m+1)}\Delta_{n,l}$ are given by the coefficients of the representation of $\phi^{-1}(1)p_m(x)$ in terms of powers of $q_j(x)$. Using \eqref{eq:prod_congruence} we get
\begin{align*}
p_m(x) &= \prod_{i = 1}^{d} q_i^{uv\theta/e_i}(x) \\
&= q_j^{uv\theta/e_j}(x) \Big(\prod_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq j}}^d q_i^{uv\theta/e_i}(x)\Big) \\
&= q_j^{uv\theta/e_j}(x) \Big(1 + b(x) q_j^{uv/e_j}(x)\Big).
\end{align*}
for some polynomial $b(x) \in \FF_q[x]$.
Thus, here we also have
$$C^{(j)}_{(m+1) \times (m+1)}\Delta_{n,l} = (\underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{uv\theta}, \phi^{-1}(1),\underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{uv-1}, a, \dots)^\top,$$
with $a \in \FF_q$.
\end{enumerate}
Assume now that the $(uv\theta +1)$-st entry $y^{(1)}_{uv\theta+1}$ of $C^{(1)} \cdot (\phi^{-1}(n_0), \phi^{-1}(n_1), \dots)^\top$ fulfills
$$|\phi(y^{(1)}_{uv\theta + 1} + \phi^{-1}(1)) - \phi(y^{(1)}_{uv\theta + 1})| = \max\{|\phi(\alpha + \phi^{-1}(1)) - \phi(\alpha)|: \text{ for } \alpha \in \FF_q\} =: w\geq 1,$$
which is the case for at least $M_m/q$ many values of $n \in \{0, 1, \dots, M_m-1\}$. Then, for such $n$ it holds that
$$\|\bsx_n - \bsx_l\|_\infty \in \Big[\frac{w}{q^{uv\theta +1}} - \frac{1}{q^{uv\theta + uv}}, \frac{w}{q^{uv\theta +1}} + \frac{1}{q^{uv\theta + uv}} \Big).$$
Finally, let $\varepsilon > 0$ and set
$$a = 2^{1/d}\frac{w}{q} - \varepsilon, \qquad b = 2^{1/d}\frac{w}{q} + \varepsilon, \qquad c = \frac{1}{q}.$$
Thus, for $N_m = 2q^{m}$ with $m = uv\theta d$, where $u$ is a power of the characteristic of $\FF_q$, we have
$$\#\Big\{0 \leq n \neq l \leq N_m-1 : \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_{\infty} \in \Big(\frac{a}{N_m^{1/d}},\frac{b}{N_m^{1/d}}\Big]\Big\} \geq c N_m$$
provided that $u$ is chosen large enough.
However, since $\varepsilon$ can be chosen such that
$$ (2b)^d - (2a)^d = 2^d( (2^{1/d}\frac{w}{q} + \varepsilon)^d - (2^{1/d}\frac{w}{q} - \varepsilon)^d ) < \frac{1}{q} = c,$$
the assumptions of Proposition \ref{thm:general_result} are fulfilled and the considered sequences therefore do not have Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{refproof}
\subsection{Application to Halton sequences}
In order to be able to also apply Proposition \ref{thm:general_result} to Halton sequences, we again need a preliminary result, formulated as Lemma \ref{lem:nalpha_cluster_point} below.
However, this lemma makes use of \textit{Minkowski's Theorem} (see \cite{minkowski}) that states that if $C \subseteq \R^d$ is a convex set that is symmetric about the origin (i.e., $x \in C$ if and only if $-x \in C$) and with $\vol(C) > 2^d m$, then there are at least $m$ different points $\bsz_1, \dots, \bsz_m$ such that $\pm \bsz_1, \dots, \pm \bsz_m \in C \cap \Z^d \setminus \{0\}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:nalpha_cluster_point}
Let $d \in \N$ and $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_d$ be irrational. Then the sequence $(\{n \bm{\alpha}\})\lc$ in $\ui^d$ with $\{n \bm{\alpha}\} = (\{n\alpha_1\}, \dots, \{ n\alpha_d\})$ has an accumulation point in
$$D:= \{(\delta_1, \dots, \delta_d): \delta_j \in \{0,1\}, j \in \{1, \dots, d\}\}.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $N \in \N$ and arbitrary $\varepsilon_j > 0$, $j \in \{1, \dots, d\}$, define $C_N \in \R^{d+1}$,
$$C_N:=\{(x_0,x_1, \dots, x_d) \in \R^{d+1}: |\alpha_j x_0 - x_j| \leq \varepsilon_j, j \in \{1, \dots, d\}, |x_0| \leq N\}.$$
The set $C$ is convex and symmetric about the origin with
$$\text{vol}(C) = 2^{d+1} N \prod_{j = 1}^d\varepsilon_j.$$
Therefore, if $N > m / (\prod_{j = 1}^d\varepsilon_j)$, we have $\text{vol}(C) > 2^{d+1} m$ and, by Minkowski's Theorem, there exist $m$ different elements $\bsz_i = (z_i^{(0)}, z_i^{(1)}, \dots, z_i^{(d)})$, $i \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ with $\bsz_i \in C \cap \Z^{d+1} \setminus \{0\}$ and $z_i^{(0)} \geq 0$. Moreover, for those elements it holds that $|\alpha_j z_i^{(0)} - z_i^{(j)}|\leq \varepsilon_j$, thus $\{\alpha_j z_i^{(0)}\} \in (0,\varepsilon_j] \cup [1-\varepsilon_j,1)$ for all $j \in \{1, \dots, d\}$. Note that, if $\varepsilon_j$ are chosen small enough the integers $z_i^{(0)}$ will be distinct.
\end{proof}
\begin{refproof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Halton}.]
For $d=1$ we have to consider the van der Corput sequence for which it is well-known that it does not have Poissonian pair correlations. Hence we assume $d\geq 2$ in the following.
Let $b_1, \dots, b_d$ be pairwise relatively prime integers and let $\xn$ denote the Halton sequence in bases $b_1, \dots, b_d$. Without loss of generality we assume $b_1 < b_j$ for all $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$.
Let $u \in \N\setminus\{1\}$ and define
\begin{align*}
P_1 &:= \prod_{j = 2}^{d}b_j^2, \qquad
P_i := b_1^u\left( \prod_{\substack{j = 2 \\ j \neq i}}^{d}b_j^2 \right), \\
\tau_1 &:= \min\{1 \leq l \leq P_1: b_1^{ul} \equiv 1 \pmod{P_1}\}, \\
\tau_i &:= \min\{1 \leq l \leq P_i: b_i^{2l} \equiv 1 \pmod{P_i}\}
\end{align*}
for all $i \in \{2, \dots, d\}$. Such $\tau_1, \tau_i$ exist as $\gcd(P_1,b_1)=\gcd(P_i,b_i)=1$ and $d\geq 2$.
Similar as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Niederreiter} we define for $\bm{k} = (k_1, \dots, k_d)\in\N_0^d$ numbers $N_{\bm{k}}\in\N$ and corresponding subintervals
$$I := I(u\tau_1k_1, 2\tau_2k_2, \dots, 2\tau_dk_d) =\left[\frac{a_1}{b_1^{u\tau_1k_1}},\frac{a_1+1}{b_1^{u\tau_1k_1}}\right)\times\prod_{j=2}^d\left[\frac{a_j}{b_j^{2\tau_jk_j}},\frac{a_j+1}{b_j^{2\tau_jk_j}}\right),$$
where $0 \leq a_1 < b_1^{u\tau_1k_1}$ and $0\leq a_j<b_j^{2\tau_jk_j}$ for $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$, and study the distances between the points $\bm{x}_n$ that lie in the same subinterval $I$.
Now let
\begin{align*}
M &= M(\bm{k}) := b_1^{u\tau_1k_1} \left(\prod_{j = 2}^{d} b_j^{2\tau_j k_j}\right), \\
L &= L(\bm{k}) := b_1^{u\tau_1k_1+1} \left(\prod_{j = 2}^{d} b_j^{2\tau_j k_j+1}\right).
\end{align*}
By a special regularity of the sequence, which is an easy consequence of the Chinese Remainder Theorem, we have that exactly $\prod_{j = 1}^{d}b_j$ points of the first $L$ points and exactly one point of the subsequent $M$ points of the sequence lie in $I$. Moreover, $\bm{x}_{n+M}\in I$ if and only if $\bm{x}_{n}\in I$.
We set $N_{\bm{k}}:=L+M$ and study $\|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n + M}\|_\infty$ for $0\leq n<L$.
By $(n)_{b_j}$ we denote the digit representation of $n$ in base $b_j$, i.e. for $n = n_0 + n_1 b_j + n_2 b_j^2 + \dots$ we have $(n)_{b_j} = (n_0, n_1, n_2, \dots)$. Note that obviously $b_1^{u\tau_1k_1} |M$ and $b_j^{2\tau_jk_j}|M$. By the choice of $\tau_1$ and $\tau_j$ we have
$$b_1^{u\tau_1} \equiv 1 \pmod{b_j^2}$$
and also for $i \neq j$,
$$\qquad b_i^{2\tau_i}\equiv 1 \pmod{b_j^{2}} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad b_i^{2\tau_i}\equiv 1 \pmod{b_1^{u}}.$$
Therefore,
$$\prod_{i = 2}^d b_i^{2\tau_ik_i} \equiv 1 \pmod{b_1^u} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad b_1^{u\tau_1k_1}\prod_{i=2,i\neq j}^db_i^{2\tau_ik_i}\equiv 1 \pmod{b_j^{2}}.$$
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Mdigits}
\begin{split}
(M)_{b_1} &= (\underbrace{0,\dots, 0}_{u\tau_1k_1}, 1, \underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_{u -1}, m_{u\tau_1 k_1 + u}, \dots), \\
(M)_{b_j} &= (\underbrace{0,\dots, 0}_{2\tau_j k_j}, 1, 0, m_{2\tau_j k_j + 2}, \dots).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now consider $\|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n + M}\|_\infty = \sup_{j \in \{1, \dots, d\}} \|x^{(j)}_n - x^{(j)}_{n + M}\|$. If for $(n)_{b_1}$ it holds that if $n_{u\tau_1 k_1} \neq b_1 -1$ then by \eqref{eq:Mdigits} the first $u \tau_1 k_1 + u$ entries except of $(u \tau_1 k_1+1)$-st entry of $(n+M)_{b_1}$ and $(n)_{b_1}$ coincide. As $\sum_{i=m+1}^\infty \frac{b_1-1}{b_1^{i}}=\frac{1}{b_1^m}$
we have in the case where $n_{u \tau_1 k_1} \neq b_1-1$,
\begin{align*}
\|x^{(1)}_n - x^{(1)}_{n + M}\|
&\in \Big(\frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1k_1 +1}} - \frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + u}}, \frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1k_1 +1}} + \frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + u}}\Big).
\end{align*}
Similarly, for the other coordinates $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$ we obtain in the case where in $(n)_{b_j}$ we have $n_{2 \tau_j k_j} \neq b_j-1$,
\begin{align*}
\|x^{(j)}_n - x^{(j)}_{n + M}\|
&\in \Big(\frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_jk_j +1}} - \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 2}}, \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_jk_j +1}} + \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 2}}\Big).
\end{align*}
\ \\
Next, we want to find constants $\xi_j\geq 1$, $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:estimate_fraction}
\xi_j \leq \frac{b_j^{2\tau_jk_j +1}}{b_1^{u\tau_1k_1 +1}} \leq \xi_j f(u)
\end{equation}
with
$$f(u) := \left(\frac{1+b_1^{1-u}}{1-b_1^{1-u}}\right)^{\frac{d}{d-1}}$$
is simultaneously fulfilled for infinitely many $\bm{k} = (k_1, k_2, \dots, k_d) \in \N_0^d$ and thus also for infinitely many $N_{\bm{k}} = M + L$. Therefore, we define $\beta_1 := b_1^{u \tau_1}$ and $\beta_j := b_j^{2\tau_j}$ for $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$. The inequalities in \eqref{eq:estimate_fraction} are then equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:xi}
\log_{\beta_j}\Big(\xi_j\frac{b_1}{b_j}\Big) + k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1) \leq k_j \leq \log_{\beta_j}\Big(\xi_j f(u)\frac{b_1}{b_j}\Big) + k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1).
\end{equation}
Moreover, we consider the sequence $(\{n \bm{\alpha}\})\lc \in \ui^{d-1}$ with $\{n \bm{\alpha} \} = (\{n \alpha_2\}, \dots, \{n \alpha_d\})$ and $\alpha_j = \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1) \in \R \setminus \mathbb{Q}$.
Let now $(\delta_2, \dots, \delta_d) \in \{0,1\}^{d-1}$ denote an accumulation point of this sequence which exists by Lemma \ref{lem:nalpha_cluster_point}.
We want to distinguish two cases:
If $\delta_j = 0$ we set
$$\xi_j := \frac{b_j}{b_1} \frac{1}{f(u)} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad k_j := \lfloor k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\rfloor.$$
Note that $\xi_j > 1$ if $u$ is large enough. The inequalities \eqref{eq:xi} are then equivalent to
$$\{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\} - \log_{\beta_j}(f(u)) \leq 0 \leq \{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\},$$
which is fulfilled if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta_0}
\{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\} \in \big[0, \log_{\beta_j}(f(u))\big].
\end{equation}
If $\delta_j = 1$ we set
$$\xi_j := \frac{b_j}{b_1} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad k_j := \lfloor k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\rfloor +1.$$
Again, $\xi_j > 1$ and \eqref{eq:xi} is equivalent to
$$\{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\} \leq 1 \leq \{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\} + \log_{\beta_j}(f(u)),$$
which is fulfilled if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta_1}
\{k_1 \log_{\beta_j}(\beta_1)\} \in \big[1-\log_{\beta_j}(f(u)),1\big].
\end{equation}
By the fact that $(\delta_2, \dots, \delta_d)$ is an accumulation point of $(\{n \bm{\alpha}\})\lc$ with $\bm{\alpha} = (\log_{\beta_2}(\beta_1), \dots, \log_{\beta_d}(\beta_1))$, conditions \eqref{eq:delta_0} and \eqref{eq:delta_1}, respectively, are fulfilled simultaneously for each $j = 2, \dots, d$ for infinitely many $k_1$. Since $k_j \geq 0$ for all $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$, we know that there are also infinitely many $N_{\bm{k}}$ such that \eqref{eq:estimate_fraction} is fulfilled.
We can now use this important estimate to deduce that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + 1}} - \frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + u}} > \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 1}} + \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 2}}
\end{align*}
for all $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$ and $u$ large enough.
This can be seen since
\begin{align*}
\frac{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 1}}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + 1}}\Big(1 - \frac{1}{b_1^{u -1}}\Big) &\geq \xi_j \Big(1 - \frac{1}{b_1^{u -1}}\Big) \\
&> \frac{b_j}{b_1} \frac{1}{f(u)}\Big(1 - \frac{1}{b_1^{u-1}}\Big) \\
&> \Big(1 + \frac{1}{b_j}\Big),
\end{align*}
where in the last step we used that $(1-1/b_1^{u-1})/f(u) \to 1$ as $u \to \infty$, and $b_j > b_1$.
Therefore, if in $(n)_{b_1}$ we have that $n_{u \tau k_1} \neq b_1 -1$ and in $(n)_{b_j}$, $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$ we have that $n_{2\tau_j k_j} \neq b_j-1$,
$$\|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n+M}\|_\infty = \|x_n^{(1)} - x_{n+M}^{(1)}\| \in \Big(\frac{1-b_1^{1-u}}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1}},\frac{1+b_1^{1-u}}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1}}\Big).$$
As next step, we want to establish suitable bounds for $\|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n+M}\|_\infty $ in order to be able to apply Proposition~\ref{thm:general_result}, i.e. we want to show that there exist $a$ and $b$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{a}{(L+M)^{1/d}} \leq \frac{1-b_1^{1-u}}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1}} < \frac{1+b_1^{1-u}}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1}} \leq \frac{b}{(L+M)^{1/d}},
\end{equation*}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a_b_Halton}
a^d \leq \frac{(1-b_1^{1-u})^d (L+M)}{(b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1})^d} < \frac{(1+b_1^{1-u})^d (L+M)}{(b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1})^d} \leq b^d.
\end{equation}
Note that
$$L+M = b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 +1}\left(\prod_{j = 2}^{d} b_j^{2\tau_j k_j+1}\right)\underbrace{\left(1 + \prod_{j = 1}^{d} b_j^{-1}\right)}_{:=\gamma^d}=L\gamma^d.$$
Using the estimate \eqref{eq:estimate_fraction} we find that \eqref{eq:a_b_Halton} is fulfilled if we choose
\begin{align*}
a^d &:= (1 - b_1^{1-u})^d \left(\prod_{j = 2}^d\xi_j\right)\gamma^d, \\
b^d &:= \frac{(1 + b_1^{1-u})^{2d}}{(1 - b_1^{1-u})^d} \left(\prod_{j = 2}^d\xi_j\right)\gamma^d.
\end{align*}
Hence we have shown that
$$\|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n+M}\|_\infty \in \Big(\frac{a}{(L+M)^{1/d}}, \frac{b}{(L+M)^{1/d}}\Big)$$
for $n \in \{0, \dots, L -1\}$ whenever in $(n)_{b_1}$ we have $n_{u \tau k_1} \neq b_1 -1$ and in $(n)_{b_j}$, $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$ we have $n_{2\tau_j k_j} \neq b_j-1$. Since this is the case for exactly $\big(\prod_{j = 1}^{d} \frac{b_j-1}{b_j}\big)L$ values of $n$ and each pair has to be counted twice in the pair correlation function, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\#\Big\{0 \leq n &\neq l \leq L+M-1: \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_l\|_\infty \in \Big(\frac{a}{(L+M)^{1/d}}, \frac{b}{(L+M)^{1/d}}\Big]\Big\} \\
&\geq \#\Big\{0 \leq n \leq L-1: \|\bm{x}_n - \bm{x}_{n+M}\|_\infty \in \Big(\frac{a}{(L+M)^{1/d}}, \frac{b}{(L+M)^{1/d}}\Big]\Big\} \\
&\geq 2 \Big(\prod_{j = 1}^{d}\frac{b_j-1}{b_j}\Big)\frac{L}{L+M} (L+M) \\
&= 2 \Big(\prod_{j = 1}^{d}\frac{b_j-1}{b_j}\Big) \frac{1}{\gamma^d}(L +M)=:c\cdot (L+M).
\end{align*}
In order to apply Proposition \ref{thm:general_result} it therefore has to hold that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:condition_on_c}
(2b)^d - (2a)^d < 2 \Big(\prod_{j = 1}^{d}\frac{b_j-1}{b_j}\Big) \frac{1}{\gamma^d}=c.
\end{align}
Using the definition of $a$ and $b$ and the fact that $\xi_j \leq b_j /b_1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
(2b)^d - (2a)^d &= 2^d \left(\prod_{j = 2}^d\xi_j\right) \gamma^d \Big(\frac{(1+b_1^{1-u})^{2d}}{(1-b_1^{1-u})^d} - (1- b_1^{1-u})^d\Big) \\
&\leq 2^d \left(\prod_{j = 2}^d\frac{b_j}{b_1}\right) \gamma^d \underbrace{\Big(\frac{(1+b_1^{1-u})^{2d} - (1- b_1^{1-u})^{2d}}{(1-b_1^{1-u})^d}\Big)}_{\text{tends to 0 for } u \to \infty}.
\end{align*}
Thus, if $u$ is chosen large enough, condition \eqref{eq:condition_on_c} is true and the Halton sequence in bases $b_1, \dots, b_d$ does not have Poissonian pair correlations.
\end{refproof}
\section{Discussion and Further Research}\label{sec:discussion}
Although Theorem \ref{thm:Niederreiter} of the present paper deals with a very prominent class of $(t,s)$-sequences, as a consequence of this result, of course a further research question is, whether other classes of $(t,s)$-sequences, as for example generalized Niederreiter sequences \cite{Tez93}, Niederreiter--Xing sequences \cite{NieXin} or even (digital) $(t,s)$-sequences in general, have the property of Poissonian pair correlation or not. \\
Furthermore, we would like to note an interesting relation of our method of proof to a conjecture in algebraic and transcendental number theory. During the search for a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Halton} we faced the problem to simultaneously satisfy the inequalities
\eqref{eq:xi} with $\xi_j\geq 1$ for infinitely many $(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_d)\in\NN_0^d$ to make sure that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + 1}} - \frac{1}{b_1^{u \tau_1 k_1 + u}} > \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 1}} + \frac{1}{b_j^{2 \tau_j k_j + 2}}
\end{align*}
for all $j \in \{2, \dots, d\}$ and $u$ large enough.
Note that if $1,\log_{\beta_2}\beta_1,\ldots,\log_{\beta_d}\beta_1$ were linearly independent over $\Q$ then the sequence $(\{n(\log_{\beta_2}\beta_1,\ldots,\log_{\beta_d}\beta_1)\})_{n\geq 0}\in[0,1)^{d-1}$ would be uniformly distributed in $[0,1)^{d-1}$. Such a statement would considerably shorten the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Halton}. Unfortunately, it is not known whether for example the three numbers $1/\log 2,1/\log 3,1/\log 5$ are linearly independent over $\Q$ or not. The algebraic independence of the logarithm of the prime numbers would be one consequence of the so-called Schanuel's conjecture in algebraic and transcendental number theory. We refer the interested reader to \cite{waldschmidt} for more details on this conjecture and its related problems.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Michel Waldschmidt for his e-mail correspondence concerning Schanuel's conjecture and the reciprocal of the logarithm of prime numbers.
|
\section*{Introduction}
Monolayers of transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs) possess a variety of excitonic excitations with large binding energy and oscillator strength, which enabled the extensive investigation of exciton physics in these ultrathin materials \cite{Wang2018,Manca2017,Christiansen2017,Steinhoff2017, Steinleitner2018,Kunstmann2018}. These excitons are built up from electron-hole pairs located at the $K$ and the $K'$ point in the first Brillouin zone, being selectively addressable by left (right) handed circularly polarized $\sigma^+$ ($\sigma^-$) light. Due to the spin-valley locking between $K$ and $K'$ point, this allows to create an excitonic spin-valley polarization\cite{Cao2012} (electron and hole spin $\uparrow$ or $\downarrow$), cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (a). Thus, TMDCs are considered to be promising materials for future spin-valleytronic applications\cite{Cao2012} and the valley lifetime describing the intrinsic relaxation time of selectively excited spin-valley excitons is of crucial importance. A complete microscopic understanding of the underlying processes is missing so far.
The spin polarized valley dynamics was investigated experimentally\cite{Cui2012,Wang2013,Moody2016,Smolenski2016,Schmidt2016,Plechinger2017,McCormick2018} and theoretically\cite{Yu2014,Glazov2014,Wang2014,Wang2014b,Dery2015}: The measured polarizations of the emitted light after circular excitation (spin $\uparrow$, cf. figure \ref{schema} (a)) are typically on the order some ten \% in photoluminescence\cite{Moody2016,Smolenski2016} and the valley lifetimes, i.e. the time which is required to equalize the populations in both valleys, are on the order of hundreds of fs to few ps in pump probe experiments\cite{Wang2013,Conte2015,Schmidt2016,Wang2018,ZWang2018}. As possible candidates for the underlying spin polarization decay via intervalley coupling, pure spin flip mechanisms such as Dyakonov-Perel\cite{Wang2014,Wang2014b}, Elliot Yafet\cite{Wang2014b} mechanisms and the Silva-Sham mechanism\cite{Maialle1993,Vinattieri1994,Glazov2014,Yu2014} have been considered.The latter does not require a single electronic spin flip but flipping both, electron and hole spin at the same time, and is called intervalley exchange coupling (IEC) mechanism in the literature\cite{Qiu2015,Selig2019b}.
The Dyakonov-Perel mechanism appears in semiconductors without inversion symmetry leading to the formation of an effective magnetic field. In this effective magnetic field the electronic spin precesses which leads to a relaxation of the electron spin.
The Elliot Yafet mechanism appears in materials with strong spin orbit coupling. In such materials, the electronic spin is not a well defined quantum number any more with the result that any scattering event can change the spin. Both spin relaxation mechanisms have been shown to occur on picosecond timescales for in-plane spins\cite{Wang2014,Wang2014b} exceeding the experimentally observed sub picosecond risetime of the nonlinear optical response in the unpumped valley shortly after the optical excitation \cite{Schmidt2016,ZWang2018}. On longer timescales, relevant for the emission from the thermalized excitons, these mechanisms may become important.
Last, the IEC couples both valleys at the $K$ and $K'$ point through a dipole-dipole interaction flipping both, electron and hole spin at the same time. It was identified as the source of the fast intervalley transfer shortly after the optical excitation \cite{Schmidt2016}. However, since the IEC requires momentum, spin and energy conservation\cite{Glazov2014,Yu2014,Selig2019b} it does not apply for momentum-dark excitons or excitons with opposite spin of the constituent carriers forming the exciton. However, these states can be populated by exciton-phonon scattering and depending on their energetic position (below and above the bright state), they have been demonstrated to be crucial to understand the emission properties of TMDCs \cite{Zhang2015,Selig2018,Lindlau2018,Brem2019b,Glazov2019}. The question arises how thermalization into these momentum-dark exciton states affects the intervalley exchange coupling and the spin polarization.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{schema2}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Schematic illustration of the excitonic scattering mechanisms.} Blue bands denote spin up electrons and holes whereas red bands illustrate spin down bands respectively. (a) Excitons at the $K$ ($K'$) valley couple to left (right) handed polarized light. (b) The direct excitons ($(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$) with same center of mass momentum $\mathbf{Q} = \mathbf{k}_e - \mathbf{k}_h$ are coupled through intervalley exchange coupling. (c) In MoX$_2$ excitons in $(K \uparrow , K\uparrow )$ states can scatter to indirect $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ states whereas excitons in $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states can scatter to indirect $(K' \downarrow , K \downarrow)$ states. The scattering to $(K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow)$ states is prohibited through the large energetic mismatch. (d) In WX$_2$ excitons in $(K \uparrow , K\uparrow )$ states can scatter to indirect $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ and $(K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow)$ exciton states whereas excitons in $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states can scatter to indirect $(K' \downarrow , K \downarrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow)$ states. At the arrows, indicating the scattering process, we also give approximated effective relaxation rates at \unit[77]{K} which were extracted as $1-e^{-1}$ times from the numerical results. Note, that to the formation of $(K\uparrow,K'\uparrow)$ excitons in WSe$_2$ not only scattering from $(K\uparrow,K\uparrow)$ states, but even more pronounced scattering from $(K\uparrow,\Lambda\uparrow)$ states occurs.}
\label{schema}
\end{figure*}
To answer this question, we develop a theoretical model for IEC based on a Heisenberg equation of motion formalism \cite{Kochbuch,Thranhardt2000,Kira2006,Selig2019b}.
We account for the fact that the optical properties in TMDCs are determined by tightly bound excitons and introduce an excitonic Hamiltonian including exciton photon, exciton phonon and intervalley Coulomb exchange coupling of excitons describing the system dynamics\cite{Katsch2018}. This Hamiltonian includes the optical accessible states as well as indirect exciton states far beyond the light cone, which were discussed recently\cite{Wu2015,Qiu2015,Selig2016,Selig2018,Niehues2018,Selig2019b}.
It has been demonstrated that the IEC mechanism is responsible for the ultrafast population of the unpumped valley in the transient regime after optical excitation\cite{Schmidt2016,Selig2019b}, cf. figure \ref{schema} (b). This leads to photoluminescence from the unpumped valley on a sub-picosecond timescale. However, as we will discuss in the present study, we find significant differences in the intervalley relaxation between molybdenum and tungsten bases TMDCs. While in molybdenum based TMDCs, shortly after optical excitation of the $K$ valley, cf. figure \ref{schema} (a), most excitons occupy $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ states, and only a small amount of excitons scatter to $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ states, since these states are located slightly above the radiative cone, cf. figure \ref{schema} (c). The simultaneously occuring intervalley exchange coupling between $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states, cf. figure \ref{schema} (b), is very efficient since most of the excitons will thermalize in those states. In contrast, in tungsten based TMDCs, phonon mediated thermalization causes the relaxation of excitons to energetically low lying $(K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow)$ and $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$, cf. figure \ref{schema} (d). These states are inactive for the intervalley exchange coupling, since the required energy and momentum selection rules can not be fulfilled at the same time here. The thermalization into these states drastically reduces the amount of excitons in the $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ states, and as a results the intervalley exchange coupling efficiency is quenched. In particular the calculated timescales for the IEC exceed the timescales which were predicted for the spin relaxation of the Dyakonov-Perel and Elliot Yafet type \cite{Wang2014,Wang2014b}.
\section*{Theoretical Approach}
First we introduce an excitonic Hamiltonian including exciton-photon, exciton-phonon and exciton-exciton Coulomb exchange coupling. We restrixt the description of excitonic correlations to the second order of the exciting field\cite{Thranhardt2000}. This Hamiltonian is discussed in detail in the supplementary material. To access the excitonic wavefunction and energy dispersion, we exploit the Wannier equation, where the used Coulomb potential takes into account the dielectric environment and is treated beyond the Rytova-Keldysh limit\cite{Trolle2017}, taking the full momentum dependence of the dielectric function into account, which allows for a good approximation of screened Coulomb interaction obtained from DFT calculations\cite{Latini2015,Qiu2016,Steinhoff2017}. The parameters for the underlying electronic bandstructure and electron phonon couplings are taken from DFT calculations \cite{Kormanyos2015,Li2013,Jin2014}. To derive equations of motion from this Hamiltonian, we exploit Heisenbergs equation of motion. In the following we will discuss the required equations of motion in detail.
To discuss the photoemission dynamics, we calculate the photon number $n^\sigma_{\mathbf{K}K_z}$ of the emitted light with the three dimensional wave vector $(\mathbf{K},K_z)$, with $\mathbf{K}$ denoting the two-dimensional component within the semiconductor plane and $K_z$ its perpendicular component, and the polarization $\sigma = \sigma^+ , \sigma^-$ being defined as $n^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{K},K_z}=\langle c_{\mathbf{K},K_z}^{\dagger \sigma} c_{\mathbf{K},K_z}^{\sigma} \rangle$ via $c^{(\dagger) \sigma}_{\mathbf{K},K_z}$ denoting annihilation (creation) operators for photons\cite{Loudon}. The total photoluminescence intensity for a certain light polarization is found by summing the photon rate over all momenta $(\mathbf{K},K_z)$, i.e. $I^{\sigma}\propto \sum_{\mathbf{K},K_z} \omega_{\mathbf{K},K_z}\partial_t n_{\mathbf{K},K_z}^{\sigma}$, with the photon frequency $\omega_{\mathbf{K},K_z}$\cite{Thranhardt2000}, which, in Born Markov approximation reads\cite{Kochbuch,Thranhardt2000,Selig2018}
\begin{align}
I^{\sigma}\propto\frac{2 \pi}{\hbar}\hspace{-2pt}\sum_{{\mathbf{K},K_z},\xi} |d^{\xi \sigma}_{\mathbf{K}}|^2 \left( |\langle P_\mathbf{K}^{\xi\xi} \rangle|^2 + N_\mathbf{K}^{\xi\xi}\right)\delta( \Delta E^{\xi \sigma}_{\mathbf{K},K_z} ).\label{eqPL}
\end{align}
$I^\sigma$ is proportional to the amount of coherent ($|\langle P_\mathbf{K}^{\xi\xi} \rangle|^2$) and incoherent exciton density ($N_\mathbf{K}^{\xi\xi}$) within the light cone $|\mathbf{K}|\leq K_L = \frac{\omega^{1s}}{c}$ resulting from the delta function $\Delta E^{\xi \sigma}_{\mathbf{K},K_z}=E^{\xi}_\mathbf{K}-\hbar \omega^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{K},K_z}$ which ensures the energy conservation during the photon emission. Here, $E^{\xi}_\mathbf{K}$ denotes the excitonic energy. $\mathbf{d}^{\xi \sigma}_\mathbf{K}$ denotes the excitonic dipole matrix element (circular polarization $\sigma$ and valley $\xi$).
The incoherent exciton density is denoted by $ N_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi_h \xi_e}=\delta \langle P^{\dagger \xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} P^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} \rangle$, where we have introduced excitonic operators $P^{\xi_h\xi_e}_{\mu,\mathbf{Q}}$ \cite{HaugIvanov1993,Katsch2018,Lengers2019}, cp. Eq. S2 in the supplementary material, with the merged valley $i_{h/e}$ and spin $s_{h/e}$ index for holes and electron $\xi_{h/e} = (i_{h/e},s_{h/e})$, the excitonic state quantum number $\mu$ and the two-dimensional center of mass momentum $\mathbf{Q}$. Additionally, $\delta \langle .. \rangle$ accounts for the purely correlated part of the expectation value\cite{Thranhardt2000}. For the underlying electronic bandstructure we include the high symmetry points $i_e \in \{ K,K',\Lambda,\Lambda'\}$ and for holes we include the high symmetry points $i_h \in \{K,K'\}$ explicitly to our investigation, cf. figure \ref{schema} (a) and (b). In the following we restrict our analysis to the lowest bound exciton state $\mu=1s$ justified by the large energy difference between $1s$ and $2s$ exciton states \cite{Chernikov2014,Brem2018,Brem2019a}.
To calculate the coherent emission from Eq. \ref{eqPL}, we derive an equation of motion for the excitonic coherence $\langle P^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} \rangle$
\begin{align}
i \hbar \partial_t \langle P^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} \rangle&= (E_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi_h \xi_e}-i \gamma^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q}) \langle P^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q}\rangle \nonumber \\&+ \sum_{\sigma} \mathbf{d}^{\xi_h\sigma}\cdot \mathbf{E}^\sigma \delta^{\xi_h,\xi_e}_\mathbf{Q,0}
+X^{\xi_h \bar{\xi_h}}_\mathbf{Q} \langle P^{\bar{\xi_h} \bar{\xi_e}}_\mathbf{Q}\rangle\delta_{\xi_h,\xi_e}.\label{CoherenceEq}
\end{align}
The first line describes the excitonic dispersion with the excitonic energy $E_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi_h\xi_e}$ and includes the dephasing of the excitonic coherence $\gamma_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi_h\xi_e}$ consistently calculated from radiative coupling and exciton phonon scattering\cite{Selig2016,Christiansen2017,Brem2019a}. The first term in the second line in Eq. \ref{CoherenceEq} represents the optical excitation of the excitonic coherence with a coherent light pulse $\mathbf{E}^\sigma(t)$. The second term in the second line describes the intervalley Coulomb exchange coupling of the excitonic coherences between $K$ and $K'$ valley, which is characterized by the matrix element $X^{\xi_h \bar{\xi_h}}_\mathbf{Q}$, cf. the supplementary material. Troughout this paper, we assume weak excitation, such that the hierachy problem which arises from the Coulomb interaction can be truncated at the lowest order\cite{Axt1994a,Kira2006}. Therefore Pauli blocking and other many body effects do not occur in Eq. \ref{CoherenceEq}. Since the coupling element $X^{\xi_h \bar{\xi_h}}_\mathbf{Q}$ is proportional to $|\mathbf{Q}|$ in the lowst order \cite{Qiu2015,Wu2015,Schmidt2016} and the optically injected excitonic coherences have vanishing center of mass momentum (only $P_\mathbf{Q=0}$ is excited by the incident light) the excitonic coherence in one valley $\xi$ does not influence the coherence in the opposite valley $\bar{\xi}=(\bar{i},\bar{s})$ (i.e. $\xi=(K, \uparrow)$ and $\bar{\xi} = (K',\downarrow)$).
This does not apply for the momentum-dependent incoherent exciton density $N_\mathbf{Q}$ in the $K$, since due to scattering finite $\mathbf{Q}$'s are occupied. Its equation of motion reads
\begin{align}
\partial_t N_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi_h\xi_e}&= \Gamma^{in\,\xi_e-\xi_h}_\mathbf{Q} |\langle P^{\xi_h\xi_h}_\mathbf{0}\rangle|^2 \nonumber \\ &+\sum_{\mathbf{K},\xi_e'} \Gamma_\mathbf{Q,K}^{in\,\xi_e-\xi_e'} N^{\xi_h\xi_e'}_\mathbf{K} - \sum_{\mathbf{K},\xi_e'} \Gamma_\mathbf{Q,K}^{out\,\xi_e - \xi_e'} N^{\xi_h \xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} \nonumber \\&- \Gamma^{\xi_h-\xi_e}_\mathbf{Q} N^{\xi_h\xi_e}_\mathbf{Q}\nonumber\\&+\frac{2}{\hbar} \Im{(X^{\xi_h \bar{\xi_h}}_\mathbf{Q} C^{\xi_h \bar{\xi_h}}_\mathbf{Q})(\delta_{\xi_h,K\uparrow}^{\xi_e,K\uparrow}-\delta_{\xi_h,K'\downarrow}^{\xi_e,K'\downarrow})}.\label{density}
\end{align}
The first line accounts for the exciton-phonon scattering mediated formation of incoherent excitons driven by the optically excited excitonic coherence $P^{\xi_h\xi_h}_\mathbf{0}$\cite{Thranhardt2000,Selig2018,Brem2018}, compare Eq. \ref{CoherenceEq}. The notation $(\xi_h,\xi_h)$ implies that the excitonic coherence can only be optically addressed in momentum-bright ($\mathbf{Q} = 0$) exciton states, cp. Eq. \ref{CoherenceEq}. The second line can be identified as a Boltzmann scattering equation accounting for the thermalization of the incoherent exciton densities and cooling into a Boltzmann distribution. This includes exciton-phonon sacttering within the excitonic valleys as well as between them, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (c) and (d).
The exciton-phonon scattering rates $\Gamma_\mathbf{Q,K}^{in\,\xi_e \xi_e'}$ and $\Gamma_\mathbf{Q,K}^{out\,\xi_e \xi_e'}$ are defined in the appendix, cp. Eqs. S13 and S14 in the supplementary material.
The third line of Eq. \ref{density} describes the radiative decay of the exciton density with the momentum-dependent relaxation rate $\Gamma^{\xi_i\xi_j}_\mathbf{Q}=\frac{2}{\hbar}\gamma_{\text{rad}} \sum_\mathbf{K}\delta( \Delta E^{\xi \sigma}_\mathbf{K} )\delta_\mathbf{Q,K_\parallel}$, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (a). The appearing Kronecker $\delta$ ensures the energy conservation during the photon emission and accounts for the fact that only excitons which are located within the light cone can decay radiatively. As a result, electron and hole which form the exciton, have to be located at the same high symmetry point in the 1. Brillouin zone to decay radiatively. So far, the discussed contributions account for the formation, thermalization and photoluminescence of excitons.
However, the last term in Eq. \ref{density} is the most important one for our work and describes the intervalley Coulomb exchange dynamics responsible for the intervalley excitation transfer, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (b). It acts as a exchange for exciton densities in $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states conserving the total amount of excitons.
This interaction is mediated by the intervalley coherence $C^{\xi \bar{\xi}}_\mathbf{Q}$ between the $(K\uparrow, K\uparrow )$ and the $(K'\downarrow , K'\downarrow)$ states in Eq. \ref{density} defined as $ C_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi \bar{\xi}}=\langle P^{\dagger \xi \xi}_\mathbf{Q} P^{\bar{\xi}\bar{\xi}}_\mathbf{Q} \rangle$. The equation of motion for the intervalley coherence reads
\begin{equation}
\partial_t C_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi \bar{\xi}}=\partial_t C_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi \bar{\xi}} \Big \vert_{scat}+\frac{1}{i \hbar} X^{\bar{\xi} \xi}_\mathbf{Q} (N^{\xi \xi}_\mathbf{Q}-N^{\bar{\xi} \bar{\xi}}_\mathbf{Q}).\label{coherence}
\end{equation}
The first term in Eq. \ref{coherence} i.e. $\partial_t C_\mathbf{Q}^{\xi \bar{\xi}}\Big \vert_{scat}$, describes the exciton-phonon interaction and leads to both diagonal and off-diagonal dephasing of the intervalley coherence, cf. the supplementary material. The second term in Eq. (\ref{coherence}) acts as a source for the intervalley coherence driven by the occupation difference of the exciton densities in the opposite valleys, i.e. $(N^{\uparrow}_\mathbf{Q}-N^{\downarrow}_\mathbf{Q})$.
At this point, we want to highlight, that due to our calculations momentum forbidden exciton states do not contribute to the intervalley exchange coupling, since it requires energy and momentum conservation, which can only be fulfilled by $(K,K)$ and $(K'.K')$ excitons.
Also, in our analysis, we do not include coupling mechanisms which lead to a spin flip of an individual carrier and address the investigation of these processes to future work. Since for optically excited excitons, the electron and hole spin coincide, we can conclude, that all excitons in our analysis have the same electron and hole spins.
\section*{Results}
Numerically evaluating Eqs. \ref{eqPL} - \ref{coherence}, we have microscopic access to the time- and momentum-resolved intervalley dynamics, including the temporal evolution of the optically injected excitonic coherence in the $(K\uparrow,K\uparrow)$ valley, the valley resolved excitonic occupations $N^{K\uparrow,i_e \uparrow}=\sum_{\mathbf{Q}} N_\mathbf{Q}^{K \uparrow i_e \uparrow}$ and $N^{K'\downarrow , i_e \downarrow}=\sum_{\mathbf{Q}} N_\mathbf{Q}^{K' \downarrow i_e \downarrow}$, respectively, cp. Fig \ref{schema}, as well as the photoemission intensity $I^\sigma$ with respect to the polarization $\sigma$. As exemplary materials we investigate MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$ on a SiO$_2$ substrate. Due to our evaluation of the Wannier equation\cite{Selig2018}, in MoSe$_2$ the bright $(K\uparrow,K\uparrow)$ and $(K'\downarrow,K'\downarrow)$ states are the energetically lowest state in the excitonic Brillouin zone being located a few meV below the $(K\uparrow,K'\uparrow)$ and $(K'\downarrow,K\downarrow)$ states, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (c), whereas in WSe$_2$ the momentum-dark $(K\uparrow,\Lambda\uparrow)$, $(K'\downarrow,\Lambda'\downarrow)$, $(K\uparrow,K'\uparrow)$ and $(K'\downarrow,K\downarrow)$ states are located energetically below the optical bright state by some tens of meV, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (d)\cite{Selig2016,Malic2018}.
By comparing both cases, we are able to investigate the influence of energetically low lying momentum-dark states to the intervalley exchange coupling dynamics. We want to note, that the exact quantitative position of these momentum-dark states is still under debate in the literature\cite{Deilmann2019}.
\subsection*{Intervalley coupling in MoSe$_2$}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{EinzelnMoSe2}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Time evolution of exciton density and intensity of photoemission at \unit[77]{K} in MoSe$_2$.} Figure (a) illustrates the temporal evolution of the $\Gamma$ excitons. Additionally we show the light pulse (pink shaded) as well as the optically injected excitonic transition (pink solid). Figure (b) shows the temporal evolution of the $K$ excitons. In figure (d) we show the corresponding emission intesities of $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ light.}
\label{DepolMoSe2}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{DepolMoSe2} illustrates the intervalley dynamics in MoSe$_2$ at an exemplary temperature of \unit[77]{K} after optically exciting the $(K\uparrow,K\uparrow)$ valley ($A$ states) resonantly to the 1s transition with a left handed polarized $\sigma^{+}$ \unit[20]{fs} gaussian light pulse, cf. figure \ref{DepolMoSe2} (a). The optically excited excitonic coherence decays due to radiative and exciton-phonon interaction within \unit[300]{fs} being consistent with previous calculations\cite{Selig2018}. Due to the non-radiative decay of the excitonic coherence through exciton phonon scattering, incoherent excitons with non-vanishing center of mass momenta are formed in the $(K\uparrow,K\uparrow)$ states on a similar timescale. From these states, incoherent exciton in $(K'\downarrow,K'\downarrow)$ states are formed through Coulomb intervalley exchange coupling, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (b). We find that both densities equilibrate after approximately \unit[500]{fs}.
In Fig. \ref{DepolMoSe2} (b), we show the density of the indirect $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow )$ and $(K' \downarrow , K \downarrow )$ excitons. Due to our calculations, these states are located \unit[10]{meV} above the $(K\uparrow , K\uparrow )$ and $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states respectively (bright ground state in MoSe$_2$). We note, that recent DFT calculations predicted another value of the energetic separation of the direct $(K,K)$ and indirect $(K,K')$ states\cite{Deilmann2019}. However, the deviations are only on the order of few meV and smaller in comparison to the thermal energy of the excitons. Such deviations however, do not induce significant changes in the exciton dynamics for example the opening of new relaxation channels.
In Fig. \ref{DepolMoSe2} (b), we find the formation rate of the $(K\uparrow , K' \uparrow )$ excitons in the order of \unit[300]{fs} due to exciton phonon scattering in expense to the optically excited $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ exciton, being consistent with previous work\cite{Selig2018}. In contrast, the formation time of the $(K'\downarrow , K \downarrow )$ exciton occurs much slower within \unit[2]{ps}. This is due to the fact, that at least 3 scattering events are needed to bring excitons to these states: (i) finite wavenumber excitons within the $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ valley have to be created through phonon scattering from the optically injected excitonic coherence to switch on the exchange interaction: (ii) intervalley coupling leads then to the formation of $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ exctions, (iii) and finally exciton phonon scattering results in excitons in $(K'\downarrow , K \downarrow )$ states.
Fig. \ref{DepolMoSe2} (c) shows the temporal evolution of the emitted light intensity. The $\sigma^{+}$ polarized emission from the $( K \uparrow , K \uparrow )$ valley starts directly after the optical exciation, since it results from the optically injected exciton density. In contrast, the $\sigma^{-}$ polarized emission exhibits a delay since this emission stems from the $N^{K'\downarrow K'\downarrow}$ exciton density which first has to be created via intervalley exchange coupling. Additionally we find, that the $\sigma^-$ emission from the unpumped valley is also delayed with respect to the exciton density dynamics in the unpumped valley. The reason is, that excitons which were created through intervalley exchange coupling in these states have non-vanishing center of mass momenta (due to the linear $|\mathbf{Q}|$ dependence of the IEC\cite{Qiu2015,Wu2015}) and therefore have to relax to momentum states within the light cone by phonon scattering. The difference between this times is given by the time, which excitons need to scatter down from states with elevated energies into the lightcone.
\subsection*{Intervalley coupling in WSe$_2$}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{EinzelnWSe2}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Time evolution of exciton density and intensity of photoemission at \unit[77]{K} in WSe$_2$.} (a) shows the time evolution of the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ $\Gamma$ exciton densities (note the logscale), (b) and (c) illustrate the corresponding $\Lambda$ and $K$ exciton densities. In Fig. (b) we show the corresponding emission intesities of $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ light. }
\label{DepolWSe2}
\end{figure}
We now investigate the spin valley dynamics in monolayer WSe$_2$, where momentum-dark $(K,K')$ and $(K,\Lambda)$ states are located energetically below the optically bright state \cite{Selig2016,Selig2018,Malic2018}, cf. Fig \ref{schema} (d).
Fig. \ref{DepolWSe2} exhibits the spin and valley resolved exciton densities as well as the polarization resolved photoluminescence intensity as a function of time.
In Fig. \ref{DepolWSe2} (a) we depict the time dynamics of the exciton density in $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states. As in the case of MoSe$_2$, the $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ density is created from the optically pumped exciton coherence through exciton phonon scattering on the timescale of the coherence lifetime and exhibits a subsequent decay through relaxation to low lying momentum-dark $(K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow )$ and $(K\uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ states. As long as there is sufficient density in the $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ states, intervalley exchange coupling transfers excitons to the $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states. However since the phonon mediated relaxation to the momentum-dark and energetically low lying $(K \uparrow,\Lambda \uparrow)$ and $(K \uparrow,K \uparrow)$ is comparably fast, the $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ exciton density increases only weakly during the first ps after the pump and is not substantially populated. Accordingly, the residual occupation difference between both states decreases on a ns timescale. The reason for this long timescale (in comparison to MoSe$_2$) will be discussed in the following:
In Fig. \ref{DepolWSe2} (b) we show the time evolution of the $( K\uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow )$ and the $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow)$ exciton. Due to the energetic structure, the $( K\uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow )$ excitons can be formed by efficient intervalley phonon scattering through phonon emission from $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ excitons. We find a formation rate of approximately \unit[100]{fs}, consistent with previous studies \cite{Selig2018}. In contrast, the formation rate of the $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow )$ excitons is delayed by some hundreds of fs, since these excitons can only be formed by exciton phonon scattering from $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ excitons, which first have to be formed through intervalley exchange coupling from the $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ excitons, cf. Fig. \ref{schema} (a). For the $(K\uparrow , K' \uparrow )$ and $(K'\downarrow , K \downarrow )$ exciton densities, cf. Fig. \ref{DepolWSe2} (c), we find the same qualitative behavior as for the $( K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow )$ and $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow)$ excitons, but due to a less efficient exciton phonon scattering with $K$ phonons compared to $\Lambda$ phonons\cite{Li2013,Jin2014}, slightly longer timescales. The formation of the $( K \uparrow K'\uparrow )$ exictons occurs within \unit[200]{fs} while the formation of $(K'\downarrow , K \downarrow )$ excitons takes place within \unit[500]{fs}.
We find that after \unit[300]{fs}, most excitons are located in low lying momentum-dark $(K \uparrow, \Lambda \uparrow )$ and $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ states. \textit{Since the intervalley exchange coupling does not occur for these indirect excitons, this blocks the intervalley exchange spin relaxation. This results in a pronounced occupation difference between the $(K \uparrow , K' \uparrow)$ and $( K'\downarrow , K \downarrow )$ as well as $(K \uparrow , \Lambda \uparrow)$ and $( K'\downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow )$ exciton states which persists on a ns timescale.}
In Fig. \ref{DepolWSe2} (d), we show the time dependence of the polarization resolved emission. We find for the $\sigma^+$ polarized light an ultra fast increase, since it stems from the $N^{(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)}$ density, which is initialized optically. The fast rise in the intensity is followed by a decay of \unit[2]{ps} which we address to phonon mediated relaxation to low lying $(K\uparrow, \Lambda \uparrow )$ and $(K \uparrow, K' \uparrow )$ states\cite{Selig2018}. The emission of $\sigma^-$ polarized light starts with a delay compared to the corresponding exciton occupation, similar as in MoSe$_2$, cf. Fig. \ref{DepolMoSe2} (c). Again, this is due to the fact that the formation of excitons within the light cone of the $(K'\downarrow, K'\downarrow)$ states requires at least three scattering events, compare the discussion for MoSe$_2$. Similar to the $\sigma^+$ emission, we again find a decay of \unit[2]{ps} for the $\sigma^-$ emission, which we again attribute to the relaxation to $(K' \downarrow , \Lambda' \downarrow)$ and $(K' \downarrow , K \downarrow )$ states.
After this time, both, the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ emission decay on a long timescale, which is determined by radiative decay\cite{Selig2018}. Again, the residual difference in the intensities stays on a ns timescale.
\subsection*{Degree of Polarization and Valley Lifetime}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Difference}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Relaxation dynamics} We show the normalized difference in the occupation $n_v=\frac{N^{K \uparrow}-N^{K \downarrow}}{N^{K \uparrow}+N^{K \downarrow}}$ as a function of time after optically excitation at different temperatures in MoSe$_2$ (a) and WSe$_2$ (b)}
\label{Difference}
\end{figure}
The intervalley dynamics in both materials, so far discussed at \unit[77]{K}, can be evaluated at various temperatures and used to discuss the degree of the valley polarization lifetime and the polarization of the emission. In Fig. \ref{Difference} , we show the normalized occupation difference of both spin population $n_v=\frac{N^{\uparrow \uparrow}-N^{\downarrow \downarrow}}{N^{\uparrow \uparrow}+N^{\downarrow \downarrow}}$, with $N^{ss} = \sum_{\mathbf{Q},i_h,i_e} N^{i_h s i_e s}_\mathbf{Q}$, in MoSe$_2$ (a) and WSe$_2$ (b). The valley lifetime is defined as the time, after which $n_v$ reaches a value of $e^{-1}$. As discussed before, at \unit[77]{K}, we find a valley lifetime of the exciton density of approximately \unit[200]{fs} in MoSe$_2$. An increase of the temperature leads to an increase of the valley time to \unit[800]{fs} at room temperature. This is due to the fact, that at elevated temperatures more and more excitons are located in the $(K\uparrow, K'\uparrow )$ states and do not contribute to the intervalley exchange coupling. Thus the spin polarization decay becomes less efficient and the valley lifetime enlarges.
In WSe$_2$, cf. Fig. \ref{Difference} (b), we observe a biexponential decay of $n_v$ at all investigated temperatures. Here, the first decay can be ascribed to the interplay of phonon mediated exciton thermalization and intervalley exchange coupling in the transient, non-thermal regime shortly after the optical excitation. We find that this first decay becomes less pronounced at elevated temperatures: At low temperature, excitons are created from coherent excitons in the $(K\uparrow , K\uparrow )$ as well as in the momentum-dark states through phonon scattering. Shortly after the excitation, we have much more excitons in the $(K\uparrow , K\uparrow )$ compared to the situation after thermalization. These excitons can also couple to the $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ valley via intervalley exchange coupling leading to the initial decay of $n_v$. At elevated temperatures, exciton phonon coupling becomes more efficient resulting in a faster thermalization.
For the long time component we observe an inverse behavior. As already discussed, at \unit[77]{K}, we find a ultralong lifetime of some ns, since most excitons are located in indirect momentum-dark states, which efficiently suppresses the intervalley exchange interaction. At elavated temperatures, also higher energy states are occupied, especially $(K \uparrow , K \uparrow)$ which then can couple to $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states via intervalley exchange coupling. Thus we observe a valley lifetime time of \unit[10]{ps} at room temperature.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Lifetime}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Polarization degree and Valley Lifetime} (a) Valley lifetime in both investigated materials, extracted from the data in figure \ref{Difference}. (b) Degree of polarization The solid curve shows the degree of polarization for the incoherent emitted light. The dashed curve shows the degree of polarization for the total emitted light. The degree of polarization was calculated with a dark recombination rate of the excitons of \unit[1]{ns}.}
\label{rates}
\end{figure}
To get a more quantitative result, we show the extracted valley lifetimes in MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$ as a function of temperature in Fig. \ref{rates} (a). In MoSe$_2$ we find an increasing lifetime from \unit[150]{fs} at \unit[77]{K} to \unit[400]{fs} at room temperature, which was addressed to the appearence of the energetically higher momentum-dark $(K\uparrow K'\uparrow )$ exciton states which do not contribute to the intervalley exchange coupling. At higher temperature these states get more and more populated, which leads to a quenching of the overall IEC efficiency. In WSe$_2$ we find a decrease from \unit[1.6]{ns} at \unit[77]{K} to \unit[8]{ps} at room temperature. This was ascribed to the thermalization of excitons in momentum-dark states: while at low temperatures, most excitons occupy the indirect exciton states, effectively suppressing the IEC, elevated temperatures result in a larger population of $(K\uparrow, K \uparrow)$ states, speeding up the IEC.
Experimentallly an often investigated quantity is the degree of polaraization of the emitted light $\frac{n^{\sigma +}-n^{\sigma -}}{n^{\sigma +}+n^{\sigma -}}$, which we can determine by integrating Eq. \ref{eqPL} over the time. Therefore we added a temperature independent decay constants of the excitons of \unit[1]{ns} to our numerics which can be attributed to the non-radiative recombination of excitons via defects and/or Auger processes. This decay constant is chosen in agreement with the experimentally accessible rate \cite{Zhang2015}.
The results are shown in Fig. \ref{rates} (b). In MoSe$_2$, we find very weak polarizations of the emitted incoherent light. They decrease from \unit[0.1]{\%} at \unit[77]{K} to approximately \unit[0.06]{\%} at room temperature. This behavior is a bit contradictory because one would expect an increasing degree of polarization since the valley lifetime is also increasing. The reason is the following: The degree of polarization is determined only by the excitons within the lightcone whereas we defined the valley lifetime for the total exciton density. As already discussed there is a delay between the spin relaxation of the exciton density and the emitted light at \unit[77]{K}, cf. Fig. \ref{DepolMoSe2} (a) and (b), which is determined by phonon scattering. This delay decreases drastically at room temperature due to a more efficient scattering with phonons. This results in a faster beginning of the emission of $\sigma^+$ from the bright $(K' \downarrow , K' \downarrow)$ states, which explains the observed temperature behavior.
In the case of WSe$_2$ we find a degree of polarization of \unit[64]{\%} at \unit[77]{K} which decreases to \unit[1]{\%} at room temperature. The reason is, that a low temperatures, the valley lifetime is large, and the exciton occupation has been decayed through the non-radiative recombination before the emission from the unpumped valley sets in, cf. figure \ref{DepolWSe2} (d). At elevated temperatures, the valley lifetime, cp. figure \ref{rates} (a), decreases, in particular becomes faster compared to the non-radiative relaxation rate. This leads to an almost unpolarized emission. We want to note, that the calculated degrees of polarization depend on the choice of the non-radiative relaxation rate. Calculations for non-radiative recombination rates of \unit[500]{ps} and \unit[200]{ps} are shown in the supplementary material in Fig. 1. We find that for faster non-radiative recombination of the excitons the degree of polarization increases which would however be technologically unfavourable due to the resulting drop in quantum yield\cite{Selig2018}.
Further we investigated the impact of the coherent emission onto the valley lifetime. Since we consider a pure system without disorder in the weak excitation limit, intervalley exchange coupling does not occur for the excitonic coherence. Therefore it only emits in the polarization of the incident light. We find, that in MoSe$_2$, the degree of polarization is about \unit[64]{\%} at \unit[77]{K} and showing a decrease as a function of temperature to \unit[42]{\%} at room temperature.
This can be addressed to the degree of coherent emitted light. At low temperatures, exciton phonon scattering is weak, so most coherent excitons decay radiatively. At elevanted temperatures, exciton phonon scattering becomes more intense, increasing the non radiative depashing of the coherent excitons. This leads to a smaller ratio of coherent emitted photons, which results in a lower polarization of the emitted light. In WSe$_2$, we observe nearly \unit[99]{\%} degree of polarization at \unit[77]{K} and \unit[89]{\%} at room temperature and find the same qualitative behavior as for MoSe$_2$ but at much larger magnitude. Under these conditions however it is technologically challenging to distinguish the sub picosecond coherent emission from the laser pulse itself.
However, we expect that the coherent part of the emission is only accessible in experiments, if the sample is exited exactly resonant with the A exciton and the emitted light is measured in the direction of the propagation of the exciting field.
We expect that our results for WSe$_2$ are also quantitatively applicable to WS$_2$, since here also momentum-dark exciton states ($(K,\Lambda)$ and $(K,K')$) occur\cite{Selig2016}.
Lastly, we compare our calculations for the incoherent emission with recent experimental results:
(i) Regarding the transient regime, shortly after the optical pump, we predict an ultrafast rise of the exciton density in the pumped and unpumped valley due to the intervalley exchange coupling in both materials. This is experimentally well studied in pump probe experiments\cite{Schmidt2016,ZWang2018}. We conclude, that in the that regime, the intervalley exchange coupling is the dominant mechanism determining the intervalley dynamics, as also discussed theoretically by others before\cite{Glazov2014,Yu2014,Schmidt2016}.
(ii) Regarding times well after the optical excitation, Kerr rotation experiments revealed a biexpontential decay with the decay constants \unit[320]{ps} and \unit[5.4.]{ns} in WS$_2$ at \unit[8]{K} \cite{McCormick2018} for below gap excitation, which quantitatively matches our expectation for WSe$_2$. However, the results of reference \onlinecite{Plechinger2017} reveal, that the observed valley lifetimes in Kerr rotation drastically decrease as a function of temperature, in particular being faster than our calculated values. We conclude, that in the presence of energetically low lying momentum-dark states and the connected quenching of the IEC, other intervalley spin relaxation mechanisms\cite{Wang2014b,ZWang2018} such as pure spin flips may become faster in comparison to the IEC.
(iii) The experimentally observed polarizations of the emitted light are in the range of some ten percent for W-based TMDCs\cite{Smolenski2016}, almost no polarization of the excitonic emission was found in MoSe$_2$ at \unit[4]{K} \cite{Wang2015} which matches with our microscopic model. Regarding the dependence on the temperature, in reference \cite{Yan2015} the authors report a decrease of the polarization from about \unit[20]{\%} at \unit[77]{K} to approximately \unit[5]{\%} at \unit[200]{K} in WSe$_2$, which quantitatively matches our expectation.
\section*{Conclusion}
We have presented a microcopic theory investigating the impact of momentum-dark exciton states on the intervalley exchange coupling in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides. We find a valley lifetime of some hundreds of fs in the absence of momentum-dark exciton states below the optically bright state (typically for Mo-based TMDCs). Contrary, we find that the valley lifetime significantly enlarges in the presence of energetically low lying momentum-dark states (typically for W-based TMDCs) which can directly be related to the relaxation of excitons into these states which are protected from the exchange interaction. While our results for the initial intervalley transfer between pumped and unpumped valley in the transient regime as well as the order of magnitude of the polarization of the emitted light are in line with recent experiments, only considering intervalley exchange coupling as spin relaxation mechanism leads to an overestimation of the valley lifetime. Therefore other spin relaxation processes such as spin flips\cite{Wang2014,ZWang2018} may become relevant at times well after the optical excitation.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Dominik Christiansen (TU Berlin) and Gunnar Bergh\"auser (Chalmers). This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Projektnummer 182087777 - SFB 951 (project B12, M.S., A.K.). This project has also received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 734690 (SONAR, F.K., A.K.).
The Chalmers group acknowledges financial support from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 785219 (Graphene Flagship) as well as from the Swedish Research Council (S.B., E.M.).
\bibliographystyle{naturemag.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\nocite{allen-1979-plans,gs:aisd}
If you're good at replying to a single request, are you also likely to be good at doing dialogue? Much current work seems to assume that the answer to this question is yes, in that it attempts a scaling up from single pairs of utterance plus response to longer dialogues: See, e.g., the work on \emph{neural chatbots} following on from \cite{Serban2016}, where the main evaluation metric is ``next utterance retrieval''; and on \emph{visual dialogue} \cite{visdial}, which views itself as a natural extension of \emph{visual question answering} \cite{VQA2015}.
If you assume, however, that dialogue crucially is a \emph{joint project} between its participants in a way that single exchanges are not, you're likely to put more focus on \emph{coordination phenomena} \cite{clark:ul}, but may end up with settings that combine multiple language capabilities in ways that current methods cannot yet seem to capture. (See, for example, the dialogues collected in \cite{pentoref2016}.) In this short paper, we contribute a type of setting that introduces such coordination phenomena, while still allowing for control of the complexity of the resulting interaction.\footnote{%
The datasets discussed in this paper can be viewed in a common format using the code at \url{https://github.com/clp-research/sempix}, \cite{schlangen:iwcs19}.
}
\section{Visual Dialogue as Example of the Scaling Up Approach}
\label{sec:up}
Figure~\ref{fig:vimeo} shows an example interaction with the original Visual Dialogue system \cite{visdial}. The competence of the system is impressive from a multimodal grounding perspective --- it gets right several questions aiming at different aspects of the image. It is also clear, however, that this is a modest step beyond single-shot visual question answering \cite{VQA2015}. It seems that here
the (human) questioner is doing all the work of keeping the dialogue alive, and there is little that suggest that the answerer is keeping any state about the dialogue. Later work by \citet{Kottur2018} on the ``visual dialogue'' dataset \cite{visdial} indeed identified \emph{co-reference} in the questions as the main issue that distinguishes this setting from one-shot question answering.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.7cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{Figures/example_from_vimeo.png}
\caption{Original example of Visual Dialogue System, from official demo video ({\small \url{https://vimeo.com/193092429}}) }
\label{fig:vimeo}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One shortcoming of this setting---that the questioner was not provided with a good reason for \emph{why} they are asking questions in the first place---was addressed in some related work: In the \emph{GuessWhat?}\ setting introduced by \citet{DeVries2016:guesswhat} at around the same time as Visual Dialogue, a questioner is asking polar questions about an image, with the goal of identifying an object known only to the questioner. In the ALICE variant of the visual dialogue setting, the questioner is asking questions with the later goal in mind of identifying the image from a set also containing distractor images \cite{Chattopadhyay2017}.\footnote{%
Interestingly, this setup was created to evaluate dialogue agents trained on the visual dialogue dataset, not to collect another type of data.}
These variants of the general setting provide purpose to the questioner, but not to the answerer, which is the target of the modelling effort; and, crucially, it does not give the dialogue a \emph{joint purpose}, a shared sense of semantic ownership of the interaction, which is a central feature of most genres of human interaction \cite{clark:ul}.
Coming back to the visual dialogue setting, it can be assumed that the crowd workers that created the original data did try to orient themselves to the usual maxims that govern conversational behaviour. However, being constrained by the rigid roles of questioner and answerer, and with the perceptual task being so easy for them,
a need for dealing with miscommunication never arose for them and hence no such strategies can be learned from that data. That this is missing from the resulting agents can easily been shown in cases where something goes wrong, but normal repair mechanisms \cite[see e.g.][]{hayashi2013conversational} are not available, as in the example interaction we created shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pigeons}.\footnote{%
As the authors have made the laudable effort of opening their system to the general public, one can find similar examples of interactions that laypeople had with the agent and posted on social media; e.g. \url{https://twitter.com/r_speer/status/1037358574735904768}.
}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Figures/pigeons_birds.png}
\caption{Interacting with a visual chat bot, see \url{http://demo.visualdialog.org/}}
\label{fig:pigeons}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Agreement Games}
\label{sec:agree}
In Herbert Clark's (\citeyear{clark:ul}) model of dialogue,\footnote{%
Bringing together ideas from Conversation Analysis \cite{sacksetal:turnt_full,schegloff:sequencebook} and also the design of Human/Computer interaction \cite{norman:design}.
} the mutual need for ensuring understanding---``sufficient to current purposes''---is the main structuring force in dialogue. As a metaphor for this interaction management process, Clark uses the notion of a ``secondary track'', on which the constant negotiation of this understanding happens. This can be done through quite subtle methods, such as simply producing a continuation that displays through its fit an understanding of the previous utterance, as well as through specially designed markers (such as feedback utterances like ``uhu''). This model has been influential in the design of spoken dialogue systems \cite{traum:commodgroun,skantze:explspecom}, where it has been incorporated in the design of dialogue state update rules. In the data-driven era, however, it seems to have become less well known, and many datasets almost appear as to be designed in such a way as to limit the possibility of grounding interactions.
The idea behind our setting of ``agreement games'' is to make this secondary track more prominent and hence more easy to pick up from the data,
by making reaching mutual understanding on the answer to the game question
an explicit goal. Or, in Clark's term, the \emph{grounding criterion} for answering the question is raised so as to make reaching mutual understanding on it an explicit, rather than as normally implicit, goal.
The representational challenge is that it is an abstract object---the understanding of the discourse---that is jointly constructed, purely through verbal actions.
\paragraph{More formally}
\label{sec:formally}
An \emph{Agreement Game} is a dialogue game with two regular participants, $\mathcal{P} = \{P_1, P_2\}$, and a disinterested third participant, $N$ (for \emph{Nature}). $N$ poses a question $Q$ to the players $\mathcal{P}$, and provides them with information $I$ required to answer the question; possibly split up over the players. If $I$ contains visual information, we call the game a \emph{Grounded} Agreement Game.
The players can exchange messages in an unrestricted way. The game ends when one of the players explicitly proposes an answer $A$ and the other player explicity agrees with the proposal. As the answer $A$ will be based on a construal of $I$, the agreement on $A$ is also an agreement on that construal. Optionally, a reward can be given to the players after they have provided their joint answer, tied to some measure of quality of $A$.
\hspace*{.5\baselineskip}
We illustrate the concept by discussing some instantiations that we have recently experimented with.\footnote{%
Concurrently, two other datasets have recently been published using settings that can also be viewed as grounded agreement games: In the PhotoBook setting \cite{Haber2019}, two players must agree on which images from sets of (natural) images that they invidivdually are presented with are identical. They do this repeatedly, so that occasion for re-references occurs. In the ``One in Common'' setting \cite{Udagawa2019}, players are presented with images of overlapping, but non-congruent views on a synthetic scene, and their goal is to determine which objects belong to the overlapping part.
}
\section{Some Examples}
\label{sec:ex}
\subsection{The MeetUp Game}
\label{sec:meetup}
In the MeetUp game \cite{schlangen:aix,ilieatal:meetup19},\footnote{%
\url{https://github.com/clp-research/meetup}
} the two participants are presented with an environment through which they can (separately) navigate and which is represented to static photographs or real indoor scenes (e.g., a picture of a bedroom, a kitchen, etc.) Their goal is to meet up in the same room, of a type previously told to them. (E.g., they might be told at the start of the game: ``your goal is to meet up in a room of type \emph{kitchen}.'') As the positions of the players are not represented graphically, the only way they can be sure of whether they have reached that goal is by conversing (via chat messages). Once they have come to the conclusion that they are in the same room, they can end the game by each sending a special signal. If they are indeed in such a winning constellation, they will receive a bonus.
Unlike the Visual Dialogue setting discussed above, this setting ensures informational symmetry between the participants (both have access to the same \emph{type} of information; but not the same information, as they can't ``see'' each other). More importantly, however, the constraint that the game only ends if they both agree ensures a ``committment symmetry'', where the success of the game must be ensured by both participants. The design also provides for a clear ``relevance place'' at which an opportunity arises for \emph{semantic negotiation}, namely, before the final decision is made.\footnote{%
``Relevance place'' in analogy to the \emph{transition relevance places} studied for turn taking in conversational analysis by \citet{sacksetal:turnt_full}.}
An example of this is shown in the example below. (The number in the parentheses indicate the time, relative to the beginning of the interaction, when the utterance was made.)
\ex. \label{ex:utility}
B (00:00:34): okay I think I'm there if I understand utility room
\\
B (00:00:42): It has a washer and dryer
\\
A (00:00:46): I was wondering too. This is sorta like a laundry room.
\\
A (00:00:55): This has pet bowl on the floor below a window.
\\
B (00:01:00): ok... let us keep looking
\\
A (00:01:22): And a small kids looking suit hanging on the wall. And a big banner above the window.
\\
B (00:01:33): Are you saying a utility room is like a laundry room?
\\
B (00:02:00): let me find you
\\
A (00:02:07): Google says, a room equipped with appliances for washing and other domestic work.
\\
A (00:02:09): So I think so.
\subsection{The MatchIt Game}
\label{sec:matchit}
The MatchIt Game (Ilinykh et al., forthcoming) is a yet further simplified visual game. Here, the goal simply is to decide whether you and your partner are both looking at the same image (of the same genre as in MeetUp). In that sense, it is a reduction of the MeetUP game to the final stage, taking out the navigation aspect. As example \ref{ex:kitchenbath} shows, this can similarly lead to meta-semantic interaction, where classifications are revised. As \ref{ex:bike} shows, even in cases where a decision can be reached quickly, there can be an explicit mutual confirmation step, before the (silent) decision signal is sent.
\ex. \label{ex:kitchenbath}
B (00:00:25): white kitchen?
\\
A (00:00:25): im in a bathroom
\\
B (00:00:28): ah
\\
B (00:00:32): well wait
\\
B (00:00:38): there is something that looks like a big bath
\\
B (00:00:44): is it all white?
\\
A (00:00:54): yes its white and I see a bit of a kitchen
\\
A (00:01:11): yes
\\
B (00:01:11): are you sure it's a bathroom lol
\\
A (00:01:16): no its not a bathroom haha
\ex. \label{ex:bike}
A (00:00:24): i see stairs
\\
B (00:00:25): I see a staircase with a bike with wicker basket at the bottom of the staircase
\\
B (00:00:31): do you have a bike?
\\
A (00:00:39): no bike
\\
B: (00:00:46): okay..it is different
\\
A (00:00:54): yes
\subsection{The Concept Learning Game}
\label{sec:concept}
A third setting that we have explored \cite{attari:sigdial19} brings conceptual negotiation more clearly into the foreground. In that game, the players are presented with images of birds of particular species and are tasked with coming up with a description of common properties. Again, the final answer has to be approved by both participants. As \ref{ex:orange} shows, this can lead to an explicit negotiation of conceptual content.
\ex. \label{ex:orange}
\hspace*{-4ex}
\begin{tabular}[t]{l@{$\;$}p{.95\linewidth}}
A: & Looks like the birds under 2 have red-orange feet. \\
B: & The difference that I notice is that the birds in Section 1 are light feathered vs. the dark feathered birds of Section 2. \\
A: & Ah, I like your answer better than mine.\\
B: & \emph{/answer} The birds in section 1 do not have red-orange feet like the birds in section 2. Also, the feathers of the birds in Section 1 are light-colored vs. the dark-colored feathers of the birds in Section 2. \\
A: & \emph{/agree}
\end{tabular}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
We have argued that some prominent current dialogue settings lack room for the occurence of \emph{coordination phenomena} prevalent in
natural dialogue. We have shown a simple condition that brings out the need for coordination in an explicit way, but still can easily be added to controlled (and controllable) dialogue settings.
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Named Entity Recognition (NER) is a core task for information extraction. Originally a structured prediction task, NER has since been formulated as a task of sequential token labeling. BiLSTM-CNN uses a CNN to encode each word and then uses bi-directional LSTMs to encode past and future context respectively at each time step. With state-of-the-art empirical results, most regard it as a robust core module for sequence-labeling NER~\cite{Ma:ACL2016,Chiu:TACL2016,Aguilar:NAACL2018,Akbik:COLING2018,Clark:EMNLP2018}.
However, each direction of BiLSTM only sees and encodes half of a sequence at each time step. For each token, the forward LSTM only encodes past context; the backward LSTM only encodes future context. For computing sentence representations for tasks such as sentence classification and machine translation, this is not a problem, as only the rightmost hidden state of the forward LSTM and only the leftmost hidden state of the backward LSTM are used, and each of the endpoint hidden states sees and encodes the whole sentence. For computing sentence representations for sequence-labeling tasks such as NER, however, this becomes a limitation, as each token uses its own midpoint hidden states, which do not model the patterns that happen to cross past and future at this specific time step.
This paper explores two types of cross-structures to help cope with the problem: Cross-BiLSTM-CNN and Att-BiLSTM-CNN. Previous studies have tried to stack multiple LSTMs for sequence-labeling NER~\cite{Chiu:TACL2016}. As they follow the trend of stacking forward and backward LSTMs independently, the Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN is only able to learn higher-level representations of past or future per se. Instead, Cross-BiLSTM-CNN, which interleaves every layer of the two directions, models cross-context in an additive manner by learning higher-level representations of the whole context of each token. On the other hand, Att-BiLSTM-CNN models cross-context in a multiplicative manner by capturing the interaction between past and future with a dot-product self-attentive mechanism~\cite{Conneau:EMNLP2017,Lin:ICLR2017}.
Section~\ref{sec:model} formulates the three Baseline, Cross, and Att-BiLSTM-CNN models, with Section~\ref{sec:xor},~\ref{sec:xor_crf} giving formal proof that patterns forming an XOR cannot be modeled by (CRF-)BiLSTM-CNN used in all previous work. Cross-BiLSTM-CNN and Att-BiLSTM-CNN are shown to have additive and multiplicative cross-structures respectively to deal with the problem. Section~\ref{sec:experiments} evaluates practical effectiveness of the approaches on two challenging NER datasets spanning a wide range of domains with complex, noisy, and emerging entities. The cross-structures bring consistent improvements over the prevalently used Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN without additional gazetteers, POS taggers, language-modeling, or multi-task supervision. The improved core module surpasses comparable bare-bone models on OntoNotes 5.0 and WNUT 2017 by 1.4\% and 4.6\% respectively. Ablation experiments reveal that emerging, complex, confusing, and multi-token entity mentions benefitted much from the cross-structures, up to 8.7\% on some of the multi-token mentions. The in-depth entity-chunking analysis gives insights into how exactly self-attention helps real-world NER. As state-of-the-art approaches often use BiLSTM as their core module, they could benefit from the improvements brought by cross-structures against bare-bone models presented in this paper.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
Many have attempted tackling the NER task with bare-bone LSTM-based sequence encoders~\cite{Huang:arxiv2015,Ma:ACL2016,Chiu:TACL2016,Lample:NAACL2016}. Among these, the most sophisticated and successful is the BiLSTM-CNN proposed by~\citet{Chiu:TACL2016}. They stack multiple layers of LSTM cells per direction and also use a CNN to compute character-level word vectors alongside pre-trained word vectors. To make the analysis results in this work comparable to past studies on BiLSTM, we largely follow their paper in constructing the Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN, including the selection of raw features, the CNN, and the multi-layer BiLSTM. A subtle difference is that they send the output of each direction through separate affine-softmax classifiers and then sum their probabilities, while this paper sum the scores from affine layers before computing softmax once. While not changing the modeling capacity regarded in this paper, this does provide an empirically stronger baseline model than their formulation.
Besides using additional gazetteers or POS taggers~\cite{Aguilar:WNUT2017,Aguilar:NAACL2018,Ghaddar:COLING2018}, State-of-the-art models use additional large-scale language-modeling corpora~\cite{Akbik:COLING2018} or additional multi-task supervision~\cite{Clark:EMNLP2018} to further improve NER performance beyond bare-bone models. This work does not intend to surpass their performance. Instead, as they rely on a core BiLSTM sentence encoder with the same limitation studied and remedied in this work, they would indeed benefit from the improvements of cross-structures against bare-bone models presented in this paper. In fact, on other tasks, many have used various ways to interleave BiLSTM layers~\cite{Zhou:ACL2015,Coavoux:NAACL2019}. This work provides for a conscious decision with a formal treatment of the XOR limitation and its practical impacts on NER.
The modeling of global contexts for sequence-labeling NER has been partially accomplished using extensive feature engineering or conditional random fields (CRF).~\citet{Ratinov:CoNLL2009} build the Illinois NER tagger with feature-based perceptrons. In their analysis, the usefulness of Viterbi decoding is minimal and conflicts their handcrafted global features. However, their model has limited capability to learn the extraction of new global input features. On the other hand, recent researches on LSTM or CNN-based sequence encoders report empirical improvements brought by CRF~\cite{Huang:arxiv2015,Ma:ACL2016,Lample:NAACL2016,Strubell:EMNLP2017}, as it discourages illegal predictions by explicitly modeling tag-transition probabilities. However, with the speed penalty of Viterbi decoding, transition probabilities are still independent of input sentences and provide partial, limited help in untying two plausible tag sequences. In contrast, this work studies the remedies for the XOR problem of (CRF-)BiLSTM (Section~\ref{sec:xor},~\ref{sec:xor_crf}) that can directly provide the extraction of better global input features, improving class observation likelihoods.
Thought to lighten the burden of compressing all relevant information into a single hidden state, using attention mechanisms on top of LSTMs have shown empirical success for sequence encoders~\cite{Conneau:EMNLP2017,Lin:ICLR2017} and decoders~\cite{Luong:EMNLP2015}. Self-attention has also been used below encoders to compute word vectors conditioned on context~\cite{Devlin:arxiv2018}. This work further formally analyzes the deficiency of BiLSTM encoders for sequence labeling and shows that using self-attention on top is actually providing one type of cross-structures that capture interactions between past and future context.
\section{Model}
\label{sec:model}
\subsection{CNN and Word Features}
\label{sec:cnn}
All models in the experiments use the same set of raw features: character embedding, character type, word embedding, and word capitalization.
For character embedding, 25d vectors are trained from scratch, and 4d one-hot character-type features indicate whether a character is uppercase, lowercase, digit, or punctuation~\cite{Chiu:TACL2016}. Word token lengths are unified to 20 by truncation and padding. The resulting 20-by-(25+4) feature map of each token is applied to a character-trigram CNN with 20 kernels per length 1 to 3 and max-over-time pooling to compute a 60d character-based word vector~\cite{Kim:AAAI2016,Chiu:TACL2016,Ma:ACL2016}.
For word embedding, either pre-trained 300d GloVe vectors~\cite{Pennington:EMNLP2014} or 400d Twitter vectors~\cite{Godin:WNUT2015} are used without further tuning. Also, 4d one-hot word capitalization features indicate whether a word is uppercase, upper-initial, lowercase, or mixed-caps~\cite{Collobert:JMLR2011,Chiu:TACL2016}.
Throughout this paper, $X$ denotes the $n$-by-$d_x$ matrix of sequence features, where $n$ is the sentence length and $d_x$ is either 364 (with GloVe) or 464 (with Twitter).
\subsection{Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN}
\label{sec:baseline}
On top of the feature sequence, BiLSTM is used to capture the future and the past for each time step. Following~\citet{Chiu:TACL2016}, 4 distinct LSTM cells~-- two in each direction~-- are stacked to capture higher level representations:
$$\overrightarrow H=\overrightarrow {LSTM}_2(\overrightarrow {LSTM}_1(X))$$
$$\overleftarrow H=\overleftarrow {LSTM}_4(\overleftarrow {LSTM}_3(X))$$
$$H=\overrightarrow H\ ||\ \overleftarrow H, $$
where $\overrightarrow {LSTM}_i, \overleftarrow {LSTM}_i$ denote applying LSTM cell $i$ in forward, backward order, $\overrightarrow H, \overleftarrow H$ denote the resulting feature matrices of the stacked application, and $||$ denotes row-wise concatenation. In all the experiments, 100d LSTM cells are used, so $H \in R^{n\times d_h}$ and $d_h=200$.
Finally, suppose there are $d_p$ token classes, the probability of each of which is given by the composition of affine and softmax transformations:
$$s_t=H_tW_p+b$$
$$p_{ti}=\frac{e^{s_{ti}}}{\sum_{j=1}^{d_p}e^{s_{tj}}}, $$
where $H_t$ is the $t^{th}$ row of $H$, $W_p\in R^{d_h\times d_p}$, $b\in R^{d_p}$ are a trainable weight matrix and bias, and $s_{ti}$ and $s_{tj}$ are the $i$-th and $j$-th elements of $s_t$.
Following~\citet{Chiu:TACL2016}, the 5 chunk labels \textit{O}, \textit{S}, \textit{B}, \textit{I}, \textit{E} denote if a word token is \textit{O}utside any entity mentions, the \textit{S}ole token of a mention, the \textit{B}eginning token of a multi-token mention, \textit{I}n the middle of a multi-token mention, or the \textit{E}nding token of a multi-token mention. Hence when there are $P$ types of named entities, the actual number of token classes $d_p=P\times 4+1$ for sequence labeling NER.
\subsection{XOR Limitation of Baseline-BiLSTM}
\label{sec:xor}
Consider the following four phrases that form an \textit{XOR}:
\begin{enumerate}
\itemsep0em
\item Key and Peele (\textit{work-of-art})
\item You and I (\textit{work-of-art})
\item Key and I
\item You and Peele
\end{enumerate}
The first two phrases are respectively a show title and a song title. The other two are not entities as a whole, where the last one actually occurs in an interview with Keegan-Michael Key. Suppose each phrase is the sequence given to Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN for sequence tagging, then the $2^{nd}$ token ``and'' should be tagged as \textit{work-of-art:I} in the first two cases and as \textit{O} in the last two cases.
Firstly, note that the score vector at each time step is simply the sum of contributions coming from forward and backward directions plus a bias.
$$s_t=H_tW_p+b$$
$$=\overrightarrow H_t\overrightarrow W_p+\overleftarrow H_t\overleftarrow W_p+b$$
$$=\overrightarrow s_t+\overleftarrow s_t+b$$
where $\overrightarrow W_p,\overleftarrow W_p$ denotes the top-half and bottom-half of $W_p$.
Suppose the index of \textit{work-of-art:I} and \textit{O} are i, j respectively. To predict each ``and'' correctly, it must hold that
$$\overrightarrow s^1_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2i}+b_i>\overrightarrow s^1_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^2_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2i}+b_i>\overrightarrow s^2_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^3_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^3_{2i}+b_i<\overrightarrow s^3_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^3_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^4_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^4_{2i}+b_i<\overrightarrow s^4_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^4_{2j}+b_j$$
where superscripts denote the phrase number.
Now, the catch is that phrase 1 and phrase 3 have exactly the same past context for ``and''. Hence the same $\overrightarrow H_2$ and the same $\overrightarrow s_2$, i.e., $\overrightarrow s^1_2=\overrightarrow s^3_2$. Similarly, $\overrightarrow s^2_2=\overrightarrow s^4_2$, $\overleftarrow s^1_2=\overleftarrow s^4_2$, and $\overleftarrow s^2_2=\overleftarrow s^3_2$. Rewriting the constraints with these equalities gives
$$\overrightarrow s^1_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2i}+b_i>\overrightarrow s^1_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^2_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2i}+b_i>\overrightarrow s^2_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^1_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2i}+b_i<\overrightarrow s^1_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^2_{2j}+b_j$$
$$\overrightarrow s^2_{2i}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2i}+b_i<\overrightarrow s^2_{2j}+\overleftarrow s^1_{2j}+b_j$$
Finally, summing the first two inequalities and the last two inequalities gives two contradicting constraints that cannot be satisfied. In other words, even if an oracle is given to training the model, Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN can only tag at most 3 out of 4 ``and'' correctly. No matter how many LSTM cells are stacked for each direction, the formulation in previous studies simply does not have enough modeling capacity to capture cross-context patterns for sequence labeling NER.
\begin{table*}
\caption{
\label{tab:results:overall} Overall results.
*Used on WNUT for character-based word vectors, reported better than CNN.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|ccc|}
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{OntoNotes 5.0} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{WNUT 2017} \\
& Prec. & Rec. & F1 & Prec. & Rec. & F1 \\
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
BiLSTM-CNN & 86.04 & 86.53 & 86.28$\pm$0.26 & - & - & - \\
CRF-IDCNN & - & - & 86.84$\pm$0.19 & - & - & - \\
CRF-BiLSTM(-BiLSTM*) & - & - & 86.99$\pm$0.22 & - & - & 38.24 \\
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN & 88.37 & 87.14 & 87.75$\pm$0.14 & 53.24 & 32.93 & 40.68$\pm$1.78 \\
Cross-BiLSTM-CNN & 88.37 & \textbf{88.17} & 88.27$\pm$0.17 & \textbf{58.28} & 33.92 & \textbf{42.85}$\pm$0.99 \\
Att-BiLSTM-CNN & \textbf{88.71} & 88.11 & \textbf{88.40}$\pm$0.18 & 55.82 & \textbf{34.08} & 42.26$\pm$0.82 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:dataset:statistics} Datasets (K-tokens / K-entities).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|c|}
\hline
& OntoNotes 5.0 & WNUT 2017 \\
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
train & 1088.5 / 81.8 & 62.7 / 1.9 \\
dev & 147.7 / 11.0 & 15.7 / 0.8 \\
test & 152.7 / 11.2 & 23.3 / 1.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{XOR Limitation of CRF-BiLSTM}
\label{sec:xor_crf}
Consider the following four phrases that form an \textit{XOR}:
$$a\_o\ m\_s\ c\_o$$
$$b\_o\ m\_s\ d\_o$$
$$a\_o\ m\_o\ d\_o$$
$$b\_o\ m\_o\ c\_o$$
a, b, m, c, d denote words. \textit{s} (single) and \textit{o} (outside) are tags.
The correct tagging of all phrases requires that
$$p(oso|amc) > p(ooo|amc)$$
$$p(oso|bmd) > p(ooo|bmd)$$
$$p(oso|amd) < p(ooo|amd)$$
$$p(oso|bmc) < p(ooo|bmc)$$
Note that this time we consider each phrase as a whole.
Suppose there is only Softmax, the log-probability of a phrase is just the log-sum of each time step. Cancelling the same terms across two sides of each inequality, e.g. $lp(o\_\_|amc)$, gives
$$lp(\_s\_|amc) > lp(\_o\_|amc)$$
$$lp(\_s\_|bmd) > lp(\_o\_|bmd)$$
$$lp(\_s\_|amd) < lp(\_o\_|amd)$$
$$lp(\_s\_|bmc) < lp(\_o\_|bmc)$$
Without cross-structures, scores from two contexts are only linearly summed (See Section~\ref{sec:xor}), which gives
$$lp(\_s|am) + lp(s\_|mc) > lp(\_o|am) + lp(o\_|mc)$$
$$lp(\_s|bm) + lp(s\_|md) > lp(\_o|bm) + lp(o\_|md)$$
$$lp(\_s|am) + lp(s\_|md) < lp(\_o|am) + lp(o\_|md)$$
$$lp(\_s|bm) + lp(s\_|mc) < lp(\_o|bm) + lp(o\_|mc)$$
For pure BiLSTM, the original proof sums the top 2 and the bottom 2 inequalities, resulting in contradicting constraints.
Now, if there had been a linear-chain CRF modeling label transition probabilities (call it $q$), it would only add yet another linear term and would require \\
$lp(\_s|am) + lp(s\_|mc) + lq(oso) >$ \begin{flushright}$lp(\_o|am) + lp(o\_|mc) + lq(ooo)$\end{flushright}
$lp(\_s|bm) + lp(s\_|md) + lq(oso) >$ \begin{flushright}$lp(\_o|bm) + lp(o\_|md) + lq(ooo)$\end{flushright}
$lp(\_s|am) + lp(s\_|md) + lq(oso) <$ \begin{flushright}$lp(\_o|am) + lp(o\_|md) + lq(ooo)$\end{flushright}
$lp(\_s|bm) + lp(s\_|mc) + lq(oso) <$ \begin{flushright}$lp(\_o|bm) + lp(o\_|mc) + lq(ooo)$\end{flushright}
The inequalities remain unsatisfiable, and the reason is two-fold:
\begin{enumerate}
\itemsep0em
\item The addition of transition probabilities are linear, independent of word sequences, so it does not help untying plausible word-tag sequences that form XOR.
\item The consideration of each phrase as a whole, i.e. Viterbi decoding, does help to untie \textit{BIE} with \textit{OOO}, but not to untie \textit{OSO} with \textit{OOO} (recall ``cancelling the same terms'').
\end{enumerate}
In other words, predicting a phrase as a whole partially mitigates the XOR problem, with or without transition probabilities.
\subsection{Cross-BiLSTM-CNN}
\label{sec:cross}
Motivated by the limitation of the conventional Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN for sequence labeling, this paper proposes the use of Cross-BiLSTM-CNN by changing the deep structure in Section~\ref{sec:baseline} to
$$\overrightarrow H^1=\overrightarrow {LSTM}_1(X)$$
$$\overleftarrow H^3=\overleftarrow {LSTM}_3(X)$$
$$\overrightarrow H^2=\overrightarrow {LSTM}_2(\overrightarrow H^1||\overleftarrow H^3)$$
$$\overleftarrow H^4=\overleftarrow {LSTM}_4(\overrightarrow H^1||\overleftarrow H^3)$$
$$H=\overrightarrow H^2\ ||\ \overleftarrow H^4$$
As the forward and backward hidden states are interleaved between stacked LSTM layers, Cross-BiLSTM-CNN models cross-context patterns by computing representations of the whole sequence in a feed-forward, additive manner.
Specifically, for the XOR cases introduced in Section~\ref{sec:xor},~\ref{sec:xor_crf}, although phrase 1 and phrase 3 still have the same past context for the middle token and hence the first layer $\overrightarrow {LSTM}_1$ can only extract the same low-level hidden features $\overrightarrow H^1_2$, the second layer $\overrightarrow {LSTM}_2$ considers the whole context $\overrightarrow H^1||\overleftarrow H^3$ and thus have the ability to extract different high-level hidden features $\overrightarrow H^2_2$ for the two phrases.
As the higher-level LSTMs of Cross-BiLSTM-CNN have interleaved input from forward and backward hidden states down below, their weight parameters double the size of the first-level LSTMs. Nevertheless, the cross formulation provides the modeling capacity absent in previous studies with how many more LSTM layers.
\begin{table*}
\caption{
\label{tab:results:entitytype} Types with significant results ($>$3\% absolute F1 differences vs. Baseline); .
*Nationalities, religious, political groups.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ccccc|ccc|}
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
& \multicolumn{5}{c|}{OntoNotes 5.0} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{WNUT 2017} \\
& event & language & law & NORP* & work-of-art & corporation & creative-work & location \\
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
Cross & +3.0\% & +4.1\% & +4.5\% & +3.3\% & +2.1\% & +6.4\% & +3.2\% & +8.6\% \\
Att & +4.6\% & +0.8\% & +0.8\% & +3.4\% & +5.6\% & +0.3\% & +2.0\% & +5.3\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:results:entitylength} Improvements vs. Baseline among different mention lengths.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|cccc|cccc|}
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{OntoNotes 5.0} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{WNUT 2017} \\
& 1 & 2 & 3 & 3+ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3+ \\
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
Cross & +0.3\% & +0.6\% & +1.8\% & +1.3\% & +1.7\% & +2.9\% & +8.7\% & +5.4\% \\
Att & +0.1\% & +1.1\% & +2.3\% & +1.8\% & +1.5\% & +2.0\% & +2.6\% & +0.9\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Att-BiLSTM-CNN}
\label{sec:att}
Another way to capture the interaction between past and future context per time step is to add a token-level self-attentive mechanism on top of the same BiLSTM formulation introduced in Section~\ref{sec:baseline}. Given the hidden features $H$ of a whole sequence, the model projects each hidden state to different subspaces, depending on whether it is used as the \textit{q}uery vector to consult other hidden states for each word token, the \textit{k}ey vector to compute its dot-similarities with incoming queries, or the \textit{v}alue vector to be weighted and actually convey information to the querying token. As different aspects of a task can call for different attention, multiple attention heads running in parallel are used~\cite{Vaswani:NIPS2017}.
Formally, let $m$ be the number of attention heads and $d_c$ be the subspace dimension. For each head $i\in \{1..m\}$, the attention weight matrix and context matrix are computed by
$$\alpha^i=\sigma \left(\frac{HW^{qi}{(HW^{ki})}^T}{\sqrt{d_c}}\right)$$
$$C^i=\alpha^iHW^{vi}, $$
where $W^{qi},W^{ki},W^{vi}\in R^{d_h\times d_c}$ are trainable projection matrices and $\sigma$ performs softmax along the second dimension. Each row of the resulting $\alpha^1,\alpha^2,\ldots,\alpha^m\in R^{n\times n}$ contains the attention weights of a token to its context, and each row of $C^1,C^2,\ldots,C^m\in R^{n\times d_c}$ is its context vector.
For Att-BiLSTM-CNN, the hidden vector and context vectors of each token are considered together for classification:
$$s_t^c=(H_t||C^1_t||C^2_t||...||C^m_t)W_c+b$$
$$p_{ti}^c=\frac{e^{s_{ti}^c}}{\sum_{j=1}^{d_p}e^{s_{tj}^c}}, $$
where $C^i_t$ is the $t$-th row of $C^i$, and $W_c\in R^{(d_h+md_c)\times d_p}$ is a trainable weight matrix. In all the experiments, $m=5$ and $d_c=\frac{d_h}{5}$, so $W_c\in R^{2d_h\times d_p}$.
While the BiLSTM formulation stays the same as Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN, the computation of attention weights $\alpha^i$ and context features $C^i$ models the cross interaction between past and future. To see this, the computation of attention scores can be rewritten as follows.
$$HW^{qi}{(HW^{ki})}^T=H(W^{qi}{W^{ki}}^T)H^T.$$
$$=(\overrightarrow H\ ||\ \overleftarrow H)(W^{qi}{W^{ki}}^T){(\overrightarrow H\ ||\ \overleftarrow H)}^T.$$
With the un-shifted covariance matrix of the projected $\overrightarrow H\ ||\ \overleftarrow H$, Att-BiLSTM-CNN correlates past and future context for each token in a dot-product, multiplicative manner.
One advantage of using multiplicative attention to resolve the XOR problem is that it only needs to be computed once per sequence, and the matrix computations are highly parallelizable, resulting in little computation time overhead. Moreover, in Section~\ref{sec:experiments}, the attention weights provide a better understanding of how the model learns to tackle sequence-labeling NER.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Datasets}
\label{sec:datasets}
\textbf{OntoNotes 5.0 Fine-Grained NER}~-- a million-token corpus with diverse sources of newswires, web, broadcast news, broadcast conversations, magazines, and telephone conversations~\cite{Hovy:NAACL2006,Pradhan:CoNLL2013}. Some are transcriptions of talk shows, and some are translations from Chinese or Arabic. The dataset contains 18 fine-grained entity types, including hard ones such as \textit{law}, \textit{event}, and \textit{work-of-art}. All the diversities and noisiness require that models are robust across broad domains and able to capture a multitude of linguistic patterns for complex entities.
\textbf{WNUT 2017 Emerging NER}~-- a dataset providing maximally diverse, noisy, and drifting user-generated text~\cite{Derczynski:WNUT2017}. The training set consists of previously annotated tweets~-- social media text with non-standard spellings, abbreviations, and unreliable capitalization~\cite{Strauss:WNUT2016}; the development set consists of newly sampled YouTube comments; the test set includes text newly drawn from Twitter, Reddit, and StackExchange. Besides drawing new samples from diverse topics across different sources, the shared task also filtered out text containing surface forms of entities seen in the training set. The resulting dataset requires models to generalize to emerging contexts and entities instead of relying on familiar surface cues.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{1.5\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dutch_sentence.png}
\caption{\label{fig:dutch:sentence}A confusing surface form for \textit{language} and \textit{nationality}.}
\end{subfigure}\\
\par\smallskip
\begin{subfigure}{1.95\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{white_sentence.png}
\caption{\label{fig:white:sentence}A triple-token mention with unreliable capitalization.}
\end{subfigure}\\
\caption{Example problematic entities for Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN.}
\label{fig:case:sentence}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:results:chunking} Entity-chunking ablation results.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
& \multicolumn{8}{c|}{Att-BiLSTM-CNN} & Baseline-... \\
\cline{3-9}\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}
& $HC^{all}$ & $H$ & $C^{all}$ & $C^1$ & $C^2$ & $C^3$ & $C^4$ & $C^5$ & $H$ \\
O & 99.05 & -1.68 & 0.75 & 0.95 & -1.67 & -45.57 & -0.81 & -35.46 & -0.03 \\
S & 93.74 & 2.69 & -91.02 & -90.56 & -90.88 & -25.61 & -86.25 & -84.32 & \textbf{0.13} \\
B & 90.99 & 1.21 & -52.26 & -90.78 & -88.08 & -90.88 & \textbf{-12.21} & -87.45 & \br{-0.63} \\
I & 90.09 & \br{-28.18} & \textbf{-3.80} & -87.93 & \textbf{-60.56} & \textbf{-50.19} & \textbf{-57.19} & -79.63 & \br{-0.41} \\
E & 93.23 & 2.00 & -71.50 & -93.12 & \textbf{-36.45} & \textbf{-39.19} & -91.90 & -90.83 & \br{-0.38} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Implementation and Baselines}
\label{sec:implementation}
All experiments for Baseline-, Cross-, and Att-BiLSTM-CNN used the same model parameters given in Section~\ref{sec:model}. The training minimized per-token cross-entropy loss with the Nadam optimizer~\cite{Dozat:ICLR2016} with uniform learning rate 0.001, batch size 32, and 35\% variational dropout~\cite{Gal:NIPS2016}. Each training lasted 400 epochs when using GloVe embedding (OntoNotes), and 1600 epochs when using Twitter embedding (WNUT). The development set of each dataset was used to select the best epoch to restore model weights for testing. Following previous work on NER, model performances were evaluated with strict mention F1 score. Training of each model on each dataset repeated 6 times to report the mean score and standard deviation.
Besides the strong Baseline implemented in this paper, we also list results of bare-bone BiLSTM-CNN~\cite{Chiu:TACL2016}, CRF-BiLSTM(-BiLSTM)~\cite{Strubell:EMNLP2017,Lin:WNUT2017}, and CRF-IDCNN~\cite{Strubell:EMNLP2017} from the literature. Among them, IDCNN was a CNN-based sentence encoder, which should not have the XOR limitation raised in this paper. \textbf{Caveat}: As the purpose of the experiments is to evaluate practical effectiveness in remedying the limitation of BiLSTM, comparisons are not made against models using additional resources, such as gazetteers or POS taggers~\cite{Aguilar:WNUT2017,Aguilar:NAACL2018,Ghaddar:COLING2018}, large-scale language-modeling corpora~\cite{Akbik:COLING2018}, or multi-task supervision~\cite{Clark:EMNLP2018}, to further improve NER performance beyond bare-bone models. We do not claim to have surpassed state-of-the-art results. However, as they used BiLSTM sentence encoders with the XOR limitation, they could indeed integrate with and benefit from the cross-structures presented in this paper.
\subsection{Overall Results}
\label{sec:overall_results}
Table~\ref{tab:results:overall} shows overall results on the two datasets spanning broad domains of newswires, broadcast, telephone, and social media. The models proposed in this paper surpassed previous reported bare-bone models by 1.4\% on OntoNotes and 4.6\% on WNUT. Compared to the re-implemented Baseline-BiLSTM-CNN, the cross-structures brought 0.7\% and 2.2\% improvements on OntoNotes and WNUT. More substantial improvements were achieved for WNUT 2017 emerging NER, suggesting that cross-context patterns were even more crucial for emerging contexts and entities than familiar entities, which might often be memorized by their surface forms.
\subsection{Complex and Confusing Entity Mentions}
\label{sec:complex_and_confusing}
Table~\ref{tab:results:entitytype} shows significant results per entity type compared to Baseline ($>$3\% absolute F1 differences for either Cross or Att). It could be seen that harder entity types generally benefitted more from the cross-structures. For example, \textit{work-of-art/creative-work} entities could in principle take any surface forms~-- unseen, the same as a person name, abbreviated, or written with unreliable capitalizations on social media. Such mentions require models to learn a deep, generalized understanding of their context to accurately identify their boundaries and disambiguate their types. Both cross-structures were more capable in dealing with such hard entities (2.1\%/5.6\%/3.2\%/2.0\%) than the prevalently used, problematic Baseline.
Moreover, disambiguating fine-grained entity types is also a challenging task. For example, entities of \textit{language} and \textit{NORP} often take the same surface forms. Figure~\ref{fig:dutch:sentence} shows an example containing "Dutch" and "English". While "English" was much more frequently used as a \textit{language} and was identified correctly, the "Dutch" mention was tricky for Baseline. The attention heat map (Figure~\ref{fig:dutch:head1}) further tells the story that Att has relied on its attention head to make context-aware decisions. Overall, both cross-structures were much better at disambiguating these fine-grained types (4.1\%/0.8\%/3.3\%/3.4\%).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{1.95\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dutch_head1.png}
\caption{\label{fig:dutch:head1}(Partial) $\alpha^1$ of "...Dutch into English...".}
\end{subfigure}\\
\par\bigskip
\begin{subfigure}{1.95\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{white_head2.png}
\caption{\label{fig:white:head2}$\alpha^2$ of "...the White house...".}
\end{subfigure}\\
\par\bigskip
\begin{subfigure}{1.95\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{white_head3.png}
\caption{\label{fig:white:head3}$\alpha^3$ of "...the White house...".}
\end{subfigure}\\
\par\bigskip
\begin{subfigure}{1.95\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{white_head4.png}
\caption{\label{fig:white:head4}$\alpha^4$ of "...the White house...".}
\end{subfigure}\\
\caption{Attention heat maps for the mentions in Figure~\ref{fig:case:sentence}, best viewed on computer.}
\label{fig:case:head}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Multi-Token Entity Mentions}
\label{sec:multi_token}
Table~\ref{tab:results:entitylength} shows results among different entity lengths. It could be seen that cross-structures were much better at dealing with multi-token mentions compared to the prevalently used, problematic Baseline.
In fact, identifying correct mention boundaries for multi-token mentions poses a unique challenge for sequence-labeling models~-- all tokens in a mention must be tagged with correct sequential labels to form one correct prediction. Although models often rely on strong hints from a token itself or a single side of the context, however, in general, cross-context modeling is required. For example, a token should be tagged as \textit{I}nside if and only if it immediately follows a \textit{B}egin or an \textit{I} and is immediately followed by an \textit{I} or an \textit{E}nd.
Figure~\ref{fig:white:sentence} shows a sentence with multiple entity mentions. Among them, "the White house" is a triple-token facility mention with unreliable capitalization, resulting in an emerging surface form. Without usual strong hints given by a seen surface form, Baseline predicted a false single-token mention "White". In contrast, Att utilized its multiple attention heads (Figure~\ref{fig:white:head2},~\ref{fig:white:head3},~\ref{fig:white:head4}) to consider the preceding and succeeding tokens for each token and correctly tagged the three tokens as \textit{facility:B}, \textit{facility:I}, \textit{facility:E}.
\subsection{Entity-Chunking}
\label{sec:entity_chunking}
Entity-chunking is a subtask of NER concerned with locating entity mentions and their boundaries without disambiguating their types. For sequence-labeling models, this means correct \textit{O}, \textit{S}, \textit{B}, \textit{I}, \textit{E} tagging for each token. In addition to showing that cross-structures achieved superior performance on multi-token entity mentions (Section~\ref{sec:multi_token}), an ablation study focused on the chunking tags was performed to better understand how it was achieved.
Table~\ref{tab:results:chunking} shows the entity-chunking ablation results on OntoNotes 5.0 development set. Both Att and Baseline models were taken without re-training for this subtask. The $HC^{all}$ column lists the performance of Att-BiLSTM-CNN on each chunking tag. Other columns list the performance compared to $HC^{all}$. Columns $H$ to $C^5$ are when the full model is deprived of all other information in testing time by forcefully zeroing all vectors except the one specified by the column header. The figures shown in the table are per-token recalls for each chunking tag, which tells if a part of the model is responsible for signaling the whole model to predict that tag. Bold font and underline mark relatively \textbf{high} and \br{low} values of interest.
Firstly, Att appeared to designate the task of scoring \textit{I} to the attention mechanism: When context vectors $C^{all}$ were left alone, the recall for \textit{I} tokens only dropped a little (\textbf{-3.80}); When token hidden states $H$ were left alone, the recall for \textit{I} tokens seriously degraded (\br{-28.18}). When $H$ and $C^{all}$ work together, the full Att model was then better at predicting multi-token entity mentions than Baseline.
Then, breaking context vectors to each attention head reveals that they have worked in cooperation: $C^2$, $C^3$ focused more on scoring \textit{E} (\textbf{-36.45}, \textbf{-39.19}) than \textit{I} (\textbf{-60.56, -50.19}), while $C^4$ focused more on scoring \textit{B} (\textbf{-12.21}) than \textit{I} (\textbf{-57.19}). It was when information from all these heads were combined was Att able to better identify a token as being \textit{I}nside a multi-token mention than Baseline.
Finally, the quantitative ablation analysis of chunking tags in this Section and the qualitative case-study attention visualizations in Section~\ref{sec:multi_token} explains each other: $C^2$ and especially $C^3$ tended to focus on \textbf{looking for immediate preceding mention tokens} (the diagonal shifted left in Figure~\ref{fig:white:head2},~\ref{fig:white:head3}), enabling them \textbf{to signal for \textit{E}nd and \textit{I}nside}; $C^4$ tended to focus on \textbf{looking for immediate succeeding mention tokens} (the diagonal shifted right in Figure~\ref{fig:white:head4}), enabling it \textbf{to signal for \textit{B}egin and \textit{I}nside}. In fact, without context vectors, instead of \textit{BIE}, Att would tag "the White house" as \textit{BSE} and extract the same false mention of "White" as the \textit{OSO} of Baseline.
Lacking the ability to model cross-context patterns, Baseline inadvertently learned to retract to predict single-token entities (\textbf{0.13} vs. \br{-0.63, -0.41, -0.38}) when an easy hint from a familiar surface form is not available. This indicates a major flaw in BiLSTM-CNNs prevalently used for real-world NER today.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper has given a formal treatment of the deficiency of the prevalently-used (CRF-)BiLSTM-CNN in modeling cross-context for sequence-labeling NER. Formal proof of its inability to capture XOR patterns has been given, and the practical impacts has been analyzed on OntoNotes 5.0 and WNUT 2017. Additive and multiplicative cross-structures have shown to be crucial in modeling cross-context, significantly enhancing recognition of emerging, complex, confusing, and multi-token entity mentions. Against comparable bare-bone models, 1.4\% and 4.6\% overall improvements on OntoNotes 5.0 and WNUT 2017 have been achieved, showing the importance of remedying the core module of NER. As state-of-the-art models use (CRF-)BiLSTM with XOR limitation, this study should lay a sound foundation for future improvements on sequence-labeling NER.
\bibliographystyle{aaai}
|
\section{Introduction}
To recognize floor plan elements in a layout requires the learning of semantic information in the floor plans.
It is not merely a general segmentation problem since floor plans present not only the individual floor plan elements, such as walls, doors, windows, and closets,~\etc, but also how the elements relate to one another, and how they are arranged to make up different types of rooms.
While recognizing semantic information in floor plans is generally straightforward for humans, automatically processing floor plans and recognizing layout semantics is a very challenging problem in image understanding and document analysis.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{img/figure1}
\vspace*{0.5mm}
\caption{Our network is able to recognize walls of nonuniform thickness (see boxes 2, 4, 5), walls that meet at irregular junctions (see boxes 1, 2), curved walls (see box 3), and various room types in the layout; see Figure~\ref{fig3_1} for the legend of the color labels.}
\label{fig1}
\vspace*{-2.5mm}
\end{figure}
Traditionally, the problem is solved based on low-level image processing methods~\cite{mace2010system,ahmed2011improved,gimenez2016automatic} that exploit heuristics to locate the graphical notations in the floor plans.
Clearly, simply relying on hand-crafted features is insufficient, since it lacks generality to handle diverse conditions.
Recent methods~\cite{Raster2Vector,dodge2017parsing,yamasaki2018apartment} for the problem has begun to explore deep learning approaches.
Liu~\etal~\cite{Raster2Vector} designed a convolutional neural network (CNN) to recognize junction points in a floor plan image and connected the junctions to locate walls.
The method, however, can only locate walls of uniform thickness along XY-principal directions in the image.
Later, Yamasaki~\etal~\cite{yamasaki2018apartment} adopted a fully convolutional network to label pixels in a floor plan; however, the method simply uses a general segmentation network to
recognize pixels of different classes and ignores the spatial relations between floor plan elements and room boundary.
This paper presents a new method for floor plan recognition, with a focus on recognizing diverse floor plan elements,~\eg, walls, doors, rooms, closets,~\etc; see Figure~\ref{fig1} for two example results and Figure~\ref{fig3_1} for the legend. These elements are inter-related graphical elements with structural semantics in the floor plans. To approach the problem, we model {\em a hierarchy of labels\/} for the floor plan elements and design a {\em deep multi-task neural network\/} based on the hierarchy.
Our network learns shared features from the input floor plan and refines the features to learn to recognize individual elements. Specifically, we design the {\em spatial contextual module\/} to explore the spatial relations between elements via the {\em room-boundary-guided attention mechanism\/} to avoid feature blurring, and formulate the {\em cross-and-within-task weighted loss\/} to balance the labels across and within tasks.
Hence, we can effectively explore the spatial relations between the floor plan elements to maximize the network learning; see again the example results shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}, which exhibit the capability of our network.
Our contributions are threefold.
First, we design a deep multi-task neural network to learn the spatial relations between floor plan elements to maximize network learning.
Second, we present the spatial contextual module with the room-boundary-guided attention mechanism to learn the spatial semantic information, and formulate the cross-and-within-task weighted loss to balance the losses for our tasks.
Lastly, we take the datasets from~\cite{Raster2Vector} and~\cite{Rent3D}, collect additional floor plans, and prepare two new datasets with labels on various floor plan elements and room types.
\section{Related Work}
Traditional approaches recognize elements in floor plan based on low-level image processing.
Ryall~\etal~\cite{ryall1995semi} applied a semi-automatic method for room segmentation.
Other early methods~\cite{ah1997variations, dosch2000complete} locate walls, doors, and rooms by detecting graphical shapes in the layout,~\eg, line, arc, and small loop.
Or~\etal~\cite{or2005highly} converted bitmapped floor plans to vector graphics and generated 3D room models.
Ahmed~\etal~\cite{ahmed2011improved} separated text from graphics and extracted lines of various thickness, where walls are extracted from the thicker lines and symbols are assumed to have thin lines; then, they applied such information
to further locate doors and windows.
Gimenez~\etal~\cite{gimenez2016automatic} recognized walls and openings using heuristics, and generated 3D building models based on the detected walls and doors.
Using heuristics to recognize low-level elements in floor plans is error-prone.
This motivates the development of machine learning methods~\cite{de2011wall}, and very recently, deep learning methods~\cite{dodge2017parsing,Raster2Vector,yamasaki2018apartment} to address the problem.
Dodge~\etal~\cite{dodge2017parsing} used a fully convolutional network (FCN) to first detect the wall pixels, and then adopted a faster R-CNN framework to detect doors, sliding doors, and symbols such as kitchen stoves and bathtubs.
Also, they employed a library tool to recognize text to estimate the room size.
Liu~\etal~\cite{Raster2Vector} trained a deep neural network to first identify junction points in a given floor plan image, and then used integer programming to join the junctions to locate the walls in the floor plan.
Due to the Manhattan assumption, the method can only handle walls that align with the two principal axes in the floor plan image.
Hence, it can recognize layouts with only rectangular rooms and walls of uniform thickness.
Later, Yamasaki~\etal~\cite{yamasaki2018apartment} trained a FCN to label the pixels in a floor plan with several classes.
The classified pixels formed a graph model and were taken to retrieve houses of similar structures.
However, their method adopts a general segmentation network, where it simply recognizes pixels of different classes independently, thus ignoring the spatial relations among classes in the inference.
Compared with the recent works, our method has several distinctive improvements.
Technical-wise, our method simultaneously considers multiple floor plan elements in the network; particularly, we take their spatial relationships into account and design a multi-task approach to maximize the learning of the floor plan elements in the network.
Result-wise, our method is more general and capable of recognizing nonrectangular room layouts and walls of nonuniform thickness, as well as various room types; see Figure~\ref{fig3_1}.
Recently, there are several other works
~\cite{Zhang_2014_ECCV,Lee_2017_ICCV,Zou_2018_CVPR,Yang_2019_CVPR,Sun_2019_CVPR} related to room layouts, but they focus on a different problem,~\ie, to reconstruct 3D room layouts from photos.
\section{Our Method}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{img/figure2.jpg}
\caption{Floor plan elements organized in a hierarchy.}
\label{fig3_1}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{img/figure3.jpg}
\caption{(a) Schematic diagram illustrating our deep multi-task neural network. We have a VGG encoder to extract features from the input floor plan image.
These features are shared for two subsequent tasks in the network: one for predicting the room-boundary pixels (wall, door, and windows) and the other for predicting the room-type pixels (dining room, bedroom, etc.).
Most importantly, these two tasks have separate VGG decoders. We design the room-boundary-guided attention mechanism (blue arrows) to make use of the room-boundary features from the decoder in the upper branch to help the decoder in the lower path to learn the contextual features (red boxes) for predicting the room-type pixels.
(b) Details of the VGG encoder and decoders. The dimensions of the features in the network are shown.}
\label{fig3_2}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Goals and Problem Formulation}
The objectives of this work are as follows.
First, we aim to recognize various kinds of floor plan elements, which are not only limited to walls but also include doors, windows, room regions,~\etc~
Second, we target to handle rooms of nonrectangular shapes and walls of nonuniform thickness.
Last, we aim also to recognize the rooms types in floor plans,~\eg, dining room, bedroom, bathroom,~\etc
Achieving these goals requires the ability to process the floor plans and find multiple nonoverlapping but spatially-correlated elements in the plans.
In our method, we first organize the floor plan elements in a hierarchy (see Figure~\ref{fig3_1}), where pixels in a floor plan can be identified as inside or outside, while the inside pixels can be further identified as {\em room-boundary pixels\/} or {\em room-type pixels\/}.
Moreover, the room-boundary pixels can be {\em walls\/}, {\em doors\/}, or {\em windows\/}, whereas room-type pixels can be the {\em living room, bathroom, bedroom, etc.\/}; see the legend in Figure~\ref{fig3_1}.
Based on the hierarchy, we design a deep multi-task network with one task to predict room-boundary elements and the other to predict room-type elements.
In particular, we formulate the spatial contextual module to explore the spatial relations between elements,~\ie, using the features learned for the room boundary to refine the features for learning the room types.
\subsection{Network Architecture}
\vspace*{-0.5mm}
\paragraph{Overall network architecture.}
Figure~\ref{fig3_2}(a) presents the overall network architecture.
First, we adopt a shared VGG encoder~\cite{Simonyan14c} to extract features from the input floor plan image.
Then, we have two main tasks in the network: one for predicting the room-boundary pixels with three labels,~\ie, wall, door, and window, and the other for predicting the room-type pixels with eight labels,~\ie, dining room, washroom,~\etc; see Figure~\ref{fig3_1} for details.
Here, \emph{room boundary} refers to the floor-plan elements that separate room regions in floor plans; it is not simply low-level edges nor the outermost border that separates the foreground and background.
Specifically, our network first learns the shared feature, common for both tasks, then makes use of two separate VGG decoders (see Figure~\ref{fig3_2}(b) for the connections and feature dimensions) to perform the two tasks.
Hence, the network can learn additional features for each task.
To maximize the network learning, we further make use of the room-boundary context features to bound and guide the discovery of room regions, as well as their types; here, we design the spatial contextual module to process and pass the room-boundary features from the top decoder (see Figure~\ref{fig3_2}(a)) to the bottom decoder to maximize the feature integration for room-type predictions.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14.5cm]{img/figure4.jpg}
\caption{Our {\em spatial contextual module\/} with the {\em room-boundary-guided attention mechanism\/}, which leverages the room-boundary features to learn the attention weights for room-type prediction.
In the lower branch, we use convolutional layers with four different direction-aware kernels to generate features for integration with the attention weights and produce the spatial contextual features (in red; see also Figure~\ref{fig3_2}).
Here ``C'' denotes concatenation, while ``X'' and ``+'' denote element-wise multiplication and addition, respectively.}
\label{fig3_4}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\end{figure*}
\vspace*{-3.5mm}
\paragraph{Spatial contextual module.}
Figure~\ref{fig3_4} shows the network architecture of the spatial contextual module.
It has two branches.
The input to the top branch is the room-boundary features from the top VGG decoder (see the blue boxes in Figures~\ref{fig3_2}(a) \&~\ref{fig3_4}), while the input to the bottom branch is the room-type features from the bottom VGG decoder (see the green boxes in Figures~\ref{fig3_2}(a) \&~\ref{fig3_4}).
See again Figure~\ref{fig3_2}(a): there are four levels in the VGG decoders, and the spatial contextual module (see the dashed arrows in Figure~\ref{fig3_2}(a)) is applied four times, once per level, to integrate the room-boundary and room-type features from the same level (\ie, in the same resolution) and generate the spatial contextual features; see the red boxes in Figures~\ref{fig3_2}(a) \&~\ref{fig3_4}.
\begin{itemize}
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item
In the top branch, we apply a series of convolutions to the room-boundary feature and reduce it to a 2D feature map as the {\em attention weights\/}, denoted as $a_{m,n}$ at pixel location $m,n$. The attention weights are learned through the convolutions rather than being fixed.
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item
Furthermore, we apply the attention weights to the bottom branch twice; see the ``X'' operators in Figure~\ref{fig3_4}.
The first attention is applied to compress the noisy features before the four convolutional layers with direction-aware kernels, while the second attention is applied to further suppress the blurring features.
We call it the {\em room-boundary-guided attention mechanism\/} since the attention weights are learned from the room-boundary features.
Let $f_{m,n}$ as the input feature for the first attention weight $a_{m,n}$ and $f'_{m,n}$ as the output, the X operation can be expressed as
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4_1}
f'_{m,n} = a_{m,n} \cdot f_{m,n} \ .
\end{equation}
\vspace*{-8mm}
\item
In the bottom branch as shown in Figure~\ref{fig3_4}, we first apply a $3\times3$ convolution to the room-type features and then reduce it into a 2D feature map.
After that, we apply the first attention to the 2D feature map followed by four separate direction-aware kernels (horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and flipped diagonal) of $k$ unit size to further process the feature.
Taking the horizontal kernel as an example, our equation is as follows:
\vspace*{-1mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_group3}
\begin{aligned}
h_{m,n} =& \sum_k(\alpha_{m-k,n} \cdot f'_{m-k,n} + \alpha_{m,n} \cdot f'_{m,n} \\&
+ \alpha_{m+k,n} \cdot f'_{m+k,n}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $h_{m,n}$ is the contextual features along the horizontal direction;
$f'_{m,n}$ is the input feature (see Eq.~\eqref{eq4_1}); and
$\alpha$ is the weight.
In our experiments, we set $\alpha$ to $1$.
\vspace*{-4mm}
\item
In the second attention, we further apply the attention weights ($a_{m,n}$) to integrate the aggregated features:
\vspace*{-1mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
f''_{m,n} = a_{m,n} \cdot (h_{m,n} + v_{m,n} + d_{m,n} + d'_{m,n}),
\end{equation}
where $v_{m,n}$, $d_{m,n}$, and $d'_{m,n}$ denotes the contextual features along the vertical, diagonal, and flipped diagonal directions, respectively, after the convolutions with the direction-aware kernels.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{img/figure5.jpg}
\caption{Visual comparison of floor plan recognition results produced by our method (c\&d) and by others (e-g) on the R2V dataset; note that we have to use rectangular floor plans for comparison with Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector}.
Symbol $\dag$ indicates the postprocessing step.}
\label{fig4_1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison with Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector} on the R2V dataset.
Symbol $\dag$ indicates our method with postprocessing (see Section~\ref{ssec:implem}).}
\vspace*{1mm}
\label{table4_5}
\resizebox{0.9\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}||@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}} \hline
& \multirow{2}*{$overall\_accu$} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{$class\_accu$} \\ \cline{3-10}
& & Wall & Door \& Window & Closet & Bathroom \& \etc & Living room \& \etc & Bedroom & Hall & Balcony \\ \hline \hline
Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector} & 0.84 & 0.53 & 0.58 & 0.78 & 0.83 & 0.72 & \textbf{0.89} & 0.64 & 0.71 \\ \hline
Ours & 0.88 & \textbf{0.88} & \textbf{0.86} & 0.80 & 0.86 & 0.86 & 0.75 & 0.73 & 0.86 \\ \hline
Ours\dag & \textbf{0.89} & \textbf{0.88} & \textbf{0.86} & \textbf{0.82} & \textbf{0.90} & \textbf{0.87} & 0.77 & \textbf{0.82} & \textbf{0.93} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Network Training}
\label{ssec:network_training}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
As there are no public datasets with pixel-wise labels for floor plan recognition, we prepared two datasets, namely R2V and R3D.
Specifically, R2V has 815 images, all from Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector}, where the floor plans are mostly in rectangular shapes with uniform wall thickness.
For R3D, besides the original 214 images from~\cite{Rent3D}, we further added 18 floor plan images of round-shaped layouts to the data.
Compared with R2V, most room shapes in R3D are irregular with nonuniform wall thickness.
Here, we used Photoshop to manually label the image regions in R2V and R3D for walls, doors, bedrooms, etc.
Note that we used the same label for some room regions,~\eg, living room and dining room (see Figure~\ref{fig3_1}), since they usually locate just next to one another without walls separating them.
Such a situation can be observed in both datasets.
Second, we followed the GitHub code in Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector} to group room regions, so that we can compare with their results.
For the train-test split ratio, we followed the original paper~\cite{Raster2Vector} to split R2V into 715 images for training and 100 images for testing.
For R3D, we randomly split it into 179 images for training and 53 images for testing.
\vspace*{-3mm}
\paragraph{Cross-and-within-task weighted loss.}
Each of the two tasks in our network involves multiple labels for various room-boundary and room-type elements.
Since the number of pixels varies for different elements, we have to balance their contributions within each task.
Also, there are generally more room-type pixels than room-boundary pixels, so we have to further balance the contributions of the two tasks.
Therefore, we design a {\em cross-and-within-task weighted loss} to balance between the two tasks as well as among the floor plan elements within each task.
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Within-task weighted loss\/}.
Here, we define the within-task weighted loss in an entropy style as
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:within_task}
\mathcal{L}_{task} = w_i \sum_{i=1}^C -y_i \log{p_i},
\end{equation}
where
$y_i$ is the label of the $i$-th floor plan element in the floor plan and $C$ is the number of floor plan elements in the task;
$p_i$ is the prediction label of the pixels for the $i$-th element ($p_i \in [0,1]$); and
$w_i$ is defined as follows:
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:within_task_weight}
w_i
= \frac{\hat{\mathcal{N}} - {\hat{N}_i}}{\sum_{j=1}^C( \hat{\mathcal{N}} - {\hat{N}_j} )},
\end{equation}
where $\hat{N}_i$ is the total number of ground-truth pixels for the $i$-th floor plan element in the floor plan, and $\hat{\mathcal{N}}=\sum_{i=1}^C \hat{N}_i$, which means the total number of ground-truth pixels over all the $C$ floor plan elements.
\item
{\em Cross-and-within-task weighted loss\/}:
$L_{rb}$ and $L_{rt}$ denotes the within-task weighted losses for the room-boundary and room-type prediction tasks computed from Eq.~\eqref{eq:within_task}, respectively. $N_{rb}$ and $N_{rt}$ are the total number of network output pixels for room boundary and room type, respectively.
Then, the overall cross-and-within-task weighted loss $\mathcal{L}$ is defined as:
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cross_task}
\mathcal{L} = w_{rb} \mathcal{L}_{rb} + w_{rt} \mathcal{L}_{rt},
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{equation}
where $w_{rb}$ and $w_{rb}$ are weights given by
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cross_task_weight}
w_{rb} = \frac{N_{rt}}{N_{rb}+N_{rt}} \ \ \text{and} \ \
w_{rt} = \frac{N_{rb}}{N_{rb}+N_{rt}}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\section{Experiments}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{img/figure6.jpg}
\caption{Visual comparison of floor plan recognition results produced by our method (c\&d) and others (e-f) on the R3D dataset.
Symbol $\dag$ indicates our method with postprocessing (see Section~\ref{ssec:implem}).}
\label{fig4_2}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{ssec:implem}
\paragraph{Network training.}
We trained our network on an NVIDIA TITAN Xp GPU and ran 40k iterations in total.
We employed Adam optimizer to update the parameters and used a fixed learning rate of 1e-4 to train the network.
The resolution of the input floor plan is $512 \times 512$, for keeping the thin and short lines (such as the walls) in the floor plans.
Moreover, we used a batch size of one without using batch normalization, since it requires at least 32 batch size~\cite{Wu_2018_ECCV}.
Also, we did not use any other normalization method.
For other existing methods in our comparison, we used the original hyper-parameters reported in their original papers to train their networks. To obtain the best recognition results, we further evaluated the result every five training epochs and reported only the best one.
\vspace*{-4mm}
\paragraph{Network testing.}
\label{sec:post_process}
Given a test floor plan image, we feed it to our network and obtain its output.
However, due to the per-pixel prediction, the output may contain certain noise, so we further find connected regions bounded by the predicted room-boundary pixels to locate room regions, count the number of pixels of each predicted room type in each bounded region, and set the overall predicted type as the type of the largest frequency (see Figure~\ref{fig4_1}(c) \& (d)).
Our code and datasets are available at: {\small{\url{https://github.com/zlzeng/DeepFloorplan}}}.
\subsection{Qualitative and Quantitative Comparisons}
\paragraph{Comparing with Raster-to-Vector.}
First, we compared our method with Raster-to-Vector~\cite{Raster2Vector}, the state-of-the-art method for floor plan recognition.
Specifically, we used images from the R2V dataset to train its network and also our network.
To run Raster-to-Vector, we used its original labels (which are 2D corner coordinates of rectangular bounding boxes), while for our network, we used per-pixel labels.
Considering that the Raster-to-Vector network can only output 2D corner coordinates of bounding boxes, we followed the procedure presented in~\cite{Raster2Vector} to convert its bounding box outputs to per-pixel labels to facilitate comparison with our method; please refer to~\cite{Raster2Vector} for the procedural details.
Figure~\ref{fig4_1} (c-e) shows visual comparisons between our method and Raster-to-Vector.
For our method, we provide both results with (denoted with $\dag$) and w/o postprocessing.
For Raster-to-Vector, it has already contained a simple postprocessing step to connect room regions.
Comparing the results with the ground truths in (b), we can see that Raster-to-Vector tends to have poorer performance on room-boundary predictions,~\eg, missing even some room regions.
Our results are more similar to the ground truths, even without postprocessing.
For the R3D dataset, it contains many nonrectangular room shapes, so Raster-to-Vector performed badly with many missing regions, due to its Manhattan assumption; thus, we did not report the comparisons on R3D.
For quantitative evaluation, we adopted two widely-used metrics~\cite{Long_2015_CVPR},~\ie, the overall pixel accuracy and the per-class pixel accuracy:
\vspace*{-2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4_accu}
overall\_accu = \frac{\sum_{i}N_{i}}{\sum_{i}\hat{N}_i}
\ \ \text{and} \ \
class\_accu(i) = \frac{N_i}{\hat{N}_i} \ ,
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{N}_i$ and $N_i$ are the total number of the ground-truth pixels and the correctly-predicted pixels for the $i$-th floor plan element, respectively.
Table~\ref{table4_5} shows the quantitative comparison results on the R2V dataset.
From the results, we can see that our method achieves higher accuracies for most floor plan elements, and the postprocessing could further improve our performance.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison with DeepLabV3+ and PSPNet.
Besides the class accuracy, we further followed the GitHub code of~\cite{Long_2015_CVPR} to compute the $mean\_IoU$ metric; see the last row.
The values inside () indicate the performance after postprocessing.
Note that the R2V dataset contains floor plans that are mostly in rectangular shapes, while the R3D dataset contains a much richer variety shape of floor plans.}
\vspace*{1mm}
\label{table4_3}
\resizebox{0.95\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{c||c||ll|ll|ll||ll|ll|ll} \hline
& & \multicolumn{6}{c||}{R3D} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{R2V} \\ \cline{3-14}
& & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\small Ours} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\small DeepLabV3+~\cite{Chen_2018_ECCV}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\small PSPNet~\cite{Zhao_2017_CVPR}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\small Ours} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\small DeepLabV3+~\cite{Chen_2018_ECCV}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\small PSPNet~\cite{Zhao_2017_CVPR}} \\ \cline{2-14} \cline{1-14}
$overall\_accu$ & & 0.89 & (\textbf{0.90}) & 0.85 & (0.83) & 0.84 & (0.81) & 0.89 & (\textbf{0.90}) & 0.88 & (0.87) & 0.88 & (0.88) \\ \hline
\multirow{8}{*}{$class\_accu$} & wall & 0.98 & (\textbf{0.98}) & 0.93 &(0.93) & 0.91 &(0.91) & 0.89 &(\textbf{0.89}) & 0.80 &(0.80) & 0.84 &(0.84) \\ \cline{2-14}
& door-and-window & 0.83 &(\textbf{0.83}) & 0.60 &(0.60) & 0.54& (0.54) & 0.89 &(\textbf{0.89}) & 0.72& (0.72) & 0.76 &(0.76) \\ \cline{2-14}
& closet & \textbf{0.61} &(0.54) & 0.24 &(0.048) & 0.45 &(0.086) & 0.81 &(\textbf{0.92}) & 0.78& (0.85) & 0.80 &(0.71) \\ \cline{2-14}
& bathroom \& \etc & \textbf{0.81}& (0.78) & 0.76& (0.57) & 0.70& (0.50) & 0.87& (\textbf{0.93}) & 0.90& (0.90) & 0.90 &(0.84) \\ \cline{2-14}
& living room \& \etc & 0.87& (\textbf{0.93}) & 0.76 &(0.90) & 0.76& (0.89) & 0.88& (\textbf{0.91}) & 0.85& (0.84) & 0.83 &(0.90) \\ \cline{2-14}
& bedroom & 0.75& (\textbf{0.79}) & 0.56& (0.40) & 0.55 &(0.40) & 0.83& (\textbf{0.91}) & 0.82& (0.65) & 0.86& (0.92) \\ \cline{2-14}
& hall & 0.59 &(0.68) & \textbf{0.72}& (0.44) & 0.61 &(0.23) & 0.68 &(0.84) & 0.55& (\textbf{0.87}) & 0.78 &(0.81) \\ \cline{2-14}
& balcony & 0.44 &(\textbf{0.49}) & 0.08& (0.0027) & 0.41 &(0.11) & 0.90& (\textbf{0.92}) & 0.87& (0.45) & 0.87 &(0.82) \\ \hline
$mean\_IoU$ & & 0.63 & (\textbf{0.66}) & 0.50 & (0.44) & 0.50 & (0.41) & 0.74 & (\textbf{0.76}) & 0.69 & (0.67) & 0.70 & (0.69) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{table*}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\paragraph{Comparing with segmentation networks.}
To evaluate how general segmentation networks perform for floor plan recognition, we further compare our method with two recent segmentation networks, DeepLabV3+~\cite{Chen_2018_ECCV} and PSPNet~\cite{Zhao_2017_CVPR}.
For a fair comparison, we trained their networks, as well as our network, on the R2V dataset and also on the R3D dataset, and adjusted their hyper-parameters to obtain the best recognition results.
Figures~\ref{fig4_1} \&~\ref{fig4_2} present visual comparisons with PSPNet and DeepLabV3+ on testing floor plans from R2V and R3D, respectively.
Due to space limitation, please see our supplementary material for results of PSPNet and DeepLabV3+ with postprocessing.
From the figures, we can see that their results tend to contain noise, especially for complex room layouts and small elements like doors and windows.
Since these elements are usually the room boundary between room regions, so the results further affect the room-type predictions.
Please see the supplementary material for more visual comparison results.
Table~\ref{table4_3} reports the quantitative comparison results for various methods with and without postprocessing, in terms of the overall and per-class accuracy, on both R2V and R3D datasets.
Comparing with DeepLabV3+ and PSPNet, our method performs better for most floor plan elements, even without postprocessing, showing its superiority over these general-purpose segmentation networks.
Note that, our postprocessing step assumes plausible room-boundary predictions, so it typically fails to enhance results with poor room-boundary predictions; see the results in Figure~\ref{fig4_2}.
\paragraph{Comparing with an edge detection method.} \
To show that room boundaries (\ie, wall, door, and window) are not merely edges in the floor plans but structural elements with semantics, we further compare our method with a state-of-the-art edge detection network~\cite{liu2017richer} (denoted as RCF) on detecting wall elements in floor plans.
Here, we re-trained RCF using our wall labels, separately on the R2V and R3D datasets; since RCF outputs a per-pixel probability ($\in [0,1]$) on wall prediction, we need a threshold (denoted as $t_\text{RCF}$) to locate the wall pixels from its results.
In our method, we extract a binary map from our network output for walls pixels; see Figure~\ref{fig3_1} (bottom) for an example.
To quantitatively compare the binary maps produced by RCF and our method, we employ F-measure~\cite{Hou_2018}, a commonly-used metric, which is expressed as
\vspace*{-1mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4_f_beta}
F_{\beta} = \frac{(1+\beta^2)Precision \times Recall}{\beta^2Precision + Recall} \ ,
\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{equation}
where $Precision$ and $Recall$ are the ratios of the correctly-predicted wall pixels over all the predicted wall pixels and over all the ground-truth wall pixels, respectively.
To account for the fact that we need $t_\text{RCF}$ to threshold RCF's results, we extend $F_{\beta}$ into $F_{\beta}^\text{max}$ and $F_{\beta}^\text{mean}$ in the evaluations:
\vspace*{-1.5mm}
\begin{displaymath}
F_{\beta}^\text{max} =
\frac{1}{M}\sum_{p=1}^{M}{\tilde{F}^p_{\beta}}
\ \ \text{and} \ \
F_{\beta}^\text{mean} =
\frac{1}{MT}\sum_{p=1}^{M}\sum_{t=0}^{T-1}{F^p_{\beta}({\small \frac{t}{T-1}})},
\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{displaymath}
where $M$ is the total number of testing floor plans;
$\tilde{F}^p_\beta$ is the best $F_{\beta}$ on the $p$-th test input over $T$ different $t_\text{RCF}$ ranged in [0,1];
and
$F^p_{\beta}({\small \frac{t}{T-1}})$ is $F_{\beta}$ on the $p$-th test input using $t_\text{RCF}=\frac{t}{T-1}$.
In our implementation, as suggested by previous work~\cite{Hou_2018}, we empirically set $\beta^2$$=$$0.3$ and $T$$=$$256$.
Note that $F_{\beta}^\text{max}$ and $F_{\beta}^\text{mean}$ are the same for the binary maps produced by our method, since they do not require $t_\text{RCF}$.
Table~\ref{table4_2} reports the results, clearly showing that our method outperforms RCF on detecting the walls.
Having said that, simply detecting edges in the floor plan images is inefficient to floor plan recognition.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison with a state-of-the-art edge detection network (RCF~\cite{liu2017richer}) on detecting the walls in floor plans.}
\label{table4_2}
\vspace*{1mm}
\resizebox{0.68\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c||c|c} \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{R2V} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{R3D} \\ \cline{2-5}
& $F_{\beta}^\text{max}$ & $F_{\beta}^\text{mean}$ & $F_{\beta}^\text{max}$ & $F_{\beta}^\text{mean}$ \\ \hline \hline
RCF~\cite{liu2017richer} & 0.62 & 0.56 & 0.68 & 0.58 \\ \hline
Ours & \textbf{0.85} & \textbf{0.85} & \textbf{0.95} & \textbf{0.95} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.89\linewidth]{img/figure8.jpg}
\caption{Reconstructed 3D models from our recognition results.}
\label{fig6_1}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Architecture Analysis on our Network}
Next, we present an architecture analysis on our network by comparing it with the following two baseline networks:
\begin{itemize}
%
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item
{\em Baseline \#1: two separate single-task networks.}
The first baseline breaks the problem into two separate single-task networks, one for room-boundary prediction and the other for room-type prediction, with two separate sets of VGG encoders and decoders.
Hence, there are no shared features and also no spatial contextual modules compared to our full network.
%
\vspace*{-1mm}
\item
{\em Baseline \#2: without the spatial contextual module.}
The second baseline is our full network with the shared features but without the spatial contextual module.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{A comparison of our full network with {\em Baseline network \#1} and {\em Baseline network \#2} using the R3D dataset.}
\vspace*{1mm}
\label{tab:multitask}
\resizebox{1.0\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c||c|c|c} \hline
\multirow{2}*{Metrics} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Methods} \\ \cline{2-4}
& {\small Baseline \#1} & {\small Baseline \#2} & {\small Our full network} \\ \hline \hline
{$overall\_accu$} & 0.82 & 0.85 & \textbf{0.89} \\ \hline
{$average \ class\_accu$} & 0.72 & 0.72 & \textbf{0.80} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:multitask} shows the comparison results, where we trained and tested each network using the R3D dataset~\cite{Rent3D}.
From the results, we can see that our full network outperforms the two baselines, indicating that the multi-task scheme with the shared features and the spatial contextual module both help improve the floor plan recognition performance.
\subsection{Analysis on the Spatial Contextual Module}
An ablation analysis of the spatial contextual module (see Figure~\ref{fig3_4} for details) is presented here.
\begin{itemize}
%
\item
{\em No attention}: the room-boundary-guided attention mechanism (see the top branch in Figure~\ref{fig3_4}) is removed from the spatial contextual module.
%
\vspace*{-2mm}
\item
{\em No direction-aware kernels}: the convolution layers with the four direction-aware kernels in the spatial contextual module are removed. Only the room-boundary-guided attention mechanism is applied.
\end{itemize}
Table~\ref{tab:ablation} shows the comparison results between the above schemes and the full method (\ie, with both attention and direction-aware kernels).
Again, we trained and tested on the R3D dataset~\cite{Rent3D}.
From Table~\ref{tab:ablation}, we can see that the spatial contextual module performs the best when equipped with the attention mechanism and direction-aware kernels.
\subsection{Discussion}
\paragraph{Application: 3D model reconstruction.}
Here, we take our floor plan recognition results to reconstruct 3D models.
Figure~\ref{fig6_1} shows several examples of the constructed 3D floor plans. Our method is able to recognize walls of nonuniform thickness and a wide variety of shapes. It thus enables us to construct 3D room-boundary of various shapes,~\eg, curved walls in floor plan.
One may notice that we only reconstruct the walls in 3D in Figure~\ref{fig6_1}. In fact, we may further reconstruct the doors and windows, since our method has also recognized them in the layouts. For more reconstruction results, please refer to our supplementary material.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Ablation study on the spatial contextual module.}
\vspace*{1mm}
\label{tab:ablation}
\resizebox{0.9\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c||@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}c@{\hspace{1mm}}} \hline
\multirow{3}*{Metrics} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Methods} \\ \cline{2-4}
& {\multirow{2}*{\small No attention}} & {\small No direction} & {\small Our complete} \\
& & {\small -aware kernels} & {\small version} \\ \hline \hline
{$overall\_accu$} & 0.86 & 0.87 & \textbf{0.89} \\ \hline
{$average \ class\_accu$}& 0.74 & 0.77 & \textbf{0.80} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{table}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\paragraph{Limitations.}
Here, we discuss two challenging situations, for which our method fails to produce plausible predictions.
First, our network may fail to differentiate inside and outside regions, in case there are some special room structures in the floor plan,~\eg, long and double-bended corridors.
Second, our network may wrongly recognize large icons (\eg, compass icon) in floor plans as wall elements.
To address these issues, we believe that more data is needed for the network to learn more variety of floor plans and the semantics.
Also, we may explore weakly-supervised learning for the problem to avoid the tedious annotations; please see the supplemental material for example failure cases.
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents a new method for recognizing floor plan elements.
There are three key contributions in this work.
First, we explore the spatial relationship between floor plan elements, model a hierarchy of floor plan elements, and design a multi-task network to learn to recognize room-boundary and room-type elements in floor plans.
Second, we further take the room-boundary features to guide the room-type prediction by formulating the spatial contextual module with the room-boundary-guided attention mechanism.
Further, we design a cross-and-within-task weighted loss to balance the losses within each task and across tasks.
In the end, we prepared also two datasets for floor plan recognition and extensively evaluated our network in various aspects.
Results show the superiority of our network over the others in terms of the overall accuracy and $F_{\beta}$ metrics.
In the future, we plan to further extract the dimension information in the floor plan images, and learn to recognize the text labels and symbols in floor plans.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
The reconstruction of a symmetric $m$-tensor field $f$ from its ray transform known along all lines or along a sub-collection of lines in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a very important problem. It has applications in several areas such as acoustic flow imaging using time-of-flight measurements \cite{SAJohnson1977}, non-destructive evaluation \cite{Sato1985}, deflection optical tomography to determine densities in supersonic expansions and flames \cite{Faris1988}, ocean tomography \cite{Munk1979,Howe1987}, reconstruction of velocity vector fields in blood vessels \cite{Jansson1995}, boundary rigidity problem \cite{Michel, Sharafutdinov_Book, SU1} and photoelasticity \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}. Such a reconstruction problem can also be considered in the setting of Riemannian manifolds, where integrals of a tensor field are considered over geodesics, and has important applications in geophysics \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book, SU1, SU2, Uhlmann-Vasy}.
It is well known \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book} that any symmetric $m$-tensor field can be decomposed uniquely into a potential and a solenoidal component. The potential component of a symmetric tensor field is always contained in the kernel of the ray transform. Thus one can only hope to recover the solenoidal part of a symmetric $m$- tensor field from its ray transform. Sharafutdinov \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book} gave an explicit inversion formula to reconstruct the solenoidal part of a symmetric $m$-tensor field from the knowledge of its ray transform over all lines in $\mathbb{R}^n$. For scalar functions ($m=0$), the reconstruction problem is a classical one in mathematical tomography. Beginning with the classical work of Radon \cite{Radon_Paper} and of Cormack \cite{Cormack_Paper}, there are several inversion results; see \cite{Helgason_Book} and the references therein. In the case of incomplete data, there are several inversion results for different values of $m$ \cite{Tuy1983,Denisjuk1994,Schuster2000,Schuster2001,Katsevich2006,Sharafutdinov2007,
Palamodov2009,Svetov2012.,Katsevich2013,Denisiuk_2018}. Vertgeim \cite{Vertgeim2000} gave a method to reconstruct the solenoidal part from the associated ray transform over all lines intersecting a fixed curve. Denisjuk \cite{Denisjuk_Paper} showed for $n=3$ and any $m$ that the solenoidal part of a tensor field can be recovered with an explicit formula if its ray transform is known over all lines intersecting a fixed curve satisfying the so called Kirillov-Tuy condition. The condition given on the curve in Denisjuk's work is less restrictive compared to the work of Vertgeim in the sense that required number of intersection points of the curve and any hyperplane that intersects support of $f$ is lesser.
The reconstruction of the solenoidal component in a Riemannian geometry setting has been also extensively studied; see \cite{Pestov-Sharafutdinov,Sharafutdinov_Upperbound_Curvature, Sharafutdinov_Book, SU1, SU2, SU3, Uhlmann-Vasy,Stefanov-Uhlmann-Vasy}. Furthermore, approximate inversion results such as microlocal inversion formulas have been thoroughly investigated as well in several works \cite{GS, Greenleaf-Uhlmann-Duke1989, Boman-Quinto-Duke, Boman1993,SU1, Katsevich2002, Lan2003,Ramaseshan2004, SU2, SU3, VRS} starting from the fundamental work of Guillemin-Sternberg \cite{Guillemin-Sternberg-AJM} who first studied generalized Radon transform in the framework of Fourier integral operators.
Since the full recovery of a symmetric $m$-tensor field is not possible from its ray transform, the question that one can ask is whether it is possible to reconstruct the full tensor field given some additional data. In this connection Sharafutdinov in \cite{Sharafutdinov_Generalized_Tensor_Fields} proved a uniqueness result showing that full recovery of a symmetric $m$-tensor field $f$ is possible from the knowledge of the so-called first $m+1$ integral moments \cite[pp.78]{Sharafutdinov_Book}. In this connection, we also point out several related works \cite{Sparr-Strahlen, Holman2010, Braun-Hauck, Svetov2014, Rohit2017,Venky_Suman_Manna,Abhishek2018,Venky_Rohit_Francois}, where the authors show full reconstruction of a vector field from the knowledge of the usual (longitudinal) and transverse ray transforms.
Our focus in the current article is to provide an inversion method to uniquely recover a vector field if its Doppler transform and the $1^{st}$ integral moment transform (see Definition \ref{Moments_Def} below) are known along all lines intersecting a fixed curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$. To the best of our knowledge, the explicit reconstruction of the solenoidal component of the vector field from restricted data is known so far only for the 3-dimensional case. In our work, we show the reconstruction of the solenoidal component of the vector field from restricted ray transform data in any dimension. Furthermore, the full reconstruction of the vector field from restricted integral moment transforms is new and as far as we are aware of, has not been considered previously. Our proof follows closely the techniques of Denisjuk \cite{Denisjuk_Paper} to recover the solenoidal part of a vector field explicitly from the knowledge the Doppler transform known along all lines intersecting a fixed curve satisfying the so-called Kirillov-Tuy condition in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then we solve an elliptic boundary value problem to get the solenoidal part in the bounded domain. Finally we use the restricted first integral moment transform to get the potential part.
\par The article is organised as follows. In the Section \ref{Preliminaries}, we give preliminaries and the statements of our main results. In Section \ref{Proof of Solenoidal part}, we prove some important lemmas which we use to prove our main results in the same section.
\section{Preliminaries and statements of the main results}\label{Preliminaries}
We start with introducing some notations for spaces of functions and distributions which we are going to use throughout this article.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{D}( \mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ : the space of covector fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose components are compactly supported smooth functions.
\item $\mathcal{D}^\prime( \mathbb{R}^n; \mathbb{R}^n)$ : the space of covector fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose components are distributions.
\item $\mathcal{E}( \mathbb{R}^n; \mathbb{R}^n)$ : the space of covector fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose components are smooth functions.
\item $\mathcal{E}^\prime( \mathbb{R}^n; \mathbb{R}^n)$ : the space of covector fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose components are compactly supported smooth distributions.
\end{itemize}
In the similar manner, we may define spaces of covector fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with components in some Hilbert space $H^s$ or in some Lebesgue space $L^p$ as well.
\begin{definition} \label{Doppler transform}
The Doppler transform of a covector field $f =( f_1, \dots , f_n) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the function $Df$ on the space of oriented lines parametrized by $(x, \xi) \in T \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and defined as the following:
\begin{align}\label{eq:definition of Doppler transform}
Df(x,\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_{i}(x+t\xi)\xi^{i}d t.
\end{align}
Here and elsewhere with repeating indices, Einstein summation convention will be assumed. With a little abuse of notation, we denote the $X$-ray transform of a function $f$ also by $Df$ which is defined as
\begin{align}\label{eq:definition of X-ray transform}
Df(x,\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x+t\xi)d t.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}] \label{Moments_Def}
The $1^{\mathrm{st}}$ integral moment transform $I^1f$ of a vector field $f \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ is defined as a function on $T \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:definition of integral moment}
If(x,\xi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}t f_{i}(x+t\xi)\xi^{i}d t.
\end{align}
\par Let $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ be a fixed curve in $\mathbb{R}^n$ parametrized by $\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)$ for $ s \in [a, b] \subset \mathbb{R}$ and let $ \mathcal{C}_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ denotes the $n$-dimensional subspace of $T\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ which is just collection all lines intersecting this curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$. Then $\mathcal{C}_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ can be parametrized by $(\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s) , \xi)$ for $ t \in [0,1]$ and $ \xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. The restrictions of the Doppler transform and of the first integral moment on $\mathcal{C}_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ is denoted by $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ (restricted Doppler transform) and by $I_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ (restricted first integral moment) respectively.
\end{definition}
\par By duality, we can extend the definition of the Doppler transform $D$ as a map between $\mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ (the space of vector fields whose components are compactly supported distributions) and $\mathcal{D}^\prime(T \mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ (the space of vector fields whose components are distributions) in the following way:
\begin{align}\label{eq: definition of ray transform for distributions}
\langle Df , \phi \rangle_{T \mathbb{S}^{n-1}} = \langle f, D^* \phi \rangle_{T^*\mathbb{R}^n}, \mbox{ for } f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n) \mbox{ and } \phi \in \mathcal{D}(T \mathbb{S}^{n-1}),
\end{align}
where $D^*$ is a map from $\mathcal{D}(T \mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ to $\mathcal{E}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ which is defined by
$$(D^* \phi)_i(x) = \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \xi^i\left( \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi(x-t\xi,\xi)dt\right)d\xi.$$
\par In fact, we can also compute the dual of $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ using the duality in the following way:
\begin{align*}
\langle D_\gamma f , \phi \rangle_{\mathcal{C}_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}} &= \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \int_0^1 D f( \boldsymbol{\gamma}(s), \xi) \phi (\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s), \xi) ds d\xi,\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \int_0^1 \left(\int_\mathbb{R} f_i( \boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)+t \xi)\xi^i dt\right) \phi (\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s), \xi) ds d\xi,\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}f_i(x) \left[\int_0^1\frac{(x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s))^i}{|x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)|^n} \phi \left(\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s), \frac{x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)}{|x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)|}\right) ds\right] dx,\\
&= \langle f, D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^* \phi\rangle_{\mathbb{R}^n}.
\end{align*}
where $$ (D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^* \phi)_i(x) = \int_0^1\frac{(x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s))^i}{|x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)|^n} \phi \left(\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s), \frac{x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)}{|x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}(s)|}\right) ds.$$
Also we would like to mention here that in the calculation of $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^*$ we assumed that the curve lies outside the support of $f$. We use this dual to extend the definition of restricted Doppler transform for vector fields whose components are compactly supported distributions.
Now we are going to put some conditions on the curve to make our inversion process work.
\begin{definition}[Kirillov-Tuy condition \cite{Denisiuk_2018}]
Fix a domain $B \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. We say that a smooth curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ satisfies Kirillov-Tuy condition of order $(n-1)$, if for almost every hyperplane $H(\omega, p) = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^n|\langle \omega,x\rangle = p\}$ intersecting the domain $B$, there is a set of points $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_1,\dots ,\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{n-1} \in H(\omega, p)\cap \boldsymbol{\gamma}$, which locally smoothly depends on $(\omega,p)$, such that for almost every point $x \in H(\omega, p)\cap B$ the vectors $x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_1, \dots , x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{n-1}$ are linearly independent.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\cite{Vertgeim2000}
Consider $\mathcal{O} = B(0, r)\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ is a union of 3 great circles on the sphere $S(0, R)$ with $R > \sqrt{3}r$. Then every hyperplane, passing through $\mathcal{O}$, contains in the intersection with $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ a nondegenerate triangle.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
For $(n-1)$-linear independent vectors $v_1, \dots, v_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, define a curve
$$ \boldsymbol{\gamma} = \cup_{i=1}^{n-1}l_i$$
where $l_i = \{tv_i:t\in \mathbb{R}\setminus 0\}$. Then almost every hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^n$ will intersect $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ at $(n-1)$-distinct points and for almost every $x$ in that hyperplane, $\{(x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i) | \text{ for }1 \leq i \leq n-1\}$ forms a linearly independent set because the determinant of the matrix $\left((x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)\right)_{i=1}^{n-1}$ is a multinomial in the variable $x$ whose zero set has measure $0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Hence this $\gamma$ satisfies the Kirillov-Tuy condition of order $(n-1)$.
\end{example}
For the convenience, we will use the following terminology also used by Vertgeim \cite{Vertgeim2000}:
\begin{definition}[\cite{Vertgeim2000}]
A curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ is said to be encompasses a bounded domain $\mathcal{O}$, if $\boldsymbol{\gamma} \cap \mathcal{O} = \emptyset$ and for each $a \in \boldsymbol{\gamma}$ and $ \xi \in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ only one of the rays $\{a + t\xi: t\geq 0\}$ and $\{a + t\xi:t\leq 0\}$ can intersect $\mathcal{O}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If a curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ encompasses the support of a vector field $f$, then the Doppler transform restricted to this curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ becomes
$$D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}} f(a, \xi) = \int_0^\infty f_i(a +t\xi) \xi^i dt.$$
\end{remark}
Our aim is to recover the full vector field when its Doppler transform and first integral moment transform are known for all lines intersecting a fixed curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ satisfying the Kirillov-Tuy condition of order $1$. To do this first we will recover the Saint-Venant operator of the vector field $f$ which will suffices to recover the solenoidal part of $f$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ because of \cite[Theorem 2.5]{Denisjuk_Paper}. We then use the solenoidal part to show that the potential part of $f$ can be recovered from the knowledge of the restricted first integral moment transform.
\par The following two decompositions of a vector field are well known from \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}, the first decomposition is in the full space and the other one is in the bounded domains. These decompositions are valid for any order tensor fields but we state them here for vector fields only.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 2.14.1 \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}]\label{th:decomposition theorem in Euclidean space}
Let $n \geq 2$. For every vector field $f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ there exist uniquely determined fields $f_{\mathbb{R}^n}^s\in \mathcal{S}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $ v_{\mathbb{R}^n} \in \mathcal{S}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n)$ tending to zero at infinity such that
$$ f = f_{\mathbb{R}^n}^s + \mathrm{d} v_{\mathbb{R}^n}, \quad \quad \delta f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n} = 0, $$
The fields $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ and $v_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ are smooth outside supp$(f)$ and satisfying the following estimates outside the supp$(f)$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:estimates in decomposition}
|f_{\mathbb{R}^n}^s(x)|\leq C(1+|x|)^{1-n}, \ |v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x)| \leq C(1+|x|)^{2-n}, \ |\mathrm{d} v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x)| \leq C(1+|x|)^{1-n}.
\end{align}
The fields $f_{\mathbb{R}^n}^s$ and $ v_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ are known as the solenoidal part and the potential part of $f$ respectively.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 3.3.2, \cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}]\label{th: decomposition of tensor field on manifolds}
Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. Let $k\geq1$ be an integer. Then for any $f\in H^k(M;\mathbb{R}^n)$ there exist uniquely determined $f_M^s\in H^k(M;\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $v_M\in H^{k+1}(M;\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that
\begin{align}
f = f_M^s + \mathrm{d} v_M \quad \text{ with } \quad \delta f_M^s =0 \quad \text{ and } \quad v_M|_{\partial M}=0.
\end{align}
The estimates $$\|v_M\|_{k+1}\leq C\| \delta f \|_k \quad \mbox{ and } \|f_M^s\|_k\leq C\|f\|_k$$
are valid where $C$ is a constant independent of $f$. In particular, $f_M^s$ and $v_M$ are smooth if $f$ is smooth.
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Sharafutdinov_Book}]
The Saint-Venant operator $W : \mathcal{E}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)\rightarrow \mathcal{E}(T^*\mathbb{R}^n \otimes T^*\mathbb{R}^n)$ is defined by the equality
\begin{align}
(Wf)_{ij}= \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x^j}- \frac{\partial f_j}{\partial x^i}\right)
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{E}(T^*\mathbb{R}^n \otimes T^*\mathbb{R}^n)$ is the space of 2-tensor fields in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose components are smooth functions.
\end{definition}
We will need these basic known facts of the Radon transform \cite{Helgason_Book}. For a function $f(x),\ x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, recall the Radon transform of $f$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
f^{\wedge} (\omega,p) = \int_{H(\omega, p)}f(x)ds
\end{equation*}
where $ds$ is the standard volume element on hyperplane $H(\omega, p)$. The dual of Radon transform is defined by
\begin{align*}
f^{\vee}(x) = \int_{x \in P}f(P)d\mu
\end{align*}
where $d \mu$ is the unique probability measure on the set of hyperplanes $P$ containing $x$ invariant under rotations about the point $x$.
\par By $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ we denote the space of smooth function on $\mathbb{R}^n$ that are rapidly decreasing with all its derivatives. A function $f\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ can be explicitly reconstructed from the knowledge of its Radon transform with the following formula:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Helgason_Book}]\label{theorem:radon}
For $f\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, we have
$$cf(x) = \left(\Lambda \frac{d^{n-1}}{d p^{n-1}} f^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\right)^\vee(x)$$
where $$ c= (-4\pi)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\Gamma(n/2)/\Gamma(1/2)$$
and $$ (\Lambda f)(\omega,p)= \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
f(\omega,p) & n \mbox{ odd, }\\
\mathcal{H}_pf(\omega,p) & n \mbox{ even }
\end{array} \right. $$
$\mathcal{H}_p$ denotes the Hilbert transform with respect to variable $p$.
\end{theorem}
Recall the following property of the Radon transform:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:property of radon transform}
\left(a_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}f(x)\right)^{\wedge}(\omega,p) = \langle \omega, a \rangle \frac{\partial}{\partial p} f^{\wedge}(\omega, p).
\end{equation}
We now state the main theorem of this article
\begin{theorem}\label{th:2}
Let $B$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ be a vector field in $\mathbb{R}^n$ supported in $B$. Assume that a curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ encompasses $B$ and satisfies the Kirillov-Tuy condition of order $(n-1)$. Suppose the restricted Doppler transform of $f$, $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$, is known along all lines intersecting the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$, then the solenoidal part $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ can be determined uniquely.
\end{theorem}
Next we use the other decomposition (i.e. the decomposition in the bounded domain) of the unknown vector field to construct an elliptic boundary value problem. Using the solution of this constructed elliptic boundary value problem we construct the solenoidal part of $f$ in the bounded domain which we use with the integral moment transform data to get the potential part of $f$.
\begin{theorem}\label{Moments_thm}
Assume $f$, $B$ and $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ are same as in Theorem \ref{th:2}. Then the potential part of $f$ can be determined uniquely if its restricted first integral moment transform $I_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$ and $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ are known.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Although, we stated our theorems for any $n \geq 2$ but these theorems can be reformulated for $n=2$ case as a formally determined problems. The arguments with full data are relatively simpler for the case $n=2$ and have been already studied in \cite{Venky_Suman_Manna}. Therefore, we present proofs only for the case $n \geq 3$.
\end{remark}
\section{Proofs of Main theorems}\label{Proof of Solenoidal part}
First we are going to prove the Theorem \ref{th:2} for the smooth case following closely the ideas of Denisjuk \cite{Denisjuk_Paper}. Then we use a density argument to prove this theorem for the distribution case. We first start with a Lagrange type interpolation formula in any dimension.
\begin{proposition}\label{th:1}
Let the vectors $v_{1},\dots, v_{n-1}\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ be linearly independent. Let the real numbers $y_{1},\dots, y_{n-1}$ be given. Then there exists a unique linear homogeneous polynomial $F(x)=F(x_{1},\dots, x_{n-1})$ such that $F(v_{i})=y_{i}$ for $1\leq i\leq n-1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first prove uniqueness before constructing such polynomial. Let us assume that there are two such linear polynomials $F$ and $G$. Then we have $(F-G)(v_i) = 0$ for $i = 1,\dots, (n-1)$. But independence of $v_i$'s implies $F=G$.
Next we construct the polynomial of the following form
\[
F(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} y_{i} l_{i}(x)
\]
with each $l_{i}$ is a homogeneous linear polynomial in $x$ and defined by
\[
l_{i}(x)= \frac{\Delta_{i}(x)}{\Delta}
\]
where
\[
\Delta_{i}(x)=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
& v_{11} & \dots & v_{1 n-1}\\
& \vdots & \ & \vdots \\
& v_{i-1 1} & \dots & v_{i-1 n-1}\\
& x_{1} & \dots & x_{n-1}\\
& v_{i+1 1} & \dots & v_{i+1 n-1}\\
& \vdots& \ & \vdots \\
& v_{n-11} &\dots & v_{n-1n-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and
\[
\Delta= \det
\begin{pmatrix}
& v_{11} & \dots & v_{1 n-1}\\
& \vdots& \ & \vdots\\
& v_{n-11} & \dots & v_{n-1n-1}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Then, we have
\[
F(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} y_{i} l_{i}(x)
\] is a homogeneous linear polynomial in $x$ satisfying $F(v_{i})=y_{i}$ for each $1\leq i \leq n-1$.
\end{proof}
\par If $\xi$ and $\eta$ are two arbitrary vectors in $ \mathbb{R}^n$, then the action of $Wf$ on any such pair is defined by $ \langle Wf , (\xi,\eta )\rangle = \langle Wf , \xi\otimes \eta \rangle = (Wf)_{ij}\xi^{i}\eta^{j}$. As in \cite{Denisjuk_Paper}, we use the Radon inversion formula given in Theorem \ref{theorem:radon} to get $Wf$. With this in mind, we compute $\frac{\partial}{\partial p} \langle Wf , (\xi,\eta)\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p)$ for an arbitrary pair of vectors $\xi, \eta \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Denisjuk_Paper}]\label{lemma:2.1}
Let the vectors $\xi, \eta \in \mathbb{R}^n$ be given. Then for any vector field $f \in\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Saint venant}
\langle Wf , (\xi,\eta )\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p)
=\frac{1}{2}\left(\langle \omega, \eta\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial p}\langle f, \xi\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)-\langle \omega, \xi\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial p}\langle f, \eta\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:2.2}
If we decompose $\xi$ and $\eta$ as
$$\xi =\xi_1+\xi_2 \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \eta =\eta_1+\eta_2$$
where $\xi_1$, $\eta_1$ are parallel to $\omega$ and $\xi_2$, $\eta_2$ are orthogonal to $\omega$. From Lemma \ref{lemma:2.1}, we can see that the L.H.S. of equation \eqref{eq:Saint venant} vanishes if both vectors $\xi$, $\eta$ are orthogonal to $\omega$ or parallel to $\omega$. Therefore we can see that
$$\langle Wf, (\xi, \eta)\rangle = \langle Wf, (\xi_1, \eta_2)\rangle +\langle Wf, (\xi_2, \eta_1)\rangle.$$
Keeping this in mind it is sufficient to consider the following case:
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}[\cite{Denisjuk_Paper}]\label{corollary:2.1}
Let vector $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n$ be orthogonal to $\omega$. Then for any vector field
$f \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$
\begin{align}\label{eq:12}
\langle Wf , (\xi, \omega)\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p) =2^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial p}\langle f, \xi\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega, p).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
Using the above Corollary \ref{corollary:2.1} to prove Theorem \ref{th:2} (atleast in the smooth case) it is sufficient to show that the derivatives of $\frac{\partial }{\partial p}\langle f, \xi\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)$ w.r.t. $p$ can be explicitly calculated in terms of the restricted Doppler transform for an arbitrary vector $\xi$ parallel to $H(\omega, p)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:2.2}
Let $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0$ be an intersection point of the curve and fixed hyperplane $H(w,p)$.
Consider the parametrization in $\mathbb{R}^n$: $x= \boldsymbol{\gamma}_{0}+\xi t$, where $\xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and $t \in [0, \infty)$. Then for any vector field $f\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ and a weight $w(\xi)$
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j t^kw(\xi) ]^{\wedge}(\omega,p) \quad \text{ for }k=1, 2
\end{align*}
can be computed explicitly in terms of $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this lemma is given in \cite{Denisjuk_Paper} for any tensor fields of any rank and the $n=3$ case. We give it here for the sake of completeness in our case.
\begin{align*}
D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi) &= \int_0^\infty f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j dt\\
D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi) &= \int_0^\infty\frac{f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j t^{n-2}}{t^{n-2}} dt.
\end{align*}
Now integrating the above equation over the unit sphere centered at $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0$ and perpendicular to $\o$, $\mathbb{S}(\omega) = \{\xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}: |\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{0}-\xi| =1 \text{ and } \langle \xi, \omega\rangle = 0\}$, where $|\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0 -\xi|$ is the Euclidean distance between $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0$ and $\xi$.
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)} D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi) d\omega(\xi)&= \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}\int_0^\infty
\frac{f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j t^{n-2}}{t^{n-2}} dt d\omega(\xi)\\
&= \int_{H_{(\omega,p)}}\frac{f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j }{t^{n-2}} ds,
\quad \mbox{ where } ds = t^{n-2} dt d\omega(\xi)\\
&= [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j t^{-n+2}]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align*}
where $$[f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j t^{-n+2}]^{\wedge}(\omega,p) = \int_{H(\omega,p)} f_j(y)(y-\gamma_0)^j\frac{1}{|y-\gamma_0|^{n-1}}dy.$$
Let us multiply $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi)$ by the weight function $w(\xi)$ and apply the differential operator $L = \omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_i} = t\omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$(Einstein's summation is assumed) to the product $w(\xi)D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi)$.
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L\left(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi)\right) d\omega(\xi)
&= \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}\omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_i}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0,\xi)) d\omega(\xi)\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)} \omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_i}\left(w(\xi) \int_0^\infty f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j dt\right) d\omega(\xi)\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)} \int_0^\infty \omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_i}\left(w(\xi) f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j\right) dt d\omega(\xi)\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)} \int_0^\infty t\omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\left(w(\xi) f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j\right) dt d\omega(\xi)\\
&= \int_{H(\omega, p)}\omega_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(w(\xi) f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j)t^{3-n} ds\\
&= \frac{\partial}{\partial p}\int_{H(\omega, p)}(w(\xi) f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j)t^{3-n} ds \text{, using(\ref{eq:property of radon transform}) }\\
&= \frac{\partial}{\partial p} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi)t^{3-n}]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align*}
Application of the same differential operator $L$ successively $n-2$ and $n-3$ more times will give us the following two expressions respectively:
\begin{align}\label{eq:14}
\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-1}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi)= \frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) t]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:f}
\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-2}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi)= \frac{\partial^{n-2}}{\partial p^{n-2}} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) ]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align}
Let us differentiate the above equation \eqref{eq:f} with respect to $p$ by considering planes parallel to $H(\omega, p)$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-2}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi)&= \frac{\partial^{n-2}}{\partial p^{n-2}} \left[\frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial p}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}(\lambda)+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) \right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\\
&\quad \quad +\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) ]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align*}
Now if we define $\tilde{L}= \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial p}L^{n-2}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}$ then using similar analysis, we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{n-2}}{\partial p^{n-2}} \left[\frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial p}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}(\lambda)+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) \right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p) = \int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}\tilde{L}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi).
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}} [f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t\xi)\xi^j w(\xi) ]^{\wedge}(\omega,p) &=\frac{\partial }{\partial p}\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-2}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi)\\
&\quad \quad-\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}\tilde{L}(w(\xi) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:2.3}
Let $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ be a curve satisfying the Kirillov-Tuy condition of order $(n-1)$ and $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$ is known for all lines intersecting $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$. Then for any vector field $f \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ and any vector $\textit{\textbf{v}}$ parallel to $H(\omega, p)$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:15}
\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}}\langle f(x), \textit{\textbf{v}}\rangle^\wedge(\omega,p)
\end{align}
can be computed explicitly in terms of $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From our Kirillov-Tuy condition we know that for almost every hyperplane $H(\o,p)$ there exist points $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{1},\cdots,\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{n-1}$ on the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ and $H(\o,p)$ satisfying generic condition. Let us fix one such hyperplane $H(\o,p)$. Then from our assumption the following integrals are known:
$$ \int_0^\infty f_j(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i+t_i\xi) \xi^j dt_i \text{ , for } i= 1 ,\dots , n-1\mbox{ and } \forall \xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.$$
For $x\in H(\o,p)$, we can write $x=\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{j}+t_{j}\xi_{j}$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$ for some $t_{j}\in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\xi_{j}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. For any point $x\in H(\o,p)$ and for a vector $\textbf{\textit{v}}$ parallel to $H(\o,p)$, using Proposition \ref{th:1}, we have
\begin{align*}
\langle f(x),\textbf{\textit{v}}\rangle&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} \langle f(x),(x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\rangle \frac{\Delta_{i}(\textbf{\textit{v}})}{\Delta}
\end{align*}
\begin{align}\label{eq:ab}
= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \langle f(x), \xi_i\rangle t_i \frac{\Delta_i(\textit{\textbf{v}})}{\Delta},
\end{align}
where $ x-\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i =\ \xi_it_i$ for every intersection point $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$, $i =1, \dots ,n-1$ and $ \xi_jt_j = \boldsymbol{\gamma}_{ij} + \xi_it_i$ with $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{ij} = \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i -\boldsymbol{\gamma}_j$. Recall \\
\begin{align*}
\Delta_i(\textit{\textbf{v}}) &= \det \begin{pmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i1}+\xi_it_i\\
\vdots\\
\textit{\textbf{v}}\\
\vdots\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i(n-1)}+\xi_it_i
\end{pmatrix}\leftarrow i^{th} \text{ row}\quad \text{ and }\\\\
\Delta &= \det \begin{pmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i1}+\xi_it_i\\
\vdots\\
\xi_it_i\\
\vdots\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i(n-1)}+\xi_it_i
\end{pmatrix}=\det \begin{pmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i1}\\
\vdots\\
\xi_it_i\\
\vdots\\
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i(n-1)}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
After simplifying this, we can see that $ \frac{\Delta_i(\textit{\textbf{v}})}{\Delta} = w(\xi_i)+t_i\tilde{w}(\xi_i) $ where $w(\xi_i)$ and $\tilde{w}(\xi_i)$ are function of $\xi_i$ and known quantities $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{ij}$. Putting this back to equation \eqref{eq:ab}, we get
\begin{align*}
\langle f(x),\textbf{\textit{v}}\rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \langle f(x), \xi_i\rangle(w(\xi_i)+t_i\tilde{w}(\xi_i)).
\end{align*}
Then we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}}\langle f(x), \textit{\textbf{v}}\rangle^\wedge(\omega,p) &= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}} \int_{H(\omega,p)} \langle f(x), \xi_i\rangle(w(\xi_i)+t_i\tilde{w}(\xi_i))ds\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\left\{\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-2}(w(\xi_i) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi_i)\right.\\
&\quad \quad \quad -\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}\tilde{L}(w(\xi_i) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi_i)\\
&\quad \quad \quad +\left.\int_{\mathbb{S}(\omega)}L^{n-1}(\tilde{w}(\xi_i) D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f) d\omega(\xi_i)\right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:2}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:2}]
We fix a hyperplane $H(\omega, p)$ and consider arbitrary vectors $\xi$, $\eta$. Decompose these vectors in the components parallel to $\omega$ and orthogonal to $\omega$ as
\begin{align*}
\xi =\xi_{1}+ \xi_{2}, \quad \quad \eta= \eta_{1} + \eta_{2},
\end{align*}
where $\xi_{1}$, $\eta_{1}$ are orthogonal to $\omega$, while $\xi_{2}, \eta_{2}$ are parallel to $\omega$.
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:2.1} and Corollary \ref{corollary:2.1} implies that,
\begin{align*}
\langle Wf , (\xi,\eta )\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p)&= \left[\langle Wf , (\xi_1,\eta_1 )\rangle +\langle Wf , (\xi_1,\eta_2 )\rangle+\langle Wf , (\xi_2,\eta_1 )\rangle\right.\\
&\quad \quad \quad +\left.\langle Wf , (\xi_2,\eta_2 )\rangle\right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p)
\end{align*}
From Remark \ref{remark:2.2}, it is known that the first and last term in the above expression are zero. Therefore, we have
\begin{align*}
\langle Wf , (\xi,\eta )\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p)&= \left[\langle Wf , (\xi_1,\eta_2 )\rangle+\langle Wf , (\xi_2,\eta_1 )\rangle\right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\\
&=\left[\langle Wf , (\xi_1,\eta_2 )\rangle-\langle Wf , (\eta_1,\xi_2 )\rangle\right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\\
&= \langle\eta , \omega\rangle\left[\langle Wf , (\xi_1,\omega )\rangle\right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p)- \langle\xi , \omega\rangle\left[\langle Wf , (\eta_1,\omega)\rangle\right]^{\wedge}(\omega,p).
\end{align*}
Now from Corollary \ref{corollary:2.1}, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{n-1}}{\partial p^{n-1}}\langle Wf , (\xi,\eta )\rangle ^{\wedge}(\omega,p)
&= \frac{1}{2}\left(\langle\eta , \omega\rangle\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial p^{n}}\langle f , \xi_1 \rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)- \langle\xi , \omega\rangle\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial p^{n}}\langle f , \eta_1\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\right).
\end{align*}
Finally, we use Theorem \ref{theorem:radon} to get
\begin{align}\label{eq:Saint Venant operator in terms of Doppler transform}
c\langle Wf(x),(\xi,\eta) \rangle
= \left[ \frac{1}{2}\Lambda \left(\langle\eta , \omega\rangle\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial p^{n}}\langle f , \xi_1 \rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)- \langle\xi , \omega\rangle\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial p^{n}}\langle f , \eta_1\rangle^{\wedge}(\omega,p)\right)\right]^{\vee}(x)
\end{align}
where $\Lambda$ and $c$ are the same as in Theorem \ref{theorem:radon}. Hence we have recovered $Wf$ because R.H.S. is known from Lemma \ref{lemma:2.3}.
After this we can use the formula from \cite[Theorem 2.5]{Denisjuk_Paper} for $m=1$ to get the solenoidal part $f_{\mathbb{R}^n}^s$ explicitly from $Wf$. Therefore combining all these we find an operator $(D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}})^{-1}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:Inverse of restricted Doppler transform}
\mathtt{S} (f) = f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n} = D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f,\quad \text{ for } f \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n) .
\end{align}
This proves our theorem for the smooth case.
Next we claim that the same formula is also valid for compactly supported distributions. We extend $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}} : \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow \mathcal{D}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ using duality. Then we want to prove the following:
\begin{claim}
\begin{align}\label{eq:Inverse of restricted Doppler transform for distribution}
\mathtt{S} (f) = f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n} = D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f,\quad \text{ for } f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n) .
\end{align}
\end{claim}
\textit{Proof of Claim: } For $f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$, we can a find a sequence of $f_k \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ which converges to $f$ in the distribution sense. Using the continuity of the Radon transform and the inverse radon transform on distributions \cite[Section 4]{Ludwig1966}, we can see that the right hand side of \eqref{eq:Saint Venant operator in terms of Doppler transform} makes sense for $f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$. We can take limit $k \rightarrow \infty $ on the left hand side \eqref{eq:Saint Venant operator in terms of Doppler transform} also because of \cite[Lemma 2.5.2]{Sharafutdinov_Book}. Hence the \eqref{eq:Saint Venant operator in terms of Doppler transform} is valid for compactly supported distributions also.
Then we can apply theorem \cite[Theorem 2.5]{Denisjuk_Paper} (this result is true for tempered distributions also by duality) for $\mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$ to conclude that
$f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n} = D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}^{-1}D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$, $\text{ for } f \in \mathcal{E}^\prime(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n)$. This completes the proof of our theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:function recovery}
Let $v$ be a compactly supported distribution whose support is contained in $B$ and the ray transform of $v$ is known for all lines intersecting the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ then $v$ can be reconstructed with an explicit formula.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The proof will follow for the smooth case directly from the arguments in the Lemma \ref{lemma:2.2} for functions instead of vector fields. And then using the limiting argument we can conclude for the general case.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Moments_thm}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Moments_thm}]
As we know from our assumptions on $f$ that $f$ is supported inside $B$ and we also that form the decomposition theorem \ref{th:decomposition theorem in Euclidean space} that $v_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ and $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ are smooth outside $B$. Thus we have
$$ f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x) = - \mathrm{d} v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x), \quad \mbox{ for } x \in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus B$$
and
$$ |f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x)|\leq C(1+|x|)^{1-n},\quad |v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x)|\leq C(1+|x|)^{2-n}, \mbox{ for } x \in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus B$$
Therefore $\mathrm{d} v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x)$ is known for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus B$ because $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ is known from $D_{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}f$. We can see from the above estimates that the integral of $f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ along lines make sense only if $n \geq 3$ (This is why we have to use different arguments for $n=2$ case). Fix any point $x_0$ on $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus B$ and a direction vector $\xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ such that the ray $\{x_0+t \xi: t \in [0, \infty)\}$ lie outside $B$. Consider
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty (\mathrm{d} v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0+t \xi))_i\xi^i dt &= -\int_0^\infty \langle f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0+t \xi), \xi \rangle dt\\
\int_0^\infty \frac{d}{d t}( v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0+t \xi) dt &= -\int_0^\infty \langle f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0+t \xi), \xi \rangle dt\\
v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0)&= \int_0^\infty \langle f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0+t \xi), \xi \rangle dt.
\end{align*}
Since the R.H.S. of the last equality is known hence $v_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x_0)$ is known for all $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n \setminus B$. In particular $v_{\mathbb{R}^n}|_{\partial B}$ is known.
\par Next we decompose $f$ using Theorem \ref{th: decomposition of tensor field on manifolds} as the following:
$$ f = f^s_B +\mathrm{d} v_B, \quad \delta f^s_B = 0, \quad v_B|_{\partial B} = 0.$$
On $B$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:relation between decompositions}
f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n} - f^s_B = \mathrm{d} (v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n})
\end{align}
Applying divergence operator $\delta$ on both side, we get
$$\delta \mathrm{d} (v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n}) = 0$$
$\delta \mathrm{d}$ is the Laplace operator. Now we solve the following elliptic boundary value problem to get $v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n}$:
\begin{align*}
\delta \mathrm{d} (v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n}) = 0, \quad \mbox{ in } B\\
(v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n}) = g, \quad \mbox{ on } \partial B,
\end{align*}
where $g(x) = -\int_0^\infty \langle f^s_{\mathbb{R}^n}(x+t \xi), \xi \rangle dt$ with $\xi$ is an outward normal at $x \in \partial B$.
\par Now $f^s_B $ can be computed from the equation \eqref{eq:relation between decompositions} once we know $(v_B -v_{\mathbb{R}^n})$ in $B$ from the above elliptic boundary value problem. In the calculation below, we can assume $v_B$ and $f^s_B $ are zero outside $B$ because the support of $f$ is contained in $B$. Now fix a point $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0$ on the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ and consider the following:
\begin{align*}
If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)&= If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) + I(\mathrm{d} v_{B})(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)\\
I(\mathrm{d} v_{B})(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)&= If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) - If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)\\
\int_0^\infty t \frac{\partial v_{B}}{\partial x^i}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0 +t \xi)\xi^i dt&= If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) - If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)\\
\int_0^\infty t \frac{d }{dt}\left\{v_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0+t \xi)\right\} dt&= If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) - If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)\\
- \int_0^\infty v_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0 +t \xi) dt&= If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) - If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)\\
\int_0^\infty v_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0 +t \xi) dt&=If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)- If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi) \\
Dv_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0 , \xi) &=If^s_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)- If (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi).
\end{align*}
Therefore $Dv_{B}(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0, \xi)$ is known because R.H.S. is known from above discussion. Which implies that $Dv_{B}$ is known for all lines intersecting the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ since $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_0$ was an arbitrary point of the curve $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$ and $\xi \in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Hence $v_B$ can be reconstructed from the Corollary \ref{corollary:function recovery} which completes the proof of the Theorem \ref{Moments_thm}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The central question of the information paradox \cite{Hawking:1974sw, Hawking:1976ra} is whether the process of formation and evaporation of a black hole can be described in a unitary fashion.
In particular, unitarity implies that the von Neumann entropy of the Hawking radiation should initially rise but then fall back down, following the so called ``Page curve'' \cite{Page:1993wv,Page:2013dx}.
If we replace a black hole by its dual quantum mechanical description, via AdS/CFT, we know that this happens.
However, one would like to understand how it happens from the gravity point of view.
In gravitational theories we now have formulas that compute von Neumann entropies: the Ryu-Takayanagi formula and its extentions \cite{Ryu:2006bv,Hubeny:2007xt,Engelhardt:2014gca}.
Indeed, interesting recent work \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf} addressed the closely related problem of studying the evolution of the von Neumann entropy of an evaporating black hole via the minimal quantum extremal surface (QES) prescription of \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca}.
(A QES is a surface that extremizes the generalized entropy functional.)
This amounted to locating and tracking the minimal QES in the evaporating black hole spacetime as a function of boundary time.
The main result of \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf} was that, for an old black hole, past the Page time, the QES is located just behind the event horizon, which thereby excludes most of the interior from the entanglement wedge of the boundary.
This is in contrast to the situation at early times, where the minimal QES is the trivial surface, and hence the entanglement wedge for a black hole that forms in a pure state includes all of the interior.
For such a black hole, the von Neumann (or fine-grained) entropy increases due to the early Hawking radiation, giving the initial rise of the Page curve, and then decreases once the entanglement wedge moves out to the near horizon region.
The early growth of the boundary entropy is related to the growth of the entropy of the quantum fields inside the black hole, which is manifest using the nice slices picture of \cite{Polchinski:1995ta, Mathur:2009hf}.
At the Page time, once this region is removed form the entanglement wedge, the entropy can start decreasing.
If we assume that the combined state of the black hole and Hawking radiation is pure, then a Page curve for one implies a Page curve for the other.
However, this would amount to assuming away the information paradox, and therefore a more direct argument for the Page curve of the radiation is desirable.
In \cite{Almheiri:2019psf} the entropy of the Hawking radiation was computed in the semiclassical limit and was found to not have a Page curve, reproducing Hawking's original result of information loss.
(See also \cite{Fiola:1994ir} for similar calculations in the CGHS model.)
As discussed in \cite{Penington:2019npb} and briefly alluded to in \cite{Almheiri:2019psf, Hayden:2018khn}, there is perhaps a way to argue that the QES of the Hawking radiation coincides with that of the black hole.
In this paper, we argue that this is the case by considering an evaporating black hole in a gravitational theory with holographic matter.
Namely, we consider a gravity theory with matter described by a quantum field theory that itself has a higher dimensional gravity dual.
This allows us to compute the entropy of Hawking radiation holographically.
In this case, the prescription of extremizing the generalized entropy in \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca} is equivalent, at leading order, to the standard RT/HRT prescription \cite{Ryu:2006bv,Hubeny:2007xt} of extremizing the area.
The upshot is that the minimization condition in the RT/HRT formula in the higher-dimensional holographic dual ensures that the minimal surfaces of the evaporating black hole and the Hawking radiation must coincide.
The entropy of the radiation computed in this way follows the Page curve, rising initially at early times and then decreasing after the Page time due to the phase transition between two surfaces.
This is the same transition discussed in the computations of the von Neumann entropy of the black hole in \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf}.
A crucial point is that the region deep inside the black hole interior is connected to the radiation via the extra dimension.
Therefore, when we search for the minimal QES, we can end up with an entanglement wedge for the radiation that reaches all the way into the interior of the black hole, which is in fact what happens after the Page time.
This geometric connection is related to the entanglement between the Hawking radiation and the interior modes of the quantum matter.
We can view this extra dimension as an example of a geometric connection between the radiation and the black hole interior, a realization of ER=EPR \cite{Maldacena:2013xja, Maldacena:2013t1} idea (see also \cite{Susskind:2012uw, Papadodimas:2012aq}).
Our analysis in this paper is restricted to the case of a two-dimensional theory of gravity coupled to a two-dimensional conformal field theory, since in this case the three-dimensional gravity dual is very simple, but we expect that the results should generalize without much change to higher dimensions.
This holographic example suggests a new rule for computing von Neumann entropies of quantum systems entangled with quantum fields in a gravitational theory.
This new rule allows for the inclusion of new ``quantum extremal islands" which are regions in the gravitational theory that contain matter entangled with the external quantum system.
Including these islands can result in a penalty due to their areas, but they can also give larger ``savings'' by reducing the bulk entropy piece of the generalized entropy.
See also \cite{Hayden:2018khn,Penington:2019npb} for motivation of this new rule.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:setup}, we discuss theories of gravity coupled to holographic matter and their bulk interpretation.
We focus on a two-dimensional gravity theory coupled to conformal matter, which itself has a three-dimensional dual.
In Section \ref{section:QES}, we discuss quantum extremal surfaces and entanglement wedges for an evaporating two-dimensional black hole.
We discuss the computation of the entropy of the radiation and the black hole, and explain how the Page curve arises.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:newrule} we discuss a new rule for computing entropies and entanglement wedges for systems entangled with a gravity theory.
Conclusions are presented in Section \ref{sec:conclude}.
\section{Two-dimensional gravity with holographic matter}
\label{sec:setup}
Consider a general two-dimensional theory of gravity.
The Einstein-Hilbert term in two dimensions is purely topological, but it contributes a constant term to the total entropy of the system.
Nontrivial gravitational dynamics arise when we add an extra ``dilaton''\footnote{In this context, the dilaton should really be called an ``entropion''.} field $\phi$, and consider the general action
\begin{equation} \label{GraTd}
I_{\text{grav}}[g^{(2)}_{ij}, \phi] =
\int d^2y\sqrt{-g}\, \left( \frac{1}{16 \pi G_N^{(2)}} \, \phi R^{(2)} + U(\phi) \right),
\end{equation}
where we have absorbed a possible purely Einstein-Hilbert term by a shift of $\phi$.
Adding matter to this system, which is taken to be a CFT$_2$ with some fields collectively denoted by $\chi$, we consider the total action
\begin{equation} \label{GPlusM}
I[g^{(2)}_{ij}, \phi, \chi] = I_{\text{grav}}[g^{(2)}_{ij}, \phi] + I_{\text{CFT}}[g^{(2)}_{ij}, \chi] \, .
\end{equation}
We take this CFT$_2$ to have a three-dimensional holographic dual.
To justify working in the semiclassical limit in the 2d theory, and to ensure that we have a large-radius dual in 3d, we require that the central charge of the CFT$_2$ satisfies $1 \ll c \ll \frac{\phi}{4G_N^{(2)}}$.\footnote{In certain theories corresponding to near-extremal black holes, we also require that $c\ll \frac{\phi-\phi_0}{4G_N^{(2)}}$, where the $\phi_0$ piece corresponds to the extremal entropy.}
In addition, to have an Einstein gravity dual we need that the CFT is suitably strongly coupled.
First, let us think about this CFT$_2$ on a fixed background metric $g^{(2)}_{ij}$.
Its three-dimensional dual has a two-dimensional boundary, where the metric obeys the boundary condition
\begin{equation} \label{MetBC}
\left. g^{(3)}_{ij} \right|_{\rm bdy} = \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}
\, g_{ij}^{(2)}\, .
\end{equation}
Here $i,j$ are indices along the boundary (see figure \ref{GravPlusMatter}), and $\epsilon$ is a short-distance cutoff.
According to the usual rules of AdS/CFT \cite{Maldacena:1997re,Witten:1998qj,Gubser:1998bc}, a 3d theory with the boundary metric fixed to be $g_{ij}^{(2)}$ is dual to a CFT$_2$ described by the action $I_{ \text{CFT}}[\chi; g^{(2)}_{ij}]$.
The extrinsic curvature of the two-dimensional boundary is related to the stress tensor of the CFT \cite{Balasubramanian:1999re}.
Next, in order to find the three-dimensional dual to the full action \nref{GPlusM}, we start from the geometry of the previous paragraph,
add a scalar field $\phi$ that lives on the 2d boundary with the action \nref{GraTd}, and integrate over $\phi$ and $g^{(2)}_{ij}$.
The three-dimensional bulk metric is locally AdS$_3$, with a boundary at a finite location where the 2d theory with with action \nref{GraTd} lives.
We emphasize that unlike usual AdS/CFT, $g^{(2)}_{i j}$ is also integrated over.
This is essentially identical to the Randall-Sundrum model \cite{Randall:1999vf}, and the dynamical boundary brane is called the ``Planck" brane in that paper (for the relationship of the Randall-Sundrum model to holography, see e.g. \cite{Gubser:1999vj}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.45]{Figures/GravityPlusMatter}
\end{center}
\caption{On the left, we have a 2d dilaton-gravity theory coupled to a matter CFT$_2$.
The fields of the matter CFT$_2$ are denoted collectively by $\chi$, and this CFT$_2$ is assumed to be holographic.
On the right, we display a 3d geometry obtained by replacing the matter CFT$_2$ with its 3d dual.
This is a version of the Randall-Sundrum setup \cite{Randall:1999vf, Gubser:1999vj}.
On the 2d boundary of this 3d geometry, we have the dilaton-gravity action.
The boundary fields $\phi$ and $g_{ij}^{(2)}$ are also integrated over in the functional integral.}
\label{GravPlusMatter}
\end{figure}
The embedding of the Planck brane in AdS$_3$ is determined by using the two-dimensional metric and stress tensor profile from the solution of \eqref{GPlusM}.
Let us describe this in detail.
Imagine that we have a 2d gravity solution with some profile for the 2d metric and stress tensor
\begin{equation} \label{Metr}
ds^2 = - e^{ 2 \rho(y) } dy^+ dy^- \, , \quad
T_{y^+ y^+}(y^+) \quad
\text{and} \quad T_{y^- y^-}(y^-) \, .
\end{equation}
Here the stress tensor is measured in the flat metric $ds^2 = - dy^+ dy^-$.
The full stress tensor in the original metric \nref{Metr} also contains terms coming from derivatives of $\rho(y)$ which can easily be obtained from the conformal anomaly.
It is useful to introduce the coordinate transformations $w^+(y^+)$ and $w^-(y^-)$ that make the stress tensor vanish locally.
These are obtained by solving the equations
\begin{equation}
T_{y^+ y^+} = - { \frac{c}{24\pi} } \{ w^+ , y^+ \} \, ,
\qquad T_{y^- y^-} = - { \frac{c}{24\pi} } \{ w^- , y^- \}
\, ,
\label{Coorwy}
\end{equation}
where $\{f(y),y\} = \frac{f'''}{f'} - \frac{3}{2} \left(\frac{f''}{f'}\right)^2$ is the usual Schwarzian derivative.\footnote{Note that our convention for the transformation law of the holomorphic stress tensor is $w'(y)^2\, T(w) = T(y) + \frac{c}{24\pi}\{w,y\}$, which differs from \cite{Polchinski:1998rq} by the sign of the Schwarzian term and the normalization of the stress tensor.
The relation between holomorphic Euclidean coordinates and Lorentzian lightcone coordinates is $y^+ \to \overline{y}$ and $y^- \to -y$.}
The $w^\pm$ coordinates have the property that the stress tensor vanishes in the corresponding flat metric, obtained after a Weyl transformation from (\ref{Metr}):
\begin{align}
ds^2 = - dw^+ dw^-\, , \qquad T_{w^+ w^+} = T_{w^- w^-} = 0. \label{vM}
\end{align}
We therefore observe that the solution \eqref{Metr} is related to the vacuum solution on flat space \eqref{vM} by a combination of Weyl and coordinate transformations.
This determines the location of the Planck brane in the $w^\pm$ coordinates in following way \cite{Banados:1998gg}.
The vacuum of the holographic CFT$_2$ has pure AdS$_3$ as its associated bulk dual
\begin{equation}
\label{vacuum}
ds^2 = \frac{ -dw^+ dw^- + dz_w^2}{z_w^2} \, .
\end{equation}
The stress tensor components $T_{w^+w^+}$ and $T_{w^-w^-}$ vanish for a suface of constant $z_w$.
Therefore, we expect that the geometry near the Planck brane looks similar to (\ref{vacuum}).
The condition we need to impose is that the induced metric on the brane is fixed by (\ref{Metr}) and (\ref{MetBC}), which gives
\begin{align}
- {dw^+ dw^- \over z_w^2} = - \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \, e^{2 \rho(y)} dy^+ dy^- \,.
\end{align}
This locates the Planck brane at
\begin{align}
z_w = \epsilon \ e^{-\rho(y)} \sqrt{{dw^+ \over dy^+} {dw^- \over dy^-}}\, .
\label{PlanckBr}
\end{align}
After obtaining this we can check that the usual formula for the stress tensor in terms of the extrinsic curvature \cite{Balasubramanian:1999re} gives the one we started in \nref{Metr}.
These formulas show that once we know the two-dimensional dynamics, given by \nref{Metr}, we can easily find the embedding of the 2d geometry into the 3d one.
The computation of the RT/HRT surfaces is particularly simple in the $(w^+,w^-,z_w)$ coordinates.
We should emphasize that more details about the state of the conformal field theory are encoded deeper into the three-dimensional geometry.
In other words, the RT/HRT surfaces used to compute the various entropies live in a geometry that is not necessarily the same as \nref{vacuum} deeper in the interior, and their areas can depend on the detailed geometry that we encounter in the interior.
\subsection{Two-dimensional black hole coupled to a bath}
Consider a black hole in the two-dimensional theory \eqref{GPlusM}, which we allow to evaporate into an external `bath'.
For simplicity, we take the bath to be the same CFT$_2$ as the matter sector in (\ref{GPlusM}), but now living on a rigid flat space; see figure \ref{ThreePictures}.
We can think of this setup as a toy model for the case where the dilaton becomes extremely large in some region of the geometry, so that we can neglect backreaction effects and think of the matter as living on a fixed, non-dynamical background.
We will mostly be interested in the case where the 2d gravitational theory has AdS$_2$ asymptotics.
Prior to coupling in the bath, the matter CFT on this AdS$_2$ spacetime is defined with a conformal boundary condition at the asymptotic AdS$_2$ boundary.
Prior to the coupling, the bath CFT is also defined on the half line.
Coupling the two systems amounts to joining them at their boundaries, allowing them to freely exchange stress energy.
Defining $\sigma_y = (y^+ - y^-)/2$, positive and negative values of $\sigma_y$ correspond to points in the bath and the AdS$_2$ systems, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.48]{Figures/ThreePictures}
\end{center}
\caption{We sketch three different pictures of the same system.
The first is a 2d dilaton-gravity theory, plus a matter CFT$_2$, coupled to a bath consisting of the same CFT$_2$.
This CFT$_2$ is assumed to have a holographic dual.
The second is 3d gravity, where we replace the CFT$_2$ by its holographic dual.
It contains a dynamical boundary metric on the Planck brane.
More details about the state of the CFT are encoded deeper inside the 3d geometry.
The third is the fully quantum mechanical description, where we replace the 2d gravity+matter theory by its quantum mechanical dual. This quantum mechanical system lives at the boundary of the bath CFT.
In all cases, the thick dot represents the point $\sigma_y=0$.}
\label{ThreePictures}
\end{figure}
This combined system has three alternative descriptions that are useful, see figure \ref{ThreePictures}.
\begin{description}
\item[2d-Gravity:]
A two-dimensional gravity-plus-matter theory living on $\sigma_y<0$ coupled to a two-dimensional field theory living on $\sigma_y>0$.
\item[3d-Gravity:]
A three-dimensional gravity theory in AdS$_3$ with a dynamical boundary (Planck brane) on part of the space ($\sigma_y<0$), and with a rigid boundary on the rest ($\sigma_y>0$).
\item[QM:]
A two-dimensional CFT on the half-line $\sigma_y>0$ with some non-conformal boundary degrees of freedom at $\sigma_y = 0$.
\end{description}
The first description is the one we have already described in detail.
In the second description, which involves three-dimensional gravity, we replace the CFT$_2$ by its three-dimensional dual.
This 3d dual has a Planck brane with dynamical gravity on part of the space ($\sigma_y<0$) and the usual UV boundary on the rest of the space ($\sigma_y>0$).
In the third, fully quantum-mechanical description with no gravity, we replace the 2d black hole by its quantum-mechanical dual (assuming that it has one).
Then we have a CFT$_2$ living on a half-line coupled to a quantum mechanical system living at $\sigma_y=0$.
In other words, in the case where the 2d gravity has AdS$_2$ asymptotics, we want to imagine that the entire 2d theory \eqref{GPlusM} arises as the holographic dual of a $(0+1)$-dimensional (nonconformal) quantum-mechanical system.
After coupling the nearly AdS$_2$ gravity theory to the bath CFT, we get a CFT on the half-line coupled to a holographic quantum-mechanical system on its boundary, as shown in figure \ref{ThreePictures}.
A higher dimensional version of this set up and its gravity interpretation was discussed in \cite{Karch:2000ct}.
The story so far has been for an evaporating black hole in a general 2d gravity theory with AdS$_2$ asymptotics, coupled to a non-gravitational bath.
This formalism can be directly applied to the case considered in \cite{Almheiri:2019psf} by specializing to Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity, with the only difference being that we consider matter composed of a holographic CFT$_2$, rather than general matter.
Using their solution for the dynamics of the 2d model, we can follow the simple steps outlined above to find the embedding of the Planck brane and the bath UV brane in the 3d geometry.
\subsection{Quantum extremal surfaces become ordinary RT/HRT surfaces}
In the two-dimensional gravity theory, we can compute the fine-grained entropy of its quantum-mechanical boundary theory using the prescription of extremizing the generalized entropy \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca}.
This involves first constructing a quantity similar to the generalized entropy
\begin{align} \label{GenEN}
S_\mathrm{gen}(y) = \frac{\phi(y)}{4G_{N}^{(2)}} + S_{\mathrm{Bulk}\text{-}2d} [{\cal I}_y] \, .
\end{align}
Here $y$ is a point in the two-dimensional bulk and ${\cal I}_y$ is an interval from the point $y$ to the boundary of the two-dimensional space (or to some region far away where the dilaton is very large and the theory is very weakly coupled).
The quantity $S_{\mathrm{Bulk}\text{-}2d}[\mathcal{I}_y]$
is the bulk von Neumann entropy of this interval.
This bulk entropy includes the entropy coming from the bulk matter fields $\chi$, and also the entropy due to quantum fluctuations of $\phi$ and $g_{ij}^{(2)}$.
Note also that $\phi(y) = \text{Area}^{(2)}$; in two dimensions, the area of a point is the coefficient of the curvature term in \nref{GraTd}.
Figure \ref{3dsgen}(a) shows a slice of the 2d theory including its boundary dual system and indicates where $S_{\text{gen}}$ is evaluated.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{Figures/3dsgen}
\\ (a) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)
\end{center}
\caption{(a) We have shown, from the 2d perspective, the two contributions $\frac{\phi(y)}{4G_N^{(2)}}$ and $S_\text{Bulk-2d}[\mathcal{I}_y]$ to $S_\text{gen}(y)$ from equation (\ref{GenEN}). (b) Since the matter CFT$_2$ is holographic, the quantity $S_{\mathrm{Bulk}\text{-}2d} [{\cal I}_y]$ can be computed using a 3d RT formula.}
\label{3dsgen}
\end{figure}
Once we construct $S_\text{gen}(y)$ as in \nref{GenEN}, we are instructed to extremize it over the choice of the point $y$.
And finally, we take the minimum over all such extrema.
The point $(y_e^+,y_e^-)$ that results from this is called the quantum extremal ``surface."
The contribution of the CFT$_2$ fields $\chi$ to $S_{\mathrm{Bulk}\text{-}2d}[\mathcal{I}_y]$ dominates over contributions from the quantum fluctuations of $\phi$ and $g_{ij}^{(2)}$, since we are assuming that the CFT$_2$ has a large number of degrees of freedom.
Furthermore, since the CFT$_2$ has a holographic dual, the contribution of the $\chi$ fields to the entropy can be computed to leading order using the RT/HRT formula \cite{Ryu:2006bv,Hubeny:2007xt}.
This involves finding a minimal or an extremal surface $\Sigma_y$ in the three-dimensional geometry.
The extremal surface $\Sigma_y $ is here just an interval and is shown in blue in figure \ref{3dsgen}(b).
We therefore have
\begin{align}
S_\mathrm{gen}(y) = {\phi(y) \over 4 G_N^{(2)} } +
S_{\mathrm{Bulk}\text{-}2d}[\mathcal{I}_y]
~ \approx ~
{\phi(y) \over 4 G_N^{(2)} } +
{\mathrm{Area}^{(3)}[ \Sigma_y ] \over 4 G_N^{(3)}} \, .
\end{align}
We used a $\approx$ sign because we are neglecting the contributions from the quantum fluctuations of $\phi$ and $g_{ij}^{(2)}$, and also dropping the subleading 3d bulk entanglement entropy terms.
The extremization of generalized entropy in 2d is equivalent to the standard RT/HRT area extremization in the 3d with a dynamical brane.
In other words, we look for an area-extremizing surface in 3d with an endpoint on the Planck brane.
This ``area'' has a contribution coming from the length of the line $\Sigma_y$ as well as a contribution from the dilaton $\phi$ at the Planck brane, see figure \ref{3dsgen}.
We are instructed to extremize the whole thing, which involves also the position of the point $(y^+, y^-)$ on the Planck brane.
Of course, this observation lends further support to the notion that quantum extremal surfaces are computing von Neuman entropies \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca}, since in this setup it reduces to the simpler RT/HRT proposal in three dimensions. This discussion generalizes naturally to higher dimensions.
\section{Entanglement wedges for evaporating black holes and Hawking radiation}
\label{section:QES}
In this section we review the quantum extremal surfaces found in \cite{Almheiri:2019psf} for black holes in JT gravity that evaporate into a non-gravitational bath, and present their corresponding three-dimensional picture.
Our discussion will be out of time order, we will first discuss the late time picture, past the so called ``Page time'' and then discuss the picture for early times.
We do this because the late time picture is less dependent on the detailed formation history of the black hole.
It is also the more surprising one, because the entanglement wedge of the radiation will be found to \emph{contain} the region inside the black hole.
In two dimensions, this region is manifestly disconnected from the radiation, but we show that it is connected to the radiation through the third dimension.
\subsection{Late time entanglement wedges}
\subsubsection{Entanglement wedge of the black hole at late times}
We start by recalling the position of the quantum extremal surface of the black hole at late times found in \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf}.
The idea is to consider a subsystem that includes the black hole, or more precisely, the whole gravity region.
From the point of view of the QM description, we imagine that we take a small interval $[0,\sigma_0]$ where $\sigma_0$ is very small, but it includes the quantum-mechanical degrees of freedom at the boundary of the CFT.
We do this at some late time $t = (y^+ + y^-)/2$.
See figure \ref{LateEntanglementWedges}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Figures/LateEntanglementWedges}
\end{center}
\caption{
The entanglement wedge for the black hole at late times.
We show a spatial slice $\Sigma_\text{Late}$ at some late time that passes through the quantum extremal surface, (see also figure \ref{latetimeslice}).
In the leftmost picture, we have drawn $\Sigma_\text{Late}$ in the 2d geometry.
The middle picture is a spatial slice of the three dimensional geometry that ends on $\Sigma_{\rm Late}$ and contains the RT/HRT surface, the pink region being the entanglement wedge.
In the rightmost picture, we have an interval that contains the left boundary and whose entropy we are trying to compute.}
\label{LateEntanglementWedges}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Figures/latetimeslice}
\end{center}
\caption{The spacetime diagram describing the coupling of the black hole to the bath, the energy pulse coming from the moment they are coupled, the formation of the black hole and its subsequent evaporation. We pick some late time nice slice $\Sigma_{\text{Late}} $ and we compute the entanglement wedge for what is to the left of $\sigma_0$. This contains only a portion of the time slice in the interior. We have also displayed the Wheeler de Witt patch, or causal domain of dependence that describes the full entanglement wedge. }
\label{latetimeslice}
\end{figure}
The final conclusion of \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf} is that the quantum extremal surface is at a point $(y^+_e,y^-_e)$ that lies behind the horizon and is such that a past directed light ray from it would reach the AdS$_2$ boundary at about a scrambling time earlier than the time $t$ at which we are computing the entropy,
\begin{align}
y_e^+ = t - {1 \over 2 \pi T(t)} \log {S_{\text{Bek}}(T(t)) - S_0 \over c} + \ldots\, .
\end{align}
See figure~\ref{latetimeslice}.
Here $T(t)$ is the temperature of the black hole at time $t$, $S_0$ is the extremal entropy (which is assumed to be small), and $S_{\text{Bek}}(T)$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for a black hole of temperature $T$.
The entanglement wedge is just the causal domain of a spacelike slice going from $(t,\sigma_0)$ to $(y^+_e, y^-_e)$.
This implies that the computation of the bulk entanglement entropy is just that of an interval.
The answer is slightly nontrivial because the stress tensor is nonzero once we take into account the effects of Hawking radiation,\footnote{In fact, the state at late times is essentially what is called the Unruh vacuum which contains no incoming radiation but contains outgoing radiation.} and hence the map $w^\pm(y^\pm)$ determined from (\ref{Coorwy}) is nontrivial.
In the $w^\pm$ coordinates, we are just considering an interval in ordinary flat space, and the nontrivial part of the entropy comes from the dependence of the cutoff $z_w$ on the length of the interval \nref{PlanckBr}.
As shown in \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf},
this leads to an entropy for the black hole of the from
\begin{equation} \label{Ent}
S_{\rm Black~ Hole} (t) = S_{\text{Bek}} (T(t) ) + {\rm logs } \, ,
\end{equation}
where $T(t)$ is the approximate black hole temperature at time $t$.
The ``logs'' denote terms that are logarithmic in the black hole entropy of the initial state.
Note that this entropy is decreasing with time because the temperature is decreasing.
\subsubsection{Entanglement wedge of the radiation at late times}
Now we consider the entropy of the radiation.
More precisely, we compute the entropy of the state in the bath CFT outside some point $\sigma_0$, the complement of the interval that we considered for the black hole in the previous subsection, see figure \ref{RadiationEW} right.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Figures/RadiationEW}
\end{center}
\caption{The analog of figure \ref{LateEntanglementWedges} for the late time entanglement wedge of the \emph{radiation}.
The rightmost picture depicts the interval whose entropy is being considered.
The leftmost picture depicts $\Sigma_\text{Late}$ in the 2d gravity picture.
There is an entanglement island, disconnected from the region where the radiation lives.
The middle picture depicts the 3d version, the blue region being the entanglement wedge.}
\label{RadiationEW}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Figures/latetimeslicerad}
\end{center}
\caption{ Spacetime diagram for the formation and evaporation of the black hole. We consider the entanglement wedges of the radiation. The ``island" is the left wedge, which is disconnected from the right one. }
\label{latetimeslicerad}
\end{figure}
At first sight this seems straightforward to compute.
We start from the entire slice and simply trace out everything that is outside the region under consideration.
This would reproduce the computation in \cite{Hawking:1976ra} which results in an entropy that continues to grow past the Page time.
On the other hand, since the entanglement wedge of the black hole covers only a portion of the interior, it is tempting to think that the rest of the interior should belong to to the entanglement wedge of the radiation \cite{Penington:2019npb, Almheiri:2019psf,Hayden:2018khn}.
This seems surprising from the two-dimensional point of view where the interior is disconnected from the outside, forming a disconnected `island', see figure \ref{RadiationEW} left.
When we think about this problem from the three-dimensional point of view we find that the region in the interior is actually connected to the exterior, see figure \ref{RadiationEW} middle.
If we compute the entropy in the outside CFT by using the standard RT/HRT formula, which instructs us to find the minimal extremal surface, candidate surfaces can end on the Planck brane.
In fact, the extremal surface is essentially the same one as the one we found for the black hole, up to possible IR contributions depending on the precise initial state which not important conceptually, and will be discussed later.
This connection through the extra dimensions can be viewed as a realization of the ER=EPR idea that the radiation would be connected to the interior of the black hole.\footnote{In \cite{Maldacena:2013xja} a picture of an ``octopus'' was drawn, that was because the radiation was divided into different parts. Something similar would be the case here too if we were to divide up the radiation in the bath.}
The extra dimension provides a ``bridge" that connects the ``island" to the ``mainland", the mainland being the CFT interval whose entropy we are computing.
The crucial point is that the interior region, which in the two-dimensional picture is disconnected from the outside radiation, is actually connected through the extra dimension. We expect that this should be a feature of any situation where we have a black hole coupled to holographic matter, even in higher dimensions, $d>2$.\footnote{Higher dimensional black holes in Randall-Sundrum have a variety of phases \cite{Hubeny:2009ru,Figueras:2011gd,Santos:2012he,Santos:2014yja} and only in some cases do they evaporate at leading order.}
This was already suggested as the right prescription on the basis of unitarity in \cite{Hayden:2018khn,Penington:2019npb}. The argument we gave using the holographic example allows us to {\it derive} this fact from the usual rules of RT/HRT surfaces and entanglement wedges. Of course this derivation relies on the assumed correctness of the RT/HRT formula for computing von Neumann entropies.
\subsection{Early time entanglement wedges}
We consider the setup in \cite{Almheiri:2019psf} that starts from a low temperature black hole, initially decoupled from the bath.
The coupling between the black hole and the bath is turned on at $t=0$.
In order to describe the three-dimensional geometry, we will need some preliminaries.
Many of these points are not essential for the main point of our paper, so the reader who finds them confusing can jump to the next subsection.
\subsubsection{The decoupled state}
\label{CFTwB}
Suppose that we have a two-dimensional conformal field theory with a simple, Cardy conformal boundary condition \cite{Cardy:1989ir}.
This type of boundary does not carry any energy, so that $T_{++} = T_{--}$ at the boundary.
The holographic dual of such a boundary condition corresponds to a brane in AdS$_3$ with extrinsic curvature proportional to the metric.
The metric will be \nref{vacuum} with boundary at $\sigma_w = (w^+ -w^-)/2 =0$.
We will call such a brane a ``Cardy'' brane.
For simplicity, we consider a brane that goes straight down at $\sigma_w =0$ in the bulk, see figure \ref{SimpleBrane}.
This brane contains no dilaton or any Ricci curvature term on its surface.\footnote{In principle, the Cardy brane could also go down at an angle, due to a nonzero tension, and it could also contain an Einstein term which is topological. Such terms lead to a nonzero boundary entropy \cite{Affleck:1991tk}, see \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk}.}
Consider an initial state where the bath and black hole are decoupled.
This means that the CFT will have a boundary condition, which is taken to be the conformal boundary condition described above.
The holographic dual consists of two disconnected geometries, see figure \ref{SimpleBrane}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Figures/SimpleBrane}
\end{center}
\caption{The decoupled black hole (on the left) and the bath CFT (on the right). We have shown a constant time slice in the 3d geometry. The thick vertical lines are the ``Cardy" branes, which are the holographic dual of conformal boundary conditions.}
\label{SimpleBrane}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Coupling the black hole and the bath CFT}
We now consider coupling the two systems.
(See \cite{Anous:2016kss, Calabrese:2007mtj, Calabrese:2009qy, Asplund:2013zba, Caputa:2019avh, Shimaji:2018czt} for studies of local quenches in two-dimensional CFTs.)
If we were to suddenly couple them at $t=0$, we would get an infinite pulse of energy.
Instead we imagine that we couple them over some time $\Delta t$.
The state that we get after this will have a pulse of energy of the order $E \propto { c \over \Delta t}$.
An approximate form for the state can be obtained by considering the Euclidean problem, joining it suddenly and then evolving in Euclidean time for an amount $\Delta t$.
This leads to a Lorentzian 3d geometry such that, at $t=0$, the Cardy brane is situated somewhere in the bulk, displaced away from the physical boundary towards the AdS$_3$ interior.
Its precise shape depends on the coordinates used, but a sketch can be seen in figure \ref{EarlyEW}(a).
As time progresses, this brane falls deeper towards the interior of AdS$_3$ and becomes more distant from the physical boundary.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.48]{Figures/EarlyEW}
\end{center}
\caption{We show the profile of the simple boundary brane in the bulk at $t=0$.
At later times it falls in, in the sense that the physical distance to the boundary increases.
We have also shown the black hole entanglement wedges.
Where we assumed we started from a black hole at at low temperature where the initial horizon is located where we indicated. The pink region is the entanglement wedge of the black hole, while the complementary blue region is the entanglement wedge of the bath.}
\label{EarlyEW}
\end{figure}
We consider an initial black hole which is at a very low (but nonzero) temperature, much lower than the temperature of the black hole that results after the energy pulse falls in.
The entanglement wedge goes very close to the original horizon (the horizon before the energy pulse comes in), and the entanglement wedge of the black hole contains most of the region associated to the black hole, see figure \ref{EarlyEW}(a).
As time progresses, the topology of the figure \ref{EarlyEW}(a) stays similar, but as the brane falls deeper into the bulk, its distance from the boundary increases, leading to a growing entropy, as shown in figure \ref{EarlyEW}(b).
This growing entropy can be physically interpreted as the building up of entanglement between the Hawking modes escaping into the bath and their partners trapped behind the event horizon.
This entropy is equal to the entropy of the radiation and goes as
\begin{equation}
\label{EntropyRa}
S_{\rm Black ~Hole}(t) \sim S_{\rm Rad}(t) =
\frac{\pi c}{6} \int_0^t dt'\, T(t') = 2 S^i_{\text{Bek}} ( 1 - e^{-{\kappa \over 2} t })\, ,
\end{equation}
where $T(t')$ is the temperature at time $t'$.
Here $S^i_{\text{Bek}}$ is the coarse-grained Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole that forms after the pulse falls in.
Denoting its temperature by $T_i$, we find that $T(t) \sim T_i e^{ - {\kappa \over 2} t} $ due to black hole evaporation \cite{Engelsoy:2016xyb}.
Here $\kappa$ is proportional to $c$ and also to the effective gravitational coupling of the 2d gravity theory, see \cite{Almheiri:2019psf} for details.
The important point about \nref{EntropyRa} is that it rises continuously and it saturates at twice the initial black hole entropy.
In the context of figure \nref{EarlyEW} this means that we can neglect the contribution of the leftmost RT/HRT surface that ends at the original horizon.
The factor of two in \nref{EntropyRa} arises because the Hawking radiation is not adiabatic and it generates coarse grained entropy \cite{Page:2013dx} (see also \cite{Penington:2019npb}).
\subsubsection{A slightly more precise picture for the entropy of radiation}
Having specified the initial state in more detail, we can be slightly more precise about the entropy of radiation at late times.
There are a couple of new contributions.
First, the initial state had some entropy, $S_0$, associated to the horizon of the original low-temperature black hole.
We are imagining that $S_0$ is much smaller than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $S^i_{\text{Bek}}$ of the black hole created by the pulse of energy.
Nevertheless, this implies that, to the left of the ``island", there is also a piece of the RT/HRT surface associated with this original horizon, see figure \ref{RaditionEWBetter} middle.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.47]{Figures/RadiationEWBetter}
\end{center}
\caption{An improved version of figure \ref{RadiationEW} showing the entanglement wedge of the radiation including a contribution from the initial black hole horizon, and a contribution from the IR cutoff in the CFT.
Both these contributions are smaller than $S^i_\text{Bek}$.}
\label{RaditionEWBetter}
\end{figure}
In addition, we can consider radiation as living in a finite interval $[\sigma_0 ,\sigma_{\text{IR}}]$ where $\sigma_{\text{IR}}$ is big enough to contain the entire Hawking radiation, in particular, larger than the total evaporation time.
Then there is a second surface that ends on this endpoint and goes to the ``Cardy" brane.
See figure \ref{RaditionEWBetter}.
This surface gives rise to a relatively small entropy proportional to ${c \over 6 } \log \sigma_{\text{IR}} \ll S^i_{\rm Bek}$.
\subsection{The Page curve}
The Page time \cite{Page:1993wv} is defined to be the time where the increasing early-time form of the entropy \nref{EntropyRa} is equal to the decreasing late-time one \nref{Ent}, and the entanglement wedge undergoes a transition.
The minimality condition in the RT/HRT prescription leads to the entropy of the radiation reaching a maximum and then decreasing, see figure \ref{BHEnt}.
(Recall that we are assuming that $S_0 \ll S^i_{\rm Bek}$.)
Both surfaces exist on either side of the transition, it is just that they may not be the minimal ones.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{Figures/RadEnt}
\end{center}
\caption{Sketch of the entropy of the radiation, computed using the early time surface and the late time one.
We are assuming that $S_0 \ll S^i_\text{Bek}$.
There is a transition between the two at the Page time.
Here $\kappa$ is proportional to $c$ and also to the effective gravitational coupling of the 2d gravity theory.}
\label{BHEnt}
\end{figure}
Note that in the case that the extremal entropy $S_0$ is not negligible, then the minimization process could be different.
For example, if we had $S_0 \gg S^i_{\rm Bek}$, then the entropy of the radiation will take the short time form for all times.
The reason is that we need to pay a $2S_0$ price to create the ``island'' (becasue of the two endpoints of the island), and this is not favorable when $S_0$ is large.
However, if we keep feeding the black hole with pure matter while the black hole evaporates, eventually the radiation will become entropic enough that it will be worth paying the $2 S_0$ price for the island.
\section{A new rule for computing the entropy when gravitational systems are involved}
\label{sec:newrule}
The calculation of the Page curve using the three-dimensional geometry that we discussed above looks fairly natural from the three-dimensional point of view.
It does not look very different from other examples where the entanglement wedge extends beyond the causal wedge.
However it looks surprising from the purely two-dimensional point of view.
There, we have a hybrid system consisting of a black hole coupled to a CFT on a half line.
If we want to compute the entropy of a region in the CFT, then we are strongly tempted to do what Hawking did \cite{Hawking:1976ra}
and restrict attention to the region of the CFT, without including anything else.
However, the holographic computation suggests that we should also include the interior region.
This suggests that we should introduce a new rule when we compute entropies in effective theories involving gravity.
If we consider a state in a quantum field theory that is entangled with some other system that lives in a gravity theory, then we should use the RT/HRT/EW method and include all possible ``islands" that could extremize the entropy.
When we include such an island we will often have to pay a price due to the boundary area of the island, the area term in the gravity theory.
However, there can be situations where the quantum system is entangled with fields inside a closed universe, or the interior of a black hole that has evaporated completely.
In such cases we do not have to pay an area price because we could, in principle, take the whole space.
The prescription is that the actual entropy of some region $A$ in a quantum field theory is given by extremizing a generalized entropy-like functional over islands ${\cal I}_g$ followed by a minimization over all extrema:
\begin{equation}
\label{NewRule}
S(A) = \underset{{\cal I}_g}{\rm Min} \, \underset{{\cal I}_g}{\rm Ext} \left[ S_{\rm eff}(A \cup {{\cal I}_g}) + { \text{Area}[{\partial {\cal I}_g}] \over 4 G_N} \right] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\text{Area}[{\partial {\cal I}_g}]$ is the area of boundary of the island. The subscript in $S_\text{eff}$ reminds us that we are computing the entropy of the state in semi-classical gravity.
We call the islands ${\cal I}_g$ that extremize this functional \emph{quantum extremal islands}.
The area contribution form the boundary of the island can be zero if it includes a whole closed universe.
We imagine minimizing over all possible regions ${{\cal I}_g}$ that could reduce the bulk term for the entropy and also include the areas of such regions, see figure \ref{islands}.
The subscript in ${{\cal I}_g}$ reminds us that this is an island in a gravity theory.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.17]{Figures/Pockets.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{On the left side we have a quantum system, $A$, entangled with quantum fields living in a dynamical geometry, which we take to have one spatial dimension. The rule is that we can consider islands, labelled here as blue regions ${\cal I}_g$. In (a) the region ${\cal I}_g$ is a portion of the whole geometry which has a boundary with area $\text{Area}(\partial {\cal I}_g)$. In (b) region ${\cal I}_g$ is the whole universe and it has zero area.}
\label{islands}
\end{figure}
We should emphasize that this is a rule in the effective field theory.
If we have the complete and exact state in the quantum system $A$, then we simply use the usual formula for computing the entropy, namely $S(A) = - \text{Tr}(\rho_A \log \rho_A)$, where $\rho_A$ is the density matrix of $A$ in the exact quantum theory.
On the other hand, in the new rule \nref{NewRule} we have a state $\rho^{\rm eff}_{A \cup {{\cal I}_g}}$ which is a semiclassical gravity state.
Note, in particular, that we cannot ``forget'' how we obtained the state.
When we obtained it using a gravity theory, we should also compute its entropy using the gravity formula \nref{NewRule}.
The system $A$ could be a simple spin chain.
But if we obtained the state in this spin chain by collecting Hawking radiation from a black hole, we should still include the interior in computing the entropy.
If we solved the black hole evolution exactly and we give the exact state in the spin chain, then we can use the standard von Neumann formula for the entropy of this spin chain.
We can also view the geometry as part of the specification of the state and therefore we need to use the proper RT/HRT/EW prescription to compute its entropy.
Another perspective is the following.
If we have a configuration that has a quantum system in one region of space and has dynamical gravity in some other region of space, even to compute the entropy of the quantum system, we should still use the rules for gravity theories.
In other words, if we transfer the Hawking radiation to a set of spins, using the gravity theory, then the combined configuration of spins and black hole spacetime is the full state. When we compute the density matrix we need to follow the rules of gravity to find the entanglement wedge of the spins and its corresponding entropy.
The full configuration can be thought of as a tensor network preparing the state of the spins \cite{Swingle:2009bg}\cite{Hartman:2013qma}.
So, when we compute the entropy we need to take into account the full network.
More precisely, the entanglement displayed in figure \ref{islands} should be viewed as internal links in that tensor network.
If the whole computation occurs in a holographic theory, such as in the usual Engenhardt-Wall \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca} quantum extremal surface prescription, then islands should also be allowed in the bulk when we perform the search for a minimal extremal surface.
Notice that the size of the island can be very large, even if the entanglement is relatively small.
So, this new rule says, for example, that if we have a single spin-$1/2$ particle entangled with another spin-$1/2$ particle in a very large closed universe which is otherwise in a pure state (its total bulk entropy arises only due to the spin half particle), then the entanglement wedge of the original spin half particle includes the whole closed universe, see figure \ref{islands}(b).
Now, this is surprising because the whole closed universe could be in different pure states.
However, if we do not know which pure state we have, and we want to include those alternatives, we generate a mixed state and therefore the entropy inside this universe increases and we would not get that the entanglement wedge of the outside spin includes the whole universe.
In other words, this formula is not saying that we can learn about the state of the whole closed universe by just looking at a single spin-1/2 particle.
Note that by this rule, the entanglement wedge could potentially also include a whole set of additional closed universes in pure states, but which would not contribute to the generalized entropy at all, and we continue to not learn anything about them.
It is possible that there is also an exact description of the gravity theory where \nref{NewRule} is exact.
(As discussed in \cite{Penington:2019npb}, such a description might involve something similar to a final state projection \cite{Horowitz:2003he}.)
We are calling (\ref{NewRule}) as an effective prescription, because in general, we can only view the gravity theory as an effective field theory.
It is of course very interesting that gravity still knows about the fine-grained von Neumann entropy of the state.
We can view this as evidence that there is some bulk theory that contains the precise information about the state.
Notice that this set of ideas is also connected to the Bekenstein area bound in an interesting way.
The Bekenstein bound says that the entropy of a region bounded by some surface $\mathcal{S}$ should be smaller than the area of $\mathcal{S}$.
This bound is clearly violated if we consider $\mathcal{S}$ to be the horizon of an old evaporating black hole and use semiclassical reasoning.
However, in such situations when the bound is violated, we expect that there is a nontrivial quantum extremal surface $\mathcal{E}$ inside $\mathcal{S}$, and now the $S_{bulk}$ term should only contain the entropy between $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{S}$, instead of the entropy of the entire region bounded by $\mathcal{S}$.
The entanglement wedge thus might be smaller than the entire region inside $\mathcal{S}$, and the large entropy remains outside the entanglement wedge.
This suggests a modified version of the Bekenstein bound stating that:
\begin{flushleft}
{\it The generalized entropy of the entanglement wedge inside a region with boundary ${\cal S}$ should be less than ${\rm Area}({\cal S}) /(4 G_N)$.}
\end{flushleft}
Let us discuss this in more detail.
This statement presumes that we can consider an arbitrary surface $\mathcal{S}$ and view it as being a holographic-type boundary where a quantum system lives.
Then we consider a candidate quantum extremal surface $\mathcal{E}$ inside the region bounded by $\mathcal{S}$.
This modified bound would then follow simply from the minimization prescription, if we extremize over the choice of $\mathcal{E}$.
This is due to the fact that a very ``thin'' entanglement wedge, where $\mathcal{E}$ almost coincides with $\mathcal{S}$, would be an example of the surfaces over which we are extremizing.
Since it is very thin, it does not capture any bulk entropy, and thus the generalized entropy functional evaluates to $\text{Area}(\mathcal{S})/(4G_N)$ on this very thin entanglement wedge.
Therefore, the true minimal extremal surface should have smaller generalized entropy.
We should emphasize how surprising the RT/HRT/EW formulas are \cite{Ryu:2006bv, Hubeny:2007xt, Engelhardt:2014gca}.
They claim that we can compute the fine-grained entropy just by looking at the effective gravity theory.
This is surprising because one might expect that we need some knowledge that goes beyond the effective field theory (the details of the UV completion of the theory, for example) in order to compute the fine-grained entropy.
It is expected that if one wanted to compute detailed matrix elements of the density matrix, then we would need to have an accuracy of order $e^{-S}$, where $S$ is the black hole entropy.
Such computations are expected to be very sensitive to the microscopic details of the theory. They are also likely to involve other topologies, as in the long time discussion in \cite{Saad:2018bqo,Saad:2019lba}.
However just the effective field theory is smart enough to know about the correct entropy of Hawking radiation.
One simply has to apply the correct prescription for its entropy!\footnote{Progress on a direct derivation of \eqref{NewRule} has been reported in \cite{PeningtonWIP,AlmheiriWIP}. }
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclude}
To summarize,
we have considered the computation of the entropy of Hawking radiation for an evaporating black hole.
We studied a two-dimensional black hole coupled to a two-dimensional matter CFT, where this matter CFT has a holographic dual.
In this case, the quantum extremal surface prescription of \cite{Engelhardt:2014gca} reduces to the usual RT/HRT \cite{Ryu:2006bv,Hubeny:2007xt} prescription in the bulk geometry.
When interpreted in terms of the two-dimensional theory, the entanglement wedge has an ``island'' in the black hole interior.
The appearance of this island was previously noted in the computation of the entanglement wedge of the black hole in \cite{Penington:2019npb,Almheiri:2019psf}.
This island is connected to the exterior, where radiation lives, by the extra dimension of the holographic theory.
One can view the resulting geometry as a particular realization of the ER=EPR \cite{Maldacena:2013xja, Maldacena:2013t1} idea (see also \cite{Susskind:2012uw, Papadodimas:2012aq}).
The radiation is described by a density matrix living in an ordinary quantum field theory without gravity.
So in principle, we can compute its entropy using the standard formula $S = - \text{Tr}(\rho \log \rho)$.
This presumes that we know the state $\rho$ precisely enough.
If the final state was obtained via the evaporation of a black hole, or some other process involving gravity, then, when we trace out the rest in the semiclassical approximation, we do not get a precise enough approximation for $\rho$.
In fact, we would get the standard Hawking answer \cite{Hawking:1976ra}.
However, the full geometry {\it does} contain enough information to compute the fine-grained entropy, but perhaps not enough to compute the precise individual matrix elements of the density matrix.
For this, one needs to make up a new rule for how to compute entropies for quantum systems that are entangled with gravitational systems.
We need to consider the addition of ``islands'' and use the quantum extremal surface prescription \cite{Ryu:2006bv,Hubeny:2007xt,Engelhardt:2014gca} to find the precise shape for the island.
The case with holographic matter that we have considered here makes this new rule plausible.
But we expect it to hold even in cases where matter is given by free fields which do not have a standard Einstein gravity dual.
Given the existence of these islands, it would be interesting to see whether there exists a method to extract the information contained within them that has a clear bulk interpretation, in the spirit of what was discussed for the Hayden-Preskill problem \cite{Hayden:2007cs} in \cite{Gao:2016bin,Maldacena:2017axo}.
Notice that these islands, together with a suitable statement about entanglement wedge reconstruction, suggests a degree of non-locality for the theory. So it would be interesting to understand better how it is compatible with ordinary local gravitational bulk physics.
Note that for the CGHS model
\cite{Callan:1992rs,Russo:1992ht,Russo:1992ax,Strominger:1994tn, Fiola:1994ir}, which is asymptotically flat, we expect a very similar story. We need to compute the entropy of radiation in the asymptotic region, where the dilaton is very large. Again we expect the development of an island in the black hole interior. In the case that the matter is a CFT with a holographic dual, the island is connected to the radiation through the extra dimension.
Finally, even though we restricted our analysis to the simple case of two dimensions, we expect that the results should be similar in higher dimensions when we have a gravity theory in $d$ dimensions which contains matter that is holographically dual to a $(d+1)$-dimensional geometry.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Netta Engelhardt, Daniel Harlow, Andreas Karch, Donald Marolf, Henry Maxfield, Geoffrey Penington, Steve Shenker, Douglas Stanford, Sandip Trivedi, and Edward Witten for useful conversations.
A.A. is supported by funds from the Ministry of Presidential Affairs, UAE.
R.M. is supported by US Department of Energy grant No.\ DE-SC0016244.
The work of R.M. was performed in part at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1607611.
J.M. is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-SC0009988 and by the Simons Foundation grant 385600.
Y.Z. is supported by the Simons foundation through the It from Qubit Collaboration.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1long}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The majority of our understanding surrounding the structure of cold gas in low-redshift galaxies comes from observations of the ubiquitous emission line of atomic hydrogen (\HI) at a rest-frame wavelength of $\sim\!21\,{\rm cm}$. \HI~in galaxies is well documented to lie in rotationally supported discs that extend notably beyond optical discs from stellar emission (e.g.~\citealt{bosma81}; but see \citealt{meurer18}). This arises because stars form in dense gaseous regions, where a more significant fraction of hydrogen is in a molecular state \citep[e.g.][]{bigiel08,leroy08}. Meanwhile, the gas in a disc with higher specific angular momentum (farther from the global minimum of the potential well) is stable against local gravitational collapse, and so remains in an atomic state \citep{ob16,stevens18}. Being more distant from sites of star formation, this gas can also be less prone to feedback effects \citep[although the interplay between galaxies' \HI~content and feedback is non-trivial -- see e.g.][]{crain17}.
As first highlighted by \citet{broeils97}, a key feature of \HI~discs is a \emph{genuinely} tight relation between their size and mass. \HI~size has canonically been measured as the radius at which the surface density profile, $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$, drops below 1\,\Msol\,pc$^{-2}$, hereafter denoted $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$.
This convention arose in part because many earlier radio observations were not sensitive to \HI~column densities much lower than this (dating back to the likes of \citealt{warmels88,broeils94}).
The relation between $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~and integrated \HI~mass, \mHI, is a simple power law that holds over more than four decades in \mHI, with measured scatter [standard deviation in $\log_{10}\left( r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\right)$~from the best-fitting power law] of 0.06\,dex ($<\!15$ per cent; \citealt*{begum08,lelli16,wang16}). The monotonic nature of this relation is often framed as meaning all galaxies have a common average \HI~surface density within $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~\citep[e.g.][]{broeils97,verheijen01,begum08,wang16}. This implies there must be commonality amongst the $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles of all galaxy discs \citep{wang14}.
Over the last decade, it has been shown on numerous occasions that the \HI~size--mass relation is reproducible in both cosmological, hydrodynamic simulations \citep{wang14,bahe16,marinacci17,diemer19} and semi-analytic models \citep{ob09,wang14,lutz18}, although often not all of the relation's three defining values (slope, normalization, and scatter) \emph{precisely} align with the narrow empirical ranges. The choice of prescription for how neutral hydrogen is broken into its atomic and molecular components in these models generally does not affect this outcome, even though this can change the \emph{exact} form of $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~(although the results of \citealt{bahe16} appear to be an exception). Rather, it is only in instances when implemented feedback effects are evidently too strong or interact with the interstellar-medium model in an unexpected fashion that simulated galaxies start to deviate from the \HI~size--mass relation. For example, \citet[][see their fig.~6]{bahe16} explicitly show that galaxies containing excessively large \HI~`holes' in the EAGLE simulations steepen the predicted slope of the size--mass relation; when these galaxies are excluded, the relation returns to consistency with \citet{broeils97}.
While many works have highlighted the existence and significance of the \HI~size--mass relation, we have not yet seen a \emph{mathematically explicit} description for why the relation exists. \citet{wang14} showed that observations, zoom-in hydrodynamic simulations, and a semi-analytic model \citep[with resolved disc structure --][]{fu13} can all produce galaxies with $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles of a common shape. They comment that this commonality should explain the tightness of the \HI~size--mass relation, although it is not explicitly derived.
In this paper, we use simple models of increasing complexity to describe galaxy discs, from which we analytically derive the \HI~size--mass relation. Using these models, we investigate what impact disc truncation from an effect like ram pressure would have. By weighing this against recent observational and simulated data, we discuss how the $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles of satellite galaxies must be altered as they are stripped.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec:data}, we give a brief overview of the observations and simulations we use to support our analysis. We then present our analytic models in Section \ref{sec:models}, deriving an \HI~size--mass relation in each case, and comparing how well these models reflect both real and simulated data. Our models are extended in Section \ref{sec:env} to consider the effects of ram-pressure stripping. Here, we also explore the impact of halo mass on the \HI~size--mass relation as predicted by both the TNG100 simulation and {\sc Dark Sage} semi-analytic model. Section \ref{sec:conc} finally offers a brief conclusion. Supplementary equations and analysis can be found in Appendices \ref{app:dists}, \ref{app:trunceq}, and \ref{sec:rhalf}.
\section{Supporting data}
\label{sec:data}
While not the main focus of this work per se, we use data from both observations and simulations to help support and/or contextualize our arguments throughout this paper. We briefly describe them here. Note that, where relevant, we assume $h\!=\!0.6774$, per the \citet{planck16} cosmological parameters.
\subsection{21-cm observations}
\label{ssec:obs}
There is an ever-increasing sample of galaxies in the literature that have resolved 21-cm maps, from which \HI~surface density profiles are inferred. In this paper, we use profiles from a variety of sources. These include 16 galaxies from The \HI~Nearby Galaxy Survey \citep[THINGS;][]{walter08}, 14 from LITTLE THINGS \citep{hunter12}, 41 from The Local Volume \HI~Survey (LVHIS; data originally presented by \citealt*{ryder95,westmeier11,westmeier13}; for the complete survey, see \citealt{koribalski18}), and 39 from the Bluedisk sample \citep{wang13}. These comprise a subset of the galaxy sample used in \citet[][hereafter W16]{wang16}. All of these galaxies have well-resolved, inclination-corrected $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles, with cleanly measured \HI~sizes and masses.
The THINGS galaxies in our sample are the same subset used by \citet{og14}, which are all definitively spirals, spanning a stellar-mass range of $2.5 \times 10^9$ -- $1.6 \times 10^{11}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$.
The galaxies we use from LITTLE THINGS are the same subset as in \citet*{butler17}, covering $1.4 \times 10^6$ -- $2.0 \times 10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ in stellar mass, and are morphologically classified as dwarf irregulars.
The LITTLE THINGS and Bluedisk galaxies are predominantly isolated, while the LVHIS galaxies mainly occupy a subgroup near the Sculptor Group.
The LVHIS galaxies we include are selected to have $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~greater than 1.5 times the major axis of the PSF\footnote{Point Spread Function} ellipse, ensuring the disc profiles are sufficiently resolved (the other data more than meet this criterion already).
Most galaxies from LVHIS and Bluedisk are classified as spirals.
All galaxies in our sample are at $z\!\simeq\!0$.
We refer the reader to the specific papers where the data are presented for further details.
While we cannot guarantee that this sample is representative of \emph{all} galaxies in the local Universe (in fact, it is biased towards rotation-dominated systems), we take and analyse the data as they are. Our simulated data help compensate by offering volume-limited samples that are orders of magnitude larger in galaxy number.
For the Bluedisk galaxies, we calculate \mHI~by numerically integrating the full surface density profile of each galaxy. These \HI~masses are $\sim$15 per cent larger than the `true' \mHI~values given in \citet{wang13}, which were only integrated out to a finite surface density. Any pre-measured \mHI~quantities for the other galaxies are consistent with numerically integrating their profiles.
\subsection{IllustrisTNG}
\label{ssec:tng}
IllustrisTNG\footnote{Illustris: The Next Generation} comprises a suite of cosmological, magnetohydrodynamic simulations of various volumes and resolutions, run with the {\sc arepo} code \citep{springel10}. In this paper, we use the main TNG100 simulation\footnote{TNG100 (and TNG300) have recently been made publicly available \citep{nelson19}.} \citep{pillepich18b,nelson18,marinacci18,naiman18,springel18}, with a periodic box of length $75\,h^{-1} \! \simeq \! 110\,{\rm cMpc}$, containing $1820^3$ dark-matter particles of mass $7.5 \! \times \! 10^6\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, and $1820^3$ initial baryonic elements of typical mass $1.4 \! \times \! 10^6\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. TNG simulations include subgrid models to follow gas cooling, star formation, growth of massive black holes, and feedback from both stars and active galactic nuclei \citep{weinberger17,pillepich18a}.
Black-hole feedback removes gas from its immediate neighbourhood ($\lesssim\!1$\,kpc from the centre), while supernova feedback removes gas everywhere according to the local star formation rate (on $\sim$500\,pc scales) and induced mass-loading factor.
The simulations and methods are based on the earlier Illustris project \citep{vogelsberger13,vogelsberger14a,vogelsberger14b,genel14,torrey14}.
Gas cells in the simulation are post-processed to calculate their mass fractions in the form of atomic and molecular hydrogen \citep{diemer18,stevens19}. We present results from three methods, based on the works by \citet{gk11}, \citet{k13}, and \citet{gd14}. We refer the reader to \citet{stevens19} and references therein for full details on the methodology; all properties in this paper follow the `inherent' method, meaning only particles/cells associated with the {\sc subfind} object \citep{springel01,dolag09} that also meet the spherical-aperture criterion of \citet{stevens14} are included.
\HI~radii are derived by building one-dimensional \HI~surface density profiles, using cylindrical annuli with an axis parallel to the galaxy's angular-momentum vector (computed exclusively from stellar particles), and linearly interpolating the exact position where these profiles drop below $1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$.
For this work, we include galaxies at $z\!=\!0$~with stellar masses above $10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, \HI~masses above $10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, and \HI~radii greater than the minimum gas softening length of 190\,pc (both these \HI~requirements only needed to be satisfied for one of the three \HI/H$_{2}$~prescriptions). Our resulting TNG100 sample totals $\sim$15\,000 galaxies; the sample size would be $\sim$20\,000 with just the stellar-mass cut alone.
The added \mHI~and $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~cuts somewhat bias us towards star-forming galaxies; these cuts reduce the total passive fraction from $\sim$28 to $\sim$5 per cent, where we define a `passive' galaxy as one with a specific star formation rate $<\!10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ (based on the gas cells' instantaneous star formation rates). In practice, a passive TNG100 galaxy often has a star formation rate of zero.
\subsection{D{\small ARK} S{\small AGE}}
\label{ssec:ds}
{\sc Dark Sage}~is a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation originally developed by \citet*{stevens16}. Its stand-out features include a comprehensive consideration of the angular momentum of galaxy discs. Each disc is broken into a series of 30 annuli \citep[similar to][]{fu10} whose edges are fixed in their specific angular momentum \citep[\`{a} la][]{stringer07} and spaced logarithmically. The net orientation and magnitude of gas and stellar discs' specific angular momenta are tracked and continuously updated based on the astrophysical processes considered. Among others, these processes include gas cooling, star formation and stellar feedback, and the growth and feedback of black holes, where each of these are calculated on an annulus-by-annulus basis.
For example, stellar feedback only reheats gas out of the same annulus where the precursory star formation took place, while quasar winds initially remove gas from the central annulus and can extend to outer annuli based on the energy involved.
The publicly available {\sc Dark Sage}~code\footnote{\url{https://github.com/arhstevens/DarkSage}} (and many of the physical prescriptions) is based on \citet{croton06,croton16}. For a more thorough overview of semi-analytic models in general, see e.g.~\citet{baugh06,somerville15}.
{\sc Dark Sage}~accounts for the effects of ram-pressure stripping on satellite galaxies at a level of detail beyond most other semi-analytic models. Provided a sufficient amount of hot gas around a satellite is lost, a prescription based directly on \citet{gunn72} is applied to each annulus individually. Where ram pressure exceeds the local restoring force per unit area, all gas in the satellite's annulus is transferred to the intra-halo medium (i.e.~the hot component associated the corresponding central galaxy). Barring extreme circumstances, the local restoring force of discs decreases with radius. As such, ram-pressure stripping in {\sc Dark Sage}~leads to the continual truncation of gas discs. Satellites are also denied cosmological accretion of gas, and have their hot-gas reservoir gradually depleted through tidal or ram-pressure stripping (manifesting as starvation/strangulation -- cf.~\citealt*{larson80}). Satellite galaxy discs can still accrete \emph{from} that hot gas though, where the specific-angular-momentum vector of that gas is fixed at infall.
We use the \citet{stevens18} version of {\sc Dark Sage}~in this work. This was run on the Millennium simulation \citep{springel05}. Even though the cosmology assumed in this simulation \citep{spergel03} differs from \emph{Planck}, to be consistent with our other results, we use $h\!=\!0.6774$ for our {\sc Dark Sage}~results. We otherwise maintain the galaxy properties as they are in \citet{stevens18}, meaning there is no rescaling to account for the other cosmological parameters \citep[but see][]{angulo10}. The prescription for the \HI/H$_{2}$~breakdown used in this version of the model is based on \citet{mckee10}. Taking the centre of each annulus as its position for the galaxies' $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles, we linearly interpolate between the outermost annulus with $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! > \! 1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ and the next to obtain $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. Because each consecutive annulus edge has 40 per cent higher specific angular momentum, the separation between the annuli where $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is measured is typically $\sim \! 0.4\,r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. We only analyse redshift-zero {\sc Dark Sage}~galaxies in this paper that occupy (sub)haloes that have been composed of at least 100 particles (equivalent to a halo mass of $8.6 \times 10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$) at some point in their merger-tree history, and whose stellar masses are above $10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and \HI~masses above $10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ at $z\!=\!0$. This leaves us with 4.3 million {\sc Dark Sage}~galaxies.
\section{Disc models and derivations of the \HI~size--mass relation}
\label{sec:models}
In this section, we explore several models of progressively increasing complexity for the one-dimensional distribution of \HI~in galaxy discs. For each model, we show an example $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profile in Fig.~\ref{fig:profeg}, which is accompanied by a real example galaxy whose observed \HI~surface density profile is well described by that model. We will show that regardless of how much detail is added to the disc profiles, one can always mathematically derive a tight \HI~size--mass relation that matches observations. Note that, throughout parts of this section, we use a bar to denote when surface densities and radii have been normalized:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:bar}
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}_x \equiv r_x / r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Sigma}_x \equiv \Sigma_x / \left(1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $x$ represents any subscript.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ProfileExamples.pdf}
\caption{\HI~surface density profiles of four galaxies from our observational sample (points). These have been hand-picked to show examples of when each of our analytic models in Section \ref{sec:models} is an accurate representation of reality; each line is the best fit of a different model to a different galaxy, with colour indicating which line is a fit to which data.}
\label{fig:profeg}
\end{figure}
Many parameters and expressions are introduced in this section. As a point of reference, we summarize the definitions and typical values of the key parameters of all our models in Table \ref{tab:params}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline\hline
Parameter & Definition & Model & Mathematically & A priori & Full range of & 68\% interval \\
& & & allowed values & expectation & fits to obs. & of obs. \\\hline\hline
& Maximum/saturation & 0 & & & $(2.5,35.2)$ & $(7.0,22.3)$ \\
$\bar{\Sigma}_0$ & \HI~surface density, & 1 & $>\!1.0$ & $\sim$2--10 & $(1.3,22.4)$ & $(3.2,8.5)$ \\
& normalized by $1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ & 2 & & & $(1.5,14.8)$ & $(3.2,8.7)$ \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\bar{r}_b$} & Saturation break radius, & 1 & \multirow{2}{*}{[0,\,1]} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sim$0--0.8} & $(0.01,0.83)$ & $(0.25,0.65)$ \\
& normalized by $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$ & 2 & & & $[0,0.65)$ & $(0,0.46)$ \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}$} & Normalized maximum & \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\geq\!4.22$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sim$10--1000} & \multirow{2}{*}{$[4.22,432.7)$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$(18.5,161.6)$} \\
& \HI+H$_{2}$~surface density & & & & \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\bar{r}_d$} & Normalized exponential & \multirow{2}{*}{3} & \multirow{2}{*}{$>\!0$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$\sim$0.1--1} & \multirow{2}{*}{$(0.16,0.72)$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$(0.19,0.35)$} \\
& scale radius for \HI+H$_{2}$ & & & & \\\hline\hline
%
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the parameters defining our analytic disc models, described in Sections \ref{ssec:model0}--\ref{ssec:model3}. The `mathematically allowed values' for models 0, 1, and 2 come directly from the parameters' definitions. For model 3, these limits are derived under the requirement that $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~is always finite and real; $\bar{r}_d$ actually has stricter upper and lower limits that depend on $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}$ (see Equations \ref{eq:ll} \& \ref{eq:ul}). The \emph{a priori} expectations are loosely based on previous works (\citealt{bigiel08,leroy08,stevens16}; \citetalias{wang16}). We quote both the full and 16th--84th percentile ranges of the best-fitting values to our sample of observed $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(\bar{r})\,\bar{r}$ profiles (see Section \ref{ssec:profiles}).}
\label{tab:params}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Model 0: pure exponential}
\label{ssec:model0}
Let us begin with the simple, canonical assumption that all discs are exponential. To first order, except perhaps towards the very centre of galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{stevens17}, both stellar and gaseous galaxy discs are observationally known to follow exponential profiles for many galaxies \citep{dev59,bigiel12}, for which a theoretical explanation has been discussed in several works \citep[e.g.][]{freeman70,dutton09,elmegreen13}. Let us further assert that \HI~discs \emph{specifically} are also exponential. While this assertion is not generically supported by observations (and is therefore incomplete), it will serve as a starting point in our exploration of \HI~disc models, and hence is why we refer to this as `model 0' (effectively, we are ignoring the existence of molecular gas). With this,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) = \Sigma_0 \exp\left(-r/r_s \right)\,,
\label{eq:SHIr_0}
\end{equation}
where $r_s$ is the exponential scale radius and $\Sigma_0$ is the central \HI~surface density. The total \HI~mass is then
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:integral}
m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \equiv {2\pi} \int_0^{\infty} \Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)\, r\, {\rm d}r
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Rightarrow m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = 2\pi\, \Sigma_0\, r_s^2\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
In reality, an \HI~disc would not extend to infinity; at some point, one would reach the ionized intergalactic medium or another object. Because the integral is convergent though, we assume (throughout this paper) that \HI~discs extend to sufficiently large radii such that integrating to infinity is a valid approximation.\footnote{For $\bar{\Sigma}_0 \! = \! 5$, this approximation is accurate to 10 per cent if the disc actually only extends to $\sim$2.4\,$r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$, and is accurate to 1 per cent if it extends to $\sim$4.1\,$r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. Higher values of $\bar{\Sigma}_0$ converge at lower radii (and vice versa).}
We should also recognize that $r_s$ can be rewritten in terms of $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. That is, for an exponential profile, it must be true that
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = \ln\!\left({\frac{\Sigma_0}{\Sigma_c}}\right) r_s\,,
\label{eq:rHI_0}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_c \! = \! 1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$, as per the definition of $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~(although, in principle, one could define $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~at a different threshold $\Sigma_c$, e.g.~as explored in fig.~4 of \citetalias{wang16}). After some short algebra, one can simply solve for $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~in terms of \mHI:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = f(\Sigma_0)\, m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}^{0.5}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f(\Sigma_0) = \left(2\pi\, \Sigma_0\right)^{-0.5} \ln\left(\frac{\Sigma_0}{\Sigma_c}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
With the above, we have already derived an \HI~size--mass relation with a normalization (in log--log space) that depends solely on $\Sigma_0$. Observations have shown that it is rare for $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~to exceed $9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ in local galaxies \citep[on scales of $\sim$750\,pc --][]{bigiel08}; at higher surface densities, hydrogen tends to be sufficiently cool and self-shielded to promote the formation of molecules and prevent their photodissociation. But theoretically, the physical limit on $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~for a given galaxy depends on metallicity \citep[e.g.][]{schaye01,kmt09}, so higher values of $\Sigma_0$ should be possible. For now, we take $10\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ as the fiducial value for $\Sigma_0$ in our model. Plugging this in gives $f\!\left(10\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}\right) \! = \! 0.29\,{\rm pc}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}^{-0.5}$, or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\log_{10}\!\left( \frac{D_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}}{{\rm kpc}}\right) = 0.5\,\log_{10}\!\left(\frac{m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}}{{\rm M}_{\odot}}\right) - 3.236
\label{eq:w2e}
\end{equation}
($D_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \equiv \! 2\,r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$). This expression is directly comparable to equation 2 of \citetalias{wang16} and highlights the closeness in both the slope (a best fit from \citetalias{wang16} of $0.506\!\pm\!0.003$) and intercept ($-3.293 \! \pm \! 0.009$) that is empirically derived from observations.
The final characteristic trait of the \HI~size--mass relation is its small scatter (0.06\,dex). For model 0, any scatter must come from variation in $\Sigma_0$.
Typically, the \HI~surface densities of late-type galaxies reach a maximum value anywhere from $\sim$3 to $\sim$9 \Msol\,pc$^{-2}$, while the maxima for some early-type galaxies have been observed to be even lower \citepalias[see fig.~2 of][]{wang16}. To explicitly show that variations in $\Sigma_0$ may only lead to a small scatter, we need to differentiate (the logarithm of) $f(\Sigma_0)$. It is straightforward to find
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d} \log_{10}(f)}{{\rm d} \Sigma_0} = \frac{\log_{10}({\rm e})}{\Sigma_0} \left[\frac{1}{\ln\left(\Sigma_0/\Sigma_c\right)} - \frac{1}{2} \right]\,.
\label{eq:deriv}
\end{equation}
Fig.~\ref{fig:deriv} visualizes this derivative.
The fact that this derivative is $\ll\!1$ for all realistic values of $\Sigma_0$, means that $f$ only depends weakly on $\Sigma_0$.
If, for example, the probability distribution function of $\Sigma_0$ for galaxies were a uniform distribution extending from 2 to $10\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$, then the predicted scatter in the \HI~size--mass relation would be 0.037\,dex. Extending the upper end of this range or applying a probability distribution function that peaks at mid values of $\Sigma_0$ would only decrease the value of this prediction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Derivative.pdf}
\caption{Equation (\ref{eq:deriv}) -- the sensitivity of model 0 to its solitary parameter. For a population of galaxies, the mean value of $f$ would represent the normalization of the \HI~size--mass relation (with slope 0.5). The fact that the derivative of $f$ only weakly depends on $\Sigma_0$ for the majority of allowable $\Sigma_0$ values implies that the scatter in the \HI~size--mass relation cannot be large.}
\label{fig:deriv}
\end{figure}
Because model 0 is incomplete, our next three models are the ones we give proper attention to throughout the rest of this paper. Naturally though, the addition of a second parameter to the models means it is not as straightforward to explicitly derive the tightness of the \HI~size--mass relation as it was under model 0.
\subsection{Model 1: saturated exponential}
\label{ssec:model1}
Let us now include a simple consideration of the presence of molecular gas in the disc.
We no longer assume that \HI~follows an exponential surface density profile, but instead that \emph{all} neutral gas in a disc does \citep[which is roughly consistent with a large variety of observed \HI+H$_{2}$~profiles analysed by][]{bigiel12}. We then assume that below a threshold gas surface density, $\Sigma_0$, all hydrogen is in the form of \HI. For gas at higher density, the contribution from \HI~saturates at $\Sigma_0$, where the remaining hydrogen is molecular (H$_{2}$). By defining the `break radius', $r_b$, as the radius at which \HI~saturation extends to, we can formally write the \HI~surface density of our model disc as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l r}
\Sigma_0, & r \leq r_b\\
\Sigma_0 \exp\left[-r_s^{-1} (r-r_b) \right], & r > r_b
\end{array}
\right.\,,
\label{eq:SHIr}
\end{equation}
The relationship between $r_s$ and $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~must be updated from model 0, where now
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = r_b + \ln\left({\frac{\Sigma_0}{\Sigma_c}}\right) r_s\,.
\label{eq:rHI}
\end{equation}
In introducing the normalizing bar (Equation \ref{eq:bar}), we can then rearrange Equation (\ref{eq:rHI}) to obtain
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}_s \equiv \frac{r_s}{r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}} = \frac{1-\bar{r}_b}{\ln\left(\Sigma_0/\Sigma_c \right)}\,.
\label{eq:xi}
\end{equation}
The model is hence dependent on two parameters: $\Sigma_0$ and $\bar{r}_b$. Note that setting $\bar{r}_b$ to 0 reduces this back to model 0. As such, model 1 should always give an equally good or better fit to observed or simulated data than model 0.
Substituting Equations (\ref{eq:SHIr} \& \ref{eq:xi}) into the integral of Equation (\ref{eq:integral}) and solving for $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$, we derive the size--mass relation for model 1:
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = \sqrt{\frac{m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}}{\pi\,\Sigma_0\,\left[\bar{r}_b^2 + 2\,\bar{r}_s\,(\bar{r}_s+\bar{r}_b) \right]}}\,.
\label{eq:sizemass}
\end{equation}
Assuming neither $\bar{r}_b$ nor $\bar{r}_s$ carry an implicit dependence on \mHI~(corresponding to self-similar surface density profiles), our simple model maintains a predicted slope of 0.5 for this fit. The terms in the denominator of Equation (\ref{eq:sizemass}) set the normalization. We can then try to associate the (small) scatter in the relation to variations in $\bar{r}_b$ and $\Sigma_0$.
Certainly, we must uphold $\Sigma_0 \! > \! \Sigma_c$. And by definition in our model, $\bar{r}_b$ is restricted to the range $[0,1]$.
With these restrictions in mind, we show the allowable scatter in the size--mass relation of our model in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:model}. We cover three values of $\Sigma_0$ that have different sensitivities to $\bar{r}_b$ for relating size and mass. For each $\Sigma_0$, we display the full range of variation in \HI~size at fixed mass for all values of $\bar{r}_b$. In two cases, this simply means taking the extremes of $\bar{r}_b \! = \! 1$ and 0, i.e.~where $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~is a top-hat%
\footnote{When $\bar{r}_b\!=\!1$, $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) \! = \! \Sigma_0$ until a radius where it drops to zero. This radius is also $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$, as it is the largest radius where $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) \! > \! \Sigma_c$.}
and pure exponential, respectively. For $\Sigma_0 \! = \! 9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$, $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is smallest for $\bar{r}_b \! = \! 1$. For $\Sigma_0 \! = \! 2\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$, it is the opposite: $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is smallest for $\bar{r}_b \! = \! 0$. This is because \mHI~is found by integrating $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$\,$r$ out to $\infty$. Lower $\bar{r}_b$ \emph{and} lower $\Sigma_0$ each lead to a shallower $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profile beyond $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$, meaning the mass contribution beyond $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is greater. For in-between values of $\Sigma_0$, the maximum radius at fixed mass is found at intermediate values of $\bar{r}_b$ (e.g. at $\bar{r}_b\!\simeq\!0.89$ for $\bar{\Sigma}_0\!=\!3.0$). We highlight this in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:model}, which is another way of showing Equation (\ref{eq:sizemass}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Model_v_Wang.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mHI_on_rHI2_trends.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: variation in the \HI~size--mass relation of model 1 for example parameter sets (Equation \ref{eq:sizemass}). We highlight several cases of $\Sigma_0$, showing the full vertical range covered $\forall \bar{r}_b \! \in \! [0,1]$ at that $\Sigma_0$. Compared is the best-fitting relation from observational data \citepalias{wang16}; the deeper shaded region shows the $1\sigma$ scatter around the relation, and the lighter region is the $3\sigma$ scatter. Bottom panel: a more detailed depiction of how much a model-1 line in the top panel would vertically move if $\bar{r}_b$ were varied for several examples of fixed $\Sigma_0$. Starred points indicate where the curves reach their maximum. The thin, dotted, horizontal line signifies zero displacement from the observed relation.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
At this point, one could already argue that the slope, normalization, and scatter of the \HI~size--mass relation are all mathematically inevitable. To properly claim this though, we need to more closely analyse how representative Equation (\ref{eq:SHIr}) is of observed $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles. As we show and discuss in Section \ref{ssec:profiles}, model 1 is not \emph{always} a sufficient representation of reality. Moving forward, it is therefore helpful to have further models to compare, which we present next. We also cannot give a numerical prediction for the slope and scatter of the \HI~size--mass relation from any model without knowing how its parameter space should be occupied. This can be inferred from the best-fitting parameter values to observations though: a task left for Section \ref{ssec:infer}.
\subsection{Model 2: empirical}
\label{ssec:model2}
We have found that many of the observed \HI~profiles in our galaxy sample follow a common shape that is more akin to falling off exponentially with radius squared (i.e.~a Gaussian), rather than just radius. \citet{martinsson13b} also note that a Gaussian describes $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~well for a completely different sample of observed galaxies. For model 2, we therefore assert that this can be described analytically as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l r}
\Sigma_0, & r \leq r_b\\
\Sigma_0 \exp\left[-r_S^{-2} (r-r_b)^2 \right], & r > r_b
\end{array}
\right.\,,
\label{eq:model2}
\end{equation}
where we have maintained the option for the profile to be saturated out to $r_b$ from model 1. Following the same procedure in Section \ref{ssec:model1}, we can derive the size--mass relation for this as
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:sizemass2}
\begin{equation}
r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} = \sqrt{\frac{m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}}{\pi\,\Sigma_0\,\left[\bar{r}_b^2 + \bar{r}_S\,(\bar{r}_S+\sqrt{\pi}\bar{r}_b) \right]}}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{r}_S = \frac{1-\bar{r}_b}{\sqrt{\ln(\Sigma_0 / \Sigma_c)}}\,.
\label{eq:xip}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The two parameters defining model 2 are the same as model 1 ($\Sigma_0$ and $\bar{r}_b$ -- they are just folded into different overall profiles). The parameter space is therefore restricted in the same way. Again, using observations to inform how this parameter space should be distributed, we infer a predicted slope and scatter for the model-2 \HI~size--mass relation in Section \ref{ssec:infer}.
We acknowledge that we have not offered a physical justification for Equation (\ref{eq:model2}). We have simply found it to empirically fit the observed \HI~profiles better than either model 1 or model 3 (introduced below) in 42 per cent of cases. For 32 per cent of the observed profiles, the best-fitting model-2 $\bar{r}_b$ is 0. One therefore need not invoke \HI~saturation for those cases, meaning these would be well described by a one-parameter profile (akin to a variant of model 0). We present and discuss profile fits to observations further in Section \ref{ssec:profiles}.
The danger of a Gaussian-like $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profile is that it is possible for this shape to be artificially induced by beam-smearing; the observed profile of a galaxy is a convolution of its true profile with the beam response, where the latter is well described by a Gaussian. Many of the observed galaxies that are best represented by model 2 are the less well-resolved galaxies from LVHIS and Bluedisk. While this should certainly be kept in mind when interpreting the general applicability of model 2, we remind the reader that the \emph{most} poorly resolved galaxies were not included in our analysis, and we note that there are galaxies from all contributing surveys to our sample that are best described by model 2. As we will show in Section \ref{ssec:sims}, model 2 also fits many profiles from simulations well, which have not had beam-smearing effects added.
\subsection{Model 3: theoretical pressure law}
\label{ssec:model3}
For our final model, we maintain the assumption that cold-gas discs are broadly described by an exponential profile. We then follow the idea of \citet{blitz04,blitz06} that the fraction of hydrogen at a given radius in the form of \HI~depends on the mid-plane pressure of the disc. Using this idea, \citet[][see their equations 10 \& 11]{ob09} explicitly derive a generic \HI~profile for galaxies that still depends on an exponential scale length and the total gas and stellar mass of the disc ($m_{\rm gas}$ and $m_{\rm *,disc}$, respectively):
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:model3}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r) = \frac{\Sigma_{\rm 0,H}\, \exp\!\left(-r / r_d \right)}{1 + R_0\, \exp\!\left(-1.6\,r / r_d \right)}\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
R_0 = \left[K\, r_d^{-4}\, m_{\rm gas} \left(m_{\rm gas} + \langle f_{\sigma} \rangle m_{\rm *,disc} \right) \right]^{0.8}\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $K\!\equiv\!11.3\,{\rm m}^4\,{\rm kg}^{-2} \! = \! 4.39\!\times\!10^{-5}\,{\rm pc}^4\,{\rm M}_{\odot}^{-2}$, $\langle f_{\sigma} \rangle$ is the mean vertical velocity dispersion ratio of gas to stars in the disc, and $\Sigma_{\rm 0,H} \! \equiv \! \Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(0) + \Sigma_{\rm H_2}(0)$.
Many assumptions go into this expression, including an empirical scaling for the pressure law \citep{leroy08}, that pressure follows the radial function of \citet{elmegreen89}, that gas velocity dispersion is a constant, that stellar discs have exponential surface density profiles with a scale length equal to $r_d/2$, and that stellar velocity dispersion decays exponentially with $r_d$.
It is useful to recognize that $m_{\rm gas}$ is not an independent parameter in Equation (\ref{eq:model3}), as it is directly connected to $\Sigma_{\rm 0,H}$:
$m_{\rm gas} = 2\pi\, r_d^2\, X^{-1}\, \Sigma_{\rm 0,H}$
(where $X \! \simeq \! 0.76$ is the mass fraction of gas that is hydrogen).
By simply defining a new quantity that also encapsulates the constants and remaining variables in Equation (\ref{eq:model3}),
\begin{equation}
\kappa \equiv \left[4.39\!\times\!10^{-5}\,\left(\frac{2\pi}{X}\right)^2\,\left(1 + \frac{\langle f_{\sigma} \rangle m_{\rm *,disc}}{m_{\rm gas}}\right) \right]^{0.8}\,,
\end{equation}
we can reduce Equation (\ref{eq:model3}) to
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(\bar{r}) = \frac{\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\, \exp\!\big[\!-\!\bar{r} / \bar{r}_d \big]}{1 + \kappa\,\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}^{1.6} \exp\!\big[\!-\!1.6\,\bar{r} / \bar{r}_d \big]}\,.
\label{eq:model3_red}
\end{equation}
By definition, it must hold true that $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\!=\!1$ when $\bar{r}\!=\!1$. Therefore, it must also hold that
\begin{equation}
\kappa = \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}^{-0.6}\, {\rm e}^{0.6 / \bar{r}_d} - \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}^{-1.6}\, {\rm e}^{1.6 / \bar{r}_d}\,.
\end{equation}
We hence have a model with only two \emph{independent} parameters, as per our previous two cases. The derived \HI~size--mass relation for this model is then
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:m3sm}
\begin{multline}
\frac{m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}}{r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}^2} = 2\pi \int^{\infty}_0 \frac{\bar{r}\, \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\, {\rm e}^{-\bar{r}/\bar{r}_d}\, {\rm d}\bar{r}}{1 + \left( \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\,{\rm e}^{0.6/\bar{r}_d} - {\rm e}^{1.6/\bar{r}_d} \right) {\rm e}^{-1.6\,\bar{r}/\bar{r}_d}}\\
= 1.60769\, \pi\, \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\, \bar{r}_d^2~ _3\widetilde{F}_2 (a_1,a_2,a_3;~ b_1,b_2;~ c)\,,
\end{multline}
\begin{equation}
a_1 = a_3 = 0.625\,,~~a_2 = 1\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
b_1 = b_2 = 1.625\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c = {\rm e}^{1.6/\bar{r}_d} - \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\,{\rm e}^{0.6/\bar{r}_d}\,,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
where $_3\widetilde{F}_2 (a_1,a_2,a_3;~ b_1,b_2;~ c)$ is the regularized hypergeometric function.
We note that \citet{wang14} previously identified that the Bluedisk galaxies' $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles are well fitted by an expression similar to Equation (\ref{eq:model3_red}): cf.~their equation 1. The main differences here are that Equation (\ref{eq:model3_red}) (i) is derived from theory, rather than being empirically motivated, and (ii) has fewer free parameters.
Now we need to consider restrictions on the $(\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}, \bar{r}_d)$ parameter space for model 3. Firstly, the solution from Equation (\ref{eq:m3sm}) is only real when $c\!<\!1$. This means we should uphold
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ll}
\bar{r}_d > \left[ \ln\left(\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\right) \right]^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
While we have already ensured that $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(\bar{r}\!=\!1)\!=\!1$, we should also ensure that ${\rm d}{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} / {\rm d}\bar{r} |_{\bar{r}=1} < 0$ -- i.e.~the profile is declining at $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$, not rising. Enforcing this restricts the allowed sets of parameters further:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ul}
\bar{r}_d < - \left[ \ln\!\left( \frac{2.6 + \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}^{0.6}}{1.6\,\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H} - \bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}^{0.4}} \right) \right]^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
This right-hand side is only positive and finite for $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H} \! \gtrsim \! 4.22$. This provides a perfectly reasonable lower limit for the central surface density of neutral hydrogen in galaxy discs. As we will show in the next subsection, in practice, observed galaxies only fill a very small area of this allowable parameter space, typically hugging the lower limit of Equation (\ref{eq:ll}).
\subsection{Comparison with observations}
\label{ssec:profiles}
In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles}, we show the \HI~surface density profiles for the sample of observed galaxies described in Section \ref{ssec:obs}. Rather than showing $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~by itself, we have multiplied the profiles by $r/r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc{i}}}}$, as the area under these curves gives \mHI, and hence is what matters for the size--mass relation. In other words, these are normalized integrand profiles. A select few examples of analytic profiles from Equations (\ref{eq:SHIr}, \ref{eq:model2}, \& \ref{eq:model3}) are compared to help guide the eye, showing roughly that the available parameter space in each model covers the same area in the plot as the observed profiles, without going beyond. To be more quantitative in this comparison, we have fitted each individual profile with each analytic model. In the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles}, we have subtracted the respective model best fits from each observed profile. We overlay percentile ranges of the residuals from each model, and highlight the individual residuals in each panel where its corresponding model gives a better fit than the other two.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{IntegrandProfiles.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: Normalized \HI~surface density integrand profiles for our full sample of observations (thin, solid curves), described in Section \ref{ssec:obs}; the area under each profile gives $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc{i}}}} / \left(2 \pi\, r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc{i}}}}^2\right)$ for that galaxy (cf.~Equation \ref{eq:integral}). For reference, overlaid are examples from our three analytic disc models, highlighting that the shape and variation of the model profiles (thicker, dashed curves) are qualitatively similar to observations.
Short dashes correspond to model 1 (Section \ref{ssec:model1}), medium-length dashes correspond to model 2 (Section \ref{ssec:model2}), and the longest dashes are for model 3 (Section \ref{ssec:model3}). The colour of these thick curves represents a parameter set assumed for the model. Three shorter panels: residuals for the best-fitting $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc{i}}}}(\bar{r})\, \bar{r}$ profiles for each model to each observed galaxy. Where residual profiles are green and more opaque, that model fit has the lowest $\chi^2$ of the three. Thick, dot-dashed curves encompass 68 per cent of residuals, based on their interpolation onto a fixed $\bar{r}$ grid. Thin, double-dot-dashed curves cover 95 per cent of residuals.}
\label{fig:profiles}
\end{figure}
In general, all three models capture the shape of the integrand profiles, with the area under the model curves closely shadowing those of the real profiles. That the full two-sigma-equivalent residual range is at times nearly $1\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$ in height is not a cause for concern; the scatter here is driven by the fact that individual residuals oscillate about the zero line, meaning `bonus' area in parts of the profiles fits is typically cancelled by `missing' area in other parts of the same fit. Indeed, some of the residuals show a significant amount of noise, owing to the simplicity of the fits and the lack of consideration of disc asymmetries (in principle, the observed profiles should have projection effects accounted for). While we do not suggest that there is a clear `best' model, we note that the scatter in the residuals is marginally smaller for model 3 than the others ($\sim\!0.11$ versus $\sim\!0.14\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$), but model 2 provides the best fit the most often (46 times versus 28 and 36 for models 1 and 3, respectively).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Scatter_models.pdf}
\caption{Maps of how far scattered from the best-fitting, observed \HI~size--mass relation galaxies would be, based on their location in parameter space for each of our three analytic gas disc models. Solid, dashed, and dot-dashed contours represent where the galaxies lie $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, and $3\sigma$ from the \citetalias{wang16} relation, respectively (where $\sigma\!=\!0.06\,{\rm dex})$. The dotted contour represents a displacement of zero. Square and circles represent the best-fitting parameters to observed \HI~profiles; circles indicate that that model gives a better fit than the other two for that particular galaxy.}
\label{fig:scattermap}
\end{figure*}
Subjectively more interesting than the scatter in the residuals of \HI~profiles is the scatter in the \HI~size--mass relation if one were to take each or any of these models as representative of galaxies in the real Universe. The size--mass relations derived from all three models predict a slope of 0.5. In order for there to be a direct mapping for a parameter pair to a displacement from the real \HI~size--mass relation, the real relation would also need to have the same slope (otherwise we would need to introduce a tertiary mass dependence). Given how close the slope measured by \citetalias{wang16} is to 0.5, we assume for the purposes of calculations throughout this paper (with the exception of Section \ref{ssec:infer}) that 0.5 is indeed the true slope (rather than 0.506).%
\footnote{Other works with different galaxy samples have found slopes slightly more deviant from 0.5 (or 2.0, dependent on axis orientation) than this (e.g.~\citealt{lelli16}; \citealt*{ponomareva16}).}
The intercept in the relation also requires minor modification to reflect this. We choose to preserve the \HI~size of galaxies exactly at an \HI~mass of $10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ (the typical mass for the observations and the simulations we use later). We therefore treat the observed intercept as $-3.239$ (rather than $-3.293$).
With these assumptions in place, we show maps of how far scattered galaxies would be from the observed \HI~size--mass relation based on their parameters for each of our three models in Fig.~\ref{fig:scattermap}. To help navigate these maps, contours highlight where the scatter values correspond to integer numbers of standard deviations. Overlaid on these plots, we show the best-fitting parameter values from our observational sample. For models 1 and 2, we show the full range of allowable values of $\bar{r}_b$ and extend the range in $\Sigma_0$ out to $17\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm pc}^{-2}$; while we do not expect an abundance of galaxies to have such a high value of $\Sigma_0$, some of the fits to observations almost reach this. For model 3, the observations guide the area of parameter space that we plot. This necessitated reframing the way the parameter space is visualized -- i.e.~not just $\bar{r}_d$ versus $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}$, as these properties are highly (anti-)correlated. Per Equation (\ref{eq:ll}), we know $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\,\exp(-\bar{r}_d^{-1}) \! > \! 1$ always. As it happens, the fits to all the observations find values no higher than 1.3 for this quantity.
The main message of Fig.~\ref{fig:scattermap} is that effectively any galaxy that follows any of our three models -- with parameters in a physically plausible and meaningful range -- will be consistent with the observed \HI~size--mass relation. As one would expect for a sample size of $\sim\!100$, most of the observational points fall between the $\pm1\sigma$ contours, with a small number approaching $\pm2\sigma$, and only a hint that the odd galaxy would lie further away. Given that these models generally fit the observations well, and that the distributions of parameters associated with those fits are consistent with nominal expectation (see Table \ref{tab:params}), a tight relation between \HI~size and \HI~mass is arguably a simple inevitability.
\subsubsection{Inferred model size--mass relations}
\label{ssec:infer}
In order to get the actual normalization, scatter, and slope of the predicted \HI~size--mass relation for each model, one needs to know how the parameter space of each model is occupied (and whether there are any implicit mass biases for parts of the parameter space). It is unclear \emph{a priori} what the distribution functions of these parameter spaces should be. What we can do, though, is use the parameter fits to the observed profiles in our sample, and assume that this sample is representative of the underlying parameter space distributions. While this assumption is not robust (see Section \ref{ssec:obs}), it should be sufficiently accurate for us to make a relative comparison of the derived size--mass relations from each model.
In practice, this means fitting the relations to the observed sample in several ways, where $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~remains the same for a given galaxy in all cases, and all that changes for the different models is that the empirical \mHI~is replaced by the analytic value derived from the parameter fits.
In Table \ref{tab:modrat}, we collate the \HI~size--mass relations for each model, derived with the above method. To fit the size--mass relations, we use the {\sc hyper-fit} \citep{robo15} web interface\footnote{\url{http://hyperfit.icrar.org/}} with default settings. {\sc hyper-fit} uses a Bayesian approach to find the maximum likelihood of a linear model that describes multidimensional data. We ignored any uncertainties on the individual data when making the fits. We fit and include in Table \ref{tab:modrat} the size--mass relation using the `true' \HI~masses of the galaxies too (from numerically integrating their observed surface density profiles). As one would expect, this fit differs from \citetalias{wang16} because (i) our sample is only a subset of theirs, (ii) the code to make the fit is not the same, and (iii) our \mHI~measurements for the Bluedisk galaxies differs. All these \HI~size--mass relations and the parameter ranges are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:HISM}. The slope, scatter, and normalization of all the relations each overlap within $\lesssim\!2$ standard deviations of their {\sc hyper-fit} Gaussian uncertainties.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline\hline
& Data & Model 1 & Model 2 & Model 3 \\ \hline\hline
Slope $\mu$ & $0.4942\pm0.0052$ & $0.4940\pm0.0040$ & $0.4875\pm0.0048$ & $0.4927\pm0.0043$ \\
Normalization $\nu$ & $3.484\pm0.048$ & $3.492\pm0.037$ & $3.410\pm0.044$ & $3.425\pm0.039$ \\
Scatter $\sigma$ & $0.0508\pm0.0034$ & $0.0385\pm0.0026$ & $0.0468\pm0.0032$ & $0.0413\pm0.0028$ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\HI~size--mass relation fits to our sample of observational data (Section \ref{ssec:obs}), where $\log_{10}\!\left(r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} / {\rm kpc} \right) \!=\! \mu\log_{10}\!\left(m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} / {\rm M}_{\odot}\right) - \nu \pm \sigma$. All fits have been made with {\sc hyper-fit} \citep{robo15}. The `data' column is a direct fit to the observed $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~and \mHI~values. The `model' columns use the \mHI~given by the best-fitting model \HI~profile for each galaxy.}
\label{tab:modrat}
\end{table*}
The nominal conclusion we draw from this exercise is that all our analytic models predict \HI~size--mass relations that are not just qualitatively, but also quantitatively consistent with observations. We should stress that this conclusion has been reached imperfectly though; ideally the distributions of the model parameter spaces should be derived or explored independently from the data we compare to. This is left as a task for future work. In the meantime, more information on the model parameter distributions is given in Appendix \ref{app:dists}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HISM_Obs_Mod_fits.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: \HI~size--mass data and fitted relation for our sample of observations (Section \ref{ssec:obs}); diamonds are individual galaxies, and the solid line labelled `data' gives the best fit to these data. The other lines are the predicted \HI~size--mass relations for each of our analytic models, assuming their parameter spaces to be occupied consistently with the \HI~profile fits to the observations. Vertical bars show the 1$\sigma$ (thick) and 2$\sigma$ (thin) scatter in each relation. Bottom 3 panels: parameters for the \HI~size--mass relation fits. Vertical ticks show the best-fitting values, assumed in the top panel. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty ranges for each parameter (thick for one standard deviation, thin for two). These are listed in Table \ref{tab:modrat}.}
\label{fig:HISM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with simulations}
\label{ssec:sims}
For context, before addressing how well our analytic \HI~surface density profiles are reflected in cosmological simulations, we should first address how well those simulations reproduce the observed \HI~size--mass relation.
Recently, \citet[][see their fig.~5]{diemer19} showed that the \HI~size--mass relation of TNG100 (and TNG300) galaxies at $z\!=\!0$~follows that of \citetalias{wang16} but for a small systematic offset and a slightly larger scatter.
Similarly, \citet[][see their fig.~3]{lutz18} previously showed that the original version of {\sc Dark Sage}~\citep{stevens16} reproduced the observed \HI~size--mass relation, almost precisely matching \citetalias{wang16} but for a smaller scatter.
Because the \HI~structure of galaxies is grown numerically in both TNG and {\sc Dark Sage}, and this structure is subject to a large number of astrophysical processes relevant for galaxy evolution, these simulations provide a far more comprehensive tool for predicting and analysing the \HI~size--mass relation than simple analytic models.
To summarize their relations (and update in the case of {\sc Dark Sage}), we provide their normalizations and scatters in Table \ref{tab:relations}. We obtained the normalizations with a least-squares linear fit in log-log space, assuming a slope of 0.5 (in accordance with the analytic predictions). The scatter values are then standard deviations of the residuals between the fitted and actual \HI~sizes of the galaxies. As per Sections \ref{ssec:tng} and \ref{ssec:ds}, for both TNG100 and {\sc Dark Sage}, we only consider resolved galaxies with $m_* \! \geq \! 10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \geq \! 10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline
Data source & $\nu$ & $\sigma$ \\ \hline
Observations \citepalias{wang16} & 3.540 & 0.060\\
TNG100 (Section \ref{ssec:tng}) & 3.516 & 0.095\\
{\sc Dark Sage}~(Section \ref{ssec:ds}) & 3.603 & 0.051 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The normalization and scatter (standard deviation) of the best-fitting \HI~size--mass relations from observations and our simulations. All assume a fixed-slope relation of $\log_{10}\!\left(r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} / {\rm kpc} \right) \!=\! 0.5\log_{10}\!\left(m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} / {\rm M}_{\odot}\right) - \nu \pm \sigma$. The values for observations are taken initially from \citet{wang16}, but re Section \ref{ssec:profiles}, the normalization has been modified to match the assumption that the slope is 0.5. The standard deviation quoted for simulations is cleaned for outliers; an initial standard deviation, $\sigma_{\rm all},$ is first calculated for all galaxies, then $\sigma$ is recalculated after removing galaxies lying at $>\!3\sigma_{\rm all}$. Both {\sc Dark Sage}~and TNG100 had $\sigma_{\rm all} \! > \! 0.11$.}
\label{tab:relations}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{Integrand_Profiles_Sims.pdf}
\caption{Residuals to analytic fits for our model profiles to $\sim$200 example galaxies with $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \geq \! 10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ each from TNG100 and {\sc Dark Sage}. Running percentiles use the full samples (with $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \geq \! 10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$) and are built on a common grid. Plotting convention matches that of the bottom three panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles}. The individual {\sc Dark Sage}~residuals follow their proper annular profiles, where the spacing of the annuli increases exponentially with radius; the combination of this with $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~being fixed in the fits leads to excessive noisiness in the residuals around $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. Further details are described in Section \ref{ssec:sims}.}
\label{fig:sim_residuals}
\end{figure*}
As with the observations, to see how well our analytic \HI~profiles reflect those predicted by the simulations, we fit each simulated galaxy with each model. For TNG100 galaxies, we build one-dimensional \HI~surface density profiles on a radial fixed grid of bin width $\frac{2}{30}$\,$r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~out to 1.6\,$r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. Each analytic model is fitted to the integrand $\bar{\Sigma}(\bar{r})\,\bar{r}$ profiles using a $\chi^2$ minimization. In the left panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_residuals}, we show residuals for these fits for $\sim$200 randomly selected TNG100 galaxies with $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \geq \! 10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, along with running percentiles for the full sample. {\sc Dark Sage}~already has defined bins within which $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is produced for each galaxy. However, because they increase in width exponentially with radius, fitting to these bins as is would be ineffective (i.e.~often non-convergent), as this would weight the entire fit to the galaxy centre, where the contribution to overall \HI~mass is minimal. We therefore instead interpolate the inherent $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles onto the same radial grid used for TNG100, then fit each model to $\bar{\Sigma}(\bar{r})\,\bar{r}$ on that grid. The right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sim_residuals} give examples and running percentiles of the residuals for the full {\sc Dark Sage}~sample.
The \HI~profile fits to neither TNG100 nor {\sc Dark Sage}~are as close as they were for the observed sample; the typical scatter in the residuals is a factor of $\sim$2 and $\sim$3 larger, respectively. Nevertheless, all three analytic profiles generally reflect the shape of TNG100 profiles, with model 3 edging model 2 for the lowest scatter in the residuals, and models 3 and 1 each giving twice the number of lowest-$\chi^2$ fits than model 2. For {\sc Dark Sage}, model 3 most often gives the best fit, but the overall scatter in the model-1 fits is lower. At some level, the noisiness of the {\sc Dark Sage}~residuals cannot be helped by the way the discs are pre-constructed with discrete annuli. What these plots hide is that the \HI~mass returned by passing the fitted parameter values back through the model equations (using the true $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$) are more faithful to the true values for {\sc Dark Sage}~than they are for TNG100. And for both simulations, the returned \mHI~values for the model-3 fits are the least faithful, while those from model 1 are the most accurate.
See Appendix \ref{app:dists} for an overview of the fitted profile parameters to both simulations.
\subsubsection{Variation with galaxy type}
\label{ssec:type}
An outstanding question surrounding the \HI~size--mass relation is whether it is equally applicable to galaxies of all types. That is, do quenched/bulge-dominated/dispersion-supported/gas-poor galaxies have a common \HI~size--mass relation with star-forming/disc-dominated/rotation-supported/gas-rich galaxies? Observational studies have typically lacked a sufficiently large and simultaneously diverse enough sample of galaxies to address this directly. Where we can more readily find insight is from our sample of simulated galaxies.
To achieve this, we rank order our TNG100 and {\sc Dark Sage}~galaxies in three ways: (i) by their \HI-to-stellar mass ratio, (ii) by their stellar bulge-to-total mass ratio, and (iii) by specific star formation rate (${\rm sSFR} \! = \! {\rm SFR}/m_*$). Then we refit the \HI~size--mass relation for bins in each property of fixed galaxy number, maintaining an assumed slope of 0.5. In Fig.~\ref{fig:type}, we show how the normalization and scatter of these fits vary. By binning galaxies this way, rather than on absolute values of the same properties, we avoid caveats surrounding systematic differences in galaxy properties between the simulations and how properties like bulge mass are defined.%
\footnote{Nevertheless, for completion, we note that SFRs for TNG100 galaxies are calculated from the instantaneous rates of the gas cells, while {\sc Dark Sage}~uses time-averaged quantities across the previous snapshot interval in the Millennium merger trees. {\sc Dark Sage}~bulges include contributions from mergers and instabilities but \emph{not} the pseudobulge (see \citealt{stevens16,stevens18} for clarification). TNG100 stellar particles are classed as being in a rotationally supported disc if they fulfil the criteria
$\left\lvert \log_{10}\left(\frac{2\, \mathcal{K}_{\rm tangential}}{\mathcal{U}_{\rm gravitational}}\right) \right\rvert < 0.2$
and
$\mathcal{K}_{\rm tangential} > 2\, \mathcal{K}_{\rm radial}$
\citep[similar to][where $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{U}$ are kinetic and potential energy per unit mass, respectively]{mitchell18}. The remaining stellar particles make up the bulge. This approach for TNG100 is sufficient for defining \emph{relative} morphologies, but not absolute.}
For all 3 galaxy property variations, {\sc Dark Sage}~finds a robust normalization to the \HI~size--relation that only decreases when one selects galaxies with the least gas/star formation activity and/or the biggest bulge fraction \citep[cf.][]{lutz18}. But the scatter steadily increases as one moves towards that end of the spectrum, with a difference of a factor of $\sim$6 between the two extremes. Although, even for $\sigma\!=\!0.125\,{\rm dex}$ (a scatter of 33\%), the relation is still objectively tight by astrophysical standards. TNG100 exhibits similar behaviour when selecting on \HI~fraction or bulge fraction, but also shows a steady decline in normalization. When selecting on sSFR, the situation is less ordered for TNG100. While this result highlights that the preciseness of a derived \HI~size--mass relation is dependent on the underlying galaxy sample (i.e. whether it is representative or biased), variations in the normalization are generally smaller than the relation's scatter. No galaxy selected on the properties in Fig.~\ref{fig:type} would therefore look like an outlier from the representative \HI~size--mass relation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HISM_changes_galtype.pdf}
\caption{Variation in the best-fitting scatter and normalization of the \HI~size--mass relation (of fixed slope $\mu\!=\!0.5$) for TNG100 and {\sc Dark Sage}~galaxies when selecting on \HI~fraction (top panel), bulge-to-total ratio (middle panel), and specific star formation rate (bottom panel) for fixed percentile ranges. In general, the more quenched, bulge-dominated, and/or \HI-poor a population of galaxies is, the lower the average \HI~size and wider the distribution of \HI~sizes of that population at fixed \HI~mass. Horizontal and vertical dashed lines intersect at the values for the full simulation samples (given in Table \ref{tab:relations}).}
\label{fig:type}
\end{figure}
In summary, while the $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profiles of galaxies produced by cosmological simulations are not all \emph{precisely} characterized by a common analytic form, their behaviour is similar enough to the three models presented in this Section, such that all methods are ultimately consistent in predicting a tight \HI~size--mass relation with minimal wiggle room in its slope, normalization, and scatter, in the absence of heavy biases.
\section{Environmental stripping of gas}
\label{sec:env}
In this section, we assess one potential method for disrupting the \HI~profiles of galaxies, that being the environmental stripping of gas. Taking the analytic profiles proposed in Section \ref{sec:models} as a starting point, we make analytic predictions for how disc truncation might impact the \HI~size--mass relation, if at all. While we motivate ram-pressure stripping as a mechanism for disc truncation, the following is agnostic to the motivation. Tidal stripping, for example, can also contribute to the truncation of a disc. We do not assess how the induced asymmetries from tides or ram pressure (the leading side of the galaxy should experience greater pressure, e.g. \citealt{chung09}) might fold into the \HI~size--mass relation. We use results from TNG100 and {\sc Dark Sage}~as a means of testing and expanding on our analytic work; both simulations have far more complete considerations of galaxy environment (implicitly and explicitly, respectively). Unfortunately, we have too few and insufficiently diverse observational data to check this against the real Universe.
\subsection{Disc truncation}
\label{ssec:truncation}
When accounting for ram pressure on a cold-gas disc, gas is typically regarded as being stripped below the threshold surface density where the gravitational restoring force per unit area is insufficient to counterbalance the ram pressure \citep{gunn72}. Assuming that the strength of gravitational restoration falls off with disc radius (which is a given for gas disc profiles whose gradients are negative or nil everywhere, true for all models considered in Section \ref{sec:models}), the \HI~profiles of satellites experiencing ram pressure should become progressively \emph{truncated} with time. Indeed, ram pressure has been implemented in several semi-analytic models of galaxy formation this way \citep[][]{lanzoni05,tecce10,luo16,stevens16}.
Assuming any of Equations (\ref{eq:SHIr}, \ref{eq:model2}, or \ref{eq:model3_red}), we can analytically show how disc truncation would affect the \HI~size--mass relation of galaxies.
To find \mHI~for a galaxy with a truncated disc, we simply need to integrate $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$\,$r$ out to the truncation radius, $r_t$. $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~will only change from its initial value (hereafter denote as $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}, init}$) if $r_t$ is smaller than it.
That is, $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \rightarrow {\rm min}\left(r_t, r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}, init}\right)$.
The explicit equations for all three model profiles undergoing truncation are provided in Appendix \ref{app:trunceq}.
Using these, in Fig.~\ref{fig:trunc}, we show tracks for how galaxies would move in the \HI~size--mass plane as they are truncated to continually smaller radii.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{TruncationTracks.pdf}
\caption{Tracks for example galaxies in the size--mass plane when their \HI~discs become progressively truncated. Galaxies start in the top right of each track, following the direction of the arrows, having been manually assigned an initial $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. The precise path depends on whether the discs are initialized assuming model 1 (short dashes), model 2 (medium-length dashes), or model 3 (longest dashes). Line colour differentiates parameter choices for the models. Equations are provided in Appendix \ref{app:trunceq}.}
\label{fig:trunc}
\end{figure}
For models 1 and 2, there are three phases seen in each track in Fig.~\ref{fig:trunc}. Starting from the top right, first is the horizontal part of the track, where $\bar{r}_t \! > \! 1$ and thus \mHI~reduces even though $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~remains the same. The second part of the track is (the only part that is) curved and concave up, where $\bar{r}_b \leq \! \bar{r}_t \! \leq \! 1$. The third, diagonally straight part of the track covers $\bar{r}_t \! < \! \bar{r}_b$. While the displacement of the galaxies in the size--mass plane from the best-fitting relation of \citetalias{wang16} changes during truncation -- with some being scattered up/left, some scattered down, and some returning to their original displacement -- the galaxies still remain generally within the observed scatter as a natural consequence of the equations governing the tracks.
The truncation tracks for model 3 are qualitatively similar to the other models but with some subtle differences. Naturally, they all share the same initial horizontal path where $\bar{r}_t \! > \! 1$. The tracks then have similar curvature for $\bar{r}_t \! \leq \! 1$. But rather than reaching a point where the gradient becomes fixed, it instead continues to decrease (moving from right to left), going below 0.5, before becoming concave down and reapproaching 0.5 asymptotically. As such, they also do not diverge from the observed size--mass relation.
The conclusion we draw is that galaxies undergoing environmental stripping are generally not outliers in the \HI~size--mass relation. What is more, this is not necessarily restricted by our decision to model gas stripping as the progressive truncation of a satellite's disc. To back that up, let us consider now that ram pressure (or any environmental process) not only leads to truncation, but also to an overall suppression of gas surface density \citep[see e.g.][]{cayatte94}. For models 1 and 2, if $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~drops by a uniform fraction across the disc, then $\Sigma_0$ drops and $\bar{r}_b$ increases (as $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~decreases but $r_b$ does not). Similarly for model 3, $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}$ would drop and $\bar{r}_d$ would rise. In all cases, the galaxy would still reside within the region of the respective model's parameter space assessed above, and therefore the galaxy would still conform to the observed size--mass scatter. Furthermore, any change in $r_s$ could simply be captured as a change in $\bar{r}_b$ or $\bar{r}_d$. The only way a galaxy would become an outlier in the \HI~size--mass relation is for the functional form of its $\Sigma_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}(r)$~profile to undergo a drastic change such that it no longer resembles any of Equations (\ref{eq:SHIr}, \ref{eq:model2}, or \ref{eq:model3}).
\subsection{Results from D{\small ARK} S{\small AGE}}
\label{ssec:truncDS}
Let us now examine what effect galaxy environment has on the \HI~size--mass relation in the {\sc Dark Sage}~semi-analytic model. {\sc Dark Sage}~provides a trustworthy and logical numerical experiment to test the picture described in Section \ref{ssec:truncation} for two main reasons. First, \citet{sb17} have already shown how the model predicts that environment impacts galaxies' \HI~content similarly to what is observed at $z\!=\!0$~\citep[also see][]{stevens18}. Secondly, cold-gas stripping is explicitly implemented in the model by finding the innermost annulus of a satellite galaxy's disc where there is insufficient restoration from gravity to balance the ram pressure it experiences as it travels through its parent halo's hot gas medium, and truncates the disc there. Because {\sc Dark Sage}~is run on a $500\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$ box, there is plenty of statistical power in galaxies across all environments.
In the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS}, we show the best-fitting \HI~size--mass relation for the \citet{stevens18} version of {\sc Dark Sage}. This assumed a fixed slope of 0.5 (the normalization and scatter are given in Table \ref{tab:relations}). We then break galaxies into centrals and satellites in the middle panel, showing deviations (or lack thereof) from the fitted relation for all galaxies on the $y$-axis. The distinction between satellite and central provides a zeroth-order consideration of environment, as only satellites are subject to stripping processes (by construction, as described in Section \ref{ssec:ds}). Almost no difference is seen between centrals and satellites; only towards the resolution limit ($m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\!\lesssim\!10^{8.5}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$) does anything become apparent, and that should not be overanalysed. This is in contrast to their difference in \HI~mass at fixed stellar mass, for example \citep[see fig.~3 of][]{sb17}. In fact, over most of the considered mass range, the median lines for centrals and satellites both run close to the zero line (i.e.~in line with the fitted relation for all galaxies), as do the 16th and 84th percentiles for both only deviate moderately from the edges of the $\pm1\sigma$ range of the fit. Already this tells us that environment does not have more than a secondary effect on \HI~size--mass relation (if any), consistent with the derivations in Section \ref{ssec:truncation}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HI_sizemass_DS.pdf}
\caption{Top panel: Best-fitting \HI~size--mass relation for all {\sc Dark Sage}~\citep{stevens18} galaxies at $z\!=\!0$~with $m_*\!\geq\!10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\!\geq\!10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ (see Table \ref{tab:relations}). This assumes a slope of 0.5, and is compared to the observed relation of \citetalias{wang16}. The $1\sigma$ scatter in both relations is shown.
Second panel: \emph{Difference} in the \HI~size of {\sc Dark Sage}~central and satellite galaxies relative to the fitted relation in the top panel. Running medians (thick curves) and percentiles (thin curves) are given for both galaxy types (differentiated by dash style and colour). The grey shaded region covers $\pm$\,one standard deviation from the fitted relation.
The bottom panel compares the difference in \HI~size for satellites in denoted halo mass bins [$\mathcal{M} \!\equiv\! \log_{10}\left(M_{\rm 200c}/{\rm M}_{\odot}\right)$] \emph{to the median for all satellites} at the same \HI~mass. Thick and thin lines still refer to the median and 16th/84th percentiles here, respectively. Longer dashes in the lines correspond to lower halo masses. The lightly shaded region in the bottom panel covers the 16th--84th percentile range for all satellites (the same as the sandwiched range for satellites in the second panel, provided for reference along with the horizontal dotted line at 0). All percentiles for all panels are calculated in bins of minimum width 0.2\,dex in $\log_{10}(m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}})$, each with a minimum of 20 galaxies.}
\label{fig:SizeMassDS}
\end{figure}
To properly test this, we need to more quantitatively break galaxies into different environments. This mandates that we define a metric for environment. We choose to use the parent halo mass of a galaxy for this. Observations suggest this is a more meaningful metric than, for example, galaxy number density based on the $N$th nearest neighbour \citep[e.g.][]{brown17}. The greater the halo mass, the denser the typical intrahalo gas medium the satellites will move through, and the faster they will move through it. Therefore, the effects of stripping will be stronger on the satellites. This is demonstrably true for {\sc Dark Sage}~\citep[surmisable from][]{stevens16,stevens18,sb17}.
The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS} dissects {\sc Dark Sage}~satellites by their parent halo mass, showing any differences in $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~when controlled for \mHI. The running medians for each halo mass bin give a hint of a trend that higher halo mass means slightly lower $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~for fixed $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\!>\!10^{8.5}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. Specifically, the separation between the lowest and highest halo mass bins reaches a maximum of $\sim$0.03\,dex.
Similar behaviour to a lesser extent is seen for the upper percentiles. Only for the lower percentiles is there a more noticeable separation, but this becomes less clear for $M_{\rm halo} \! \gtrsim \! 10^{14}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$; at these masses, the lower percentiles appear to be more convergent. In contrast to the medians, the separation of these percentiles between the lowest and highest halo mass bins exceeds 0.08\,dex when $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}\!>\!10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$.
So how does this low-$r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~population fit in with the picture of Fig.~\ref{fig:trunc}? The short answer: these galaxies tend to be those with higher central gas surface densities. This is exemplified by the $\bar{\Sigma}_0\!=\!9$ (black) and $\bar{\Sigma}_{\rm 0,H}\!=\!150$ (cyan) curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:trunc}.
To explain: this population starts slightly on the lower side of the size--mass relation, experiences a minimal horizontal evolution once truncation starts, and then begins to move further down and away from the primary relation. Physically, the \HI~gets reduced to that in the densest allowable state. Higher average density implies lower $r^2_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}/m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$. The further along the truncation tracks in Fig.~\ref{fig:trunc} the galaxies move, the stronger the ram pressure they must be feeling, and therefore the more massive a halo they must reside in. Based on our results, the corresponding halo masses required to move galaxies along the concave-up parts of those tracks (until their gradients reach their minimum) should continuously cover the range from $\lesssim\!10^{12}$ to $\lesssim\!10^{14}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. In haloes of greater mass, stripping must be sufficiently strong to take galaxies beyond this, where the tracks have a constant or slow-changing gradient (for models 1/2 and 3, respectively). From here, further truncation from more-massive haloes has zero or little effect on their displacement from the nominal \HI~size--mass relation, and thus the lower percentiles in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS} become converged.
The overarching conclusion here is that galaxy environment indeed (only) plays a second-order role in the \HI~size--mass relation. We examine this concept further, under a different definition of \HI~size, in Appendix \ref{sec:rhalf}.
\subsection{Results from TNG100}
The works of \citet{stevens19} and \citet{diemer19} have shown that the \HI~properties of galaxies in the TNG100 simulation at $z\!=\!0$~broadly align with observations. This is true when galaxies are broken into centrals and satellites, and further when satellites are broken into bins of parent halo mass \citep{stevens19}. This allows us to conclude that the effects of ram-pressure stripping in the simulation generally represent reality. This is supported by the analysis of jellyfish galaxies in TNG by \citet{yun19}. With this in mind, we can use TNG100 as a second, independent test of whether a galaxy's environment plays any role in where it sits in the \HI~size--mass plane. What makes this test independent is that, because TNG100 is a hydrodynamic simulation, hydrodynamical and gravitational effects like ram-pressure and tidal stripping self-consistently result from interactions calculated at the simulation's smallest resolvable scale, meaning they do not need to be modelled explicitly. The simulation is therefore agnostic \emph{a priori} (and predictive \emph{a posteriori}) as to how satellite stripping functions on a macroscopic scale, such as whether disc truncation is sufficiently descriptive or not.
With Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMass}, we repeat the process done for {\sc Dark Sage}~in the previous subsection. That is, we first plot the best-fitting fixed-slope \HI~size--mass relation for TNG100 galaxies in the top panel, then show potential deviations from this for satellites and centrals separately in the middle panel, and finally show the secondary effect of parent halo mass for satellites in the bottom panel (using the same halo mass bins as in \citealt{stevens19}). In the middle panel, we show results for three prescriptions for separating the neutral gas in the simulation into its atomic and molecular components. The results from all three are barely distinguishable, which is why we only show one prescription in the bottom panel (cf.~the results in \citealt{stevens19}). In fact, centrals and satellites are barely distinguishable from each other either, in line with the results of {\sc Dark Sage}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{HI_sizemass.pdf}
\caption{As for Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS} but now assessing TNG100 galaxies at $z\!=\!0$. Only galaxies with $m_*\!\geq\!10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ are included \citep[following the sample in][]{stevens19}. Line styles in the second panel indicate the post-processing prescription used for the \HI/H$_{2}$~breakdown, which give effectively identical results. Line styles in the bottom panel instead correspond to the range of satellites' host halo masses; for clarity, we only show the \citet{gd14} prescription here, as results from the other prescriptions are again very similar.}
\label{fig:SizeMass}
\end{figure}
TNG100 has another feature similar to {\sc Dark Sage}~in that as one approaches low \HI~masses ($\sim\!10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$), the simulated galaxies obey the \HI~size--mass relation less strictly, and centrals and satellites start behaving slightly differently. Again, we heed caution in reading too much into this, as $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~is not always well resolved for these galaxies; while we have imposed a minimum $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~equal to the minimum gravitational softening scale for gas in the simulation, for $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~to be \emph{well} resolved would require it to be at least \emph{several} times the softening scale (i.e.~$>\!1\,{\rm kpc}$).
As for the finer impact of environment, the median $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~of TNG100 satellites at fixed $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! > \! 10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ is practically independent of halo mass. That in itself is consistent with the earlier results in this section, but one notable difference in Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMass} is a drop in $\Delta\log_{10}\!\left(r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \right)$ at $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \simeq \! 10^{8.5}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ for satellites only in haloes of $M_{\rm 200c} \! \geq \! 10^{14}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. This is seen most obviously in the median and 16th percentile lines. Although potentially interesting, this should be taken with a grain of salt; in addition to the resolution limitations mentioned above, TNG100 only has 14 haloes at these masses (and it has zero with $M_{\rm 200c} \! > \! 10^{14.6}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, which is why there is one mass bin fewer in Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMass} than Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS}). There are also fewer total satellites (that contribute to Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMass}) in this halo mass bin (299) than the others.
Otherwise, there is once again a divide in the lower percentiles for satellites in the lowest and highest halo mass bins, although this is less clean that it was for {\sc Dark Sage}. We have confirmed that the TNG100 galaxies with lower $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}$~values are those with the highest $\bar{\Sigma}_0$ fits for models 1 and 2. Again then, any effect environment has on the \HI~size--mass relation is secondary.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
That the \HI~size--mass relation is so tight is perhaps unsurprising. Given the commonality of how \HI~is distributed in most galaxies, and the tendency for \HI~to saturate due to the \HI--H$_{2}$~phase transition, it is a natural consequence that $r_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \mathpalette\app\relax \! m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}}^{0.5}$ with a small scatter (Section \ref{sec:models}; also see \citealt{wang14,wang16}).
We have demonstrated analytically and with two different cosmological-simulation methods that satellite galaxies are no different to centrals in their \HI~size--mass relation to first order (Section \ref{sec:env}). Effects such as ram-pressure stripping cause galaxies to move predominantly down and along the relation; which specific galaxies lie above or below the median (or best-fitting) relation might change, but the scatter and median remain effectively unchanged, with only the lower tail of the size distribution at fixed mass dragged down by $\lesssim\!0.1$\,dex.
The conclusions of this paper are applicable to galaxies with $m_* \! \geq \! 10^9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and $m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \geq \! 10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, per our simulation mass limitations. Given the mass range of the observations we have assessed ($m_{\rm H\,{\LARGE{\textsc i}}} \! \gtrsim \! 10^{6.3}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$), these feasibly could extend to lower masses too.
We have demonstrated that selecting galaxies in a fixed bracket of \HI~richness, morphology, or star formation activity does not change the crux of our results, even if the \emph{exact} parameters (most notably the scatter) of the best-fitting \HI~size--mass relation to a sample of galaxies is susceptible to biases in these properties (Section \ref{ssec:type}).
While we have focussed on galaxies at $z\!=\!0$, our conclusions should be qualitatively applicable across a wide redshift range (although there may be small systematics related to redshift that we have not explored -- see e.g.~fig.~7 of \citealt{ob09}).
This gives promise that an \HI~size can be accurately inferred from single-dish or unresolved 21-cm detections. This is important for large \HI~surveys like WALLABY\footnote{Wide-field {\sc Askap} L-band Legacy All-sky Blind surveY (Koribalski et al.~in preparation)} and APERTIF,\footnote{APERture Tile In Focus} as most detected galaxies will not have directly resolved \HI~sizes.
The robustness of the \HI~size--mass relation makes it an obvious test for any model or simulation of galaxy evolution. It should be difficult to get the slope wrong by more than a few per cent, the scatter by more than a factor of $\sim$2, and the normalization wrong by more than the scatter's magnitude.
Any large tension with the observed \HI~size--mass relation should therefore provide motivation to revise feedback models and/or assumptions about the interstellar medium.
In practice, we found no impact from the way the \HI-to-H$_{2}$~ratio is treated in TNG100 (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMass} of this paper and fig.~5 of \citealt{diemer19}). A similar conclusion can be drawn for {\sc Dark Sage}~(cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:SizeMassDS} of this paper and fig.~3 of \citealt{lutz18}).
Even if feedback (or any process) were to generate a `hole' in the centre of an \HI~disc, unless that hole were sufficiently large to qualify the galaxy as a ring galaxy (and, perhaps, even then), it would \emph{still} lie on the observed \HI~size--mass relation. This simply arises from the multiplicative $r$ term in the integrand used for calculating a galaxy's \HI~mass, meaning the central region only contributes a small percentage to the integral.
There is nothing mystical about the \HI~size--mass relation. It is inevitable.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
All plots in this paper were built with the {\sc matplotlib} package for {\sc python} \citep{hunter07}.
ARHS thanks G.~Kauffmann for discussion and funding to visit MPA that helped facilitate some of this work, C.~Howlett for practical help with some of the mathematics in this paper, and the IllustrisTNG team for access to the simulation data.
Parts of this research were supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D), through project number CE170100013 .
FM acknowledges support through the Program `Rita Levi Montalcini' of the Italian MIUR.
\input{Bib_letter}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The cell-free massive MIMO systems were introduced in \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016}, where one base station (BS) with a large number of antennas is replaced with a large number of low-complexity access points (APs) that serve all, or a subset of users in the system. In this scenario, the traditional concept of ``cell'' is overcome\cite{BuzziWCL2017,cell-free_downlinkpilots,Ngo_EnergyEfficiency2018} and it is more appropriate to speak about ``dynamic association rules'' in order to select the users and the APs for each communication pair in the system.
With respect to a traditional multicell massive MIMO system with co-located arrays, cell-free systems are capable of alleviating the cell-edge problem, providing more uniform performance across users; moreover, since each user is served by multiple APs, there is also a beneficial large-scale fading diversity effect.
In this kind of architecture, all the APs are connected via a backhaul network to a central processing unit (CPU), which, based on the association rules, sends to the APs the data symbols to be transmitted to the users in the downlink phase and receives soft estimates of the received data symbols from the APs in the uplink phase. Neither channel estimates nor beamforming vectors are propagated through the backhaul network. One example of a practical deployment of cell-free massive MIMO could be the radio stripes \cite{Radio_Stripe_patent}.
In this paper we consider two uplink power allocation techniques, the first one is devoted to the sum-rate maximization and the second one to the minimum-rate maximization. We propose a deep learning approach to solve these problems with a reduced computational complexity compared to the computational cost of the optimal solution. A deep artificial neural
network (ANN) is trained to learn the map between the input and the optimal power allocation strategies, and then it is used to predict the power allocation profiles for a new set input. A deep learning-based power allocation in a massive MIMO system in colocated setup was analyzed in \cite{Sanguinetti_Asilomar2018}, where the authors show that, in a scenario without shadowing effect, the performance obtained with the deep learning approach are very close to the optimal one. In this paper we consider three different scenarios, two without shadowing effect, with and without pilot contamination, and the last one with shadowing and without pilot contamination effect. In the scenarios without shadowing, we consider as input the positions of the users in the network and numerical results show the good matching in terms of rate per user of the deep learning solution and the optimal one, a similar behaviour is observed in the case of co-located massive MIMO in reference \cite{Sanguinetti_Asilomar2018}. When shadowing is considered in the system, we consider as input the coefficients containing both the path-loss and the shadowing effect and we observe that the learning capabilities of the ANN get worse with respect to the case without shadowing.
One issue with cell-free massive MIMO systems is the large size of the system in terms of access points and users to serve, which makes it more complex to perform optimal resource allocation. In this context, recently it has been observed that, thanks to the universal function approximation property of artificial neural networks (ANNs) \cite{Hornik1989}, deep learning by ANNs enables to perform radio resource allocation with a significantly lower online complexity than traditional optimization-oriented methods, \cite{TCOM_AItutorial,ZapVTMMAG19}. In \cite{Sun2017} fully-connected ANNs are used to emulate the performance of the WMMSE power control method from \cite{LuoWMMSE}. In \cite{Liang2018} again power control by a fully-connected neural network is discussed, and it is proposed to employ the errore in the rate function as training cost function. In \cite{ZapASILOMAR2018a,ZapASILOMAR2018b} multi-cell massive MIMO systems are considered, performing power control and user-cell association.
However, none of these previous works considers the use of ANNs for cell-free massive MIMO systems, while this appears as a relevant application given the large complexity that is incurred by optimized power control in cell-free systems. This work aims at filling this gap, developing an ANN-based uplink power control method for cell-free massive MIMO system, for the maximization of either the system sum-rate or the minimum of the users' rate. In both cases, the proposed method requires an extremely limited computational complexity, and can operate with both pilot contamination and shadowing. If no shadowing is present, the optimized power control policy is computed based only on the geographical positions of the users in the coverage area, whereas if also shadowing is present, its realizations are needed to compute improved power allocations.
This paper is organized as follows. Next section contains the system model for the uplink cell-free massive MIMO network deployment, while Section 3 discusses the uplink power allocation optimization problems that will be solved through ANNs. Section 4 contains the description of the ANNs used to approximate the optimal uplink power allocation strategies, along with the discussion of the numerical results. Finally, conclusing remarks are given in Section 5.
\section{System model}
We consider a square area with $K$ sigle antenna MSs and $M$ APs with $N_{\rm AP}$ antennas connected, by means of a backhaul network, to a CPU wherein data-decoding is performed. We denote as $\mathcal{K}_m$ and $\mathcal{M}_k$ the set of MSs served by the $m$-th AP and the set of APs serving the $k$-th MS, respectively.
We denote by $\mathbf{g}_{k,m}$ the $N_{\rm AP}$-dimensional vector representing the channel between the $k$-th MS and the $m$-th AP. We have $\mathbf{g}_{k,m}=\sqrt{\beta_{k,m}} \mathbf{h}_{k,m}$, with $\mathbf{h}_{k,m}$ an $N_{\rm AP}$-dimensional vector whose entries are i.i.d ${\cal CN}(0,1)$ RVs, modeling the fast fading, and $\beta_{k,m}$ a scalar coefficient given by
\begin{equation}
\beta_{k,m}= 10^{\frac{\text{PL}_{k,m}}{10}} 10^{\frac{\sigma_{\rm sh}z_{k,m}}{10}},
\label{beta_expression}
\end{equation}
where $\text{PL}_{k,m}$ represents the path loss (expressed in dB) from the $k$-th MS to the $m$-th AP, and $10^{\frac{\sigma_{\rm sh}z_{k,m}}{10}}$ represents the shadowing with standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm sh}$ \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016,BuzziWCL2017}.
At the receiver, channel estimation is performed by the linear minimum-mean-square-error (LMMSE) procedure in \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016}, denoting by $\tau_p$ the length (in time-frequency samples) of the uplink training phase, the $m$-th AP forms a LMMSE estimate of $\left\{\mathbf{g}_{k,m}\right\}_{k\in \mathcal{K}_m}$ based on the $N_{\rm AP}$-dimensional statistics $\widehat{\mathbf{y}}_{k,m}= \sqrt{\eta_k}\mathbf{g}_{k,m} + \displaystyle \sum_{\substack{i=1 \\ i\neq k}}^K {\sqrt{\eta_i}\mathbf{g}_{i,m}\boldsymbol{\phi}_i^H \boldsymbol{\phi}_k} + \widetilde{\mathbf{w}}_{k,m}$, where ${\eta}_k$ is the power employed by the $k$-th user during the training phase, $\boldsymbol{\phi}_k$ the $\tau_p$-dimensional column pilot sequence sent by the $k$-th user, $\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_k\|^2=1$, $ \forall \, k$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{w}}_{k,m}$ a $N_{\rm AP}$-dimensional vector with i.i.d. ${\cal CN}(0, \sigma^2_w)$ entries containing the thermal noise contribution. The LMMSE channel estimate of the channel $\mathbf{g}_{k,a}$ can be written as \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016}
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{k,m}=\frac{\sqrt{\eta_k}\beta_{k,m}}{\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^K \eta_i \beta_{i,m} \left|\boldsymbol{\phi}_i^H \boldsymbol{\phi}_k\right|^2 +\sigma^2_w} \widehat{\mathbf{y}}_{k,m} = \alpha_{k,m} \widehat{\mathbf{y}}_{k,m} \; .
\end{equation}
After the channel estimation phase, the uplink data transmission phase starts. Since users do not perform channel estimation, they just send their data symbols without any channel-dependent phase offset and the generic $m$-th AP decodes only the data transmitted by users in ${\cal K}_m$ \cite{BuzziWCL2017}. After some algebraic manipulations, the soft estimates for the data sent by the $k$-th user at the CPU can be written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{llll}
\widehat{x}_k^{\rm UL} &= \displaystyle \sum_{m\in{\cal M}_k} \displaystyle \sqrt{\eta_{k}^{\rm UL}} \widehat{\mathbf{g}}_{k,m}^H \mathbf{g}_{k,m} {x}_k^{\rm UL} \\ & +
\displaystyle \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j\neq k}}^K \displaystyle \sum_{m \in \mathcal{M}_k} \sqrt{\eta_{j}^{\rm UL}}\widehat{\mathbf{g}}_{k,m}^H \mathbf{g}_{j,m} {x}_j^{\rm UL} +
\displaystyle \sum_{m\in{\cal M}_k} {\widehat{\mathbf{g}}_{k,m}^H \mathbf{w}_m } .
\end{array}
\label{Est_UL}
\end{equation}
with ${\eta_{k}^{\rm UL}}$ and ${x}^{\rm UL}_k$ representing the uplink transmit power and the data symbol of the $k$-th user, respectively, and $\mathbf{w}_m \sim {\cal CN}(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2_w \mathbf{I}_{N_{\rm AP}} )$ is the $N_{\rm AP}$-dimensional noise vector.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\rm UL}= \displaystyle\frac{\tau_{u}}{\tau_c} W \log_2 \left( 1+ \frac{ \eta_{k}^{\rm UL} \left( \displaystyle \sum_{m\in{\cal M}_k} {\displaystyle \gamma_{k,m}} \right)^2}{
\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^K \eta_{j}^{\rm UL} \sum_{m\in{\cal M}_k} \beta_{j,m} \gamma_{k,m} + \displaystyle \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq k}}^K \eta_{j}^{\rm UL}\left( \displaystyle \sum_{m \in {\cal M}_k} \gamma_{k,m} \frac{\beta_{j,m}}{\beta_{k,m}}\right)^2 \left|\boldsymbol{\phi}_j^H \boldsymbol{\phi}_k \right|^2 + \sigma^2_w \!\!\!\!\sum_{m\in{\cal M}_k} {\!\! \gamma_{k,m}}
} \right)
\label{eq:SE_UL}
\end{equation}
\hrulefill
\end{figure*}
\section{Power allocation strategies} \label{Power_allocation_section}
As performance measures for the power control strategies, we consider the lower bound expressions of the uplink achievable rate. The expression, computed through the use-and-then-forget (UatF) bounding techniques in \cite{marzetta2016fundamentals,bjornson2017massive} is reported in Eq. \eqref{eq:SE_UL} at the top of next page, where $W$ is the system bandwidth, $\tau_{u} $ is the length (in samples) of the uplink data transmission phases in each coherence interval, $\tau_c$ is the length (in samples) of the coherence interval and $\gamma_{k,m}=\sqrt{\eta_k}N_{\rm AP}\alpha_{k,m} \beta_{k,m}$.
The details of the derivation are here omitted due to the lack of space.
We consider that the transmit powers are allocated in order to maximize either the system sum-rate or the minimum of the users' rate, two problems that are respectively formulated as:
\begin{subequations}\label{Prob:SumRateUL}
\begin{align}
&\displaystyle\max_{\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}}\;\sum_{k=1}^K\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\rm UL}\left(\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}\right)\label{Prob:aSumRateUL}\\
&\;\textrm{s.t.}\; 0\leq \eta_{k}^{\rm UL}\leq P_{{\rm max},k}^{\rm UL} \,\forall\; k=1,\ldots,K\;,\label{Prob:bSumRateUL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and
\begin{subequations}\label{Prob:MinRateUL}
\begin{align}
&\displaystyle\max_{\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}}\;\min_{1,\ldots,K}\mathcal{R}_{k}^{\rm UL}\left(\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}\right)\label{Prob:aMinRateAppUL}\\
&\;\textrm{s.t.}\; 0\leq \eta_{k}^{\rm UL}\leq P_{{\rm max},k}^{\rm UL}\,\forall\; k=1,\ldots,K\; ,\label{Prob:bMinRateAppUL}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}$ is the $K$-dimensional vector collecting the uplink transmit powers of all MSs and
$P_{{\rm max},k}^{\rm UL}$ is the maximum transmit power of the $k$-th user. Problems \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} and \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL} have non-concave objective functions and a large number of optimization variables, which makes their solution challenging by traditional optimization theory methods. Recently, the framework of successive lower-bound maximization merged with alternating optimization has been proposed to tackle problems of the form of \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} and \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL}, \cite{BuzziZappone_PIMRC2017,AloBuZapTGCN2019,RazaviyaynSIAM}. Nevertheless, given the large amount of variables to optimize, it is of interest to develop alternating methods that lend themselves to online implementation. This can be accomplished by deep learning tools, as described in the coming section.
\section{Power allocation via deep learning and experimental results}
Leveraging the universal function approximation property of ANNs \cite{hornik1989multilayer,goodfellow2016deep}, it is possible to solve Problems \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} and \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL} by deep learning. Specifically, an ANN can be used to learn the unknown map between the desired power control policy $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL, *}$ and the generic $L$-dimensional input of the ANN, say $\mathbf{x}$. In this work, the input $\mathbf{x}$ has been taken to be either the users' positions, or the shadowing coefficients.
Particularly, we use a feedforward ANN with fully-connected layers, and consisting of a $L$-dimensional input layer, $N_L$ hidden layers, and a $K$-dimensional output layer yielding an estimate $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^{\rm UL}=\left[ \widehat{\eta}_{1}^{\rm UL},\ldots, \widehat{\eta}_{K}^{\rm UL} \right]$ of the optimal power allocation vector $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL, *}$. In order to train such an ANN, a training set containing $N_{ \rm T}$ multiple samples $ \lbrace \mathbf{x}(n), \boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL, *}(n), \; n=1,\ldots, N_{\rm T} \rbrace$ has been generated, where $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL, *}(n)$ corresponds to the power allocation obtained by the optimization methods from \cite{BuzziZappone_PIMRC2017,AloBuZapTGCN2019}, for the training input $\mathbf{x}(n)$. It should be stressed that both the generation of the training set and the execution of the training algorithm can be executed \emph{offline} and sporadically, i.e. at a longer time-scale than that at which the system input $\mathbf{x}$ varies. Indeed, after a training phase has been completed, the trained ANN can be used to infer the power allocation to be used when new system inputs $\mathbf{x}$ occur. In other words, the only operation that needs to be performed \emph{online}, is a forward propagation of the trained ANN, when a new input $\mathbf{x}$ occurs. This has a negligible complexity, especially in comparison with having to solve Problem \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} or Problem \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL} by traditional methods every time $\mathbf{x}$ changes.
The rest of this section provides more details on the adopted training procedure and analyzes the performance of the proposed ANN-based method by numerical simulation.
\subsection{Experimental results} In our simulation setup, we consider a communication bandwidth of $W = 20$ MHz centered over the carrier frequency $f_0=1.9$ GHz. The antenna height at the AP is $15$ m and at the MS is $1.65$ m. The additive thermal noise is assumed to have a power spectral density of $-174$ dBm/Hz, while the front-end receiver at the AP and at the MS is assumed to have a noise figure of $9$ dB and a square area of $500 \times 500$ (square meters) is considered. In order to emulate an infinite area and to avoid boundary effects, the square area is wrapped around \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016,BuzziWCL2017}. We assume $M=30$, $K=5$ and a pure cell-free approach, i.e., $\mathcal{K}_m=\{1,\ldots,K\} \, \forall m=1,\ldots,M$ and $\mathcal{M}_k=\{1,\ldots,M\} \, \forall k=1,\ldots,K$.
We assume the length of the pilot sequences $\tau_p=8$, the length of the uplink data transmission phase is $\tau_{u}=\frac{\tau_c-\tau_p}{2}$, with $\tau_c=200$ samples as in \cite{Ngo_CellFree2016}. The uplink transmit power during the channel estimation is $\eta_k=\tau_p p_k$, with $p_k=100$ mW, $\forall k=1,\ldots,K$. For the power control strategies, we assume $P_{{\rm max},k}^{\rm UL}=100$ mW, $\forall \; k=1,\ldots,K$.
We assume that the APs are randomly located in the square area. The ANNs were trained based on a dataset of $N_{ \rm T}=1990000$ samples of independent realizations of the MSs' positions, and optimal power allocations $\boldsymbol{\eta}^{\rm UL}$ obtained by solving Problems \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} and \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL} as briefly reported in Section \ref{Power_allocation_section}. Particularly, 90\% percent of the samples was used for training and 10\% for validation. Other 10000 samples formed the test
dataset, which is independent from the training dataset. The ADAM training algorithm with Nesterov’s momentum has been employed for training \cite{sutskever2013importance,dozat2016incorporating}, and with the relative mean square error (MSE) as loss function. The ANNs were trained in two steps: in the former we use an initial learning rate of 0.002 setting the number of training epochs to 20, in the latter we start from the weights and biases of the neural network obtained at the end of the first training step and we use an initial learning rate of 0.001 setting the number of training epochs to 20. In both the training steps we use a batch size of 128. The training algorithm has been implemented using the open source python library Keras.
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Layout of the ANN1. The trainable parameters are 46661}
\label{ANN_1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
& Size & Parameters & Activation function \\ \hline
Input & 10 & & - \\
Layer 1 (Dense) & 256 & 2816 & elu \\
Layer 2 (Dense) & 128 & 32896 & relu \\
Layer 3 (Dense) & 64 & 8256 & relu \\
Layer 4 (Dense) & 32 & 2080 & relu \\
Layer 5 (Dense) & 16 & 528 & relu \\
Layer 6 (Dense) & 5 & 85 & linear
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Layout of the ANN2. The trainable parameters are 180805}
\label{ANN_2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
& Size & Parameters & Activation function \\ \hline
Input & 10 & & - \\
Layer 1 (Dense) & 512 & 5632 & elu \\
Layer 2 (Dense) & 256 & 131328 & relu \\
Layer 3 (Dense) & 128 & 32896 & relu \\
Layer 4 (Dense) & 64 & 8256 & relu \\
Layer 5 (Dense) & 32 & 2080 & relu \\
Layer 6 (Dense) & 16 & 528 & relu \\
Layer 7 (Dense) & 5 & 85 & linear
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!t]
\caption{Layout of ANN3. The trainable parameters are 252485}
\label{ANN_3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
& Size & Parameters & Activation function \\ \hline
Input & 150 & & - \\
Layer 1 (Dense) & 512 & 77312 & elu \\
Layer 2 (Dense) & 256 & 131328 & relu \\
Layer 3 (Dense) & 128 & 32896 & relu \\
Layer 4 (Dense) & 64 & 8256 & relu \\
Layer 5 (Dense) & 32 & 2080 & relu \\
Layer 6 (Dense) & 16 & 528 & relu \\
Layer 7 (Dense) & 5 & 85 & linear
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[h]
\caption{The MSE obtained over the training/validation sets.}
\label{Tr_Val_MSE}
\begin{tabular}{p{1cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|p{2cm}|}
\cline{2-7}
& S1-SR: Tr/Val& S1-MR: Tr/Val& S2-SR: Tr/Val& S2-MR: Tr/Val& S3-SR: Tr/Val& S3-MR: Tr/Val\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 1} & 0.0425/0.0346 & 0.0625/0.0564 & 0.0558/0.0470 & 0.0606/0.0478 & 0.0803/0.0732 & 0.0723/0.0630 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 5} & 0.0187/0.0192 & 0.0455/0.0456 & 0.0343/0.0351 & 0.0357/0.0376 & 0.0719/0.0720 &0.0447/0.0470 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 10} & 0.0160/0.0160 & 0.0420/0.0422 & 0.0317/0.0333 & 0.0330/0.0335 & 0.0717/0.0722 & 0.0431/0.0471 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 15} & 0.0150/0.0175 & 0.0402/0.0403 & 0.0307/0.0320 & 0.0319/0.0339 & 0.0716/0.0714 & 0.0414/0.0436 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 20} & 0.0143/0.0154 & 0.0390/0.0396 & 0.0302/0.0312 & 0.0310/0.0324 & 0.0715/0.0718 & 0.0407/0.042 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 25} & 0.0129/0.0133 & 0.0364/0.0370 & 0.0287/0.0289 & 0.0282/0.0286 & 0.0713/0.0717 & 0.0396/0.0401 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 30} & 0.0126/0.0128 & 0.0359/0.0361 & 0.0284/0.0291 & 0.0279/0.0290 & 0.0713/0.0713 & 0.0393/0.0393 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 35} & 0.0123/0.0125 & 0.0355/0.0359 & 0.0282/0.0285 & 0.0277/0.0299 & 0.0713/0.0713 & 0.0391/0.0390 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Epoch 40} & 0.0121/0.0127 & 0.0350/0.0357 & 0.0280/0.0288 & 0.0276/0.0279 & 0.0712/0.0712 & 0.0389/0.0407 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
We consider three scenarios: (i) scenario 1 (S1), without pilot contamination, i.e., the pilots sequences for all the users are orthogonal, and without shadowing, i.e., in Eq. \eqref{beta_expression} $z_{k,m}=0, \; \forall k=1,\ldots,K, m=1,\ldots,M$; (ii) scenario 2 (S2) with pilot contamination, i.e., the users' pilots are maximum-length-sequences (pseudo-noise) and without shadowing and (iii) scenario 3 (S3) without pilot contamination and with shadowing. In the following we denote by ``SR Max ANN'' and ``MR Max ANN'' the sum-rate and minimum-rate maximization obtained via deep learning, respectively, by ``SR Max'' and ``MR Max'' the optimal performance obtained solving Problems \eqref{Prob:SumRateUL} and \eqref{Prob:MinRateUL}, respectively, and by ``Uni'' the performance obtained assuming that all the users transmit with maximum power $P_{{\rm max},k}^{\rm UL}$.
In Figs. \ref{Fig:rate_UL_noshad_noPC} and \ref{Fig:rate_UL_noshad_PC} we report the performance in terms of rate per user in the cases S1 and S2, respectively. For the SR Max ANN we have used ANN1 in Table \ref{ANN_1} and for the MR Max we have used ANN2 in Table \ref{ANN_2}. In these cases the input of the neural networks are the $(x,y)$ positions of the users in the network, we can note that only this information is used to obtain in output the estimation of the optimal power allocation with the two strategies. We can note that the presence of the pilot contamination in the system does not change the learning capability of the neural networks. In Fig. \ref{Fig:rate_UL_shad_noPC} we report the performance in terms of rate per user in the case of S3. In this case we use the ANN3 in Table \ref{ANN_3} for both the SR Max ANN and MR Max ANN. In this case, in order to add information about the shadowing, the input of the network are the $\beta_{k,m}, \forall k=1,\ldots,K, \, m=1,\ldots,M$. We can see that in this case given the high variability of the input the ANN3 is not able to approximate the optimal performance with the available dataset.
Finally, in Table \ref{Tr_Val_MSE} we report the training MSE (Tr) and the validation MSE (Val) for all the trained ANN detailed in the paper and it is seen that the ANNs neither underfits nor overfits the training data, even though in case S3 higher errors are obtained.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Rate_per_user_fixedAPs_NoShadowing_noPC.eps}
\caption{CDFs of uplink rate per user assuming S1.}
\label{Fig:rate_UL_noshad_noPC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Rate_per_user_fixedAPs_NoShadowing_PC.eps}
\caption{CDFs of uplink rate per user assuming S2.}
\label{Fig:rate_UL_noshad_PC}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Rate_per_user_fixedAPs_Shadowing_noPC.eps}
\caption{CDFs of uplink rate per user assuming S3.}
\label{Fig:rate_UL_shad_noPC}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we proposed a deep learning framework to perform power allocation in the uplink of a cell-free massive MIMO network. We considered a system with multiple antennas at the APs, a single antenna at the users' devices, with LMMSE channel estimation and maximum ratio combining. Considering the problems of sum-rate and minimum rate maximization, we train a deep neural network in order to learn the mapping between a set of input data and the solution obtained by standard optimization theory. Numerical results reveal that the presence of pilot contamination does not significantly affect the learning capabilities of the ANN, that exhibits near-optimal performance. Instead, shadowing effects lead to quite worse performance of the ANN-based method. Further research is this aimed at designing an ANN capable of providing satisfactory performance also in the presence of shadowing. Moreover, downlink power control is another relevant research topic for future work.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
\paragraph{Motivation.}
Supporting students in learning has been the life purpose of many teachers throughout history.
With the growing number of people who choose an academic path, it becomes increasingly important to leverage automatic methods to guide students and give them individualized feedback.
However, existing systems for technology-enhanced learning, mostly address skills on recalling, explaining, and applying knowledge, e.g., in automatically generated language learning exercises \citep{Madnani2016} and math word problems \citep{KoncelKedziorski2016}.
More complex cognitive tasks such as diagnostic reasoning require analytic and decision-making skills, for which there are yet only few solutions, even though diagnostic skills are vital for many professions (e.g., medical doctors searching for a therapy, teachers identifying potential mental disorders at an early stage, engineers diagnosing a machine failure, etc.).
Training diagnostic skills is hard and typically relies on time-consuming and hard-to-control live role-plays.
Online case simulations involving so-called \emph{virtual patients} crystallized as an effective alternative to role-playing games \citep{Berman2016,Jin2018}.
In case simulations, students collect information on a virtual patient across multiple screens, e.g., from patient--doctor dialogs, lab results, and medical imaging.
To date, the students formulate their
final diagnosis by means of multiple-choice questions, which are easy to assess, but prevent important analyses of the effectiveness and the efficiency of the diagnostic reasoning process.
This is why we propose to complement multiple-choice questions with prompts asking for explanations of the students' thought process.
The open-form textual explanations enable good insight into the diagnostic reasoning process rather than only its result, leaving room for constructive methodological feedback. However, the text analysis and feedback generation components are highly complex and require advanced Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{img/screenshot_Casus.png}
\caption{Excerpt of the generated feedback (bottom) to a student's explanation of her/his diagnostic process (top).
Blue responses are covered by the text and highlighted in yellow. Black responses are not covered by the diagnosis.}
\label{fig:feedback}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Contributions.}
To tackle this task, we propose our FAMULUS system to generate individual feedback on the students' diagnostic skills.
FAMULUS integrates (a) state-of-the-art neural sequence labeling models to generate individualized feedback, incorporated in our novel NeuralWeb service,
and (b) a corpus construction tool enabling interactive model training with (c) an existing tool for conducting case simulations.
The backbone of our system is a sequence labeling approach to identify fine-grained diagnostic entities (e.g., \textit{liver values}, \textit{blood pressure}) and epistemic activities \citep{Fischer2014} such as \textit{drawing conclusions} and \textit{evidence evaluation}, in German text.
We have previously published the scientific foundation of our system \citep{Schulz2018,Schulz2018arxiv,Schulz2019aaai}, but introduce the technical aspects of the system for the first time.
Additionally, for the first time, we evaluate its applicability to real-time use cases.
Our evaluation results on the prediction quality and the annotation effectiveness are based on two user studies with German medicine (Med) and teacher education (TEd) students.
We show how instructors are relieved from the burden of pre-annotating huge amounts of data by our interactive annotation workflow, and we discuss the generated individualized feedback that helps students acquire diagnostic skills.
Finally, we explain how our system can be obtained, re-used, and extended to further use cases.
\section{Case Simulation Example}
Imagine a Med student training her/his skills with our system.
She/he receives information about a virtual patient:
The 36 years old Ms.\ Hoffmann reports about a common cold lasting for about one week.
In an interview, she mentions abnormal fatigue, diminished appetite, nausea, and diarrhea.
Further questioning reveals that she stayed in Sansibar about a month ago.
Prior to her travel, she was vaccinated against yellow fever.
Based on
such inputs and further lab results,
the student explains her/his diagnosis (see Figure~\ref{fig:feedback}):
``Physical examination was clinically unremarkable.
But the lab results show noticeable inflammation markers and liver values.
Thick blood film was negative, therefore Malaria was excluded as a diagnosis.
Hepatitis serology was positive, which assures the diagnosis.''
In order to automatically provide feedback, we define a set of \emph{diagnostic classes} covering fine-grained diagnostic entities related to the case (e.g., names of diseases, medical examinations, therapies) manually defined by domain experts, and epistemic activities \citep{Fischer2014} that characterize the reasoning process.
As epistemic activity classes, we use \emph{hypothesis generation} (HG; the derivation of possible answers to the problem), \emph{evidence generation} (EG; the derivation of evidence, e.g., through deductive reasoning or observing phenomena), \emph{evidence evaluation} (EE; the assessment of whether and to which degree evidence supports an answer to the problem), and \emph{drawing conclusions} (DC; the aggregation and weighing of evidence and knowledge to derive a final answer to the problem) discussed by \citet{Schulz2019aaai}.
FAMULUS analyzes the previously mentioned diagnostic text and returns feedback on
multiple
important aspects related to the case.
It successfully detects all aspects
verbalized in the text (e.g., the discussion of tropical diseases; marked in blue in Figure~\ref{fig:feedback}).
Aspects that are not addressed in the text are discussed and provide additional input to what the student has missed (e.g., that the differential diagnosis should consider a potential bowel disease due to the diarrhea).
For the present example, the student correctly diagnoses a Hepatitis variant (correct would be Hepatitis A), which is positively acknowledged in the generated feedback.
In the supplementary video material, we show two original German diagnostic texts and the corresponding feedback generated by our system.
\section{System Architecture}
\label{sec:SystemArchitecture}
FAMULUS consists of three intercommunicating components introduced in this section.
\subsection{NeuralWeb}
\label{sec:NeuralWeb}
NeuralWeb\footnote{\href{https://www.github.com/UKPLab/emnlp2019-NeuralWeb}{github.com/UKPLab/emnlp2019-NeuralWeb}} is a Python-based web service that communicates with all other components and thus resembles the core of our system.
It is responsible for interactive training and prediction of the diagnostic classes and for the generation of individualized feedback.
We divide its functionality in a \emph{model} and a \emph{feedback DB} part, encompassed by a \emph{wrapper class} that can be easily adapted for new machine learning methods and case studies.
\paragraph{Model.}
The wrapper class includes a loading function which leverages the downstream model architecture and copies the respective weights into memory.
The supported neural architectures are written in Keras\footnote{\href{www.keras.io}{keras.io}}, and PyTorch\footnote{\href{www.pytorch.org}{pytorch.org}} and are therefore easy to adapt.
NeuralWeb currently provides a recent BiLSTM architecture \citep{reimers2017reporting} implemented in Keras and Flair \cite{akbik2018contextual} implemented in PyTorch, which holds the current state of the art on many sequence-labeling tasks.
A prediction function of the wrapper pre-processes a text (sentence splitting and tokenization using NLTK) and leverages the pre-trained model to predict and return the diagnostic classes.
NeuralWeb additionally enables automatic retraining of the model within the framework which is useful when new data has been generated and annotated, improving the model automatically. This functionality is currently implemented for the Keras-based model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,trim=1.1cm 0cm 5.3cm 1cm,clip]{img/reco2.jpg}
\caption{Annotation suggestion (grey) and accepted suggestion (orange) in the INCEpTION platform.}
\label{fig:inception}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Feedback DB.}
The output of the model is a set of discrete
diagnostic class labels, which hardly yield valuable feedback for users.
It is thus essential to provide an additional description, indicating whether or not the diagnosis is correct, what is missing, and if the diagnostic process is sound.
We thus introduce a Feedback DB, which includes descriptive text snippets
written by experts.
These descriptions are associated with diagnostic classes
predicted by the model and a specific case study.
For example the patient in case 1 \textit{has} Hepatitis A, whereas the patient in case 2 \textit{does not}.
The feedback for a student who diagnoses
Hepatitis A thus needs to be different with respect to the case she/he currently works on.
The Feedback DB is an independent resource queried by the wrapper class.
With respect to the predicted labels, the corresponding feedback text will be generated.
FAMULUS finally returns the labeled texts spans of the diagnostic text together with the feedback text indicating the reasons for the prediction.
\subsection{INCEpTION}
\label{sec:Inception}
Expert annotation by instructors is required due to the complexity of labeling diagnostic texts.
For this reason, we leverage the INCEpTION text annotation platform \cite{klie2018} which enables interactive semantic annotation.
The \emph{recommender} system which provides instructors with automatically generated annotation suggestions is one of the key functionalities of the platform. Suggestions can be obtained from various integrated classifiers as well as from external sources such as NeuralWeb. The platform uses the user feedback (accepted/rejected annotations) as well as user-created annotations to continually improve the classifiers. We leverage this functionality to create an efficient interactive annotation process for our diagnostic classes and thus to create training data for our NLP models.
Figure~\ref{fig:inception} shows an example of the labeling process with suggestions by our pre-trained model.
\subsection{CASUS}
\label{sec:Casus}
CASUS\footnote{\href{www.instruct.eu}{www.instruct.eu}} is an interactive system designed for case simulations with virtual patients.
It incorporates all aspects necessary for conducting diagnostic case simulations
(i.e., videos, images, text, audio integration).
Students receive information relevant for solving the case.
They are subsequently required to formulate their diagnosis in multiple-choice questions and our new, free-text prompts, directly integrated in CASUS.
After submission, CASUS presents the feedback received from NeuralWeb.
While CASUS is a sophisticated proprietary simulation tool, we would like to stress that this is not a requirement.
FAMULUS can be used with any open-source front-end tool providing a text box and communicating with NeuralWeb to print out the individualized feedback.
We provide a simple version of such a tool in our GitHub repository together with NeuralWeb.
\section{FAMULUS Process}
\label{sec:Process}
The FAMULUS system consists of an interactive learning cycle connecting the three components introduced in \S \ref{sec:SystemArchitecture} and illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:process}.
\paragraph{Cold-Start.}
Because a small initial
set of annotated data is necessary to train a preliminary model in NeuralWeb, \ding{172}~few pilot
users first submit their diagnoses to the CASUS system.
In this cold-start phase, the users either do not receive \textit{any} feedback or a \textit{default} feedback text.
For our experiments, all users receive a default gold diagnosis written by experts, for the users to compare their results manually. \ding{173}~The students' diagnostic texts are sent to INCEpTION, where \ding{174}~ instructors label the data according to the predefined annotation schema. \ding{175}~The gold labels (visualized in green) are stored and sent to NeuralWeb.
Using this labeled training data, we can train our models to automatically predict the diagnostic classes found in a given text.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=0cm .6cm 0cm 0cm,clip]{img/FAMULUS_Process.png}
\caption{FAMULUS process for annotating data, training models, and generating individualized feedback. During the cold-start phase, only the blue edges are used, until enough labeled data exists to train a model.}
\label{fig:process}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Warm-Run.}
After an initial model has been trained, a new set of users can benefit from the trained model to receive individualized feedback. \ding{172}~Similarly to the cold-start phase, users work through the case study and submit their diagnosis to the CASUS system.
\ding{176}~Instead of receiving a default feedback, the diagnosis is sent to NeuralWeb.
\ding{177}~NeuralWeb processes the text through the trained model and generates individualized feedback with regards to the Feedback DB.
\ding{178}~The individualized feedback is sent back to CASUS which visualizes it for the user.
Like in the cold-start phase, \ding{173}~the diagnostic text is also sent to INCEpTION.
\ding{179}~But instead of relying solely on the instructor, the trained model in NeuralWeb predicts preliminary annotations (denoted in yellow) which are additionally presented to the instructor (see Figure~\ref{fig:inception}).
\ding{174}~These predictions should increase the labeling speed, as in many cases, the instructor simply has to accept the suggestions the model has predicted.
\ding{175}~The validated (green) labels are sent back to NeuralWeb and \ding{180}~the model can be interactively retrained
for each additional data point which has been labeled.
\section{Evaluation}
We employ our proposed FAMULUS architecture in two studies yielding 1,107 Med and 944 TEd diagnostic texts written for eight distinct cases per domain.
While a full analysis of the two studies is beyond the scope of this paper, we focus on three research questions highly relevant to the systemic aspects of FAMULUS:
(1) the quality of the predicted diagnostic classes,
(2) the computation time of the prediction and feedback generation system to assess the applicability of our system in real-time applications, and
(3) the benefits of providing annotation suggestions to the instructors.
\paragraph{Prediction quality.}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll cccc}
\toprule
&& EG & EE & HG & DC \\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{Med}}} & BiLSTM & 71.60 & 80.20 & 69.28 & 65.32 \\
& UB & 85.61 & 90.25 & 86.37 & 85.58 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{TEd}}} & BiLSTM & 78.53 & 78.87 & 57.16 & 61.77 \\
& UB & 93.29 & 90.71 & 81.77 & 82.11 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Individual macro-F1 scores following \citet{Schulz2019aaai} for each of the epistemic activities. The BiLSTM uses FastText embeddings \cite{FastText}. This architecture is equal to Flair when only using FastText embeddings.
UB reports the human upper bound (inter-annotator agreement) indicating room for improvement.}
\label{table:F1-Score}
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{table:F1-Score}, we report the performance of the BiLSTM implementation for predicting epistemic activities in the Med and TEd data.
As we can see, the difficulty of predicting the classes varies between different activities.
Despite some room for improvement with respect to the human upper bound (UB) based on inter-rater agreement, the interactive nature of FAMULUS helps
in succeeding in this attempt by continually improving the model when new data is available.
We conduct similar experiments for the prediction of fine-grained diagnostic entities, but omit a comprehensive discussion due to space limitations.
\paragraph{Computation time.}
In order to present the feasibility of deploying FAMULUS in a real-time scenario,
we plot the inference times of the submitted diagnostic texts in Figure~\ref{fig:Pred_times}.
The inference time includes sentence splitting,
tokenization, model prediction, and feedback generation using the Feedback DB. We find that on average the submitted texts have a length of 562 characters with an average inference time of 3.15 seconds on a common desktop machine.
The different inference times for similar text lengths are due to variable sentence lengths, as longer sentences require more inference time.
We batch all sentences of one diagnostic text and pass them through the model simultaneously.
As we can see in the graph, the automatic feedback generation does not surpass 9 seconds.
This is intuitively faster than any human is able to read, process, and output feedback text, even by leveraging prewritten descriptions.
This demonstrates the effectiveness and scalability of FAMULUS in a real-time scenario.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth,trim=0cm .2cm 0cm 0cm,clip]{img/Scatterplot_Pred_Time.png}
\caption{Prediction time for the submitted diagnostic texts of TEd students. The illustrated model is Flair with character and Flair embeddings, hidden size 256, 2 layer BiLSTM with CRF-head. The red dot indicates the mean time and length of 3.15 seconds and 562 characters respectively. The trendline is illustrated in black. The experiment was conducted on a 13-inch 2017 MacBook Pro with i7 Processor and 16GB RAM.}
\label{fig:Pred_times}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Annotation suggestions.}
To evaluate the effects of providing annotation suggestions, we have conducted an extensive study \citep{Schulz2019acl} considering annotation time, annotation quality, potential biases, and the ease of use.
To this end, we asked five Med and four TEd instructors to annotate diagnostic texts.
Two of the instructors per domain did not receive any suggestions.
For the remaining instructors, we provided suggestions in multiple phases using different models and setups.
Overall, we find positive effects yielding a speed-up of 34 to 42 seconds per annotated text.
The instructors accept 56\,\% (Med) and 54\,\% (TEd) of the annotations.
While we observe a slightly higher inter-annotator agreement if instructors receive suggestions, we also study whether the instructors' decisions are influenced by the suggestions, but only observe a negligible effect.
\section{Dissemination}
In this section, we introduce how the components of our system can be obtained and linked with each other.
Additionally, we discuss multiple use cases that can benefit from our architecture.
\paragraph{Availability.}
The NeuralWeb component is the heart of our system and has been newly developed for our purposes.
We make NeuralWeb available as open-source software in our GitHub repository
under the Apache License 2.0.
We integrate the annotation suggestions generated by our system into the INCEpTION annotation tool, which is available as open-source software under the Apache License 2.0.
To conduct the case simulations, we use the CASUS system which can be obtained from its publisher Instruct.
We provide a simple but free alternative to CASUS which includes only the necessary functionality for the FAMULUS system, which is to write the diagnostic text and visualize feedback. This system, together with connection functionalities to INCEpTION and CASUS, can be found in our NeuralWeb repository.
For using FAMULUS, a
server or virtual machine is needed on which the system is deployed.
A thorough description can be found in our GitHub repository, including the respective URLs and ports that need to be adapted.
\paragraph{Use cases.}
Our proposed architecture is primarily useful to prepare and conduct case simulations that train diagnostic skills based on text analysis and automated feedback generation methods.
Besides developing new cases for the Med and TEd domains which is the subject of our research, case simulations can be useful for students in engineering (e.g., diagnosing a machine failure), law (investigating evidence in a lawsuit), economy (optimizing business processes), and many more.
In order to leverage the FAMULUS system, three prior steps need to be made, independent of our system:
(1)~Expert instructors develop a set of case studies, for which they provide all necessary information. The case study can be integrated into a simulation tool such as CASUS or provided in printed form.
(2)~The instructors define an annotation schema, i.e. what kinds of diagnostic classes should be annotated (e.g., observations of teachers in a classroom).
(3)~As the individualized feedback can vary from case to case, corresponding descriptions need to be defined by the instructors.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have introduced FAMULUS, a case simulation system integrating interactive data acquisition and model training, and individualized feedback generation for students' explanations of diagnostic reasoning processes.
Our
analysis shows how FAMULUS
helps experts in annotating data fast and reliable while successfully predicting entities and activities occurring in diagnostic texts.
FAMULUS is applicable in real-time scenarios and generates feedback much faster than humans.
While we focus specifically on diagnostic case simulations in medicine and teacher education, we outline the steps necessary to adapt our approach to many other disciplines requiring the training of diagnostic skills.
We open-source all components necessary to employ FAMULUS in new case studies,
hoping to encourage more research in this area.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the reference 16DHL1040 (FAMULUS).
|
\section{Introduction}
Various imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have been used for image-guided surgery. Among them, CT and US do not allow quantitative temperature imaging. However, MRI allows measurement of the temperature image and calculation of the thermal dose in a variety of tissue types. This is the most important advantage of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided surgery. However, MRI has many limitations in real-time treatment guidance owing to its relatively long acquisition time. There have been several efforts made to solve the issue of long image acquisition time. Because long image acquisition time is not only a problem in thermal treatment guidance but also in clinical magnetic resonance (MR) applications, an attempt to solve the problem by using existing methods to improve the image acquisition time of temperature images was documented\cite{HanYH2011_JMRI}. The basic method used to overcome the long acquisition time is to acquire part of the k-space and then reconstruct the full k-space from the part obtained\cite{Pruessmann1999_MRM}\cite{Griswold2002_MRM}\cite{Uecker2014_MRM}. Recently, compressed sensing (CS) MRI has been widely investigated \cite{Lustig2007_MRM}. After the sparse acquisition of MR images, the CS algorithm allows for the reconstruction of a unique solution and has successfully achieved higher speeds in many applications\cite{Jaspan2015_BrJRadiol}. However, because the nonlinear optimization process requires iterative computing, most CS algorithms have been developed for a two-dimensional (2D) image or dynamic process (e.g., cardiac function and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging), in which a long latency time does not matter\cite{Kerr1997_MRM}\cite{Nayak2019_MRM}. Therefore, there are limitations to the direct use of CS algorithms in reconstructing temperature images for thermal therapy guidance that requires real-time feedback.
Although a model-based approach for proton resonance frequency (PRF)-based MR thermometry has been developed to address this, the model-based approach is not applicable to adipose tissue because it achieves high accuracy only when the fat content is low\cite{Poorman2019_MRM}. Therefore, several alternative methods to monitor the temperature changes in adipose tissue, including the T1 and T2 relaxation times, have been proposed\cite{Parker1984_IEEETBE}\cite{Gandhi1984_ISMRM}. Although the T1 change with changing temperature is dependent on the tissue type, it can be used in adipose tissue because the T1 changes linearly in fat from 10 $^{\circ}$C to 70 $^{\circ}$C\cite{Kuroda2011_MRMS}. In particular, simultaneous T1 and PRF-shift measurement methods have been proposed to measure the temperature of aqueous and adipose tissues using the variable flip angle (VFA). In most methods, the PRF-shift is calculated for every acquisition, and the T1 change is calculated by combining sequential images with the VFA method\cite{Hey2012_MRM}\cite{Todd2013_MRM}. Recently, a single reference VFA (srVFA) method was proposed to enhance the scan time and scanning efficiency of these methods\cite{Svedin2019_MRM}. However, because the processing for T1 extraction by srVFA or VFA takes several hours, real-time interactive temperature measurement in adipose tissue remains difficult.
Recently, deep learning, particularly using convolutional neural networks (CNNs), has been applied to reconstruct high-resolution (HR) MR images from low-resolution (LR) MR images or to extract the MR parameters \cite{Kim2018_MedPhys}\cite{Kwon2017_MedPhys}\cite{Akakaya2019_MRM}\cite{Eo2018_MRM} \cite{Hammernik2018_MRM}\cite{Cai2018_MRM}\cite{Liu2019_MRM}\cite{Gibbons2019_MRM}\cite{Domsch2018_MRM}\cite{Cho2019_MRM}. Not only did these CNNs show impressive performance, but processing time was also close to real time\cite{Kwon2017_MedPhys}\cite{Cho2019_MRM}\cite{Yoon2018_NI}, making real-time interactive MR temperature imaging more practical. Considering the current outcomes of the use of CNNs for image reconstruction and MR parameter extraction, this approach may be applicable for MR temperature imaging. In addition, the incorporation of anatomical information from HR MR images can be used to improve CNN MR image reconstruction from LR MR images\cite{Kim2018_MedPhys}. This method is useful for multi-contrast MR image reconstruction, which acquires multiple MRI sequences within a clinical setup, but is limited to single-contrast MR image reconstruction. However, when performing MR-guided thermal therapy, there is a pretreatment stage for obtaining patient position information, calibration, and so on, and there is a treatment stage where this prior information is used to treat a patient. As previously mentioned, the srVFA method is used to obtain images with two flip angles (FAs) during the pretreatment stage and this prior information is used to simultaneously observe the T1 and PRF-shift during the treatment stage. Moreover, MR image reconstruction from an LR MR image acquired during the treatment stage may be applicable to MR image reconstruction by taking advantage of anatomical information from the HR MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage. However, MR temperature mapping with deep learning has not been explored thoroughly to date.
In this study, we describe a real-time interactive MR temperature imaging method for both aqueous and adipose tissues using cascaded CNNs, which consists of one CNN to provide HR complex MR image reconstruction, and one CNN for T1 mapping. We will refer to these neural networks as DeepACCnet (CNN for HR complex MR image reconstruction) and DeepPROCnet (CNN for T1 mapping) hereafter. Every MR-guided focused ultrasound (FUS) requires a short latency period because temperature information obtained from an MRI must be reflected immediately in the FUS treatment (i.e., real-time interactive temperature imaging), which will enable real-time image acquisition and processing through the two CNNs. This novel temperature imaging method is evaluated in MRgFUS experiments using an agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle samples, and in vivo human volunteers.
\section{Materials and methods}
In this section, we describe the formulation of the proposed method and the overall data processing in detail.
\subsection{Treatment monitoring strategy: MR pulse sequence and sampling strategy}
In general, T1 is calculated from the magnitude MR images obtained by the spoiled gradient echoes with two FAs\cite{Fram1987_MRI}, and the PRF-shift is obtained from the phase change in the spoiled gradient echo\cite{Ishihara1995_MRM}. To obtain the T1 changes, these methods are not practical in real-time temperature mapping because they must obtain two spoiled gradient echoes. To overcome this, srVFA was proposed\cite{Svedin2019_MRM}. Briefly, T1 mapping by srVFA involves acquiring an MR image at the lower FA during the pretreatment stage and then acquiring MR images at the higher FA during the treatment stage. However, because the MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage does not change, the apparent T1 value determined by srVFA includes a systematic error. If we can determine the true T1 value during the pretreatment stage, the true T1 acquired during the treatment stage can be calculated by applying a simple correction\cite{Svedin2019_MRM}. Another consideration is the echo time (TE). Although the PRF-shift achieves the optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) when T2* and TE are equal, the VFA method achieves optimal SNR when TE is minimized. Therefore, meGRE with srVFA was used to optimize the TE for each method.
Additionally, an undersampled MR image with a single FA was obtained to accelerate the images acquired during the treatment stage. On the other hand, in the pretreatment stage, fully sampled images with two FAs were acquired (Fig. \ref{Fig1}).
The complex MR images acquired during the pretreatment stage, $t_{0}$, in $TE_{l}$ are $S_{F
}(FA_{1}, t_{0}; TE_{l})$ $\in \mathbb{C} ^{N_{x} \times N_{y}}$ and $S_{F}(FA_{2}, t_{0};TE_{l})$ $\in \mathbb{C} ^{N_{x} \times N_{y} }$. The complex MR image acquired during the treatment stage at $t_{i}$ in $TE_{l}$ is $S_{U}(FA_{2}, t_{i};TE_{l})$ $\in \mathbb{C} ^{N_{x} \times N_{y} }$. $N_{x}$ and $N_{y}$ denote the number of phase encodings and the number of frequency encodings, respectively. The undersampled k-space acquired during the treatment stage is filled with zeros. During the pretreatment stage, the B1 map, $B1(t_{0})$ $\in \mathbb{C} ^{N_{x} \times N_{y}}$, is optionally acquired for correcting inaccurate FA distributions.
\subsection{Cascaded convolutional neural networks}
The proposed cascaded CNN architecture consists of the DeepACCnet CNN for HR complex MR image reconstruction and the DeepPROCnet CNN for T1 mapping (Fig. \ref{Fig2}).
First, the DeepACCnet reconstructs the LR complex MR image to an HR complex MR image. To implement the deep learning approaches that are usually implemented in the real domain, we convert the complex-valued constraint to a real-valued constraint\cite{Han2018_Arxiv}. For this purpose, the operator $\mho$: $\mathbb{C}^{N} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_1}
\mho[\widehat{z}]:= \pmatrix {Re(\widehat{z}) & Im(\widehat{z})}, \forall{\widehat{z}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}},
\end{equation}\\
where $Re(\cdot)$ and $Im(\cdot)$ denote the real and imaginary parts of the argument, respectively. Similarly, we define its inverse operator $\mho^{-1}$: $\mathbb{R}^{N \times 2} \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^{N}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_2}
\mho^{-1}[\widehat{Z}]:= \widehat{z}_{1}+\imath \widehat{z}_{2}, \forall\widehat{Z}:= \pmatrix{\widehat{z_{1}} & \widehat{z_{2}}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}.
\end{equation}\\
Then, the DeepACCNet operator is defined as $\Psi$: $\mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 3} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 2}$. The algorithm used to reconstruct the HR complex MR image is
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_3}
\mathcal{Y}_{\mathcal{ACC}}=\mho^{-1}[\Psi(\mathcal{\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{PRIOR}} \circledast \mho[\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{ACC}}] })]
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{PRIOR}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 1}$ is the magnitude of the MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage, $\mathcal{M}(S_{F}(FA_{2}, t_{0}; TE_{l}))$, $\circledast$ is the concatenate in 3-dimensions, $\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{ACC}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 1}$ is the complex-valued MR image acquired during the treatment stage, and $S_{U}(FA_{2}, t_{i}; TE_{l})$. $\mathcal{Y}_{\mathcal{ACC}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 1}$ is the DeepACCnet-generated HR complex MR image, $S_{G}(FA_{2}, t_{i}; TE_{l})$.
The second CNN is the DeepPROCnet, which performs the T1 mapping. To increase the flexibility of the network, the input data was split by patches. The patch-split operator can be defined as $\wp$: $\mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{ \frac{N_{x}N_{y}}{N_{p}N_{q}} \times N_{p} \times N_{q} }$. Similarly, we define its inverse operator, $\wp^{-1}$: $\mathbb{R}^{\frac{N_{x}N_{y}}{N_{p}N_{q}} \times N_{p} \times N_{q}} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y}}$. The DeepPROCnet operator is $\Upsilon$: $\mathbb{R}^{\frac{N_{x}N_{y}}{N_{p}N_{q}} \times N_{p} \times N_{q} \times 3} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\frac{N_{x}N_{y}}{N_{p}N_{q}} \times N_{p} \times N_{q} \times 1}$. Then, the algorithm used to calculate the T1 relaxation time is
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_4}
\mathcal{Y}_{\mathcal{PROC}}=\wp^{-1}[\Upsilon(\wp[\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{PROC}}])],
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{PROC}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 3}$ is the input of the DeepPROCnet, $\mathcal{M}(S_{F}(FA_{1}, t_{0}; TE_{1})) \circledast \mathcal{M}(S_{G}(FA_{2}, t_{i}; TE_{1}) \circledast B1(t_{0}))$, and $\mathcal{Y}_{\mathcal{PROC}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{x} \times N_{y} \times 1}$ is the DeepPROCnet generated T1 map, $T1_{g}(t_{i};TE_{1})$. The T1 change, $\Delta T1(t_{i};TE_{1})$, is calculated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_5}
\Delta T1(t_{i};TE_{1}) = T1_{g}(t_{i};TE_{1}) - T1(t_{0};TE_{1}),
\end{equation}
where $T1(t_{0};TE_{1})$ is the T1 map acquired during the pretreatment stage.
The temperature change map according to the PRF-shift, $\Delta T _{PRF}(t_{i};TE_{l})$, is calculated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq_2_B_6}
\Delta T _{PRF}(t_{i};TE_{l}) = \frac{\Phi(S_{F}(FA_{2}, t_{0}; TE_{l}) \cdot conj(S_{G}(FA_{2}, t_{i}; TE_{l})))}{\gamma \cdot \alpha \cdot TE_{l} \cdot B_{0} },
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(\cdot)$ and $conj(\cdot)$ are the phase and conjugate of the argument, respectively. $\gamma$, $\alpha$, and $B_{0}$ are the gyromagnetic ratio, the chemical-shift coefficient, which was assumed to be 0.01 $ppm/^{\circ}$C, and the main field strength, respectively. Because PRF-based MR thermometry is a simple process, the temperature change map was directly calculated.
The schematic illustration of the proposed method is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig2}. To train the network, we first apply the inverse Fourier transform to the fully sampled k-space acquired with lower and higher FAs during the pretreatment stage and then apply the inverse Fourier transform to the undersampled k-space, which is filled with zeros, acquired during the treatment stage (higher FA) to generate the LR complex MR image. The region outside the subject was masked to remove random values, which complicate the network training. To acquire the MR image using a multi-channel receiver radio-frequency (RF) coil case, the multi-channel complex MR image was combined by Roemer's method\cite{roemer1990_MRM}. Although the network model for DeepACCnet and DeepPROCnet, which is a cascaded version of U-Net\cite{ronneberger2015u}, has the same structure, the number of input and output channels is different. The numbers of channels of the convolutional layers are summarized at the bottom of the blocks in Supplementary information Fig. \ref{SFigS1}. The input of DeepACCnet is the concatenation of the real and imaginary parts of the LR complex MR image acquired during the treatment stage and the HR magnitude MR image acquired with higher FA during the pretreatment stage. The output of DeepACCnet consists of the real and imaginary parts of the generated HR complex MR image. The input of DeepPROCnet is the concatenation of the DeepACCnet-generated HR magnitude MR image acquired during the treatment stage, the HR magnitude MR image acquired with lower FA during the pretreatment stage, and the B1 map acquired during the pretreatment stage. The output of DeepPROCnet is the generated HR T1 map. Therefore, the number of input channels for DeepACCnet and DeepPROCnet are 3 and 3, respectively, and the number of output channels for DeepACCnet and DeepPROCnet are 2 and 1, respectively.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Data}
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Korea University. The proposed method was evaluated through heating experiments of an agarose gel phantom and ex vivo porcine muscle with and without fat layers, and non-heating experiments of in vivo human prostate and brain. The phantom consisted of 2.0$\%$ agarose gel doped with NaCl (0.5$\%$) and CuSO$_{4}$ (0.1$\%$).
To train DeepPROCnet, MR images from the knee, brain, and low pelvic region of four healthy volunteers; ex vivo porcine muscle; and agarose gel phantom were used. A 32$\times$32 voxels 2D patch was used for training and testing. For training DeepPROCnet, the patch was generated with an overlapping scheme of 50$\%$ overlap to adjacent patches. DeepPROCnet training data were acquired using meGRE with srVFA and the dual repetition time (TR) method\cite{yarnykh2007MRM}. Detailed parameters for meGRE with srVFA are: field-of-view (FOV) = 224$\times$224 mm$^{2}$, voxel size = 2$\times$2$\times$5 mm$^{3}$, number of slices = 11, number of dynamic scans = 1, TR = 50 ms, TEs = 3, 5.6, 8.2, 10.8, and 13.4 ms, and FA = 10 and 35$^{\circ}$. Detailed parameters for the B1 map are: field-of-view (FOV) = 224$\times$224 mm$^{2}$, voxel size = 2$\times$2$\times$5 mm$^{3}$, number of slices = 11, TRs = 25 and 125 ms, TE = 2 ms, and FA = 60$^{\circ}$. For the in vivo human prostate, MR images were split into 224$\times$224 sections.
To train the DeepACCnet, MR images from the knee, brain, and low pelvic region of four healthy volunteers, the brains of five healthy volunteers, ex vivo porcine muscle, and agarose gel phantom were used. DeepACCnet training data were also acquired using meGRE and the detailed parameters are: FOV = 224$\times$224 mm$^{2}$, voxel size = 2$\times$2$\times$5 mm$^{3}$, number of slices = 11, number of dynamic scans = 60, TR = 50 ms, TEs = 3, 5.6, 8.2, 10.8, and 13.4 ms, and FA = 10 and 35$^{\circ}$. In the in vivo cases, MR images were acquired without high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) sonication and the number of dynamics was 5. In the ex vivo and phantom cases, MR images were acquired with HIFU sonication.
For the tests, MR images using meGRE with srVFA were acquired with a 3 T MRI scanner (Philips Achieva, the Netherlands) equipped with a HIFU (EofE Ultrasonics, Inc., South Korea, center frequency = 2.31 MHz). The MR parameters were as follows: FOV = 224$\times$224 mm$^{2}$; voxel size = 2$\times$2$\times$5 mm$^{3}$; number of slices = 1; number of dynamic scans = 60; TR = 50 ms; TEs = 3, 5.6, 8.2, 10.8, and 13.4 ms; and FA = 10 and 35$^{\circ}$. For the performance evaluation of DeepACCnet, the acquired MR image was retrospectively undersampled with 16 encoding steps. For the in vivo human prostate, MR images were split into 224$\times$224 sections. To evaluate the precision of MR temperature estimation, the temperature changes of the agarose gel phantom and the ex vivo porcine muscle with and without fat layers were measured using MR-compatible fiber-optic temperature sensors (Photon Control, Inc., Alberta, CA, USA).
\subsection{Network training}
The DeepACCnet model consisted of 19 convolutional layers, 18 batch normalization, 18 rectified linear unit (ReLU) nonlinear layers, 4 max-pooling layers, 4 transposed convolutional layers, and 4 feature contracting paths. The first half of the network consisted of four groups, and each group contained two sets of convolutional layers with a 5$\times$5$\times$5 kernel, batch normalization, and ReLU layer. Each group was connected by a max-pooling layer. The second half of the network also consisted of four groups containing additional feature-concatenation layers compared to the first half’s groups. Each group was connected by a transposed convolution layer instead of a max-pooling layer. Two groups were connected by two convolutional layers. Finally, the last layer applied a 1$\times$1$\times$1 convolution kernel. For the DeepPROCnet, the model used was identical except for the number of channels. For DeepACCnet, minimization was performed with the Adadelta Optimizer. The learning rate was 10$^{-2}$. The batch size was set to 12, and training was stopped after 100 epochs, as the performance at that point became stable. For DeepPROCnet, minimization was also performed with the Adadelta Optimizer. The learning rate was 10$^{-5}$. The batch size was set to 200, and training was also stopped at 100 epochs. The network was trained and evaluated using the Keras software package running on an NVIDIA 1080Ti GPU. The total training time was approximately 92 h.
\subsection{Comparison study}
The proposed DeepACCnet was compared using four methods: (1) fully sampled image; (2) keyhole method; (3) zero filled method; and (4) cascaded CNN without HR acquired during the pretreatment stage (the input of equation~\ref{eq_2_B_3}, where $\mathcal{\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{PRIOR}} \circledast \mho[\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{ACC}}] }$
is replaced with $\mathcal{ \mho[\mathcal{X}_{\mathcal{ACC}}] }$
). The DeepPROCnet is compared with the conventional curve-fitting method. Therefore, six combinations of the algorithms are compared: (1) fully sampled + curve fitting; (2) keyhole + DeepPROCnet; (3) zero filled + DeepPROCnet; (4) cascaded CNN with HR; (5) cascaded CNN without HR; and (6) fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. Fully sampled + curve fitting was considered the ground truth.
\subsection{Data analysis}
Differences between the results of the cascaded CNN generated temperature and T1 map and the ground truth were evaluated across subjects based on the normalized mean-square error ($NMSE$) and structural similarity ($SSIM$). The $NMSE$ for output image $\mathcal{X}$ and ground truth $\mathcal{Y}$ is calculated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq_3_C_1}
NMSE(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})=\sum \frac{\parallel \mathcal{X}-\mathcal{Y} \parallel^{2}_{2}}{{\parallel \mathcal{Y} \parallel}^{2}_{2}}.
\end{equation}
$SSIM$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq_3_C_2}
SSIM(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})=[l(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})^{\alpha} \cdot c(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}))^{\beta} \cdot s(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}))^{\gamma}],
\end{equation}
where the three weights ($\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$) were set to 1 and the luminance ($l$), contrast ($c$), and structure ($s$) are described in the previous study\cite{Wang2003_multiscale}. To exclude the effects of the background, the center quarter of each image was cropped out and evaluated using the $SSIM$ function provided by MATLAB 2018b (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA).
\section{Results}
\subsection{Experiment validation by fiber-optic sensor}
The axial magnitude MR images and experimental setup for the agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers, in vivo human brain, and in vivo human prostate are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig3}. For comparison with a fiber-optic temperature sensor, temperatures measured by PRF-based MR thermometry were averaged over a 5$\times$5-pixel region of interest (ROI), with the center located adjacent to the fiber-optic temperature probe. The temperatures from the cascaded CNN with HR and fiber-optic probe measurements are plotted in Figs. \ref{Fig3}f--h. Based on 60 dynamic scans, the maximum differences between the cascaded CNN with HR and the fiber-optic sensor for the agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, and ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers were 0.32, 0.58, and 0.94 $^{\circ}$C, respectively. The location and size of their ROIs, plus those of in vivo human brain and in vivo human prostate for Bland-Altman analysis, and the corresponding $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig3}. The sizes of the ROIs are 20$\times$25, 40$\times$20, 20$\times$25, 50$\times$40, and 150$\times$140, respectively.
\subsection{Model validation by uniform agarose gel phantom and porcine muscle heating experiments}
Figure \ref{Fig4}a shows the T1 change maps at the 50th dynamic scan, reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet, respectively. When the cascaded CNN is not used, an aliasing artifact can be clearly observed. In addition, the $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using the cascaded CNN were significantly better than those without the cascaded CNN (0.93/0.1$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.80/0.4$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). As shown by the differences in the T1 change maps calculated through fully sampled + curve fitting and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet, the $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values for DeepPROCnet are 0.99 and 0.2$\times$10$^{-3}$, respectively. Figure \ref{Fig4}b shows the temperature change maps measured by PRF-based MR thermometry at the 50th dynamic scan, reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, and cascaded CNN without HR. When the cascaded CNN was not used, the aliasing artifact was clearly visible. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using a cascaded CNN were significantly better than those without the cascaded CNN (0.98/0.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.97/1.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). The cascaded CNN with HR shows that the shape of the hot spot has not changed, either in the T1 or temperature change images. However, when the HR image is not used, the shape of the hot spot changes slightly.
Side-by-side comparisons of the T1 change and temperature change between ground truth and keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig5}. T1 and temperature change images reconstructed by cascaded CNN with HR have smaller limits of agreement. The bias and limit of agreement for the T1 change with cascaded CNN with HR are -0.03 and 0.80, respectively. Those for temperature change with cascaded CNN with HR are 0.00 and 0.04, respectively. Most errors in DeepPROCnet are caused by the patch-splitting performed in the data augmentation step. In addition, by incorporating the HR, the limit of agreement showed a decreasing tendency in the case of the T1 change, but the bias was calibrated in hotspots for PRF-based MR thermometry.
T1 and temperature change maps in ex vivo porcine muscle during HIFU sonication are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig6} at the time of the peak temperature rise. Time-lapse videos of the sonication taking place in Fig. \ref{Fig6} are shown in Supporting information video 1. Figure \ref{Fig6}a shows the T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using the cascaded CNN were significantly better than those without the cascaded CNN (0.98/0.4$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.95/1.3$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Figure \ref{Fig6}b shows the temperature change maps at the time of the peak temperature rise, reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, and cascaded CNN without HR, respectively. When using cascaded CNN, the $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values were significantly better (0.99/0.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.97/1.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Using cascaded CNN with HR does not change the shape of the hot spot in either the T1 or temperature change images.
Figure \ref{Fig7} provides a point by point comparison of the T1 change versus temperature change for the ex vivo porcine muscle. The slope from a linear fit to the data was 7.04 ms/$^{\circ}$C (the coefficient of determination is 0.92) for T1 changes by fully sampled + curve fitting versus temperature change by fully sampled (Fig. \ref{Fig7}a). The linear fit slope to the data was 7.03 ms/$^{\circ}$C (the coefficient of determination is 0.94) for T1 changes by cascaded CNN with HR versus temperature change by cascaded CNN with HR (Fig. \ref{Fig7}b). The linear fit slope to the data was 7.07 ms/$^{\circ}$C (the coefficient of determination is 0.93) for T1 changes by cascaded CNN with HR versus temperature change by fully sampled (Fig. \ref{Fig7}c). The linear fit slope to the data was 7.07 ms/$^{\circ}$C (the coefficient of determination is 0.93) for T1 changes by cascaded CNN with HR versus temperature change by cascaded CNN with HR (Fig. \ref{Fig7}d). Although the temperature of T1 depends on the tissue type, the figure shows that the temperature change and T1 change have significantly higher correlation. In addition, when comparing Fig. \ref{Fig7}b and Fig. \ref{Fig7}c, it can be seen that temperature dependency of the proposed method and the temperature dependency of T1 of the ground truth are very similar.
\subsection{Effects of adipose tissue: heating experiment for ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers}
Figure \ref{Fig8}a shows the T1 change maps in aqueous tissue reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using the cascaded CNN were significantly better than those without cascaded CNN (0.95/3.3$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.91/1.0$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Figure \ref{Fig8}b shows the T1 change maps in adipose tissue reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using the cascaded CNN were significantly better than those without the cascaded CNN (0.95/6.9$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.86/2.0$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Figure \ref{Fig8}c shows the temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded CNN with HR, and cascaded CNN without HR, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values when using the cascaded CNN were significantly better than those when not using the cascaded CNN (0.98/0.6$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.90/4.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Time-lapse videos of the sonication in Fig. \ref{Fig8} are shown in the Supporting information video 2.
The through-time mean, maximum, $SSIM$, and $NMSE$ are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig9}. The temperature and T1 changes show strong agreement in the thermal evolution curves in Figs. \ref{Fig9}a, c, and e. However, in adipose tissues, the maximum T1 change reconstructed by the cascaded CNN with HR is slightly lower than that by the fully sampled + curve fitting method. In the case of adipose tissue, the $SSIM$ values for T1 change fall between 0.9 and 0.95 and the $NMSE$ values for T1 change fall between 4.0$\times$10$^{-2}$ and 3.0$\times$10$^{-3}$. In the case of the aqueous tissue, the $SSIM$ values for T1 change lie between 0.85 and 0.95 and the $NMSE$ values for T1 change lie between 9.0$\times$10$^{-2}$ and 3.0$\times$10$^{-3}$. The $SSIM$ values for temperature change lie between 0.94 and 0.98, and the $NMSE$ values for temperature change measured by PRF-based MR thermometry lie between 0.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ and 0.5$\times$10$^{-3}$.
\subsection{Performance regarding in vivo human datasets}
The in vivo human brain results are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig10}. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values for T1 changes were significantly good (0.98/0.2$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.96/0.8$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values for temperature change measured by PRF-based MR thermometry were also significantly good (0.84/6.4$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.52/2.2$\times$10$^{-1}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). Especially, assuming that the phase change due to the B0 variation in the ear region is the temperature change, we can observe that the shape and size of the hotspot has changed in the cascaded CNN without HR. In contrast, the shape and size of the hotspot has not changed in the cascaded CNN with HR. The in vivo human prostate results are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig11}. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values for T1 changes were significantly better when the cascaded CNN was present (0.91/0.5$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.88/0.6$\times$10$^{-2}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values for temperature change measured by PRF-based MR thermometry indicated better results when the cascaded CNN was present (0.50/3.2$\times$10$^{-1}$ for the cascaded CNN with HR and 0.32/5.9$\times$10$^{-1}$ for the cascaded CNN without HR). In addition, the flow artifact was reduced.
\subsection{Processing times of cascaded convolutional neural network}
The computation times needed to acquire a temperature map for simultaneously measuring the aqueous and adipose tissues are shown in Table \ref{Table_1}. Fully sampled + curve fitting and cascaded CNN with HR required 8 h and 32 ms, respectively. In the case of the in vivo human prostate, fully sampled + curve fitting and cascaded CNN with HR required 11 h and 78 ms, respectively.
\section{Discussion}
We have proposed a cascaded CNN that allows processing of real-time interactive MR temperature images in both adipose and aqueous tissues with high image quality. This is made possible by taking advantage of the srVFA, meGRE, cascaded CNN, and data acquisition scheme for MR-guided FUS treatment. During the pretreatment stage, an HR MR image is acquired by meGRE with two FAs. After starting the treatment, a LR MR image is acquired by meGRE with a single FA, which allows for accelerated MR data acquisition during the treatment stage. The MR images acquired in the treatment and pretreatment stages are reconstructed into a T1 map and a temperature map via the cascaded CNN. The first CNN generates a HR complex MR image from the LR complex MR image acquired during the treatment stage, and its performance is enhanced by incorporating the HR magnitude MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage. The second CNN generates the T1 map. The accuracy of the cascaded CNN was confirmed in an agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers, in vivo human brain, and in vivo human prostate. The cascaded CNN computed temperature maps for the agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers, in vivo human brain, and in vivo human prostate could be updated every 32 ms, 32 ms, 32 ms, 32 ms, and 78 ms, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values of the T1 change by the cascaded CNN with HR for the agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers, in vivo human brain, and in vivo human prostate in aqueous tissue are 0.93/0.4$\times$10$^{-2}$, 0.98/0.4$\times$10$^{-3}$, 0.95/3.3$\times$10$^{-3}$, 0.99/0.5$\times$10$^{-3}$, and 0.97/4.1$\times$10$^{-3}$, respectively. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values of the T1 change by cascaded CNN with HR for ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers in adipose tissue are 0.95/6.9$\times$10$^{-3}$. The $SSIM$/$NMSE$ values of the temperature change by cascaded CNN with HR for agarose gel phantom, ex vivo porcine muscle, ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers, in vivo human brain, and in vivo human prostate are 0.98/0.1$\times$10$^{-3}$, 0.99/0.1$\times$10$^{-3}$, 0.98/0.6$\times$10$^{-3}$, 0.84/6.4$\times$10$^{-2}$, and 0.50/3.2$\times$10$^{-1}$, respectively.
The magnitude MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage was used to train the DeepACCnet CNN. There are a number of other effects that can influence temperature measurements based on PRF-based MR thermometry, such as the composition of the tissue, magnetic susceptibility, electrical conductivity, and external field drift$\cite{Rieke2013_JMRI}$. Among these, the phase drift induced by the external field drift has a considerable effect on the accuracy of the temperature image and is the main cause behind incorrect temperature images. Because this causes several problems during training, magnitude MR images are considered to be more efficient.
The meGRE sequence is optimal for measuring the T1 and PRF changes because the optimal TEs for VFA and PRF-shift are the shortest one, and when TE is the same as T2*, respectively\cite{Todd2014_MRM}. In addition, because meGRE has a high bandwidth and duty cycle, an image with long TE can be acquired\cite{odeen2019_LSM}. Furthermore, meGRE can be used to reconstruct a material’s magnetic susceptibility and electric conductivity\cite{Wang2015_MRM}\cite{KimJM2018_ISMRM}\cite{Chung2018_ISMRM}. It is expected that the progress of the treatment will be monitored through the magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity values. During HIFU sonication, if there is an area in which the attenuation (a scattering property), suddenly changes, a high temperature is produced, often causing an adverse effect on treatment. In particular, in the case of a prostate or brain, there is often calcification, and characteristic changes caused by calcification affect the temperature rise induced by HIFU sonication, which can lead to failure of the treatment\cite{Barkin2011_CJU}. In addition, it is thought that the strong magnetic susceptibility effect of meGRE allows for monitoring of sudden hemorrhage, among other complications, during treatment\cite{Liang1999_AJN}.
\subsection{Limitations and future work}
The primary limitation of the proposed method is the potential for deformation and motion of the subject during the treatment stage. This is a problem common to most MR temperature mapping methods. In the case of PRF-based MR thermometry, the solution proposed to address the problems resulting from deformation or motion is to use multi-baseline, referenceless, and fat-referenced PRF-based MR thermometry\cite{Hofstetter2012_JMRI}\cite{Rieke2012_MRM}\cite{Grissom2010_MedPhys}. The multi-baseline approach is a method applied to obtain a baseline library, which is expected to be directly applicable by obtaining multiple baselines in the pretreatment stage from the method proposed herein. In addition, for the referenceless approach, it is likely that PRF-based MR thermometry will be applicable during the reconstruction process, and the fat-referenced approach will also be applicable in the same manner. However, there is a need to consider whether additional processing time, such as polynomial fitting performed in the referenceless or fat-referenced approaches, is required for real-time interactive MR thermometry. In practice, predicting all motion accurately is not possible, and in the case of T1-based MR thermometry, there are currently limitations to applying the referenceless method.
Efforts to understand the characteristics of the deep neural network and explore its benefits for real-time interactive MR temperature imaging will continue. MR-guided surgery requires fast acquisition and processing times for real-time interactive MR temperature imaging, as discussed in this paper. MR images acquired in the pretreatment stage can be used for various purposes, even if the acquisition time is long. In this paper, images were used in two ways, namely to obtain the T1 values using srVFA, and to improve the acquisition time by exploiting the fact that the high frequency components of the MR images do not change significantly. Increasing the resolution of MR images using the HR MR image acquired during the treatment stage is expected to be used in various ways in deep neural networks (e.g., for a discriminator CNN\cite{Kim2018_MedPhys}). In addition, the issues associated with motion or deformation are also expected to diminish by exploiting deep neural networks.
In this study, we used a single-channel coil for signal reception. Although acquiring MR images using multiple channels is expected to achieve better results in DeepACCnet, single-channel reception RF coils are often used to avoid problems such as the size of the water bath or HIFU incompatibility. In view of these points, we used a single-channel coil in this study, but using the recently developed HIFU-compatible RF coil is expected to reduce this problem\cite{Correa2010_SciRep}. We can accommodate an acquired MR image obtained from multi-channel RF coils by simply increasing the number of network channels in the DeepACCnet. Moreover, it is also necessary to optimize the sampling scheme when considering the number of RF coils for signal reception. Furthermore, it seems possible to use a radial or spiral sampling strategy or echo planar imaging (EPI) for real-time MR temperature imaging. However, the additional problems that arise from these approaches, such as processing time and EPI ghosts, are challenges to be solved in the future.
It is known that VFA for measuring T1 is very sensitive to systematic errors from RF field inhomogeneities, slice profile, etc. \cite{Cheng2006_MRM}\cite{Braskute2018_ISMRM}. Moreover, accurate measurements of the parameters affected by T1 measurements, such as T1, T2*, M0, and FA, are challenging during heating treatment\cite{Graham1999_MRM}\cite{Kim2018_iMRI}. In this work, pre- and post-processing steps for T1 mapping were performed as described in the Materials and Methods section.
One of the common and critical limitations of deep learning involves limited training datasets. Many previous studies have performed training data augmentation to prevent overfitting and increase accuracy\cite{Ciresan2010_NC}. In this study, 2D rotation, which is the simplest way to augment the available data, was used. Image-based methods, such as flipping, rotation, bending, and edge enhancement, have also performed well\cite{Taylor2017_Arxiv}. Recent studies have shown improved performance when performing data augmentation through physics-driven simulated data or synthetic generation\cite{Cho2019_MRM}\cite{Yoon2018_NI}. When water fat separation was performed by generating synthetic field inhomogeneity, incomplete water fat separation due to the field inhomogeneity could be overcome\cite{Cho2019_MRM}. Overall, it is expected that the proposed method will be able to perform data augmentation through simulated heat patterning. However, PRF-based MR thermometry and T1-based MR thermometry are phase-based and magnitude-based methods, respectively. Thus, in the proposed method, the variation due to synthetic heat can be simulated by generating complex MR images to perform data augmentation.
\section{Conclusion}
In this study, we demonstrated deep learning-based temperature imaging in both adipose and aqueous tissues, providing real-time interactive and high-quality imaging. This was validated based on agarose gel phantom, porcine muscle and porcine muscle with fatty layers heating tests, and in vivo prostate and brain non-heating tests. The proposed method could be critically useful in monitoring ablative therapies in both aqueous and adipose tissues.
\newpage
\section{Tables}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\captionv{10}{aaa}{Acquisition and processing times for fully sampled + curve fitting and cascaded CNN with high resolution.
\label{Table_1}
\vspace*{2ex}
}
\begin{tabular} {|p{3cm} p{3cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|}
\hline
\cline{4-7}
& & Phantom & porcine Muscle & porcine Muscle with fat layers & In vivo human brain & In vivo human prostate \\
\hline
& Acquisition time & 5.6 s & 5.6 s & 5.6 s & 5.6 s & 5.6 s \\
Fully sampled + Curve Fitting & & & & & & \\
& Processing time & 8 h & 8 h & 8 h & 8 h & 11 h \\
\hline
& Acquisition time & 0.8 s & 0.8 s & 0.8 s & 0.8 s & 0.8 s \\
Cascaded CNN with HR & & & & & & \\
& Processing time & 32 ms & 32 ms & 32 ms & 32 ms & 78 ms \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\section{Figures}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig1.eps}
%
%
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{The proposed data acquisition scheme for real-time interactive temperature imaging in both adipose and aqueous tissues. During the pretreatment stage, the fully sampled k-space with two flip angles (FAs) is acquired and the undersampled k-space with a single FA is obtained to quickly obtain MR images during the treatment stage. The T1 map by single reference variable flip angle (srVFA) is calculated by using MR images at the lower FA acquired during the pretreatment stage and at the higher FA acquired during the treatment stage. The temperature map by proton resonance frequency-based MR thermometry is calculated by using MR images at the higher FA acquired during the pretreatment stage and at the higher FA acquired during the treatment stage. srVFA: single reference variable flip angel, PRF: proton resonance frequency.
\label{Fig1}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig2.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Schematic illustration of the proposed method. The proposed cascaded convolutional neural network (CNN) consists of a DeepACCnet for high-resolution (HR) complex MR image reconstruction and a DeepPROCnet for T1 mapping. The DeepACCnet performs the reconstruction from low-resolution (LR) complex MR images to HR complex MR images. The performance of DeepACCnet is increased by incorporating the HR magnitude MR image acquired during the pretreatment stage. Then, the DeepACCnet-generated HR magnitude MR image with higher flip angle (FA) and HR magnitude MR image with lower FA are used as input and T1 with single reference variable flip angle is used as the label for DeepPROCnet. PRF: proton resonance frequency, FT: Fourier transform
\label{Fig2}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig3.eps}
%
%
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Axial magnitude MR images and experimental setup for (a) the agarose gel phantom; (c) porcine muscle; (e) porcine muscle with fat layers: (g) in vivo human brain; and (h) in vivo human prostate. The time through temperature change of fiber-optic sensors and the PRF-based method for (b) the agarose gel phantom; (d) porcine muscle; and (f) porcine muscle with fat layers. HIFU: high-intensity focused ultrasound, ROI: region-of-intest, PRF: proton resonance frequency
\label{Fig3}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig4.eps}
%
%
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Agarose gel phantom heating results. (a) T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. (b) Temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), and cascaded CNN without HR. $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high-resolution, $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig4}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig5.eps}
%
%
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Bland-Altman results in agarose gel phantom for T1 and proton resonance frequency-based temperature change reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. Bias and limit of agreement values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high-resolution
\label{Fig5}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig6.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Ex vivo porcine muscle heating results. (a) T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. (b) Temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), and cascaded CNN without HR. $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high-resolution, $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig6}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig7.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Temperature change by proton resonance freqeuncy-based MR thermometry versus T1 change for ex vivo porcine muscle. (a) Relationship between temperature change by the fully sampled and T1 change by fully sampled + curve fitting. (b) Relationship between temperature change by the cascaded convolutional neural network (CNN) with high resolution (HR) and T1 change by fully sampled + curve fitting. (c) Relationship between temperature change by the fully sampled and T1 change by cascaded CNN with HR. (d) Relationship between temperature change by the cascaded CNN with HR and T1 change by the cascaded CNN with HR. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high resolution
\label{Fig7}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig8.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Heating results for ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers. (a) T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. (b) Temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), and cascaded CNN without HR. $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high-resolution, $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig8}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig9.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{Timing results for the ex vivo porcine muscle with fat layers. The time through change of mean and maximum (a); and $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ (d) for T1 change in aqueous tissue. The time through change of mean and maximum (b); and $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ (e) for T1 change in adipose tissue. The time through change of mean and maximum (c); and $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ (f) for temperature change. $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig9}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig10.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{In vivo human brain non-heating results. (a) T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. (b) Temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), and cascaded CNN without HR. $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high resolution, $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig10}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Fig11.eps}
\captionv{12}{Short title - can be blank}{In vivo human prostate non-heating results. (a) T1 change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), cascaded CNN without HR, and fully sampled + DeepPROCnet. (b) Temperature change maps reconstructed with fully sampled + curve fitting, keyhole + DeepPROCnet, zero filled + DeepPROCnet, cascaded convolutional network (CNN) with high resolution (HR), and cascaded CNN without HR. $SSIM$ and $NMSE$ values are shown below each image. CNN: convolutional neural network, HR: high resolution, $SSIM$: structural similarity, $NMSE$: normalized mean-square error
\label{Fig11}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported by the Technology Innovation Program (\#10076675) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry \& Energy (MOTIE, Korea).
\section*{Conflicts of interest}
The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
\section*{References}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\numberline{}References}
\vspace*{-20mm}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last few years there has been much interest in two-field inflation models with strongly non-geodesic motion \cite{Brown:2017osf,Mizuno:2017idt,Bjorkmo:2019aev,Bjorkmo:2019fls,Christodoulidis:2018qdw,Cremonini:2010ua,Renaux-Petel:2015mga,Renaux-Petel:2017dia,Garcia-Saenz:2018ifx,Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Grocholski:2019mot, Fumagalli:2019noh,Christodoulidis:2019jsx,Christodoulidis:2019mkj,Bravo:2019xdo,Easson:2007dh,Achucarro:2010jv,Achucarro:2010da, Achucarro:2012sm,Achucarro:2012yr,Cespedes:2012hu,Hetz:2016ics,Chen:2018uul,Chen:2018brw, Aragam:2019khr,Garcia-Saenz:2019njm, Achucarro:2019pux, Achucarro:2019lgo, Chakraborty:2019dfh}.
These models have been studied under various names (such as spinflation, hyperinflation, side-tracked inflation, angular inflation, and effective single-field theories with a reduced speed of sound from heavy fields),
but have recently been shown to belong to a general class of solutions known as `rapid-turn attractors' \cite{Bjorkmo:2019fls}. Intriguingly, inflation models with rapidly turning fields can be realised in potentials that are much too steep for standard slow-roll inflation \cite{Hetz:2016ics,Achucarro:2018vey},
and may thereby ameliorate the so-called inflationary `$\eta$-problem' \cite{Lyth:1998xn, Baumann:2014nda}. Moreover, under certain conditions, standard slow-roll inflation in hyperbolic field spaces can become unstable, triggering a `geometric destabilisation' \cite{Renaux-Petel:2015mga, Brown:2017osf} to the rapid-turn attractor, which is also known to arise as global attractor solution in hyperbolic field spaces
\cite{Brown:2017osf,Mizuno:2017idt,Bjorkmo:2019aev,Christodoulidis:2018qdw,Renaux-Petel:2015mga,Renaux-Petel:2017dia,Garcia-Saenz:2018ifx,Cicoli:2018ccr, Grocholski:2019mot}. Given the prevalence of negative field space geometries in string compactifications (cf.~e.g.~\cite{Ooguri:2006in, Cicoli:2019ulk}), and the possibility of tackling the $\eta$-problem, these models are very attractive, and it is important to understand their observational viability.
Not only do these models have interesting background solutions, but their primordial perturbations are also unusual and intriguing. If the entropic mass is sufficiently large (which is not generally the case), these theories can be described by an effective field theory (EFT) of
a single field with a reduced speed of sound, $c_s$ (see e.g. \cite{Achucarro:2010jv,Achucarro:2010da,Achucarro:2012sm,Achucarro:2012yr,Cespedes:2012hu}). However, if the entropic mass is below a certain critical value, the perturbations undergo a transient instability before horizon crossing and have been proposed to be described by a single-field EFT with an \textit{imaginary} speed of sound \cite
,Garcia-Saenz:2018ifx,Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh,Garcia-Saenz:2019njm}. This instability, first noticed in \cite{Cremonini:2010ua} and further developed in the context of hyperinflation in \cite{Brown:2017osf,Mizuno:2017idt}, causes the perturbations to grow exponentially before horizon crossing, leading to a suppressed tensor-scalar ratio and enhanced non-Gaussianity in the flattened configuration, with numerical results confirming the EFT predictions \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}.
Beyond the bispectrum, however, this exponential growth has been argued to be disastrous. Reference \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh} recently
used the single-field EFT to show that so-called scalar exchange diagrams appear to provide enormous contributions to the trispectrum and higher-order, non-Gaussian correlators. These theories would then predict exponentially large non-Gaussianities (in $g_{\rm NL},~\tau_{\rm NL}$ etc), leading to
a strong tension with observations and even a loss of perturbative computational control. If true, this would rule out controlled rapid-turn models of inflation with strong non-geodesic motion, such as hyperinflation with a large turn-rate.
Fortunately however, as we will show, the situation is not so bleak. In fact, we will demonstrate that when carefully accounting for the subtle structure of commutators in the in-in formalism, the apparently large and dominating contributions cancel out exactly. Estimates that do not account for the structure of nested commutators in the contributions to the correlation functions will therefore exponentially overestimate the resulting non-Gaussianity. This subtle cancellation effect is already known in the context of axially coupled gauge-fields during inflation {\cite{Ferreira:2015omg}, where the gauge field mode functions behave similarly.
Upon adjusting the estimates of \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh} to account for the commutators, we find that these models of rapid-turn inflation are well within the perturbative regime, and do not lead to exponentially large non-Gaussianities.
We close this paper with a general, analytic WKB computation of the growth of the perturbations in the two-field theory with strong turning. Our result agrees with the numerical analysis of \cite{Mizuno:2017idt}, and gives further evidence for the correctness of the single-field effective field theory with imaginary speed of sound developed and used in \cite{Garcia-Saenz:2018ifx,Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh}.
We conclude that inflationary models involving rapidly turning fields remain observationally viable and, given their other theoretical strengths, provide appealing candidate models for the early universe.
\section{Rapid-turn inflation and the fear of hyper-large non-Gaussianities}
In this section, we briefly review the background dynamics of rapidly turning two-field solutions, and illustrate this class of models by using hyperinflation as a particular example. We furthermore discuss the enhancement of the curvature around horizon crossing, and review why one may fear that the tri-spectrum and non-Gaussianity in higher-order correlators become exponentially enhanced in these solutions, following reference \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}.
\subsection{The rapid-turn attractor}
Two-dimensional field spaces admit, in addition to the standard slow-roll inflation, a novel and interesting class of rapidly turning inflationary solutions.
The background evolution of the fields is governed by the Klein-Gordon equation,
\eq{
\mathcal D_t\dot\phi^a+3H\dot\phi^a+G^{ab}V_{;b}=0,
}
where $\mathcal D_t X^a\equiv \dot X^a+\Gamma^a_{bc}\dot\phi^bX^c$, and $\Gamma^a_{bc}$ are the Christoffel symbols of the field space metric $G_{ab}$.
We can drastically simplify this system by projecting the equations of motion onto the vielbein basis
\eq{
e^I_a=(v_a,~w_a),
}
where $v_a=V_{;a}/\|V_{;a}\|$ and $w_a$ is a (co-)vector field orthonormal to $v_a$, such that we work with the velocities $\dot\phi_v=v_a\dot\phi^a$ and $\dot\phi_w=w_a\dot\phi^a$. In this basis, the equations of motion for a homogeneous background of the fields become
\cite{Bjorkmo:2019fls}
\eq{
\ddot\phi_v=-3H\dot\phi_v-V_{v}+\Omega_v\dot\phi_v,\hspace{1cm}\ddot\phi_w=-3H\dot\phi_w-\Omega_v\dot\phi_v
\label{eq:bkgEoM}
}
where $V_{v}=\|V_{;a}\|=v^aV_{;a}$, $V_{vw}=v^aw^aV_{;ab}$ etc, and $\Omega_v=w_a\mathcal D_t v^a=(V_{vw}\dot\phi_v+V_{ww}\dot\phi_w)/V_{v}$ is the turn rate of the basis vectors. This turn-rate is in general different from the (dimensionless) turn-rate of the fields themselves, given by
\eq{
\omega=\|\mathcal D_t(\dot\phi^a/\dot\phi)\|/H \, ,
}
where $\dot \phi = \| \dot \phi^a \|$.
Equation \eqref{eq:bkgEoM} admits inflationary solutions. The standard slow-roll solution is characterised by
small inflationary slow-roll parameters ($\epsilon,|\eta|\ll1$), and small accelerations of the fields ($\ddot\phi_I=\mathcal O(\epsilon)H\dot\phi_I$), which can be achieved in sufficiently flat potentials with no rotation ($\omega=0$). However, even steep potentials can support inflation (still with $\epsilon,|\eta|\ll1$ and $\ddot\phi_I=\mathcal O(\epsilon)H\dot\phi_I$)
if the turn rate is large compared to the slow-roll parameter, $\omega^2\gg\mathcal O(\epsilon)$, and varies slowly, $\nu\equiv H^{-1} {\cal D}_t \ln \omega = \mathcal O(\epsilon)$.
The equations of motion then imply that
\eq{
\dot\phi_v=\frac{-3V_{v}}{H(9+\omega^2)},\hspace{1cm}\dot\phi_w=\frac{\omegaV_{v}}{H(9+\omega^2)},\label{eq:velocities}
}
and it also follows that $\Omega_v/H=\omega$ up to $\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ corrections. The condition that $\nu=\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ imposes that the gradient must vary slowly along the trajectory $H^{-1}\mathcal D_t \lnV_{v}=\mathcal O(\epsilon)$. In this solution, the first inflationary slow-roll parameter is given by \cite{Hetz:2016ics}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = - \frac{\dot H}{H^2} = \frac{1}{(1+ \omega^2/9)} \frac{V_v^2}{2V^2} \ll 1 \, ,
\end{equation}
meaning that inflation is possible in steep potentials if $\omega$ is sufficiently large, i.e.~in a rapid-turn solution.
To find explicit rapid-turn solutions we note that the field velocities in equation \eqref{eq:velocities} are given in terms of the gradient of the potential, the Hubble rate, and the turn rate $\omega$. The first two are known immediately at any position in field space, and the latter is fixed by the conditions $\Omega_v/H=\omega$ and $H^{-1}\mathcal D_t\lnV_{v}=\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ \cite{Bjorkmo:2019fls}:
\eq{
\frac{V_{ww}}{H^2}-\frac{9}{\omega^2}\frac{V_{vv}}{H^2}=\omega^2+9+\mathcal O(\epsilon),\hspace{1cm}\frac{V_{vw}}{H^2}-\frac{3}{\omega}\frac{V_{vv}}{H^2}=\mathcal O(\omega\epsilon).
\label{eq:bkgcond}
}
This determines the field velocities as a function of field-space position, much like in slow-roll, slow-turn inflation. Rapid-turn inflation can only arise if these two equations can be simultaneously satisfied, and the precise form of the solution is strongly dependent on the form of the covariant Hessian of the potential projected onto the gradient basis.
It is instructive to concretise these rather abstract considerations by a particular example: hyperinflation \cite{Brown:2017osf}. The hyperbolic plane has a metric that can be written as
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = d\varphi^2 +L^2 \sinh^2(\varphi/L) d\theta^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
where $L$ sets the (Ricci) curvature of the field space: $R=-2/L^2$. For a rotationally symmetric potential, $V=V(\varphi)$, the vielbeins are given by \cite{Bjorkmo:2019aev},
\begin{equation}
v^a = (1,0)~~ \text{and }~w^a = \left(0, \tfrac{1}{L\sinh(\varphi/L)} \right) \, .
\end{equation}
It follows that $V_{vv}=V_{,\varphi\varphi}$, $V_{;vw} =0$ and $V_{;ww} =V_{,\varphi}/L$, which simplifies the conditions \eqref{eq:bkgcond} to
\begin{equation}
\omega^2+9=\frac{V_{,\varphi}}{LH^2},\hspace{1cm}\frac{V_{,\varphi\varphi}}{\omega^2 H^2}=\mathcal O(\epsilon)\, .
\end{equation}
The first equation fixes the turn rate, and the second requires $LV_{,\varphi\varphi}/V_{,\varphi}\ll1$. By noting that $\dot\phi_v=\dot\varphi$ and $\dot\phi_w= L\sinh(\varphi/L)\dot\theta$, one then finds using equation \eqref{eq:velocities} that the field velocities are given by
\eq{
\dot\varphi=-3HL\, ,\hspace{1cm} L\sinh(\varphi/L)\dot\theta=\pm\sqrt{LV_{,\varphi}-9H^2L^2} \, .
}
The assumption of a spherical symmetric potential is not necessary for the hyperinflation solution to exist; as long as the effects of the negative curvature are substantial, hyperinflation can be realised even in steep and random potentials \cite{Bjorkmo:2019aev}.
Hyperinflation and other rapid-turn inflationary models obey a common attractor solution \cite{Bjorkmo:2019fls}. Moreover, a particularly interesting feature of inflationary models in curved field spaces, such as hyperinflation, is that they can be reached from the standard slow-roll solutions through \emph{geometric destabilisation} of slow-roll inflation \cite{Renaux-Petel:2015mga}. In the case of hyperinflation, this happens as soon as $LV_{,\varphi} > 9 H^2L^2$ \cite{Brown:2017osf,Bjorkmo:2019aev}.
\subsection{Linear perturbations}
To study the perturbations it is advantagous to use the kinematic basis
\eq{
e^I_a=(n_a,~s_a),
}
where $n^a=(\dot\phi_v v^a+\dot\phi_w w^a)/\dot\phi$ and $s^a=(-\dot\phi_w v^a+\dot\phi_v w^a)/\dot\phi$. In the kinematic basis, the effective mass matrix of the perturbation $M_{ab}$ has two out of three independent elements constrained up to $\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ corrections:
\eq{
M_{nn}=\omega^2H^2,\hspace{1cm}M_{ns}=-3\omega H^2 \, .
}
The entropic mass cannot be determined in terms of the turn-rate alone so we write it as
\eq{
M_{ss}\equiv \xi\omega^2 H^2.
}
It will be convenient for us to work with the curvature perturbation $\zeta=n_a\delta\phi^a/\sqrt{2\epsilon}$ and with the entropic perturbation $\sigma=\delta\phi_s$, with which the action takes the following form (see Appendix \ref{app:quadraticaction}):
\eq{
\hspace{-0.15cm}\mathcal S=\frac12\int dt\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}a^3\left[2\epsilon\left(\dot\zeta^2-\frac{k^2}{a^2}\zeta^2\right)+\dot\sigma^2-\frac{k^2}{a^2}\sigma-H^2\omega^2(\xi-1)\sigma^2-4\sqrt{2\epsilon}\omega H\sigma\dot\zeta\right]. \label{eq:quadact}
}
When $\xi>1$, the perturbations can be described by an effective single-field theory with a reduced speed of sound, which has been studied extensively in the literature. However, when $\xi<1$, the perturbations exhibit interesting behaviours. They have been described by a single-field EFT with an \textit{imaginary} speed of sound \cite{Garcia-Saenz:2018ifx,Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh}, and these are the ones that we shall focus on in this paper.
A remarkable feature of theories with $\xi<1$ is that during the last few e-folds before the modes cross the horizon, they undergo a transient instability that causes the power spectrum to grow exponentially. One may certainly fear that such a growth of the perturbations will also be reflected in enhanced non-Gaussianity in higher-order correlation functions, and we will now review the recent argument by \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}, which pointed towards excessive non-Gaussianities from rapidly-turning realisations of hyperinflation, and similar models.
In closing, we note that in section \ref{sec:growth}, we use the WKB method to provide the first analytic expressions for the growing mode functions that apply to the whole class of rapid-turn models with $\xi<1$. Our analysis will
in particular find good agreement with the single-field EFT with $c_s^2<0$ used in \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}, and in the following section we review the argument for suspected exponentially large non-Gaussianities using the simpler EFT description.
\subsection{Hyper-large non-Gaussianities?}
In the single-field EFT with an imaginary speed of sound, the mode function of the curvature perturbation can be written as
\cite{Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh}
\eq{
\zeta_k(\tau)=\left(\frac{2\pi^2}{k^3}\right)^{1/2}\alpha\left(e^{k|c_s|\tau+x}(k|c_s|\tau-1)-\rho e^{i\psi}e^{-(k|c_s|\tau+x)}(k|c_s|\tau+1)\right) \, .
\label{eq:modefuncEFT}
}
The coefficients $\alpha$, $\rho$ and $\psi$
are all assumed to have a mild $k$-dependence, although quantisation fixes $\alpha^2\sim H^2/\epsilonM_{\mathrm{P}}^2$. This EFT is expected to be valid for $-x/|c_s| < k\tau$.
Most important here is $x$, which parametrises the magnitude of the power spectrum at horizon crossing (i.e~at the end of the transient growth), and which is expected to be large when the turning rate is large:\footnote{For the more precise relation, see section \ref{sec:growth}.} $x\sim \omega$ \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}.
The power spectrum at horizon crossing is then given by
\eq{
P_\zeta=
\frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \langle |\zeta_k|^2 \rangle =
\alpha^2e^{2x} \, ,
\label{eq:Pcross}
}
assuming $\rho \lesssim {\cal O}(1)$. As we have $\alpha^2\sim H^2/\epsilonM_{\mathrm{P}}^2$, it is the factor of $e^{2x}$ that captures the exponential growth of the perturbations. In the full two-field model, the entropic modes decay after horizon crossing and the perturbations become adiabatic and constant, so that equation \eqref{eq:Pcross} gives the final power spectrum that must be matched with observations: $\alpha^2e^{2x} =P_{\rm obs} = 2\times 10^{-9}$. This can be written as a normalisation condition:
$\alpha\sim 10^{-5} e^{-x}$.
Most interestingly, the EFT treatment of \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh} allowed for the first discussion and calculations of non-Gaussianities in these models.
Specifically, the bispectrum was found to peak for flattened configurations (for which $ k_2= k_3=k_1/2$) with an amplitude of $f^{\rm flat}_{\rm NL} = {\cal O}(50)$ for one example of hyperinflation. Most importantly however, some contributions to the (non-Gaussian) connected $n$-point correlation functions for $n\geq4$ were analytically found to be \emph{exponentially large}, leading to an apparent loss of perturbative control.
Key to this discussion is the expansion of the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ in terms of a Gaussian field $\zeta_g$:
\eq{
\zeta=\zeta_g\left(1+f^{(1)}_\text{NL}\zeta_g+f_\text{NL}^{(2)}\zeta_g^2+\dots\right),
}
where the coefficients $f^{(n-2)}_\text{NL}$ are given by
\eq{
f^{(n-2)}_\text{NL}=\frac{\langle \zeta^{n}\rangle_c}{\langle\zeta^{2n-2}\rangle},
}
and the subscript $c$ denotes a connected correlation function. For the expansion to be well-defined, we require (heuristically)
\eq{
f^{(n-2)}_\text{NL}|\zeta_g|^{n-2}\sim f^{(n-2)}_\text{NL}\langle\zeta^2\rangle^{(n-2)/2}\lesssim1.
}
Thus, as argued in Reference \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}, we retain perturbative control as long as
\eq{
\frac{\langle\zeta^n\rangle_c}{\langle \zeta^2\rangle^{n-1}}\lesssim\langle\zeta^2\rangle^{-(n-2)/2} \, .
\label{eq:cond}
}
Some contributions to $\langle \zeta^n\rangle_c$ were shown to be harmless in \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh}: contact interactions lead to no exponential enhancement in the non-Gaussian parameters. This explains why, in particular, the connected three-point function is not very large. However, other contributions that involve the tree-level exchange of (a scalar) $\zeta$, were found to be dangerous.
The starting point for this argument is the expansion of the correlators in the in-in formalism
\eq{
\langle\hat\zeta^n(\tau)\rangle=\sum_{k=0}^\infty i^k\int_{-\infty}^\tau d\tau_1\ldots\int_{-\infty}^{\tau_{k-1}}d\tau_k\langle[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_k),\ldots [{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1),\hat\zeta^n(\tau)]\ldots]\rangle,
}
where the operators on the right-hand side are in the interaction picture. To evaluate these correlators, one uses the mode functions of the (free) quadratic theory, and incorporates cubic and higher-order interaction terms through ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{4pt.pdf}
\caption{The four-point correlation function gets a contribution from a scalar exchange diagram, corresponding to two insertions of the cubic interaction Hamiltonian. \label{fig:4ptX}}.
\end{figure}
The simplest example of an arguably dangerous contribution to the four-point function is show in Figure \ref{fig:4ptX}. The corresponding contribution to the connected 4-point function is in the in-in formalism given by
\eq{ \label{eq:zeta4pf}
\langle \hat\zeta^4(\tau)\rangle_c\supset -\int_{-\infty}^\tau d\tau_1 \int_{-\infty}^{\tau_1}d\tau_2 \langle[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2),[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1),\hat\zeta^4(\tau)]]\rangle,
}
with cubic interactions ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}\sim \tfrac{1}{\alpha^2} \zeta^3$. The actual interactions involve derivatives of $\zeta$, but these do not affect the exponential scaling or the general argument. Moreover, the important factor of $\alpha^{-2}$ comes from the factor of $\epsilonM_{\mathrm{P}}^2/H^2$ in the cubic vertex. We will explain both these points in more detail in section \ref{sec:npoint}.
The integrand of this contribution to \eqref{eq:zeta4pf} then involves 10 powers of $\hat \zeta$ (three respectively at $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, and four at $\tau$), which should all be appropriately contracted using Wick's theorem. The naive scaling of this diagram is therefore:
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat\zeta^4(\tau)\rangle_c \sim \alpha^{6} e^{10x}
\hspace{80 pt}(\text{naive})
\label{eq:4ptnaive}
\end{equation}
It then follows from \eqref{eq:Pcross} that the ratio \eqref{eq:cond} scales like
\begin{equation}
g_{\rm NL} =\frac{\langle\zeta^4\rangle_c}{\langle \zeta^2\rangle^{3}} \sim e^{4x} \, , \hspace{80 pt}(\text{naive})
\label{eq:gnlnaive}
\end{equation}
which is exponentially large and will even be larger than $P_{\zeta}^{-1}$ for $x\gtrsim5$.
Thus, it would seem that hyperinflation and other rapidly turning models are severely constrained by limits on non-Gaussianity, currently at the level $g_{\rm NL} \lesssim {\cal O}(10^{4}-10^{6})$ \cite{Akrami:2019izv, Meerburg:2019qqi}, and even the requirement of perturbativity. However, as we will now show, such a conclusion would be too quick and, in fact, inaccurate.
The estimates
\eqref{eq:4ptnaive} and \eqref{eq:gnlnaive}
do not account for subtle yet exact cancellations within the relevant correlation functions, and the actual non-Gaussian parameters of these models is merely ${\cal O}(1)$ --- far from observational constraints or tensions with perturbativity.
\section{Perturbativity and $n$-point functions \label{sec:npoint}}
Reference \cite{Fumagalli:2019noh} found that while 4-point and higher-order correlation functions see an exponential amplification of non-Gaussianity due to the growth of the perturbations around horizon crossing, the bispectra of rapid-turn models were consistent with current observational bounds due to interference between exponentially growing and decaying modes. In this section, we show that this is in fact also the case for the trispectra and higher-order correlation functions. The terms which one naively would expect to be dominant instead cancel out, and the dominant terms will be products of exponentially growing and decaying modes, limiting the overall growth. These results are analagous to those for gauge fields axially coupled to the inflaton during inflation \cite{Ferreira:2015omg}.
\subsection{The 4-point correlator}
Before we consider the general $n$-point correlator, we will for simplicitly consider the specific case of the 4-point correlation function, and show that $g_\text{NL}$ is not outside of observational bounds. We will in particular show show why the term in the correlator arising from two insertions of cubic Hamiltonians must be proportional to $e^{6x}$ (instead of $e^{10x}$ as in equation \eqref{eq:4ptnaive}), and gives $g_\text{NL}\sim1$ (instead of $g_{\rm NL} \sim e^{4x}$ as in equation \eqref{eq:gnlnaive}).
The correlator inside the integral in equation \eqref{eq:zeta4pf} can be expanded as
\begin{align*}
\langle[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1),[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2),\hat\zeta^4(\tau)]]\rangle&= \langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)\hat\zeta^4(\tau)\rangle- \langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1)\hat\zeta^4(\tau){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)\rangle\\
&~~~+\langle \hat\zeta^4(\tau){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1)\rangle - \langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)\hat\zeta^4(\tau){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1)\rangle\\
&=2\,\mathrm{Re}\left(\langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)\hat\zeta^4(\tau)\rangle\right)\\
&~~~-2\,\mathrm{Re}\left(\langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1)\hat\zeta^4(\tau){\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)\rangle\right)\nt
\end{align*}
where in the second line we used the fact that the Hamiltonians and observable n-point correlators are Hermitian. Within each of these correlators, we now have Wick contractions turning them into all products of five pairs of $\zeta_1\zeta_2^*$. Writing the generic mode functions from the single-field EFT
as\footnote{We have chosen this form for the mode functions in order to make the argument more transparent. Adding $k$-dependent phases to any of the two terms in this equation does not change the results derived in this work. We have not however considered the possibility that corrections in the form of time-dependent phases could show up in one of the two terms. Although unlikely we cannot exclude that such terms could show up in loop corrections to $\zeta$.} (cf.~equation \eqref{eq:modefuncEFT})
\eq{ \label{zetamodefunction}
\zeta_i(\tau)=f_i(\tau) e^x+ig_i(\tau)e^{-x},
}
we see that the terms proportional to $e^{10x}$ in \textit{both} terms will be
\eq{
e^{10x}\prod_i f_i,
}
and they will hence cancel out after we contract all combinations. Any term proportional to $e^{8x}$ must be imaginary, and hence does not contribute either. Only at $e^{6x}$ do we expect the terms not to cancel out. Another way to see this is to note that a Wick contraction between real mode functions is a symmetric operator. Since the $e^{10x}$ term comes from only the real part of the mode functions, the order of the operators inside the correlator does not matter and the two terms will cancel out.
To make the discussion a bit more precise, the interaction Hamiltonian contains terms of the form \cite{Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh,Garcia-Saenz:2019njm}
\begin{align*}
{\hat{H}_\text{int}}&\sim\int d^3x\frac{a\epsilonM_{\mathrm{P}}^2}{H}\left(\frac1{c_s^2}-1\right) (\partial \hat\zeta)^3\sim\int d^3x\frac{-1}{\tau}\frac{\epsilonM_{\mathrm{P}}^2}{H^2}\left(\frac1{c_s^2}-1\right)(\partial \hat\zeta)^3\\
&\sim\int d^3x\frac{-1}{\tau}\alpha^{-2}\left(\frac1{c_s^2}-1\right)(\partial \hat\zeta)^3.
\end{align*}
The conservation of $\zeta$ on superhorizon scales then implies that the time integrals in equation \eqref{eq:zeta4pf} peak around the horizon crossing time of the modes. The presence of derivatives does affect the argument so we can neglect them. Therefore, the contribution to $\langle \zeta^4\rangle$ from two insertions of this operator then scales as
\eq{ \label{eq:4pfscaling}
\left(\frac1{c_s^2}-1\right)^2\alpha^{6}e^{6x}
}
and it follows that $g_\text{NL}$ will satisfy
\eq{
g_\text{NL}\sim\frac{\langle\zeta^4\rangle}{\langle \zeta^2\rangle^3}\sim\left(\frac1{c_s^2}-1\right)^2 \frac{\alpha^{6}e^{6x}}{\alpha^6e^{6x}}\sim1.
}
At $n=4$, we retain perturbative control as long as
\eq{
g_\text{NL}\lesssim P_\zeta^{-1},
}
which is satisfied with a very good margin for theories with $P_\zeta\sim 10^{-9}$.
As an aside, we note that this apparent suppression is not surprising as it is common in situations where both the initial and the final states have large occupation numbers $N(k)$.
For example, in a 2 to 2 scattering, if the phase space density of each state $i$ (in or out) has $N_i(k_i) \gg 1$ there is a Bose enhancement of the process proportional to
\begin{eqnarray}
N_1(k_1) N_2(k_2)[1+N_3(k_3)][1+N_4(k_4)]-N_3(k_3) N_4(k_4)[1+N_1(k_1)][1+N_2(k_2)] \propto N_i^3. \quad \, \,
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term is associated with the process $1+2 \rightarrow 3+4$ and the second with $ 3+4 \rightarrow 1+2 $. The leading term, proportional to $N_i^4$, is canceled between those two processes. If we then interpret the 4-point function in equation \eqref{eq:zeta4pf} as a 2 to 2 scattering we see that the final $N_i^3$ scaling matches with the result in equation \eqref{eq:4pfscaling} where the phase space density is nothing more than $N_i(k/a\simeq H) \propto |\zeta|^2 \propto e^{2x}$.
\subsection{The general $n$-point correlator}
To show that the same holds for all higher $n$-point correlation functions, we need to take a different approach, as the previous one does not generalise easily to higher orders.
As a starting point, we consider the commutator of some (at least cubic) interaction Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$ with some product of operators $\hat A$:
\eq{
\langle[{\hat{H}_\text{int}},\hat A]\rangle=\langle {\hat{H}_\text{int}} \hat A\rangle-\langle \hat A{\hat{H}_\text{int}}\rangle.
}
If ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$ contains an odd number of operators, at least one of them must be contracted with some operator(s) in $\hat A$. If ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$ contains an even number of operators, the terms with all operators contracted internally will cancel out (see RHS), and hence at least two must be contracted with operators in $\hat A$. Therefore, any surviving terms will have contractions between some of the operators in ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$ and some of those in $\hat A$.
This has important consequences. As we shall see below, this always gives the imaginary part of the products of the mode functions, and we will show that the only non-zero terms from the expectation of nested commutators involve contractions between terms on the LHS and RHS of each commutator. Every time we do this, we will pick up a factor of the imaginary part of the product of some number of mode functions. Since the imaginary parts of the mode functions scale as $\alpha e^{-x}$, this limits the size of the connected $n$-point correlators arising from the cubic scalar exchange vertex.
To see why we get the imaginary part of the product of the mode functions, consider the terms containing contractions of some operators $\hat \zeta_{1a},\hat \zeta_{1b}...$ on the left hand side of the commutator with $\hat \zeta_{2a},\hat \zeta_{2b}...$ on the right hand side. These operators are either the curvature perturbation or various derivatives of it, but have the same annihilation and creation operators. We thus have
\begin{align*}
&\wick{\langle\dots [\dots \c1 {\zeta}_{1a}\dots \c2{\zeta}_{1b}\dots,\dots \c2{\zeta}_{2b}\dots \c1{\zeta}_{2a}\dots]\dots\rangle}\\
&\propto\zeta_{1a}\zeta_{2a}^*\zeta_{1b}\zeta_{2b}^* \ldots - \zeta_{2a}\zeta_{1a}^*\zeta_{2b}\zeta_{1b}^* \ldots = 2i\,\mathrm{Im}\left(\zeta_{1a}\zeta_{2a}^*\zeta_{1b}\zeta_{2b}^*\dots\right),
\end{align*}
which will give us terms where we pick up an odd number of imaginary parts of the mode functions. It is important to note that these contractions do not depend on the relative positions of the operators $\hat \zeta_{2a},\hat \zeta_{2b}...$ on the RHS. It does not matter if commutators inside the RHS shuffle these around or if some other operators inside the commutator are contracted with operators outside of it -- it always gives the same factor. Therefore, terms with Wick contractions across $n$ commutators, whether they are nested or not, are proportional to the product of $n$ factors of imaginary parts of products of mode functions.
The mode functions in the EFT we consider can be written as in equation \eqref{zetamodefunction}.
Hence, the dominant term in $\mathrm{Im}(\zeta_1\dots\zeta_n^*)$ does not scale as $e^{nx}$, as one might naively expect, but instead as
\eq{
\mathrm{Im}(\zeta_1\dots\zeta_n^*)\propto e^{(n-1)x}e^{-x}=e^{(n-2)x}.
}
In fact, every time we have a commutator we will see this relative suppression of the expectation value by $e^{-2x}$ compared to the naively expected one, drastically limiting the size of certain diagrams. The reason for this is that when we have nested commutators all non-zero terms will have contractions across each commutator, giving us factors of imaginary parts of products of mode functions. We will argue why this is the case below.
To proceed, we want to consider a nested commutator with operators $\hat H_1\equiv {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1)$, $\hat H_2\equiv {\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_2)$ and so forth. We begin by looking at the case with two nested commutators:
\eq{
\langle[\hat H_1,[\hat H_2,\hat A]]\rangle.
}
As we saw above, non-zero terms must have contractions of operators in $\hat H_1$ with operators in $[\hat H_2,\hat A]$. Expanding the above, we have
\eq{
\langle[\hat H_1,[\hat H_2,\hat A]]\rangle=\langle \hat H_1[\hat H_2,\hat A]\rangle-\langle[\hat H_2,\hat A]\hat H_1\rangle.
}
The crucial point is that terms in $\langle \hat H_1[\hat H_2,\hat A]\rangle$ or $\langle[\hat H_2,\hat A]\hat H_1\rangle$ with no operators in $\hat H_2$ contracted with any in $\hat A$ must necessarily vanish. To see this, we note that for these terms, operators in $\hat A$ are contracted either internally or with those in $\hat H_1$, and the same goes for $\hat H_2$. Terms with all operators contracted internally within $\hat A$ vanish due to the commutator, hence at least some operators must be contracted with those in $\hat H_1$. But these terms vanish too, because (schematically)
\eq{
\wick{\langle \c1 H_1[H_2, \c1 A]\rangle}=\wick{\langle \c1 H_1H_2 \c1 A\rangle}-\wick{\langle \c1 H_1 \c1 A H_2\rangle}=0,
}
as a consequence of no operators in $\hat A$ being contracted with any in $\hat H_2$. None of the terms above depend on the relative position of $\hat H_2$ and $\hat A$, and so they cancel out exactly. It is therefore only if some operators in $\hat H_2$ are contracted with operators in $\hat A$ that these expressions can be non-zero.
We are now free to replace $\hat A$ with $[\hat H_3,\hat B]$, giving
\begin{align*}
\langle[\hat H_1,[\hat H_2,[\hat H_3,\hat B]]]\rangle&=\langle \hat H_1\hat H_2[\hat H_3,\hat B]\rangle-\langle \hat H_1[\hat H_3,\hat B]\hat H_2\rangle\\
&~~~-\langle \hat H_2[\hat H_3,\hat B]\hat H_1\rangle+\langle [\hat H_3,\hat B]\hat H_2\hat H_1\rangle,\nt
\end{align*}
and again, each term will vanish unless some operators in $\hat H_3$ are contracted with some in $\hat B$. We can repeat this argument indefinitely, and the result can be summarised as: \textit{In evaluating the expectation of $n$ nested commutators, all non-zero terms will include at least one operator on the LHS of each commutator contracted with operators on the RHS.}
Putting it all together, we therefore see that with $n-2$ insertions of a cubic interaction Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}_\text{int}}$, the dominant contribution to the $n$-point correlator therefore scales as
\begin{align*}
\langle[{\hat{H}_\text{int}}(\tau_1),\dots,[{\hat{H}_\text{int}} (\tau_{n-2}),\hat\zeta^n]\dots]\rangle&\propto\alpha^{-2(n-2)} \alpha^{4n-6}e^{(4n-6)x}e^{-2(n-2)x}\\
&\propto\alpha^{2n-2}e^{(2n-2)x}
\end{align*}
instead of the naive $\alpha^{2n-2}e^{(4n-6)x}$. We then find
\eq{
\frac{\langle \zeta^n\rangle}{\langle \zeta^2\rangle^{n-1}}\sim\frac{\alpha^{2n-2}e^{(2n-2)x}}{\alpha^{2n-2}e^{(2n-2)x}} =1,
}
causing no issues with perturbative control.
Do we expect these result hold even when we include loop corrections? Yes, because for every insertion of the cubic interaction Hamiltonian we pick an overall factor of $\alpha e^{x}=P_\zeta^{1/2}\ll1$. The more of these we insert (and we need two for every loop correction), the greater the suppression is (prior to integration). There is therefore a priori no reason to expect that loop corrections will change these results
\section{Linear perturbations in rapid-turn inflation \label{sec:growth}}
To understand the exponential amplification of the curvature perturbation in theories with $\xi<1$ we now look at the quadratic action for the full two-field theory. Here the aim is to compute the mode function of $\zeta$ analytically (neglecting Hubble friction, similarly to references \cite{Achucarro:2012yr,Cespedes:2012hu}) using a WKB approach, and thus compute the growth of the power spectrum in general. It will also provide further evidence for the validity of the EFT. The equations of motion resulting from equation \eqref{eq:quadact} are
\begin{align}
\ddot\zeta+3H\dot\zeta+\frac{k^2}{a^2}\zeta&=\frac{2\omega H}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}(\dot\sigma+3H\sigma)\\
\ddot\sigma+3H\dot\sigma+\frac{k^2}{a^2}\sigma+H^2\omega^2(\xi-1)\sigma^2&=-{2\omega H}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}\dot\zeta,
\end{align}
and the goal of this section is to find and understand their solutions. To make progress we assume that we are in a phase where Hubble friction can be neglected (which given the exponential growth and $\omega \gg 1$ is a fair assumption), and make the ansatz
\eq{
\zeta=\zeta_+e^{i\lambda_+t}+\zeta_-e^{i\lambda_-t},\hspace{1cm} \sigma=\sigma_+e^{i\lambda_+t}+\sigma_-e^{i\lambda_-t}.
}
Both of these frequencies should of course appear twice, with different signs, but for notational convenience we ignore this at the moment. We then find that the frequencies $\lambda_\pm$ are given by
\eq{
\lambda_\pm^2/H^2\equiv \tilde\lambda_\pm^2=\kappa^2+\frac{3+\xi}2\omega^2\pm\frac12\sqrt{16\kappa^2\omega^2+(3+\xi)^2\omega^4},
}
where we have introduced the notation $\kappa\equiv k/aH$. It will shortly be useful for us to work with e-folds as a time coordinate, and when ignoring $\mathcal O(\epsilon)$ corrections we are free to shift it (for each $k$-mode) such that $\kappa=e^{-N}$, meaning that horizon exit happens at $N=0$.
The first thing we note is that for $\xi<1$, $\lambda_-$ becomes imaginary for sufficiently small $\kappa$. This happens at
\eq{
\kappa^2+\frac{3+\xi}2\omega^2=\frac12\sqrt{16\kappa^2\omega^2+(3+\xi)^2\omega^4}\hspace{0.5cm} \Rightarrow\hspace{0.5cm}\kappa=\sqrt{1-\xi}\omega,
}
and therefore from $N=-\ln(\sqrt{1-\xi}\omega)$ e-folds before horizon crossing and onwards, $\lambda_-$ is imaginary. This means that during this phase the mode functions will grow exponentially, which is exactly what one finds numerically. In hyperinflation, $\xi=-1$, and we recover Brown's result that the growth starts at $\ln(\sqrt{2}\omega)$ e-folds before horizon crossing \cite{Brown:2017osf}.
We are now in a position to compute an analytic approximation for the mode functions for $\zeta$ without an EFT. This can be done by integrating $|\tilde\lambda_-|$ from $N=-\ln(\sqrt{1-\xi}\omega)$ to up to some arbitrary $N$ (in effect, we are using the WKB method), and it is more accurate than one might initially expect, since the contributions from Hubble friction are negligible on superhorizon scales. Here we let $\zeta_\pm$ refer to the positive and negative frequency solutions of the low frequency modes, and they can be written as
\eq{
\zeta_\pm\propto\exp\left[\pm \mathcal I(N)\right],
}
where the integral $\mathcal I(N)$ is given by
\eq{
\mathcal I(N)=\int_{-\ln(\sqrt{1-\xi}\omega)}^N\sqrt{-\kappa^2-\frac{3+\xi}2\omega^2 +\frac12\sqrt{16\kappa^2\omega^2+(3+\xi)^2\omega^4}}dN.
}
One can show after tedious algebra (see Appendix \ref{app:growth}) that this integral can be evaluated to
\eq{
\mathcal I(N)=F(b-1)-F(\sqrt{1+16\kappa^2/(3+\xi)^2\omega^2}),
}
where the function $F$ is given by,
\begin{align*}
F(y)&=\frac{2\omega}b\sqrt{(y-1)(b-1-y)}- \omega \arctan\left[\frac{b-2y}{2\sqrt{(y-1)(b-1-y)}}\right]\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}-\omega\sqrt{\frac 2b}\arctan\left[\frac{\sqrt2 (2-3b+2y+by)}{4\sqrt{b(y-1)(b-1-y)}}\right]\nt,
\end{align*}
and we have defined $b=8/(3+\xi)$. While this is not an easy expression to work with, it is accurate. Of particular interest to us is the behaviour of the mode functions in the regime of validity of the EFT, when $\kappa^2/\omega^2$ is small. Here we find that they simplify to
\eq{
\zeta_\pm\propto\exp\left[\pm(2-\sqrt{3+\xi})\frac{\pi\omega}2\mp|c_s|\kappa\right], \label{eq:zetaLateModeFunctions}
}
where $|c_s|=\sqrt{(1-\xi)/(3+\xi)}$, recovering the leading order behaviour of the $\zeta$ mode function in the EFT \cite{Garcia-Saenz:2018vqf,Fumagalli:2019noh}. The result is precisely what one obtains in the EFT if Hubble friction is ignored. Now, however, we can identify the previously unknown quantity $x$:
\eq{
x(\omega,\xi)=\left(2-\sqrt{3+\xi}\right)\frac{\pi\omega}2.
}
With the above expressions, we can also give an analytic expression for the growth of the power spectrum before horizon crossing, denoted by $\gamma^2=\gamma^2(\omega,\xi)=P_\zeta(\omega,\xi)/P_\zeta(0)$. We assume that once we are on superhorizon scales, $\zeta_+$ is dominant, and that $\zeta_+$ and $\zeta_-$ had roughly equal power at $N=-\ln(\sqrt{1-\xi}\omega)$. Then, for consistency also neglecting the Hubble friction for the single-field $\zeta$, we find that the relative growth of the power spectrum is given by
\eq{
\ln(\gamma^2)\approx(2-\sqrt{3+\xi})\pi\omega,\label{eq:Pzetagrowth}
}
which is obtained by letting $\kappa\to0$ in equation \eqref{eq:zetaLateModeFunctions}. In hyperinflation, we then find that $\ln(\gamma)\propto0.920\,\omega$, similar to the numerical result of Mizuno et al. that $\ln(\gamma)\propto0.924\,\omega$ \cite{Mizuno:2017idt}.
The expression for the $\zeta$ mode function we derived here is an approximation, but it is remarkably accurate. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:lngamma}, the formula for the growth of the power spectrum given in equation \eqref{eq:Pzetagrowth} agrees very well with numerics.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.485\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{lngammasqomegaxi0.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}{0.485\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{lngammasqxiomega90.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Comparison between predicted growth and numerically calculated values. The graph on the left has $\xi=0$ fixed and the one on the right has $\omega=90$.\label{fig:lngamma}}.
\end{figure}
Equation \eqref{eq:Pzetagrowth} allows us to determine the maximal turn rate that can be realised in an observationally compatible inflationary model. Sometime after inflation has ended, the universe is reheated to create the conditions for the hot Big Bang cosmology. To ensure the success of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (and the thermalisation of the neutrinos), reheating must happen at $T_{\rm reheat} > T_{\rm min} \approx4$ MeV. Enforcing (very conservatively) that the Hubble parameter at horizon crossing, $H_*$, is larger than the minimal value $H_{\rm min}$, that $\epsilon_*<1$, and that $P_{\zeta}$ has the correct amplitude then gives
\begin{equation}
\ln \gamma^2 \lesssim \ln \left(8\pi^2 P_\text{obs} \left( \frac{M_{\rm Pl}}{T_{\rm min}}\right)^4 \right) \approx 176 \, .
\end{equation}
This bound then constrains $\omega$ and $\xi$ through equation \eqref{eq:Pzetagrowth}. For example, in hyperinflation with $\xi=-1$ the turn rate is bounded by $\omega \lesssim 96$.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have further developed the perturbation theory of rapid-turn inflation, which is particularly motivated by models with negatively curved field spaces. In this class of theories, the curvature perturbation undergoes a transient, exponential amplification before horizon crossing. It has previously been argued, using a single-field EFT, that this amplification also leads to a severe amplification of non-Gaussianity in the trispectrum and higher-order correlation functions. However, as we have shown in this paper, due to the nested structure of the commutators in the in-in formalism correlation functions, the (naive) leading-order terms cancel out exactly, and the remaining non-Gaussianities are mild, in no tension with current observational bounds. These results are similar to the case where gauge fields are exponentially enhanced during inflation \cite{Ferreira:2015omg}.
We have also provided an analytic expression for the scalar curvature perturbation in the full two-field theory, which we found to be in good agreement with the one derived in the single-field EFT with an imaginary speed of sound. This accurate approximation allowed us to find an analytic expression for the total growth of the power spectrum during the transient instability, which closely matches numerical results.
Our results vindicate rapid-turn inflation in hyperbolic field spaces as a viable model for the early universe, and
confirm the applicability of
the single-field EFT with an imaginary speed of sound as a valid and accurate description of the primordial perturbations.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Anne-Christine Davis for stimulating discussions, and we are very grateful to Sebastien Renaux-Petel for encouraging discussions and comments on a draft of this paper.
T.B. is funded by an STFC studentship at DAMTP, University of Cambridge, and is grateful to the organisers of
the `Inflation and Geometry' workshop in June 2019 at the IAP for their kind hospitality.
D.M. acknowledges support from the Swedish Science Agency grant 2018-03641 and from European Research Council Grant 742104.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The Chapman-Enskog transport theory \cite{chapman} correctly predicts the self-diffusivity of a general system of interacting particles at small concentration; it reduces to the Boltzmann theory for dilute gases when particles are hard spheres. It gives the connection between a microscopic description, based on position and velocity of particles, to the continuous macroscopic description of hydrodynamic equations. Several theories were proposed to extend the description to moderate and large concentrations, such as free volume \cite{dymond,hildebrand,batschinski,doolittle,cohen2,turnbull,macedo} or excess entropy theories \cite{rosenfeld,rosenfeld2}. They were successfully applied to fluid models and real substances for the description of transport properties, usually requiring around 2--4 adjustable parameters. Accurate mathematical representations of self-diffusivity for hard spheres are in general obtained from interpolation of molecular dynamics results (see Sect.\ 9.4 in \cite{silva} for a review).
According to the Green-Kubo formula, the self-diffusion coefficient is the time integral of the velocity autocorrelation. Before the first molecular dynamics simulations were carried out, it was assumed that the velocity autocorrelation decays exponentially, as predicted by the Langevin theory for Brownian motion. Fifty years ago, Alder and Wainwright \cite{alder2,alder3} found an unexpected behavior of the velocity autocorrelation for intermediate fluid densities: a slow power law, known as long time tail, instead of an exponential time decay, with an exponent $-1$ for hard disks and $-3/2$ for hard spheres. The physical origin is the following: a particle moving through the fluid generates vortices that, after some time, transmit momentum to the particle in the same direction of the original velocity. The particle partially recovers the momentum transferred to the nearby fluid; this is a memory effect that enhances self-diffusivity.
Let us consider a system of hard spheres divided in cells of size $a$, with $a$ much larger than the mean free path, so that there are many particles in each cell even when the concentration goes to zero. Cells are in local thermal equilibrium. The purpose of the present paper is to face the problem of self-diffusion using a description in terms of transition rates between cells. The most simple and successful method to obtain transition rates is the activated state or transition state theory (TST), originally proposed by Eyring \cite{eyring} for chemical reactions, see also \cite{hanggi} and \cite[p.\ 248]{lowry}. It is applied to diffusion in solids \cite{paul2} and on surfaces \cite{ala,voter}, and is the basis of free volume theories, see \cite{macedo} and \cite[Sect.\ 9.3.4]{silva}. In its simplest form, the rate $W_{A,B}$ of transition from state $A$ to state $B$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eyring}
W_{A,B} = \nu\, \frac{\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger}{\mathcal{Z}_A}
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the frequency of jump attempts, $\mathcal{Z}_A$ is the partition function of state $A$, and $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger$ is the partition function of the transition state, a state that has to be traversed to get from $A$ to $B$ (transition state theory usually overestimates rates, here it is assumed that any correction factor is included in $\nu$).
When applying these ideas to a fluid (in local equilibrium), state $A$ refers to two neighboring cells, with labels 1 and 2, that have $n_1$ and $n_2$ particles respectively. State $A$ undergoes a transition to state $B$, in which cells 1 and 2 have $n_1-1$ and $n_2+1$ particles. If the transition rate is known, self-diffusivity is immediately obtained.
Several arguments are presented below to derive an expression for $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger/\mathcal{Z}_A$, including detailed balance and the Widom insertion method. Two approximations are used for the jump frequency $\nu$, one that holds for small and intermediate concentrations and the other for large concentration, where velocity autocorrelation has to be taken into account. Theoretical results are compared with the most recent and accurate numerical simulations performed by Pieprzyk \textit{et al.} \cite{pieprzyk2}.
The approach sketched in this introduction is based on previous work on diffusion in solid binary mixtures \cite{mdp,dipietro2,dipietro3}. The method reproduces the Darken equation, a relationship between intrinsic and tracer diffusion coefficients, and was able to reproduce, using a formula with three free parameters, experimental results of the intrinsic diffusivity of different binary mixtures \cite{dipietro3}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.\ \ref{sec:partfunc}, the form of the partition function is analyzed. In Sect.\ \ref{sec:transprob}, using detailed balance, a general form of transition rates between neighboring cells (in local thermal equilibrium) is presented; from them, an expression for the self-diffusivity is derived. In Sect.\ \ref{sec:confenergy}, it is shown that the transition rate, and the self-diffusivity, behaves as the inverse of the thermodynamic factor. Some calculations are written in appendices in order to present a clearer picture of the main lines of reasoning. In Sect.\ \ref{sec:jump}, two approximations for the jump frequency $\nu$ are proposed, one for small concentration, the other for large concentration. In Sect.\ \ref{sec:results}, theoretical results are compared with numerical simulations. Summary and conclusions are presented in Sect.\ \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Partition function}
\label{sec:partfunc}
The usual assumptions of hydrodynamics are applied: a system of particles is divided into cells large enough to contain many particles and much smaller than the characteristic length of spatial variations of state variables. In a continuous description, the cell can be considered point-like. Spatial and temporal variations are smooth, hence local thermal equilibrium holds. A cell, identified by index $i$, has $n_i$ particles, and volume $V=a^3$, with $a$ the cell size.
The canonical partition function of $n$ particles in a cell of volume $V$ at temperature $T$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Z}
\mathcal{Z}_n = \mathcal{Z}_0 \, \langle e^{-\beta \mathcal{U}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)} \rangle^0
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)$ is the interaction energy of $n$ particles at positions $\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n$ in the cell; see, e.g., \cite[Sect.\ 5.1]{kardar}. The average $\langle \ \rangle^0$ is computed with the probability distribution of non-interacting particles; $\mathcal{Z}_0$ is the partition function of the ideal gas, given by $V^n/(\lambda^{3n} n!)$. The interaction energy at the walls of the cell is neglected respect to the bulk.
State $A$ is composed by two cells with $n_1$ and $n_2$ particles. Neglecting interactions at the contact wall, the partition function is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ZA}
\mathcal{Z}_A = \mathcal{Z}_{n_1} \mathcal{Z}_{n_2}
\end{equation}
In the transient state between $A$ and $B=\{n_1-1,n_2+1\}$, there is one particle halfway in its journey from cell 1 to cell 2. In this intermediate state the traveling particle does not interact with particles in cell 1 nor with those in cell 2; we can approximately extract its influence on the partition function if we divide by its average contribution:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Zdd0}
\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger =\frac{ \mathcal{Z}^\ddagger_{n_1} \mathcal{Z}^\ddagger_{n_2}}{\langle e^{-\beta u_1}\rangle^0},
\end{equation}
where $u_1$ is the energy of the particle.
The hard sphere potential between two particles of diameter $\sigma$ at distance $r$ is
\begin{equation}
u(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \text{if } r \geq \sigma \\
\infty & \text{if } r<\sigma
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
Let us call $V_\sigma = \pi \sigma^3 4/3$ the volume of the sphere of influence around the particle that is moving from cell 1 to cell 2. Then
\begin{equation}
u_1 = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
0 & \text{if no particle in $V_\sigma$} \\
\infty & \text{if one or more particles in $V_\sigma$}
\end{array} \right..
\end{equation}
The average $\langle e^{-\beta u_1}\rangle^0$ is equal to the probability of not having a particle in the sphere of influence. We have to consider that particles are homogeneously distributed with density $\rho_{12} = (n_1+n_2)/(2V)$. The probability of not having particles in $V_\sigma$ is equal to the product of probabilities of not having particles in each small piece of volume $\delta V_\sigma$ that composes $V_\sigma$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:nopart}
\langle e^{-\beta u_1}\rangle^0 &= (1 - \rho_{12}\, \delta V_\sigma)^{V_\sigma/\delta V_\sigma} = e^{-\rho_{12} V_\sigma} \nonumber \\
&= e^{-8\xi_{12}}
\end{align}
where $\xi_{12} = \rho_{12} \sigma^3\pi/6$ is the packing fraction. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Zdd}
\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger = e^{8\xi_{12}} \mathcal{Z}^\ddagger_{n_1} \mathcal{Z}^\ddagger_{n_2}.
\end{equation}
\section{Transition rates}
\label{sec:transprob}
The chemical potential per particle is
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n_i} = \mu_{\text{id},n_i} + \mu_{\text{ex},n_i},
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{\text{ex},n_i}$ is the excess chemical potential and
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\text{id},n_i} = \mu^\circ + \beta^{-1} \ln n_i
\end{equation}
is the chemical potential of the ideal system; for particles in a box of volume $V$, $\mu^\circ=\beta^{-1} \ln (\lambda^3/V)$, where $\lambda$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength \cite[p.\ 115]{kardar}.
Let us consider the two neighbor cells, numbers 1 and 2, in equilibrium, and possible jump processes between them in a short time interval. The initial state is $A=\{n_1,n_2\}$. If a particle jumps from 1 to 2, the final state is $B=\{n_1-1,n_2+1\}$; and if the jump is in the opposite direction, from 2 to 1, the final state is $\bar{B}=\{n_1+1,n_2-1\}$. The transition rate from $A$ to $B$ is $W_{A,B}$. The following conditions (equal chemical potential and detailed balance) are satisfied:
\begin{align}
\mu_{n_1} &= \mu_{n_2}, \nonumber \\
n_1 W_{A,B} &= n_2 W_{A,\bar{B}}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Combining both equations, we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{W_{A,B}}{W_{A,\bar{B}}}=e^{-\beta (\mu_{\text{ex},n_2}-\mu_{\text{ex},n_1})}.
\label{transprel}
\end{equation}
In this derivation, the equilibrium condition implies that $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the equilibrium average number of particles. Nevertheless, the validity of \eqref{transprel} for $n_1$ and $n_2$ out of equilibrium was proposed by Derrida \cite{derrida} as a ``straightforward generalization''. This generalization is used here; although the system \textit{is} in equilibrium, it is assumed that $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the number of particles (not the average) of a given realization, that include fluctuations. This information is, of course, not enough to determine $W_{A,B}$. From the transition state theory we have $W_{A,B}/W_{A,\bar{B}} = \mathcal{Z}_\ddagger/\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_\ddagger$, then
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger}{\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_\ddagger}=e^{-\beta (\mu_{\text{ex},n_2}-\mu_{\text{ex},n_1})}.
\label{eq:zzz}
\end{equation}
The function $\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_\ddagger$ is obtained from $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger$ by exchanging the number of particles in the two cells:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zbar}
\bar{\mathcal{Z}}_\ddagger = \underset{n_1 \longleftrightarrow n_2}{\text{Exchange }} \mathcal{Z}_\ddagger.
\end{equation}
As mentioned in the previous section, each partition function can be written as the product of two partition functions corresponding to cell 1 and cell 2, that are functions of $n_1$ and $n_2$ respectively; see Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:ZA} and \eqref{eq:Zdd}.
Let us notice that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zff}
\frac{\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger}{\mathcal{Z}_A} = e^{8\xi_{12}} e^{-\beta (\mu_{\text{ex},n_2}-\mu_{\text{ex},n_1})/2}\, e^{-\beta \psi_{n_1}/2}\, e^{-\beta \psi_{n_2}/2}
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{n_i}$ is an unknown function of $n_i$, satisfies this condition, and Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:zzz} and \eqref{eq:zbar}; the exponential form of the functions $e^{-\beta \psi_{n_1}/2}$ and $e^{-\beta \psi_{n_2}/2}$ was chosen for later convenience.
Then, the transition rate is
\begin{equation}\label{transpr}
W_{A,B} = \nu\,e^{8\xi_{12}}\, \exp[-\beta(\psi_{n_1} + \psi_{n_2} + \mu_{\text{ex},n_2} - \mu_{\text{ex},n_1})/2],
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{n_i}$ and $\nu$ represent the still unknown information. See note \cite{nota} for connections of this expression with previous works.
The mean square displacement along the $x$ axis after a short time interval $\Delta t$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:msd}
\langle\Delta x^2\rangle = 2 D\, \Delta t.
\end{equation}
The same expression holds for the mean square displacement in other orthogonal directions due to isotropy. In order to calculate $\langle\Delta x^2\rangle$, let us consider the configuration average of the transition rates for a jump to the right (+) or to the left ($-$), $W_\pm$, from a generic cell. We can assume that the system is homogeneous, all cells have the same average number of particles $\bar{n}$, and fluctuations are small, so that, taking the average of \eqref{transpr}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:wpm}
W_\pm = \nu\,e^{8\xi} e^{-\beta \psi}.
\end{equation}
In the present notation, $\psi_{n_i}$ is evaluated at the number of particles $n_i$ of a given configuration, while $\psi$, without subindex, is evaluated at the average number of particles $\bar{n}$ or, equivalently, at density $\rho = \bar{n}/V$. The packing fraction is $\xi = \rho \sigma^3\pi/6$. Then, the mean square displacement after time $\Delta t$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:msd2}
\langle\Delta x^2\rangle = a^2 W_+ \,\Delta t + a^2 W_- \,\Delta t = a^2 \nu\,e^{8\xi} e^{-\beta \psi} 2\,\Delta t,
\end{equation}
and the self-diffusivity is
\begin{equation}\label{Dself}
D= a^2 \nu\,e^{8\xi} e^{-\beta \psi}
\end{equation}
with $\nu$ and $\psi$ functions of the particle density $\rho$.
The limit of small concentration, $\rho \sigma^3 \rightarrow 0$, with $\sigma$ the particle diameter, means that the average volume per particle, $1/\rho$, is much larger than the particle volume. If interactions can be neglected, then $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger=\mathcal{Z}_A=\mathcal{Z}_0$, where $\mathcal{Z}_0$ is the partition function of the ideal gas. In this limit we have that $D \rightarrow D_0$, $\nu \rightarrow \nu_0=D_0/a^2$, and $\psi\rightarrow 0$. The self-diffusivity of the dilute gas, $D_0$, is given by (see, e.g., \cite{williams,mcquarrie})
\begin{equation}
D_0 = \frac{3}{8\rho\sigma^2}\sqrt{\frac{k_B T}{\pi m}},
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the particle mass. The self-diffusivity can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DD0}
\frac{D}{D_0} = \frac{\nu}{\nu_0} e^{8\xi} e^{-\beta \psi}.
\end{equation}
The problem now is to obtain $\psi$ and the ratio $\nu/\nu_0$.
\section{The factor $e^{-\beta \psi}$}
\label{sec:confenergy}
Let us consider a cell of volume $V$ at local thermal equilibrium, with temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$. Assuming that interactions at the cell walls can be neglected respect to the bulk, the grand partition function is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Q}
\mathcal{Q}(\mu,T,V) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{\beta \mu n} \mathcal{Z}(n,T,V).
\end{equation}
It is useful to define the configuration energy $\phi_n$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:confen}
e^{-\beta \phi_n} = \langle e^{-\beta \mathcal{U}(\mathbf{q}_1,\dots,\mathbf{q}_n)} \rangle^0 = \frac{\mathcal{Z}}{\mathcal{Z}_0}.
\end{equation}
In the thermodynamic limit we have that $\mathcal{Z} \stackrel{TL}{=} e^{-\beta F}$, with $F$ the free energy; symbol ``$\stackrel{TL}{=}$'' means that the equality holds in the thermodynamic limit. Therefore, $\phi \stackrel{TL}{=} F_\text{ex}$, with $F_\text{ex}$ the excess free energy. But it is important not to take the thermodynamic limit yet in order to keep non extensive fluctuations that are relevant for the description of transport processes, even when the mean number of particles $\bar{n}$, and $V$, can be chosen large (even, also, for small concentration).
Now, neglecting interaction energy at the contact wall, the partition function of state $A=\{n_1,n_2\}$ is $\mathcal{Z}_A = \mathcal{Z}_{n_1}\mathcal{Z}_{n_2}$, and similarly for state $B$. The transition state is the same for $W_{A,B}$ or $W_{B,A}$. Then, using \eqref{eq:eyring}, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:ww}
\frac{W_{A,B}}{W_{B,A}} &= \frac{\mathcal{Z}_B}{\mathcal{Z}_A}= \frac{\mathcal{Z}_{n_1-1}\mathcal{Z}_{n_2+1}}{\mathcal{Z}_{n_1}\mathcal{Z}_{n_2}} \nonumber \\
&= \exp[-\beta(\phi_{n_1-1}+\phi_{n_2+1}-\phi_{n_1}-\phi_{n_2})],
\end{align}
and, using Eq.\ \eqref{transpr}, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:ww2}
\frac{W_{A,B}}{W_{B,A}} =& \exp[-\beta(\psi_{n_1} + \psi_{n_2} + \mu_{\text{ex},n_2} - \mu_{\text{ex},n_1})/2 \nonumber \\
& + \beta(\psi_{n_1-1} + \psi_{n_2+1} + \mu_{\text{ex},n_2+1} - \mu_{\text{ex},n_1-1})/2]
\end{align}
Combining Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:ww} and \eqref{eq:ww2}, we have
\begin{align}
&\phi_{n_2+1} - \phi_{n_2} - \frac{\mu_{\text{ex},n_2+1}+\mu_{\text{ex},n_2}}{2} + \frac{\psi_{n_2+1} - \psi_{n_2}}{2} \nonumber \\
&= \phi_{n_1} - \phi_{n_1-1} - \frac{\mu_{\text{ex},n_1}+\mu_{\text{ex},n_1-1}}{2} + \frac{\psi_{n_1} - \psi_{n_1-1}}{2}.
\end{align}
The next step is to adopt the continuous description: $\phi$, $\mu_\text{ex}$ and $\psi$ are expanded around $\bar{n}$ (both cells have the same mean number of particles), average on different realizations is taken and terms of order $V^{-2}$ or smaller are neglected. We get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phipsi}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{n}}\left(\phi'- \mu_\text{ex} + \psi'/2 \right)=0.
\end{equation}
As usual in thermodynamics, $\phi_n$ is taken as a continuous function of $n$. The following notation is used to indicate derivatives with respect to the number of particles: $\phi' = \left.\frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial n}\right|_{n=\bar{n}}$. Whenever $\phi$ or its derivatives are written without subindex, it is assumed that they are evaluated at $\bar{n}$.
It is necessary to obtain an equation for $\phi'- \mu_\text{ex}$ in order to solve $\psi$. We can use the Widom insertion method \cite{widom} for this purpose:
\begin{equation}
e^{-\beta \mu_\text{ex}} = \langle e^{-\beta \,\Delta \phi_n} \rangle,
\label{eq:expexp}
\end{equation}
where the difference $\Delta \phi_n = \phi_{n+1}-\phi_n$ is the insertion energy, i.e., the interaction energy needed to insert one more particle in a configuration of $n$ particles. This equation can be considered as a special case of the Jarzynski equality \cite{jarzynski}, see \cite[p.\ 219]{karger}; see also Appendix A for a simple derivation.
Eq.\ \eqref{eq:expexp} in the thermodynamic limit implies that $\phi' \stackrel{TL}{=} \mu_\text{ex}$, a result that, of course, is consistent with $\phi \stackrel{TL}{=} F_\text{ex}$.
Using an expansion in volume $V$, and neglecting terms of order $\mathcal{O}(V^{-2})$, the following result can be derived from \eqref{eq:expexp}, see Appendix B:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phip-mur}
\phi'- \mu_\text{ex} = -\frac{1}{2\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{n}} \ln\Gamma.
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma=1+\beta\bar{n} \mu_\text{ex}'$ is the thermodynamic factor. Note the orders of magnitude: $\phi$ is $\mathcal{O}(V)$, $\phi'$ and $\mu_\text{ex}$ are $\mathcal{O}(V^0)$, and the difference $\phi'- \mu_\text{ex}$ is $\mathcal{O}(V^{-1})$.
Now, replacing \eqref{eq:phip-mur} in \eqref{eq:phipsi}, and integrating twice on $\bar{n}$, we have
\begin{equation}
-\frac{1}{\beta}\ln\Gamma + \psi = \kappa_1\rho + \kappa_2,
\end{equation}
In the absence of interactions, we have that $\Gamma=1$ and $\psi=0$, then the integration constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ are zero. The result is
\begin{equation}
e^{-\beta \psi} = \Gamma^{-1}.
\label{eq:psi}
\end{equation}
Using this result in \eqref{eq:zff}, we have that $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger/\mathcal{Z}_A$ evaluated at $n_1$ and $n_2$ equal to $\bar{n}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:avzz}
\left.\frac{\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger}{\mathcal{Z}_A}\right|_{n_1,n_2 = \bar{n}} = \frac{e^{8\xi}}{\Gamma}.
\end{equation}
Half of the problem posed by Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD0} is solved. The other half is to find $\nu/\nu_0$ and, in this case, we have to resort to heuristic arguments.
\section{The jump frequency ratio $\nu/\nu_0$}
\label{sec:jump}
The first approximation for the jump frequency is the fundamental idea of free volume theories: the jump frequency is proportional to the free volume $V_f$ (or geometric free volume, see \cite[p.\ 406]{silva}). In the limit of small concentration, the free volume in a cell is equal to its total volume $V$, so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:freev}
\frac{\nu}{\nu_0} = \frac{V_f}{V} \qquad \text{(1st approx.)}
\end{equation}
The free volume is $V_f = V - V_i$, where $V_i$ is the intrinsic volume, proportional to the number of particles in the cell, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:freevol}
\frac{\nu}{\nu_0} = 1-\frac{V_i}{V} = 1-\frac{\xi}{\xi_\text{rcp}}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_\text{rcp}$ is a constant corresponding to the packing fraction at which the system is jammed; this concentration is taken equal to that of the random close packing, $\xi_\text{rcp}\simeq 0.644$ \cite{rintoul}, a state at which the mean nearest neighbor distance is $\sigma$ \cite{berryman,torquato}; see also \cite{torquato2} for a more precise definition of this quantity, where the concept of maximally random jammed state is used.
Then, using \eqref{eq:psi} and \eqref{eq:freevol} in \eqref{eq:DD0}, the first approximation for the self-diffusivity is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DD01st}
\frac{D^{(1)}}{D_0} = \left(1-\frac{\xi}{\xi_\text{rcp}}\right) \frac{e^{8\xi}}{\Gamma}.
\end{equation}
As shown in the next section, this approximation works for small and intermediate concentrations. For large concentrations, numerical results show that self-diffusivity goes to zero for $\xi_\text{max} \simeq 0.55$, a value smaller than $\xi_\text{rcp}$.
In a second approximation, valid for large concentration, we consider that the main factor that limits the jump frequency is not the free volume but the velocity autocorrelation. The velocity autocorrelation gives an idea of the number of obstacles that a particle finds when moving form one cell to the other. It starts with velocity $v_0$ at time zero, and has velocity $v_t$ at time $t$; its capacity of keeping its initial velocity, given by the autocorrelation $\langle v_0 v_t \rangle$, is directly related with the jump frequency. Let us suppose that particles keep their velocity and the correlation is large; then $\nu a$ should behave as the mean velocity: $\nu a \sim \langle v^2 \rangle^{1/2}$; in order to keep this behavior, it is proposed
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nuauto}
\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}=\left( \frac{\langle v_0 v_t \rangle}{\langle v_0 v_t \rangle_0}\right)^{1/2} \qquad \text{(2nd approx.)}
\end{equation}
The autocorrelation (for $t$ larger than approximately 10 times the mean free time) is given by \cite{beijeren,dorfman,cohen,hollander}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:autoc}
\langle v_0 v_t \rangle = \frac{\rho_m^{1/2} t^{-3/2}}{12 \beta [\pi(D\rho_m+\eta)]^{3/2}}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is the viscosity and $\rho_m=\rho\, m$ is the mass density. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nu2nd}
\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}=\left( \frac{D_0 \rho_m + \eta_0}{D \rho_m + \eta} \right)^{3/4}= \left( \frac{11/6}{D/D_0 + \eta/D_0\rho_m} \right)^{3/4}
\end{equation}
where the relationship $\eta_0/D_0\rho_m=5/6$ was used \cite{mcquarrie}. Then, the second approximation for the self-diffusivity is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DD02nd}
\frac{D^{(2)}}{D_0} = \left( \frac{11/6}{D^{(2)}/D_0 + \eta/D_0\rho_m} \right)^{3/4} \frac{e^{8\xi}}{\Gamma}.
\end{equation}
This result is more complicated than \eqref{eq:DD01st} for two reasons. It is an implicit equation ($D^{(2)}$ appears in the right hand side) and it depends on the viscosity $\eta$.
\section{Comparison with numerical results}
\label{sec:results}
In order to evaluate \eqref{eq:DD01st} or \eqref{eq:DD02nd}, the thermodynamic factor $\Gamma$ is needed. This information is obtained from the equation of state (EOS), usually written as a function of $\xi$ for the compressibility factor $Z = \beta p/\rho$, where $p$ is the pressure. Using standard thermodynamic relations, it can be shown that the thermodynamic factor is given by (see Appendix C)
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = Z + \rho \frac{\partial Z}{\partial \rho}. \label{eq:GvsZ}
\end{equation}
There are several equations of state that have been proposed for a system of hard spheres of mass $m$ in $d=3$, see \cite{mulero1}, with generally small differences among them. One of the most frequently used, due to its simplicity and accuracy, is the EOS of Carnahan and Starling \cite{carnahan}:
\begin{equation}
Z = \frac{1+\xi+\xi^2-\xi^3}{(1-\xi)^3}.
\end{equation}
This EOS is appropriate to describe the fluid phase of hard spheres up to a packing fraction equal to $0.55$. The thermodynamic factor is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = \frac{1 + 4 \xi + 4 \xi^2 - 4 \xi^3 + \xi^4}{(1 - \xi)^4}.
\end{equation}
The kinetic transport theory developed by Enskog \cite{enskog} for a dense hard sphere system predicts the following value for the self-diffusion coefficient
\begin{equation}
D_E = D_0/g(\sigma),
\end{equation}
where $g(\sigma)=(1-\xi/2)/(1-\xi)^3$ is the radial distribution function at contact.
Numerical simulations show deviations from Enskong theory. Such deviations are frequently presented in plots of $D/D_E$ versus concentration. Since the seminal works of Alder \textit{et al.} \cite{alder0,alder}, many authors have carried out simulations of this fundamental system in order to obtain the self-diffusivity \cite{easteal1,easteal2,woodcock,speedy,erpenbeck,heyes4,sigurgeirsson}. Different interpolation curves \cite{speedy,erpenbeck,rucken,liu} have been proposed to analytically represent the data with a number of adjustable parameters that ranges from 2 to 4; see \cite{silva} for a review. The recent numerical results of Pieprzyk \textit{et al.} \cite{pieprzyk2}, that include self-diffusion and viscosity, are used here to compare with Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:DD01st} and \eqref{eq:DD02nd}.
As shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:hs}, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD01st} matches numerical results for small and intermediate concentration ($\xi \lesssim 0.28$), while Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD02nd} correctly represents values of self-diffusivity for large concentration ($\xi \gtrsim 0.38$).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DDEhs.pdf}
\caption{Self-diffusivity $D$ relative to $D_E$ against packing fraction $\xi$ for the hard sphere system. The blue curve is $D^{(1)}/D_E$, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD01st}; the green curve is $D^{(2)}/D_E$, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD02nd}. Dots correspond to numerical simulations carried out by Pieprzyk \textit{et al.} \cite{pieprzyk2}; values of viscosity needed for Eq.\ \eqref{eq:DD02nd} were taken from the same reference.}
\label{fig:hs}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
The purpose ot this paper is to describe self-diffusivity in a dense fluid of hard spheres. The system is divided into cells in local equilibrium (the standard procedure of classical irreversible thermodynamics). Particle jump rate between neighboring cells is described with transition rate theory. The transition rate is proportional to the ratio between partition functions in the transition state and the initial state, $\mathcal{Z}_\ddagger/\mathcal{Z}_A$. It is shown that this ratio is equal to $e^{8\xi}/\Gamma$, with $\xi$ the packing fraction and $\Gamma$ the thermodynamic factor; see Eq.\ \eqref{eq:avzz}. A limitation of the method is that the result holds as long as there is not a gas-liquid phase transition, since $\Gamma$ vanishes in that case, and the expansion in terms of the particle fluctuations used in Appendix B is no longer valid. In the present form, the method can not be applied to, for example, the Lennard-Jones potential.
Then, using two simple approximations for the frequency of jump attempts, $\nu$, two expressions for the self-diffusivity are obtained, Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:DD01st} and \eqref{eq:DD02nd}; these expressions match numerical results obtained by other authors \cite{pieprzyk2} for two different regions: $\xi \lesssim 0.28$ and $\xi \gtrsim 0.38$ respectively. These results support the possibility of applying transition rate theory to diffusion in a fluid.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The author acknowledges discussions with H. M\'artin and M. Di Pietro Martínez that were useful for the development of these ideas. This work was partially supported by Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient\'ificas y T\'ecnicas (CONICET, Argentina, PIP 112 201501 00021 CO).
\end{acknowledgments}
\section*{Appendix A}
A simple derivation of the Widom insertion method, Eq.\ \eqref{eq:expexp}, is presented in this appendix.
Using Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:Q} and \eqref{eq:confen}, the grand partition function can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Q} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} e^{\beta \mu n} \, e^{-\beta(\phi_n +\mu^\circ n)},
\label{granZ}
\end{equation}
with $\mu^\circ = k_B T \ln(\lambda^3/V)$.
The complexity of all possible microscopic states in position and velocity space is summed up in the configuration energy $\phi_n$, a function of $n$, $V$ and $T$. First, let us notice that $\mathcal{Q}$ reproduces the behavior of the ideal system when interactions are neglected ($\phi_n=0$). In this case, from $\mathcal{Q}$ we obtain the following result for the mean number of particles:
\begin{equation}
\bar{n} = e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)} \qquad \text{(ideal case)}
\end{equation}
or $\mu = \mu^\circ+\beta^{-1}\ln \bar{n}$, i.e., the expression for the ideal chemical potential.
In the general case we have to include the residual part,
\begin{equation}
\bar{n} = e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)}\, e^{-\beta \mu_\text{ex}},
\label{eq:barnmu}
\end{equation}
and, from the grand partition function,
\begin{align}
\bar{n} &=
\frac{1}{\mathcal{Q}} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{n}{n!} e^{-\beta(\phi_n + \mu^\circ n - \mu n)} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)}}{\mathcal{Q}} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(n-1)!} e^{-\beta[\phi_n + \mu^\circ (n-1) -\mu (n-1)]} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)}}{\mathcal{Q}} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!} e^{-\beta(\phi_{m+1} + \mu^\circ m - \mu m)} \nonumber \\
&= \frac{e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)}}{\mathcal{Q}} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!} e^{-\beta(\phi_{m+1}-\phi_m)} e^{-\beta(\phi_m + \mu^\circ m - \mu m)} \nonumber \\
&= e^{\beta (\mu-\mu^\circ)} \langle e^{-\beta(\phi_{n+1}-\phi_n)} \rangle,
\label{eq:nmed1}
\end{align}
where the summation index was changed in the third line: $m=n-1$. Then, from the last two equations we have the Widom insertion method
\begin{equation}
e^{-\beta \mu_\text{ex}} = \langle e^{-\beta \,\Delta \phi_n} \rangle, \nonumber
\end{equation}
with $\Delta \phi_n = \phi_{n+1}-\phi_n$.
\section*{Appendix B}
A derivation of Eq.\ \eqref{eq:phip-mur} is provided in this appendix. The starting point is Eq.\ \eqref{eq:expexp}, the Widom insertion method: $e^{-\beta \mu_\text{ex}} = \langle e^{-\beta \,\Delta \phi_n} \rangle$. We need an approximation for the average in the right hand side.
We know that $\phi \stackrel{TL}{=} F_\text{ex}$ and $\phi' \stackrel{TL}{=} \mu_\text{ex}$.
In general, for a cell of volume $V$, we can write
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \phi'- \mu_\text{ex},
\label{eq:phip}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a correction that vanishes in the thermodynamic limit; the purpose of the rest of this appendix is to evaluate $\epsilon$ keeping terms up to order $\mathcal{O}(V^{-1})$.
Let us call $f(n)=e^{-\beta \,\Delta \phi_n}$. The number of particles $n$ is a stochastic variable with a narrow probability distribution around $\bar{n}$. We approximate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fexp}
\langle f(n)\rangle = f(\bar{n}) + \frac{f''(\bar{n})}{2} \langle \Delta n^2\rangle + \mathcal{O}(V^{-2})
\end{equation}
where $\Delta n = n-\bar{n}$ and $\langle \Delta n\rangle =0$. This expansion holds as long as there is no phase transition, since in that case the average squared fluctuations of particle number diverges. There is a relationship between fluctuations and thermodynamic factor, defined as $\Gamma = \beta\bar{n} \frac{\partial\mu}{\partial\bar{n}}=1+\beta \bar{n} \mu_\text{ex}'$; it is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dngamma}
\langle \Delta n^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{\beta^2} \frac{\partial^2 \ln \mathcal{Q}}{\partial\mu^2} = \frac{1}{\beta} \dpar{\bar{n}}{\mu}=\bar{n}/\Gamma.
\end{equation}
Using that $\Delta \phi_n = \phi_n' + \phi_n''/2 + \cdots$, and that $\phi_n'\sim \mathcal{O}(V^0)$, $\phi_n''\sim \mathcal{O}(V^{-1})$, etc., we have
\begin{align}
f(\bar{n}) &= e^{-\beta \phi'}(1-\beta \phi''/2) + \mathcal{O}(V^{-2}) \\
f''(\bar{n}) &= e^{-\beta \phi'} \beta(\beta \phi''^2 - \phi''') + \mathcal{O}(V^{-3})
\end{align}
Going back to the Widom insertion method, and neglecting terms $\mathcal{O}(V^{-2})$, we have
\begin{equation}
e^{-\beta\mu_\text{ex}} = e^{-\beta \phi'}(1 + \beta \epsilon),
\label{eq:Vbeps}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = -\frac{1}{2}\phi'' + \frac{1}{2}(\beta\phi''^2 - \phi''') \frac{\bar{n}}{\Gamma}.
\label{eq:epsphi}
\end{equation}
It can be seen that $\epsilon$ is of order $V^{-1}$. Taking the logarithm of \eqref{eq:Vbeps} we have $\epsilon = \phi'- \mu_\text{ex}$ as defined in \eqref{eq:phip}.
The second and third derivatives of $\phi$ in \eqref{eq:epsphi} can be obtained from $\phi'=\mu_\text{ex} + \mathcal{O}(V^{-1})$. Keeping the same degree of accuracy, they can be replaced by $\mu_\text{ex}'$ and $\mu_\text{ex}''$ respectively:
\begin{align}
\epsilon &= -\frac{1}{2}\mu_\text{ex}' + \frac{1}{2}(\beta \mu_\text{ex}'^2 - \mu_\text{ex}'') \frac{\bar{n}}{\Gamma} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{\mu_\text{ex}'+\bar{n}\mu_\text{ex}''}{2(1 + \beta\bar{n}\mu_\text{ex}')} \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{1}{2\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{n}} \ln(1 + \beta\bar{n}\mu_\text{ex}').
\label{eq:epsilon2}
\end{align}
Finally, the result is Eq.\ \eqref{eq:phip-mur}:
\begin{equation}
\phi'- \mu_\text{ex} = -\frac{1}{2\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{n}} \ln \Gamma. \nonumber
\end{equation}
\section*{Appendix C}
For completeness, a relationship regarding the thermodynamic factor is derived in this appendix. Let us consider a cell of volume $V$, number of particles $\bar{n}$ and temperature $T$. If $F$ is the free energy, the pressure is $p= -\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial V}\right|_{\bar{n},T}$ and the chemical potential is $\mu = \left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \bar{n}}\right|_{V,T}$. We define the free energy per particle as $f=F/\bar{n}$ and assume that it is a function of density $\rho=\bar{n}/V$ and temperature. Then, pressure and chemical potential are
\begin{align}
p &= \rho^2 \frac{\partial f}{\partial \rho}, \\
\mu &= f + p/\rho.
\end{align}
Knowing that the compressibility factor is $Z = \beta p/\rho$, the thermodynamic factor can be written as
\begin{align}
\Gamma &= \beta\rho \frac{\partial\mu}{\partial\rho} \nonumber \\
&= \beta\rho \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial \rho} + \frac{\partial (p/\rho)}{\partial \rho}\right) \nonumber \\
&= \beta p/\rho + \rho \frac{\partial (\beta p/\rho)}{\partial \rho} \nonumber \\
&= Z + \rho \frac{\partial Z}{\partial \rho},
\end{align}
that is Eq.\ \eqref{eq:GvsZ}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Reducing the dimensionality of a system often engenders electromagnetic properties sharply different from their bulk counterpart. It mainly arises due to enhanced quantum effects and increased correlations due to reduction in available phase space and screening\cite{imada1998metal}. The interplay between electron band width ($W$) and onsite Coulomb energy ($U$) in correlated electron system sensitively depends on the lattice dimensionality of the electron system. Manipulation of correlated electronic states in artificial crystal structures by exploiting their layer thickness down to unit cell level and epitaxial strain (without resorting to any chemical substitution that might induce unintentional disorder) is seen as a viable route to obtain more insight into these materials and renders a perfect platform to search for unforeseeable complex phenomena\cite{scherwitzl2011metal,yoshimatsu2010dimensional,boris2011dimensionality,king2014atomic,stemmer2018non,samal2013experimental}. Besides $U$ and $W$, spin-orbit interaction plays a significant role in governing the underlying electronic properties as evidenced in the study of Ir based oxides\cite{schutz2017dimensionality,gruenewald2014compressive,kim2008novel,matsuno2015engineering,rau2016spin}.
Conducting systems with strong spin-orbit coupling (SOC) often manifest weak antilocalization (WAL) effect and has extensively been explored in materials containing heavy elements (like Bi,Ir,Pt,Au)\cite{matetskiy2018weak,jenderka2013mott,beckmann1996first}. Besides, Dresselhaus/ Rashba type SOC effects in systems that lack bulk inversion symmetry/asymmetry in confining potential (for e.g. modulation doped semiconductor hetero-structure GaAs/Al$_{x}$Ga$_{1-x}$As, and LaAlO$_{3}$/SrTiO$_{3}$) has triggered diverse research\cite{knap1996weak,stornaiuolo2014weak,chen2010gate,koga2002rashba}. It is observed that applying an electric field across interface in the above cases induces WAL-WL crossover. In present study, we demonstrate a possibility for WAL-WL crossover by systematically manipulating layer thickness in heavy fermionic CaCu$_{3}$Ru$_{4}$O$_{12}$ (CCRO) system with cubic symmetry (space group Im-3).
Layered ruthenates with different dimensionality, so called nature's engineered Ruddlesden-Popper (RP) type phases have attracted significant attention since they exhibit unique electronic and magnetic ground states such as unconventional spin-triplet superconductivity, metamagnetism and electron nematic phase, highly conducting ferromagnetism and spin glass behaviour\cite{burganov2016strain,stemmer2018non,cao1999antiferromagnetic,qu2009complex}. The interplay among electron correlation, spin orbit interaction and dimensionality makes ruthenates more promising and a small perturbation can readily the tip the balance and promote unexpected changes in the electronic property. CCRO is intriguingly debated as a rare class of $d$ electron based heavy-fermion metal with excellent metallic conductivity along with a signature for broad hump in magnetic susceptibility around 150-200K\cite{kao2017origin,hollmann2013correlation,krimmel2008non,tran2006electronic}. If the heavy fermionic metals can be made 2D, unprecedented quantum phenomena are expected to result, and such studies are very much desirable.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm ,height=3.5cm]{xrd.jpg}
\caption{{(a)Schematic structure of CCRO on LAO. (b) $2\theta-\theta$ XRD pattern for (\textit{001}) oriented CCRO film on LAO(\textit{001}) of 12 nm and 60 nm thick films. (c) $\varphi$ scan about(\textit{011}) of LAO and (\textit{022}) of CCRO films (60 nm and 12 nm) showing the epitaxial relation.}
\label{fig:xrd}}
\end{figure}
We fabricate single-crystalline epitaxial CCRO thin films of varying layer thickness and investigate the dimensional effect on its magnetotransport properties. We observe that upon reduction of CCRO thickness, transport behavior evolves from metallic to localized regime and a thickness driven metal insulator transition (MIT) is observed below 3 nm for which the room temperature sheet resistance crosses $h/e^{2} \sim 25~$k$\Omega$, the quantum resistance in 2D\cite{licciardello1975constancy}. More importantly, from magnetoconductance we observe a strong interplay among inelastic ($L_{Th}$) and spin-orbit ($l_{so}$ ) scattering lengths that gives rise to weak antilocalization (WAL) - weak localization (WL) crossover upon reducing thickness. Using 2D magnetotransport theory and magnetotransport measurement, we elucidate the evolution of different types of scattering process (i.e. spin-orbit, phase breaking) with variation of thickness.
\section{Thin Film Growth and Structural Characterization}
A series of high-quality single-crystalline epitaxial CCRO films with varying thickness were grown on LaAlO$_{3}$ (001) substrates ($a =3.79$ \AA) using pulsed laser deposition (PLD) with a KrF excimer laser ($\lambda = 248~$nm). The polycrystalline CCRO PLD-target material was prepared by stoichiometrically mixing CaCO$_{3}$, CuO, RuO$_{2}$ and heating the mixture for 26 hours at 1050$~^{0}$C temperature in open air and under ambient pressure \cite{krimmel2008non}. Single phase was obtained after many cycles of heating and grinding. During thin film growth, the substrate temperature and the O$_{2}$ partial pressure was maintained at 650$~^{0}$C and $5\times 10^{-3}~$mbar respectively and the deposition was carried out with a laser fluence $\sim$3 J/cm$^{2}$. Before the deposition, target was pre-ablated for 2 minutes to remove any possible surface contamination. The structural details of the films were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) scan (using Rigaku Smart-Lab X-ray diffractometer in parallel-beam geometry with high resolution of Cu-K$_{\alpha}~$ radiation). The thicknesses of the films were calibrated with the number of laser pulses using cross-sectional SEM. Bulk CCRO exhibits cubic symmetry (Im-3 space group (No: 204)) with a lattice parameter of 7.43 \AA \cite{krimmel2008non} which is close to twice the lattice parameter of LaAlO$_{3}$ (LAO) (Fig.~\ref{fig:xrd}(a)). Thus, one can expect an in-plane tensile strain of $+1.97$\% for CCRO films with a cube-on-cube epitaxy on LAO. Fig.~\ref{fig:xrd}(b) exhibits wide-angle diffraction pattern for representative 60 nm and 12 nm thickness of CCRO films, indicating a c-axis oriented growth. The inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:xrd}(b) shows a zoom-in view of diffraction peak around \textit{(002)} of LAO. It is observed that the CCRO peak is close to the substrate for 60 nm than the 12 nm, signaling a compressed out-of-plane lattice in latter case. To verify the in-plane epitaxial relationship in these films, the $\varphi$ scans were performed on both 60 nm and 12 nm films about \textit{(022)} plane of CCRO in the vicinity of \textit{(011)} of LAO (Fig.~\ref{fig:xrd}(c)). Four equally spaced distinct peaks with a relative separation of $90^{0}$ (four-fold symmetry) were observed, suggesting an epitaxial growth of CCRO layer on LAO i.e.: [\textit{100}] LAO$\parallel$ [\textit{100}] CCRO. Altogether, our structural characterization implies an epitaxial \textit{(001)} oriented growth of CCRO on LAO \textit{(001)} substrate.
\section{Electron Transport}
We investigate the electrical transport properties of CCRO films with thicknesses ($t$) ranging from 1.5 to 60 nm. Fig.~\ref{fig:rt}(a) shows the variation of sheet resistance ($R_{S}$) as a function of temperature. For films with t $\geq$ 3 nm, $R_{s}$ values are found to be below 25 k$\Omega$~ $(h/e^{2} \simeq 25 ~$k$ \Omega)$ across the whole temperature range (2$-$300 K). However, the value of $R_{s}$ for the thinnest film with $t=1.5$ nm crosses 25 k$\Omega$ indicating a transition to insulating state. Based on Ioffe and Regel criterion, MIT is expected in the limit of $k_{F}l_{e} \simeq 1~$ where $k_{F}, ~l_{e}$ are Fermi wave vector and mean free path respectively \cite{ioffe1960non} and an approximate value for the Mott-Ioffe-Regel limit in two dimensions is $h/e^{2}~~$ \cite{licciardello1975constancy}. The systematic increase in $R_{s}$ and its rise above Ioffe-Regel limit indicates the occurrence of localization effect as the thickness of CCRO film is reduced.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=4cm ,height=6cm]{ccro_sheet_new.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=4cm ,height=6cm]{log_T.pdf}
\caption{{(a) $R_{S}(T)$ for films of different thickness (MIT using Ioffe-Regal criterion is denoted by dotted line), (b) $1/R_{s}~vs~\ln(T)~ $ plots for films of various thickness that reveals the signature for quantum interference effect in the low temperature regime.}
\label{fig:rt}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Arrhenius and Variable Range Hopping behaviour}
Transport in 1.5 nm film follows Arrhenius type behavior $\sigma\propto\exp(-E_{g}/2kT)$ and yields an activation energy gap $E_{g}$ of 31 meV, which is obtained by fitting the data in the temperature range 300-160 K (Fig.~\ref{fig:vrh}(a)). On the contrary for the case of 3 nm film, which exhibits a negative temperature coefficient ($d\rho/dT < 0$) and is on the verge MIT, the transport behavior can be described by a variable range hopping (VRH) type of conduction. VRH conduction scenario involves hopping of electrons between the localized electronic states within narrow bands close to the Fermi energy and conductivity $\sigma$ is given by $\sigma = C \exp[-(T_{0} /T)^{\alpha}]~$,
where $T_{0}$ depend on the density of localized states and spread of wave functions. VRH conductivity can be either of Mott or Efros-Shklovskii (ES) type and for a two dimensional case they are characterized by the exponent $\alpha=1/3$ and $\alpha=1/2$ respectively \cite{efros1975coulomb,mott1969conduction}. In our case for 3 nm CCRO film, the fit to the conductivity data in the temperature range 50 K $\leq$T$\leq$ 300 K (Fig.~\ref{fig:vrh}(b)) yields $\alpha = 0.501$ (ES type) indicating the existence of Coulomb charge gap.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm ,height=3.5 cm]{ccro_1p5nm_exp_line.png
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm ,height=3.5 cm]{ccro_3nm_final.png}
\caption{{(a) Resistivity fitting with Arrhenius for 1.5 nm, (b) VRH (ES type) 3 nm thick film respectively (black solid lines are theoretical expressions). }
\label{fig:vrh}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A closer inspection of $~R_{s} ~vs~ T~$ plot on the low temperature side reveals upturn in the metallic regime (not shown here) and this could be attributed to quantum interference effect. In presence of quantum interference effect conductance shows logarithmic temperature dependence which can be expressed as (for 2D), \cite{lee1985disordered}\\
$\sigma(T) = \sigma_{0} + \frac{p e^{2}}{2 \hbar \pi^{2} }\ln\left(\frac{T}{T_{0}}\right)$,
where $\sigma(T)$ is sheet conductance at temperature $T$, $~~p$ is defined as $~L_{Th} = aT^{-p/2}~ $ and $T_{0}~$ is constant. \\
Fig.~\ref{fig:rt}(b) shows the logarithmic temperature dependence of reciprocal sheet resistance for representative films (3, 6, 12 nm) which is fitted well in low temperature regime.
\section{Magnetotransport}
To examine the changes in electron scattering process with the variation of film thickness, magnetotransport measurements were performed using physical property measurement system (PPMS Quantum Design) in four probe geometry, down to 2 Kelvin temperature and a magnetic field upto 8 Tesla.
\textcolor{black}{Quantum interference among scattered electrons depends on their trajectory configuration. The interference correction to classical Drude conductivity tend to vanish in most cases after averaging over random scattering centers, except for the scattered electrons which propagate in identical time-reversed closed trajectories that gives rise to quantum interference correction to conductivity. Such kind of trajectories are known as ``Cooperon loop\textquotedblright(CL) and depending upon constructive (destructive) interference among the scattered electrons in CL, it manifests WL (WAL) effect.}
These quantum effects can be captured by measuring conductance in presence of magnetic field. Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(a) shows the measured out of plane magnetoconductance (MC) $\Delta\sigma$ in units of $~\frac{e^{2}}{\pi h}~$ at 2 K. Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(b),(c) shows the same after subtracting classical $B^{2}$, contribution that arises due to Lorentz force for film thicknesses ranging from 23 to 3 nm. A negative MC is observed for films with larger thickness i.e t $\geq$ 12 nm. However, a crossover from negative to positive MC occurs as we reduce thickness. We attribute the positive (negative) magnetoconductance to WL (WAL) effect.
To shed light on the observed magnetoconductance crossover, we fit the magnetoconductance curves with Hikami-Larkin-Nagaoka (HLN) equation \cite{hikami1980spin} in 2D limit to extract the characteristic scattering lengths. For the convenience of experimental data fitting, we express extended form of HLN equation (Eq.\ref{eq1}) in 2D limit in terms of elastic, inelastic and spin-orbit scattering lengths which are denoted as $~l_{e},~L_{Th},~l_{so}~$respectively (see Supplementary Material for detailed derivation).
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
\Delta\sigma(B) &= - \dfrac{e^{2}}{2\pi^{2}\hbar} \bigg[ {\psi(1/2 + B_{e}/B) + \log(B/B_{e}) } \\
& ~ +\frac{1}{2}\Big\{\psi(1/2 + B_{Th}/B) + \log(B/B_{Th})\Big\} \\
& ~-\frac{3}{2} \Big\{\psi(1/2 + \frac{B_{Th} + B_{so}}{B}) + \log(\frac{B}{B_{Th} + B_{so}})\Big\} \bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where \textcolor{black}{$\psi(x)$ is digamma function,} $B$ is external magnetic field and $ B_{e}, B_{Th}, B_{so}$ are related to $l_{e}, L_{Th}, l_{so}$ with following relations $B_{i} = \hbar /4el^{2}_{i}$ respectively. 2D limit is defined as film thickness ($t$) which is less than $L_{Th}$ (where $l_{i}=(D\tau_{i})^{1/2}$); where $D$ is Diffusion coefficient and $D \propto v^{2}_{F}$ ($v^{}_{F}$ is Fermi velocity) and $\tau_{i}$ is scattering time for corresponding length.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=8cm ,height=6.6 cm]{mc_plot_nano.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:mc}{(a) Magnetoconductance$~\Delta\sigma=\sigma(B)-\sigma(0)$ measured for films at 2 K temperature including classical contribution ($\propto B^{2}$). (b),(c)Fitted with HLN equation (dashed black lines) after subtracting $B^{2}$ contribution from experimental data, \cite{jenderka2013mott}. (d) $L_{Th},l_{so},l_{e}$ extracted from fits.}}
\end{figure}
\textcolor{black}{After subtraction of classical contribution to magnetoconductance $\propto B^{2}~~$ \cite{jenderka2013mott}},
$\Delta\sigma(B)~$ is fitted as per Eq.\eqref{eq1} which is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(b),(c). The extracted lengths from the fitting are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(d). The extracted lengths show a crossover from $L_{Th} < l_{so}$ for the films with thickness 3, 6 nm and $L_{Th} > l_{so}$ for 12, 23 nm which is consistent with WL-WAL crossover.
Below we discuss case by case study for the observed magneto conductance crossover with thickness variation. It is evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(b) that 3, 6 nm thick films show WL effect (i.e $\Delta\sigma(B)$ increases with increment of magnetic field). Since $L_{Th} < l_{so}$ (for 3, 6 nm films) the spin-orbit related scattering effect becomes redundant (spin-orbit interaction strength $ \propto 1/l^{2}_{so}$) for the phase space in which quantum coherence is maintained, electron encountering SO scattering is very weak. In other words, small $L_{Th}$ allows CL in very short length scale where SO interaction is not able to rotate the spin and thus results in WL due to constructive interference. In WL regime, magnetic flux induces additional phase difference between two electrons moving in time-reversed identical closed trajectory and this additional phase difference breaks constructive interference and as a result conductivity increase with the application of magnetic field. For films with t $\geq$ 12 nm, $L_{Th}$ tends to increase and $l_{so}$ gradually decreases. Therefore electrons are able to move relatively more distance by maintaining phase coherence and simultaneously due to smaller value of $l_{so}$, electrons encounter spin-orbit elastic scattering within a shorter distance. Therefore WAL becomes prominent with increasing thickness and is a cumulative effect of above two factors.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that epitaxial single crystalline thin films of heavy-fermion correlated metal CCRO grown on LAO can be driven to an insulating state upon reducing its thickness down to 1.5 nm. More importantly, we find that magnetoconductance shows a crossover from WAL to WL behaviour with reduction of film thickness. From analysis of magnetotransport data, we realize that a subtle interplay between effective spin-orbit scattering and inelastic scattering of electrons could render such crossover. Our study elucidates an important role of dimensionality on quantum transport behavior in CCRO.
\begin{center}
\bf{ACKNOWLEDGEMENT}
\end{center}
S.J and D.S acknowledge V.Tripathy, S.Mandal, D.S and B.C.B acknowledge the financial support from Max-Planck Partner Group. B.R.K.N acknowledges Department of Science and Technology, India, for Grant No-EMR/2016/003791. S.G.B would like to acknowledge INSPIRE Faculty award, DST, INDIA for the financial support. P.S.A.K acknowledges Nano Mission, DST, INDIA for funding support.
|
\section{Introduction}
As a generalization of (classical) knots in the $3$-space, Kauffman introduced \textit{virtual knots} in \cite{KF}.
Since then various studies have been made.
For example, relations of virtual knots and Gauss diagrams were studied by Goussarov, Polyak, and Viro in \cite{GPV}.
In their research, a kind of local move on virtual knots was introduced, which they call the \textit{forbidden move}.
Then it was shown by Kanenobu \cite{K} and Nelson \cite{Nelson} independently that for any diagram $D$ of a virtual knot, there exists a finite sequence of Reidemeister moves, virtual Reidemeister moves and forbidden moves that takes $D$ to the trivial knot diagram, i.e., the forbidden move is an unknotting operation for virtual knots.
In the studies of forbidden moves in \cite{K}, Kanenobu introduced and used several moves for virtual knot diagrams.
The two of them, called $F_2$-move and $F'_{2}$-move, which are essentially equivalent, played a key role in his arguments.
Actually, they were also considered and used by Nelson in \cite{Nelson}.
Later, the $F'_{2}$-move is treated by Crans, Mellor, and Ganzell in \cite{CMG}, which they called the \textit{forbidden detour move}.
See Figure~\ref{FandFd}.
\begin{figure}[H]
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,2.5)
\put(1,.5){\includegraphics[scale=.11] {fm.pdf} }
\put(5.1,.7){\includegraphics[scale=.14] {fdm.pdf} }
\end{picture}}
\caption{Forbidden moves $F$ and forbidden detour move $F_d$}
\label{FandFd}
\end{figure}
We here pick up that move, and obtain the following.
\begin{theo}\label{thm1}
Let $D$ be a virtual knot diagram of a virtual knot.
Then, $D$ can be transformed to the trivial knot diagram by using Reidemeister moves, virtual Reidemeister moves, and forbidden detour moves.
Moreover, if $D$ has $c$ real crossings,
then the number of forbidden detour moves is at most
$(c-1)(2c^{2}+11c-3)/24$ if $c$ is odd and
$c(2c^{2}+9c-14)/24$ if $c$ is even.
\end{theo}
\begin{remark}
We note that the $F_2$-move in \cite{K} (depicted in Figure~\ref{F2}), which is equivalent to the forbidden detour move,
can be regarded as a variation of the delta move on (classical) knots, which was introduced by Matveev in \cite{Matveev} and by Murakami and Nakanishi in \cite{MurakamiNakanishi}, independently.
They showed that the delta move is an unknotting operation for classical knots, but it is known that it is not an unknotting operation for virtual knots.
See \cite[Theorem 1.6]{SatohTaniguchi} for example.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[H
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,2)
\put(2.8,.5){\includegraphics[scale=.08] {f2m.pdf} }
\end{picture}}
\caption{$F_2$ move}
\label{F2}
\end{figure}
In virtue of this result, we introduce the following notion.
\begin{defn}
Let $K$ be a virtual knot.
The \textit{forbidden detour number} $F_{d}(K)$ of $K$ is defined as the minimal number of forbidden detour moves necessary to transform a virtual knot diagram of $K$ into the trivial knot diagram.
\end{defn}
We next consider lower bounds on the forbidden detour numbers of virtual knots.
To obtain lower bounds, a variation of an invariant, called the affine index polynomial, under a forbidden detour move, plays a key role. In fact, we have the following.
\begin{theo}\label{LBFd}
Let $K$ be a virtual knot, and $P_K$ denote the affine index polynomial of $K$. Suppose that $P_{K}$ is expressed as $(t-1) \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} a_{n}t^{n}$. Then, we have the following.
\[
F_{d}(K) \geq \frac{\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}| a_{n}|}{2}
\]
\end{theo}
In the following, our terminology about virtual knot and Gauss diagram etc follows from those in \cite{CMG}.
\section{Forbidden detour number}
A \textit{virtual knot} is defined as an equivalent class of virtual knot diagrams under the Reidemeister moves, virtual Reidemeister moves.
Also, virtual knots correspond bijectively to the equivalent classes of Gauss diagrams under moves reinterpreted Reidemeister moves.
That is, (classical) Reidemeister moves can modify the virtual knot diagrams, but do not change the virtual knot represented by the diagrams.
On the other hand, the forbidden move and forbidden detour move can change the virtual knots by modifying Gauss diagrams.
In fact, as claimed in \cite[Section 2]{CMG}, the forbidden detour move gives the effect on Gauss diagrams of switching the head of one arrow with the tail of an adjacent arrow.
See Figure~\ref{FdonGD}.
\begin{figure}[H
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,2.5)
\put(2,0.5){\includegraphics[scale=.23] {fdgd.pdf} }
\end{picture}}
\caption{The effect of an $F_{d}$-move on Gauss diagrams}
\label{FdonGD}
\end{figure}
In the following, we call the move on Gauss diagrams corresponding a forbidden detour move also a a forbidden detour move on the Gauss diagrams.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1}]
Let $D$ be a virtual knot diagram $D$ with $c$ real crossings of a virtual knot, and $G$ a Gauss diagram associated to $D$.
We consider an arrow $A$ of $G$, and assume that $a$ arrow-heads and $b$ arrow-tails exist on one side of the external circle of $G$ divided by the end points of $A$.
We can suppose that and $a+b$ is smaller than or equal to $c-1$.
\begin{figure}[H
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,3)
\put(4,0.5){\includegraphics[scale=.18] {fdpkk.pdf} }
\end{picture}}
\caption{Gauss diagram $G$ and arrow $A$}
\label{GandA}
\end{figure}
Let us remove $A$ by using forbidden detour moves.
First, we focus on all arrow-heads sandwiched between the end points of $A$ as shown Figure~\ref{SeqMoves}.
We use forbidden detour moves at most $b+1$ times to sweep an arrow-head to outside of the considered part of the circle. We repeat this procedure $a$ times until no arrow-heads exist on that part.
Second, we remove $A$ by using an $R_{1}$-move and forbidden detour moves $b$ times.
Therefore, the number of forbidden detour moves to remove $A$ is at most $a(b+1)+b = a+b+ab$.
\begin{figure}[H
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,7)
\put(-0.5,4.5){\includegraphics[scale=.18] {fdpk1.pdf} }
\put(2.7,5.5){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {fdsarrow.pdf} }
\put(5,4.5){\includegraphics[scale=.18] {fdpk2.pdf} }
\put(8.2,5.5){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {fdsarrow.pdf} }
\put(-0.5,1){\includegraphics[scale=.18] {fdpk3.pdf} }
\put(2.6,2.3){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {fdsarrows.pdf} }
\put(5,1){\includegraphics[scale=.18] {fdpk4.pdf} }
\end{picture}}
\caption{Sequences of forbidden detour moves ($F_d$-moves)}
\label{SeqMoves}
\end{figure}
Then, since $a>0$ and $b>0$, we see that $2\sqrt{ab} \leq a+b \leq c-1$, and so $4ab \leq (c-1)^{2}$.
Then, we get
\begin{align*}
a+b+ab \leq (c-1) +\frac{(c-1)^{2}}{4} .
\end{align*}
When $a$ is equal to $b$, the equality holds.
Let $a_{c} = \lfloor \frac{(c-1)^{2}}{4} \rfloor$.
When $n = 2\ell$ with some $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$, we have the following.
\begin{align*}
\sum^{n}_{c=1}a_{c} &= \sum^{2\ell}_{c=1}a_{c}\\
&=\sum^{\ell}_{s=1} \{ a_{2s-1} + a_{2s} \} \\
&=\sum^{\ell}_{s=1} \{ \lfloor \frac{(2s-2)^{2}}{4} \rfloor +\lfloor \frac{(2s-1)^{2}}{4} \rfloor \} \\
&=\sum^{\ell}_{s=1}(2s^2 -3s +1 ) \\
&= \frac{1}{6}\ell(4\ell +1)(\ell -1)
\end{align*}
Then, since $\ell = n/2$,
we get the following.
$$
\sum^{n}_{c=1}\{ \lfloor \frac{(c-1)^{2}}{4} \rfloor + c-1 \}
=\frac{1}{24}n(2n^2 +9n -14)
$$
On the other hand, when $n =2\ell -1$ with some $\ell \in \mathbb{N}$, we have the following.
\begin{align*}
\sum^{n}_{c=1}a_{c} &= \sum^{2\ell-1}_{c=1}a_{c}\\
&=\sum^{2\ell}_{c=1}a_{c} - a_{2\ell} \\
&= \frac{1}{6}\ell(4\ell +1)(\ell -1) -(\ell^2 -\ell)\\
&= \frac{1}{6}\ell(\ell -1)(4\ell -5)
\end{align*}
Then, since $\ell = (n+1)/2$,
we have
the following.
\begin{align*}
&\sum^{n}_{c=1}\{ \lfloor \frac{(c-1)^{2}}{4} \rfloor + c-1 \}\\
&=\frac{1}{24}(n+1)(n-1)(2n-3)+\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)-n\\
&=\frac{1}{24}(n-1)(2n^2 +11n -3)
\end{align*}
Consequently, $D$ can be transformed to the trivial knot diagram
by using Reidemeister moves, virtual Reidemeister moves, forbidden detour moves, and
if $D$ has $c$ real crossings,
the number of necessary forbidden detour moves is at most
$(c-1)(2c^{2}+11c-3)/24$ if $c$ is odd and $c(2c^{2}+9c-14)/24$ if $c$ is even.
\end{proof}
\section{Lower bound of forbidden detour number}
Next, we consider the lower bound of forbidden detour number of a virtual knot.
In this section, we estimate it using by using an invariant, called the affine index polynomial.
In fact, for the forbidden move, Sakurai showed in \cite{SA} the following;
Let $K$ and $K'$ be two virtual knots which can be transformed into each other by a single forbidden move.
Then
\[
P_{K}-P_{K'} = (t-1)(\pm t^{ \ell }\pm t^{m})
\]
holds for some integer $\ell$ and \textit{m}, where $P_K$ denotes affine index polynomial.
By imitating the argument in \cite{SA}, we have the following.
\begin{theo}\label{AIP}
Let $K$ and $K'$ be two virtual knots which can be transformed into each other by a single forbidden detour move. Then we have
\[
P_{K}-P_{K'} = (t-1)(\pm t^{ \ell }\mp t^{m})
\]
for some integer $\ell$ and \textit{m}, where $P_K$ denotes affine index polynomial.
\end{theo}
To prove this, we recall some definitions about the affine index polynomial used in \cite{SA}
First, we define virtual knot invariants by indexes of arrows for a Gauss diagram.
Let $G$ be a Gauss diagram of a virtual knot $K$, and $\gamma = \overrightarrow{PQ}$ an arrow oriented from $P$ to $Q$ with sign $\varepsilon (\gamma)$ in $G$.
We give the signs to the endpoints $P$ and $Q$, denoted by $\varepsilon (P)$ and $\varepsilon (Q)$, respectively, such that $\varepsilon (P) = -\varepsilon (\gamma)$ and $\varepsilon (Q) = \varepsilon (\gamma)$.
For an arrow $\gamma = \overrightarrow{PQ}$ in a Gauss diagram $G$, the \textit{specified arc} of $\gamma$ is the arc $\alpha$ in the outer circle $\mathbb{S}^1$ with endpoints $P$ and $Q$ oriented from $P$ to $Q$ with respect to the orientation of $\mathbb{S}^1$.
The \textit{index} of $\gamma$ is the sum of the signs of all the endpoints of arrows on $\alpha$ other than $P$ and $Q$, and denoted by $i(\gamma)$.
Then the \textit{n-writhe} $J_{n}(K)$ of of a virtual knot $K$ is defined as
\[
J_{n}(K) = \sum_{i(\gamma) =n} \varepsilon (\gamma) \quad(n \neq 0)
\]
and, we define the \textit{affine index polynomial} $P_K$ of \textit{K} as
\[
P_{K} = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} J_{n}(K)(t^{-n}-1) \;.
\]
We remark that this is different from the original definition by Kauffman in \cite{KFM}.
However Sakurai showed in \cite[Proposition $3.2$]{SA} that this gives an alternative definition of the affine index polynomial.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{AIP}]
Suppose that virtual knots $K$ and $K'$ are represented by Gauss diagrams \textit{G} and $G'$ respectively.
There are two cases, Case (I) and (I\hspace{-1pt}I) of Figure~\ref{ind}, for the change of $G$ and $G'$.
We here only consider the case (I) since the other case can be treated similarly.
Let $\gamma_{i}$ be arrows $\gamma_{i}'$ ($i = 1$, $2$) of \textit{G} and $G'$ are the two arrows in the part where a forbidden detour move is applied. For arrows $\gamma_{i}$ and $\gamma_{i}'$, by Figure~\ref{ind}, we have
\begin{align*}
&i(\gamma_{1}') = i(\gamma_{1}) + \varepsilon(\gamma_{2}) \\
&i(\gamma_{2}') = i(\gamma_{2}) - \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})
\end{align*}
where $\varepsilon(\gamma_{i}) =\varepsilon(\gamma_{i}') $.
\begin{figure}[H
{\unitlength=1cm
\begin{picture}(10,4.5)
\put(-2,1){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {type1a.pdf} }
\put(0.3,2.8){\includegraphics[scale=.1] {fdwarrow.pdf} }
\put(2,1){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {type1b.pdf} }
\put(1,0.5){(I)}
\put(6,1){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {type2a.pdf} }
\put(8.3,2.8){\includegraphics[scale=.1] {fdwarrow.pdf} }
\put(10,1){\includegraphics[scale=.12] {type2b.pdf} }
\put(9,0.5){(II)}
\end{picture}}
\caption{}
\label{ind}
\end{figure}
Therefore, we have the following.
\begin{align*}
P_{K}-P_{K'} &= \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})(t^{-i(\gamma_{1})}-1) + \varepsilon(\gamma_{2})(t^{-i(\gamma_{2})}-1)\\
&\quad -\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}')(t^{-i(\gamma_{1}')}-1) -\varepsilon(\gamma_{2}')(t^{-i(\gamma_{2}')}-1)\\
&= \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{1})} + \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{2})} -\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}')t^{-i(\gamma_{1}')} -\varepsilon(\gamma_{2}')t^{-i(\gamma_{2}')}\\
&\quad -\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}) -\varepsilon(\gamma_{2}) +\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}') +\varepsilon(\gamma_{2}')\\
&= \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{1})} + \varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{2})} -\varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{1})-\varepsilon(\gamma_2)} -\varepsilon(\gamma_{2})t^{-i(\gamma_{2})+\varepsilon(\gamma_{1})}\\
&=\varepsilon(\gamma_{1})t^{-i(\gamma_{1})}(1-t^{-\varepsilon(\gamma_{2})}) + \varepsilon(\gamma_{2})t^{-i(\gamma_{2})}(1-t^{\varepsilon(\gamma_{1})})\\
&= \left \{
\begin{array}{lll}
(t-1)(t^{-i(\gamma_{1})-1}-t^{-i(\gamma_{2})}) \quad &(\varepsilon(\gamma_{i}) = 1)\\
(t-1)(-t^{-i(\gamma_{1})}+t^{-i(\gamma_{2})})\quad &(\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}) = 1, \varepsilon(\gamma_{2}) = -1)\\
(t-1)(-t^{-i(\gamma_{1})-1}+t^{-i(\gamma_{2})-1})\quad &(\varepsilon(\gamma_{1}) = -1, \varepsilon(\gamma_{2}) = 1)\\
(t-1)(t^{-i(\gamma_{1})}-t^{-i(\gamma_{2})-1})\quad &(\varepsilon(\gamma_{i}) = -1)
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{LBFd}]
Let $K$ be a virtual knot with a virtual knot diagram $D$ which can be transformed into the trivial knot diagram $O$ by using forbidden detour moves $s$ times.
That is, we suppose that there exists a sequence of virtual knot diagrams $D_0, D_2, \cdots, D_s$ such that $D=D_0$, $D_i$ is obtained from $D_{i-1}$ by single forbidden detour move ($1 \le i \le s$), and $D_s = O$.
We denote by $K_i$ the virtual knot represented by $D_i$ ($1 \le i \le s$).
Suppose that the affine index polynomial of $K_{i}$ is expressed as $P_{t}(K_{i}) = (t-1)\sum a^{i}_{n}t^{n}$.
By Theorem~\ref{AIP}, we get the following.
\begin{align*}
P_{t}(K_{1})&=P_{t}(K) + (t-1)(\pm t^{\ell} \mp t^{m}) \\
&= (t-1)\sum a^{0}_{n}t^{n} + (t-1)(\pm t^{\ell} \mp t^{m}) \\
&= (t-1)\cdot(\cdots + (a^{0}_{\ell} \pm 1)t^{\ell} + \cdots +(a^{0}_{m} \mp 1)t^{m} + \cdots)
\end{align*}
The coefficients of $a_{\ell}^{1}$ and $a_{\ell}^{0}$ satisfy the next ($0 \leq \ell \leq s$).
\begin{align*}
a_{\ell}^{1} &=a_{\ell}^{0} \pm1 \\
|a_{\ell}^{1}|&=|a_{\ell}^{0} \pm1| \geq |a_{\ell}^{0}| -1
\end{align*}
Then we have the following.
\begin{align*}
\sum |a_{n}^{1}| &\geq (\sum|a_{n}^{0}|)-2 \\
\sum |a_{n}^{2}| &\geq (\sum|a_{n}^{1}|)-2 \\
&\vdots \\
\sum |a_{n}^{s}| &\geq (\sum|a_{n}^{s-1}|)-2
\end{align*}
We conclude the following.
\begin{align*}
0 = \sum |a_{n}^{s}| &\geq (\sum |a_{n}^{0}|)-2s \\
2s &\geq \sum |a_{n}^{0}| \\
s &\geq \displaystyle\frac{\sum |a_{n}^{0}|}{2}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The delineation of the sources of chemical material in varying environmental media (i.e., soil, water, and air) is the focus of many environmental studies ~\cite{WCNH+17, WJDO+12}. Such studies are valuable to all stakeholders including academia, industry, government, and non-profit. For example, the source characterization of dissolved analytes (e.g., methane, sulfate, and salt) in groundwater could help geoscientists to delineate groundwater flow pattern as well as guide the remediation projects of consulting firms. In particular, dissolved methane in groundwater - the most widely reported contaminant in shale gas production regions ~\cite{BYAG+14} - has caused public concerns about the environmental impact of high-volume hydraulic fracturing techniques (HVHF) extensively used in shale gas production. In recent years, unlike traditional geoscience studies often using small data sets, data-driven studies using large data sets of groundwater chemistry have provided new insights on the extent to which shale gas production and other human activities might impact groundwater quality ~\cite{WNGZLB+18, WAXALB+19, ZBLL17}.
In order to identify the source(s) of a target contaminant, geoscientists often rely on a few geochemical analytes that are previously determined as effective indicators of varying sources for the given contaminant. In this scenario, selected bivariate plots or mass balance models are made ~\cite{BYAG+14}. If such prior knowledge (i.e., effective geochemical indicators) is not available, geoscientists have to manually and exhaustively make as many bivariate plots as needed and then hand-pick those helpful in delineating contamination with respect to sources of target contaminant. The latter scenario can be very time-consuming and labor-intensive.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Source decomposition of groundwater overall. (b) Potential sources (might not be exhaustive) for the target analyte: methane or sulfate.}
\label{fig:water-source}
\end{figure}
Among data-driven approaches, one of the current methods is matrix factorization. When applied on groundwater chemistry data, this strategy often yields results applicable to the overall groundwater chemistry (i.e., all of the chemical analytes overall, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:water-source}(a)) instead of a specific analyte of interest (i.e., target analyte). Furthermore, these results might be misleading for a specific analyte. For example, the sources of dissolved methane in groundwater (e.g., biologically produced methane and animal manure) are different from those of groundwater overall or those of dissolved sulfate (Figure~\ref{fig:water-source}(b)). In particular, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:water-source}(b), for methane, some of the potential sources are natural gas naturally migrating into shallow groundwater, biologically produced methane, deep brine, and natural gas leaking from gas wells. For sulfate, the major sources include fertilizers, acid rain, deep brine, and animal manure.
In this study, to resolve these issues, we proposed a modified version of matrix factorization in which we can use data of general groundwater chemistry to identify sources applicable to a specific target analyte. We combine regression modeling with dictionary learning, and further address the natural spatial and temporal property of the environmental data. We then applied this data-driven model to a previously reported large data set of groundwater chemistry (n=10,714) from a high-density shale gas well region in the Marcellus shale footprint in an attempt to resolve the sources of contaminants (e.g., methane, sulfate, and chloride) in these groundwater samples. The proposed approach could also be used to predict contaminant concentrations (e.g., methane and sulfate). Derived results from the application of the proposed technique on a real-world data set are consistent with findings from previous studies mostly based on domain knowledge.
\section{Related work}
\paragraph{Source detection}
Geoscientists usually use mass balance models to explore the sources of contaminants in water. These models are designed assuming linear mixing of two or more end members (i.e., sources) for a given target analyte. They will measure selected geochemical features (normally chemical concentration or isotopic ratio) as proxies and use bivariate plots to identify the clusters of plotted samples \cite{BYAG+14}. Here each cluster indicates a source. Such plots often involve two to four geochemical analytes which are most helpful in distinguishing different sources for a given contaminant. Geoscientists usually need to exhaustively enumerate the plots using different combinations of geochemical features. Recently, some data-driven methods, like Normalized Matrix Factorization or NMF\cite{VAM17}, are proposed to do this task. However, this approach often yields results more applicable to the water chemistry overall than a specific target contaminant or geochemical analyte.
\paragraph{Supervised dictionary learning}
Dictionary learning has been widely used in computer vision to obtain basic components and sparse representations of images~\cite{MBP+09}. Recently, in order to optimize the learned dictionary for a specific task, people proposed supervised dictionary learning~\cite{MPS+09}. Some methods learn discriminative dictionaries for different classes~\cite{YZYZ10, GGK13}, or use label information to prune the learned dictionary by unsupervised dictionary learning~\cite{FVS08}. They actually separate the dictionary learning from the supervised learning part and may lead to inferior results. Another group of methods combine dictionary learning and supervised learning~\cite{MPS+09, JLD11}, but fail to consider the spatial temporal property for specific problems. Hence, we propose to do dictionary learning and supervised learning iteratively, and spatial and temporal regularization are added to improve the interpretation of results.
\section{Problem Definition}
\label{sec:problem-definition}
Given a spatial data set consisting of $N$ data points $Z = \{\mathbf{z}_1, \mathbf{z}_2, ..., \mathbf{z}_N\}$, where $\mathbf{z}_i = (\mathbf{x}_i, y_i)$ represents a combination of a feature vector $\mathbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^M$ and a target variable $y_i \in \mathbb{R}$. $\mathbf{X} = \{ \mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, ..., \mathbf{x}_N \}$ and $\mathbf{y} = \{ y_1, y_2, ..., y_N \}$ denote the feature vector value set and the target variable value set, respectively. Our problem can be defined as follows:
Interpretable Source Detection: \textit{Given data set $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{y}$, we wish to establish a prediction model that can predict $\mathbf{y}$ and find the sources $\mathbf{D}$ (decomposition of $\mathbf{X}$) that can explain the composition of the values of $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ simultaneously.}
In our problem, $\mathbf{X}$ are chemical variables (e.g., sodium, and calcium), and $\mathbf{y}$ is the target chemical variable that we are interested in learning sources of, e.g., methane. The sources (termed `end members' by geoscientists) are categories of water, e.g., deep brine and shallow recharge water. These sources can often explain the provenance of the target analyte.
\section{Method}
In a prediction task, we are usually interested in what might explain the model performance other than the prediction accuracy itself. In environmental forensics, for example, we value not only the accurate prediction of dissolved methane in groundwaters but also the knowledge of where the dissolved methane comes from (i.e., source). The identification of sources can very well improve the interpretability of the prediction model. In this study, we propose a hybrid model \mymethod (\mymethodFull), which can simultaneously achieve accurate prediction and detect the sources of the target analyte of interest.
\subsection{Targeted Source Detection}
\paragraph{Prediction model}
To maintain generality, we use a linear regressor $\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{W} \mathbf{X}$ as our prediction model due to its high interpretability, where $\mathbf{W}$ is the regression coefficient, and $X_{N \times M}$ denotes the matrix of geochemical analyte concentrations.
\paragraph{Source detection}
Collected water samples might represent a mix of waters from $K$ sources. Each of these sources could be characterized by up to a total of $M$ geochemical analytes. Water chemistry (i.e., $\mathbf{X}$) of these collected samples can be formulated as $\mathbf{X} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{D}$, where $\mathbf{D}_{K \times M}$ is the learned source (i.e., dictionary) of chemicals, $\mathbf{A}_{N \times K}$ is the coefficient of data samples on each of the sources. Each row $\mathbf{D}_k$ of $\mathbf{D}$ represents a source, and each element $\mathbf{D}_{km}$ of source vector $\mathbf{D}_{k}$ represents the concentration of chemical $m$ in source $k$. Then, each element $\mathbf{A}_{nk}$ represents the coefficient (i.e., fractional portion) of sample $n$ on source $k$.
\paragraph{Joint prediction and source detection}
To combine prediction and source detection for a given data set of water chemistry, one of the previous approaches is to apply dictionary learning on $\mathbf{X}$ before using the learned source to do the prediction task. From this approach, the learned sources are actually applicable to the general water chemistry overall instead of any specific analyte (i.e., target analyte).
Unlike previous approaches, for a target analyte (e,g, methane), we propose to combine target prediction and source detection in one framework and formulate the loss function as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pred+dl}, where $R_\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{W}), R_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A}), R_\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{D})$ are regularization terms, $||\mathbf{B}_{m \times n}||_F$ represents the Frobenius Norm. The positive constraints are added for better interpretation.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pred+dl}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}=&\frac{1}{2}\ltwonormofvec{\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}-\mathbf{y}} +\frac{\lambda_\mathbf{X}}{2}\ltwonormof{\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{X}} + R_\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{W}) + R_\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{A}) + R_\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{D}) \\
& \text{s.t.} \forall i, j, A_{ij} \geq 0, D_{ij} \geq 0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that, when linear models are applied, Eq.~\eqref{eq:pred+dl} can be further simplified by stacking $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ together, and stacking $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{X}$ together~\cite{JLD11}, which makes Eq.~\eqref{eq:pred+dl} a simple linear regression. Here, for better interpretability, we separate these two parts.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Temporal and spatial continuity of samples. (a) Methane concentration versus month of sampling. Yellow line represents the median, and the box represents 25\% and 75\% quantile. (b) Differences in pairwise samples' methane concentration w.r.t. distance between these two samples. }
\label{fig:spatial-temporal}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Spatial continuity}
Environmental data sets often have inherent spatial attributes. According to Waldo Tobler's first law of Geography~\cite{Tobl70}, ``everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things". Given this, it is reasonable to expect the chemical concentrations in a neighborhood are similar. For example, the difference in methane concentration for two water samples increases with the distance between these two samples (Figure~\ref{fig:spatial-temporal} (b)). Therefore, we expect the factorized sample source composition to have a similar spatial pattern (i.e., if two samples are close, their coefficients for sources should be similar). Such spatial contexts of water chemistry data sets should be considered when building the prediction and target identification models. We can add the spatial regularization as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:spatial-constraints} to the objective, where $\lambda_S$ is the regularization strength.\, and $\mathbf{L}_{S}$ is the Laplacian matrix.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spatial-constraints}
\mathcal{L}_{spatial} = \lambda_S Tr(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{L}_{S} \mathbf{A})
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Temporal continuity}
In addition to spatial context, temporal context of water chemistry data are also important to consider. For instance, methane concentrations in water vary seasonally through the year, i.e., reaching a relatively high value in spring and summer time (April to July) and decreasing in autumn and winter (September to December) (Figure~\ref{fig:spatial-temporal} (a)). In order to incorporate the information of temporal context into the proposed model, we add a temporal Laplacian in the model (as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:temporal-constraints}), where $\lambda_T$ is the regularization strength, and $\mathbf{L}_{T}$ is the Laplacian matrix. When calculating the temporal gap, the yearly period is considered (e.g., December is close to January).
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{temporal} = \lambda_T Tr(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{L}_{T} \mathbf{A})
\label{eq:temporal-constraints}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Overall objective}
In summary, the overall objective function is shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:overall-objective}, where $||\mathbf{B}||_F$ is the Frobenius Norm ($\ell_2\text{-norm}\xspace$) of matrix $\mathbf{B}$, $||\mathbf{B}||_1$ represents the $\ell_1\text{-norm}\xspace$ of matrix $\mathbf{B}$ (element-wise sum of absolute values), and different $\lambda$ denotes the weight for each part of the loss. Again, we optimize the prediction model and the source detection simultaneously.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overall-objective}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\ltwonormofvec{\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}-\mathbf{y}} + \frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\mathbf{X}} \ltwonormof{\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}-\mathbf{X}} + \lambda_{\mathbf{W}, \ell_1\xspace} \lonenormof{\mathbf{W}} \\
& + \frac{\lambda_{\mathbf{W}, \ell_2\xspace}}{2} \ltwonormof{\mathbf{W}} + \lambda_{\mathbf{A}, \ell_1\xspace} \lonenormof{\mathbf{A}} + \frac{\lambda_{\mathbf{A}, \ell_2\xspace}}{2} \ltwonormof{\mathbf{A}} + \lambda_{\mathbf{D}, \ell_1\xspace} \lonenormof{\mathbf{D}} \\
& + \frac{\lambda_{\mathbf{D}, \ell_2\xspace}}{2} \ltwonormof{\mathbf{D}}+ \lambda_{S} Tr(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{L}_{S} \mathbf{A}) + \lambda_{T} Tr(\mathbf{A}^T \mathbf{L}_{T} \mathbf{A}) \\
& s.t. \hspace{0.2cm}\forall i, j, A_{ij} \geq 0, D_{ij} \geq 0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Optimization}
\label{sec:method:solution}
We propose an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) approach to perform model optimization. We iteratively update $\mathbf{W}$, $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ until convergence. The parameter $\rho_{\mathbf{W}}$, $\rho_{\mathbf{D}, 1}$, $\rho_{\mathbf{D}, 2}$, $\rho_{\mathbf{A}, 1}$, $\rho_{\mathbf{A}, 2}$ are set to 0.001. \footnote{The 9 $\lambda$ hyperparameters are selected by cross-validation.}
\section{Experiment}
The proposed TSDST model was applied on the previously mentioned data set of groundwater chemistry (n=10,714) to predict concentrations and to identify sources for target contaminants methane, sulfate, and chloride in groundwater. The modeling performance of TSDST was compared to that of a few established baseline algorithms as shown in the following sections quantitatively. To compare the performance of models, we chose Root Mean Square Error (RMSE).
\subsection{Data set}
The data set of groundwater chemistry~\cite{WNGZLB+18, data-doi} contains 10,714 water samples collected from 2009 to 2012 within the Marcellus shale production area in the northeastern U.S. For each water sample, concentrations of 28 chemical analytes are reported. We aim to predict concentrations and identify contamination sources for methane, sulfate or chloride based on values of other chemicals.
\subsection{Baseline algorithms}
We compare our algorithm, named \mymethod with \textsf{RF}\xspace (random forest), \textsf{XGBOOST}\xspace, \textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace~\cite{JLD11} and \textsf{LR}\xspace + \textsf{NMF}\xspace (linear regression + non-negative matrix factorization).
\begin{itemize}
\item \textsf{RF}\xspace: Random Forest is a tree ensemble methods that shows superior performance in supervised learning problems.
\item \textsf{XGBOOST}\xspace: XGBOOST \cite{ChGu16} is a gradient boosting approach that usually achieve state-of-the-art accuracy in classification and regression problems.
\item \textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace: Discriminative K-SVD (\textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace) \cite{JLD11} solves the dictionary learning and linear classification (or regression) problem together, by stacking the $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ matrix into one matrix and use a SVD method to decompose it.
\item \textsf{LR}\xspace + \textsf{NMF}\xspace: By using the same stacking way mentioned in \textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace to combine the $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ matrix, we solve the decomposition problem by using a Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) solution.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Results on \texttt{Water}\xspace dataset}
\subsubsection{Comparison with baseline algorithms}
As shown in Table ~\ref{tab:compare-water}, our method \mymethod outperforms those baseline methods (i.e., \textsf{LR}\xspace + \textsf{NMF}\xspace, and \textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace) significantly in terms of the performance of prediction for all of three target analytes. In addition, the performance of our method \mymethod is comparable with the other two complex models (i.e., \textsf{RF}\xspace and \textsf{XGBOOST}\xspace). This gives use more confidence in the accuracy of the model.
\begin{table}
\caption{Overall performance comparison in terms of RMSE on \texttt{Water}\xspace dataset. Note that we do not expect our method to outperform the complex models like \textsf{RF}\xspace and \textsf{XGBOOST}\xspace because the objective of their methods is to simply minimize the target prediction error while our method considers both the target prediction error and the source detection error. In addition, these methods are hardly explainable by the geoscientists. However, our method achieves comparable prediction results as these two methods, and outperforms other linear baselines (\textsf{LR}\xspace + \textsf{NMF}\xspace and \textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace). Thus, we can build further trust in the interpretations of our model.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & Methane & Sulfate & Chloride \\ \hline
\textsf{RF}\xspace & \textbf{2.6204} & \textbf{18.2155} & 120.6937 \\ \hline
\textsf{XGBOOST}\xspace & 2.6676 & 18.2165 & \textbf{101.3103} \\ \hline
\textsf{LR}\xspace + \textsf{NMF}\xspace & 3.3629 & 41.5432 & 160.6643 \\ \hline
\textsf{DK-SVD}\xspace & 3.6641 & 49.8043 & 160.5276 \\ \hline
\textbf{\mymethod} & \textbf{3.1023} & \textbf{24.0342} & \textbf{93.2561} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:compare-water}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Case study}
In this section, we are dedicated to introducing and interpreting modeling results from applying \mymethod in four scenarios: no target, methane, sulfate, and chloride. Detected sources are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:water-source-decomp}. When no target was used, identified sources are interpreted as water end members more applicable for the water chemistry overall. When a target analyte was considered, delineated sources are more specific to the given target analyte.
For example, in Figure~\ref{fig:water-source-decomp}(b), where we use methane as the target analyte, source 1 shows relatively high Ba, Ca, and TDS concentrations. These geochemical characteristics of source 1 mimic that of water containing methane that naturally migrates with deep brine in some sedimentary basins ~\cite{WJDO+12, DVRW+14}. In the sampling area, methane might naturally migrate into shallow groundwater from the deep formation along geologic faults and folds (i.e., the area highlighted by black circle in Figure~\ref{fig:water-source-map}(a); see also ~\cite{WNGZLB+18}). This previously identified area coincides with locations of most of samples with high contribution from methane of natural origin gas identified by \mymethod.
Similarly, source 2 of methane shows high Ca, Mg, and sulfate concentrations similar to that of surface or shallow recharge water. Such recharge water might contain methane produced from the biogenic mechanism~\cite{GrCr17}. Water chemistry of source 3 is similar to that of source 2 except for sulfate concentration. Low sulfate concentration in source 3 is consistent with that of some waters impacted by methane that has been present for long durations of time (e.g., coalbed methane). The presence of methane for long durations of time creates reducing conditions leading to the reduction of sulfate to sulfide.
In addition to the sources identified for methane dissolved in groundwater, different sets of sources are also indicated by \mymethod for sulfate and chloride in groundwater, respectively. For sulfate, source 2 is characterized by low concentrations in almost all analytes, except for hydrogen (H+). Relatively high H+ (lower pH) indicates acid rain. For chloride, source 2, with a relatively high concentration of Na and TDS, could be categorized as deep brine. Many previous studies (e.g., ~\cite{WNGZLB+18}) suggest the migration of naturally-occurring methane could be coupled with the migration of deep brine. The area of large contribution of methane of natural origin could overlap the area of high contribution of deep brine. The additional source, road spreading, is indicated for chloride (i.e., source 3; Figure~\ref{fig:water-source-decomp}(d)). The source of road spreading represents the water impacted by the salt spread on roads for de-icing in the winter~\cite{NWLA+17}. This type of water often has high salinity (i.e., high Cl, Na, and TDS concentrations) which is consistent with Figure~\ref{fig:water-source-decomp}(d).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Source detection for \texttt{Water}\xspace dataset using \mymethod. Figure (a), (b), (c), and (d) are the sources detected by not using sources, and using target as methane, sulfate, and chloride, respectively. Interpretation is provided by geoscientists.}
\label{fig:water-source-decomp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Spatial distribution of source 1 of methane.}
\label{fig:water-source-map}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we proposed to detect the sources of a specific contaminant (i.e., target) using environmental data sets. The proposed technique can simultaneously conduct source detection and target prediction, unlike many previous algorithms ignoring the target that often generated modeling results more applicable to the characteristics of whole data set. In this study, we conducted extensive experiments on a data set of groundwater chemistry to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by successfully identifying interpretable sources (also known by domain scientists) for contaminants (i.e., methane, sulfate, and chloride) in these groundwater samples.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
Funding was derived from grants to S.L.B. and Z.L. from the National Science Foundation (IIS-16-39150) and US Geological Survey (104b award G16AP00079) through the Pennsylvania Water Resource Research Center. T.W. was also supported by the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Dean’s Fund for Postdoc-Facilitated Innovation at the Penn State University.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{introduction and main results}
\noindent We deal with the reaction diffusion equations in ${\mathbb R}^n$ for $n \in {\mathbb N}$:
\[
({\rm{LV}}) \,\,\, \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \partial_t u = \delta \Delta u + r \left( 1 - \frac{u}{k} \right) u - \gamma \frac{u v}{u+h}, & \\[9pt]
\displaystyle \partial_t v = d \Delta v + \mu (u) \frac{u v}{u+h} + \alpha w - \theta v - \iota v - \beta v^2, & \\[9pt]
\displaystyle \partial_t w = \nu (u) \frac{u v}{u+h} + \theta v - \alpha w - \tilde \iota w. &
\end{array}
\right.
\]
This is a prey-predator model with dormancy of predators, see \cite{K15, KNO09}. Here, three variables $u = u (x, t)$, $v = v (x, t)$ and $w = w (x, t)$ stand for the unknown scalar functions at $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$ who denote densities of prey, active predator and dormant predator, respectively. We denote the diffusion coefficient of prey by $\delta$, the diffusion coefficient of active predator by $d$, the growth rate of prey by $r$, the capacity of prey by $k$, the mortality rate of prey by $\gamma$, the constant of foraging efficiency and handling time by $h$, the rate of awakening by $\alpha$, the rate of sleeping by $\theta$, the mortality rate of active predator by $\iota$, the mortality rate of dormant predator by $\tilde \iota$, the mortality rate by combats of active predators by $\beta$. Also, $\mu (u)$ and $\nu (u)$ are smooth positive functions of $u$ denoting growth rates of active and dormant predators, respectively. In \cite{K15}, $\mu$ is given as a sigmoid function $\mu (u) := \gamma (1+\tanh (\xi (u-\eta)))/2 \in (0, \gamma)$ with some constants $\xi$ and $\eta$; $\nu (u) := \gamma - \mu (u)$. We have used the notation of differentiation; $\partial_t := \partial / \partial t$ and $\Delta := \sum_{i=1}^n \partial_i^2$, where $\partial_i := \partial / \partial x_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$.
By change of variables and constants, we can replace $\delta = 1$, $k = 1$, $r = 1$ and $\beta = 1$. For the simplicity of notation, we put $m := \theta + \iota$, $\rho := \alpha + \tilde \iota$, in addition, assume that $\mu$ and $\nu$ are positive constants independent of $u$. So, we consider the following initial value problem:
\[
({\rm{P}}) \,\,\, \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t u = \Delta u + (1 - u) u - \gamma u v / (u+h) & {\text{in}} \,\, {\mathbb R}^n \!\times\! (0, \infty), \\[4pt]
\partial_t v = d \Delta v + \mu u v / (u+h) + \alpha w - (m + v) v & {\text{in}} \,\, {\mathbb R}^n \!\times\! (0, \infty), \\[4pt]
\partial_t w = \nu u v / (u+h) + \theta v - \rho w & {\text{in}} \,\, {\mathbb R}^n \!\times\! (0, \infty), \\[4pt]
\big( u, v, w \big) \big|_{t=0} = \big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) & {\text{in}} \,\, {\mathbb R}^n.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
In \cite{KNO09}, the bifurcation between stability and instability of stationary solutions to (LV) was concerned with some specific parameters, associated with numerical investigation. In \cite{K15}, a numerical study of Turing instability on (LV) was done. Besides, in this paper, we focus into the mathematical theory for the existence of time-global non-negative unique classical solutions to (P), and the invariant region which includes the trivial solution $\big( 0, 0, 0 \big)$. We now state the main results.
\begin{theorem}\label{th}
Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $d$, $h > 0$, and let $m$, $\theta$, $\rho$, $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $\mu$, $\nu \geq 0$.
If $u_0, v_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $w_0 \in BUC^1 ({\mathbb R}^n)$ are non-negative, then there exists a triplet $\big( u, v, w \big)$ of time-global unique classical solutions to {\rm{(P)}}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{r1}{\rm
(i)~One can find at most five stationary constant states (solutions independent of $x$ and $t$), including the trivial solution and $\big( 1, 0, 0 \big)$. The trivial solution is always instable. Besides, the stabilities of non-trivial constant states depend on parameters; see Remark~\ref{r4}.
\noindent (ii)~Even if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are positive smooth functions of $u$, the same time-global solvability can be proved.
\noindent (iii)~When the initial data belong to $L^\infty$, one may get the same assertion, although there is a lack of continuity of solutions in $t$ at $t = 0$.
}\end{remark}
We will explain the strategy of the proof of Theorem~\ref{th}, briefly. Using the heat semigroups, (P) is written as the forms of integral equations:
\begin{align}
u(t) & = e^{t \Delta} u_0 + \int_0^t e^{(t-s) \Delta} \left[ \left( 1 - u \right) u - \gamma \frac{u v}{u + h} \right] \! (s) \, ds, \label{int-u} \\
v(t) & = e^{d t \Delta} v_0 + \int_0^t e^{d (t-s) \Delta} \left[ \mu\frac{u v}{u + h} + \alpha w - (m + v) v \right] \! (s) \, ds, \label{int-v} \\
w(t) & = e^{-\rho t} w_0 + \int_0^t e^{-\rho (t-s)} \left[ \nu \frac{u v}{u + h} + \theta v \right] \! (s) \, ds. \label{int-w}
\end{align}
Although these forms are benefit to show the uniqueness and regularity of solutions, the non-negativity of solutions are not ensured, as long as one uses the standard successive approximation. Thus, we have to look for the other integral forms for proving the existence of non-negative solutions. To do so, we shall construct a triplet of the solutions $\big( u, v, w \big)$ as the limits of the following successive approximation:
\begin{align}
u_{\ell + 1} (t) & = U_\ell (t, 0) u_0 + \int_0^t U_\ell (t, s) \left[ u_\ell \right] (s) \, ds, \label{iu2} \\
v_{\ell + 1} (t) & = V_\ell (t, 0) v_0 + \int_0^t V_\ell (t, s) \left[ \mu \frac{u_\ell v_\ell}{u_\ell + h} + \alpha w_\ell \right] \! (s) \, ds, \label{iv2} \\
w_{\ell + 1} (t) & = e^{-\rho t} w_0 + \int_0^t e^{-\rho (t-s)} \left[ \nu \frac{u_\ell v_\ell}{u_\ell + h} + \theta v_\ell \right] \! (s) \, ds \label{iw2}
\end{align}
for $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$, starting at
\begin{equation}\label{1st}
u_1 (t) := e^{t \Delta} u_0, \quad v_1 (t) := e^{t (d \Delta - m)} v_0 \quad {\text{and}} \quad w_1 (t) := e^{- \rho t} w_0.
\end{equation}
Here, $\big\{ U_\ell (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ and $\big\{ V_\ell (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ are time-evolution operators associated with $A_\ell := \Delta - u_\ell - \gamma v_\ell / (u_\ell + h)$ and $B_\ell := d \Delta - m - v_\ell$ for regarding $u_\ell$, $v_\ell$ and $w_\ell$ as given non-negative functions, respectively. These approximation enable us to get non-negativities of $\big( u_\ell, v_\ell, w_\ell \big)$ for each $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$, as well as its limit $\big( u, v, w \big)$. The definition and estimates of time-evolution operators are given in Section~2.
On the other hand, it is rather standard to extend the obtained solutions time-globally, deriving a priori estimates of solutions. The key idea is to apply the maximum principle to the classical solutions. One may also investigate asymptotic behaviors of solutions, more precisely. Via analysis of solutions to the system of corresponding ordinary differential equations, the invariant sets are prescribed as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{th2}
{\rm{(i)}}~Let $\overline v := \mu/(1+h) + \alpha (\nu + \theta + \theta h)/(\rho + \rho h) - m \leq 0$. If $u_0 \not\equiv 0$, then $\big( u, v, w \big) \to \big( 1, 0, 0 \big)$ as $t \to \infty$. Besides, if $u_0 \equiv 0$, then the solution tends to the trivial solution as $t \to \infty$.
\noindent {\rm{(ii)}}~Let $\overline v > 0$ and $\overline w := (\nu + \theta + \theta h) \overline v / (\rho + \rho h)$. For $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $T_\varepsilon \geq 0$ such that $\big( u, v, w \big) \in [ 0, 1 + \varepsilon ) \times [ 0, \overline v + \varepsilon ) \times [ 0, \overline w + \varepsilon )$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \geq T_\varepsilon$. Moreover, if $\big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) \in R := [ 0, 1 ] \times [ 0, \overline v ] \times [ 0, \overline w ]$, then $\big( u, v, w \big) \in R$ for $t > 0$.
\noindent {\rm{(iii)}}~Assume $\overline v > 0$ and
\begin{align*}
\underline u & := (1-h)/2 + \sqrt{(1+h)^2 - 4 \gamma \overline v}/2 > 0, \\
\underline v & := \mu \underline u \, / (\underline u + h) + \alpha \nu \underline u \, / (\rho \underline u + \rho h) + \alpha \theta / \rho - m > 0, \\
\underline w & := \nu \underline u \, \underline v \, / (\rho \underline u + \rho h) + \theta \underline v \, / \rho > 0.
\end{align*}
Let $u$, $v$, $w \geq \underline c$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ at $t = \underline t \geq 0$ with some $\underline c > 0$. For $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $T_\varepsilon' \geq \underline t$ such that $\big( u, v, w \big) \in ( \underline u - \varepsilon, 1 + \varepsilon ) \times ( \underline v - \varepsilon, \overline v + \varepsilon ) \times ( \underline w - \varepsilon, \overline w + \varepsilon )$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \geq T_\varepsilon'$. Moreover, if $\big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) \in R_\natural := [ \underline u, 1 ] \times [ \underline v, \overline v ] \times [ \underline w, \overline w ]$, then $\big( u, v, w \big) \in R_\natural$ for $t > 0$.
\end{theorem}
The sets $R$ and $R_\natural$ are invariant regions. The reader may find another (narrower) invariant regions for each individual parameters. Theorem~\ref{th2} implies that an absorving set always exists in $R$ or $R_\natural$.
The authors believe that one can also obtain the similar results in several domains with suitable boundary conditions.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~2, we shall define function spaces, and recall some properties of the heat semigroup and time-evolution operators. Section~3 will be devoted to show the time-local existence of non-negative unique classical solutions with non-negative initial data. We shall discuss the time-global solvability in Section~4, deriving a priori estimates of solutions and their derivatives. In Section~5, some invariant regions and asymptotic behaviors of solutions to (P) will be argued.
Throughout this paper, we denote positive constants by $C$ the value of which may differ from one occasion to another.
\section{semigroups and time-evolution operators}
\noindent In this section, we recall definition of function spaces and properties of the heat semigroup as well as time-evolution operators.
Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $1 \leq p < \infty$, and let $L^p := L^p ({\mathbb R}^n)$ be the space of all $p$-th integrable functions in ${\mathbb R}^n$ with the norm $\displaystyle \| f \|_p := \left( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} |f(x)|^p dx \right)^{1/p}$. We often omit the notation of domain $({\mathbb R}^n)$, if no confusion occurs likely. We do not distinguish scalar valued functions and vector, as well as function spaces. Let $L^\infty$ be the space of all bounded functions with the norm $\| f \| := \| f \|_\infty := {\rm{ess}}.\sup_{x \in {\mathbb R}^n} | f(x) |$; $BUC$ as the space of all bounded uniformly continuous functions. For $k \in {\mathbb N}$, let $W^{k, \infty}$ be a set of all bounded functions whose $k$-th derivatives are also bounded.
In the whole space ${\mathbb R}^n$, for $\vartheta_0 \in L^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)$, the heat equation
\[
({\rm{H}}) \,\, \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \partial_t \vartheta = \Delta \vartheta \, & {\text{in}} \quad {\mathbb R}^n \!\times\! (0, \infty), \\
\vartheta|_{t=0} = \vartheta_0 \, & {\text{in}} \quad {\mathbb R}^n
\end{array}
\right.
\]
admits a time-global unique smooth solution
\begin{align*}
\vartheta & := \vartheta (t) := \vartheta (x, t) := (e^{t \Delta} \vartheta_0) (x) := (H_t \ast \vartheta_0) (x) \\
& := \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} (4 \pi t)^{-n/2} \exp(-|x-y|^2/4t) \vartheta_0 (y) dy
\end{align*}
in $C_w ((0, \infty); L^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n))$, that is, $\vartheta \in C([\tau, \infty); L^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n))$ for any $\tau > 0$. Here, $H_t := H_t (x) := (4 \pi t)^{-n/2} \exp(-|x|^2/4t)$ is the heat kernel. Since $\| H_t \|_1 = 1$ for $t > 0$, by Young's inequality we have $\| \vartheta (t) \|_\infty \leq \| \vartheta_0 \|_\infty$ for $t > 0$. In particular, if $\vartheta_0 (x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$, then $\vartheta (x, t) \geq 0$ holds true for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$; so-called the maximum principle. Furthermore, if additionally $\vartheta_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $\vartheta_0 \not\equiv 0$, then $\vartheta (x, t) > 0$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$; so-called the strong maximum principle. For $\vartheta_0 \in L^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)$, there is a lack of the continuity of solutions to (H) in time at $t = 0$, in general. Note that $e^{t \Delta} \vartheta_0 \to \vartheta_0$ in $L^\infty$ as $t \to 0$, if and only if $\vartheta_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$. The reader may find its proof in e.g. \cite{GIM99}. Indeed, if $\vartheta_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$, then $\vartheta \in C([0, \infty); BUC ({\mathbb R}^n))$.
One can easily see that for $j \in {\mathbb N}$, there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $\| \partial_i^j e^{t \Delta} \vartheta_0 \|_\infty \leq C t^{-j/2} \| \vartheta_0 \|_\infty$ for $t > 0$ and $1 \leq i \leq n$. So, $\vartheta (t) \in C^j ({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $j \in {\mathbb N}$ and $t >0$, which implies that $\vartheta (t) \in C^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n)$ for $t >0$. Moreover, $\vartheta \in C^\infty ({\mathbb R}^n \times (0, \infty))$ by using (H).
In what follows, we recall some properties and estimates for time-evolution operators. Consider the following autonomous problem:
\[
({\rm{P_A}}) \,\, \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t \varphi = d \Delta \varphi - \psi (x, t) \varphi \,
& {\text{in}} \quad {\mathbb R}^n \!\times\! (0, \infty), \\
\varphi|_{t=0} = \varphi_0 \, & {\text{in}} \quad {\mathbb R}^n.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Here, $\psi (x, t)$ is a given bounded function. We establish the time-local solvability of $({\rm{P_A}})$ with upper bounds of $\varphi (t)$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{KNST19}]\label{lem}
Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $d, T > 0$ and $\psi \in L^\infty ([0, T]; W^{1, \infty} ({\mathbb R}^n))$. If $\varphi_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$, then there exist a $T_\ast \in (0, T]$ and a time-local unique classical solution to $({\rm{P_A}})$, having $\displaystyle \| \varphi (t) \|_\infty \leq \frac{4}{3} \| \varphi_0 \|_\infty$ for $t \in [0, T_\ast]$. Moreover, if $\varphi_0 \geq 0$, then $\varphi \geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Although the proof is written in \cite{KNST19}, we give it in here. The idea is to use the standard iteration. Let $\varphi_1 (t) := e^{d t \Delta} \varphi_0$, and let
\[
\varphi_{\ell + 1} (t) := e^{d t \Delta} \varphi_0 - \int_0^t e^{d (t - s) \Delta} \left[ \psi \varphi_\ell \right] (s) \, ds
\]
for each $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$, successively. It is easy to see that $\displaystyle \| \varphi_\ell (t) \|_\infty \leq \frac{4}{3} \| \varphi_0 \|_\infty$ for $t \in [0, T_\ast]$ with some $T_\ast > 0$ (independent of $\ell$) and $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$. One may easily show $\big\{ \varphi_\ell \big\}_{\ell = 1}^\infty$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C([0, T_\ast]; BUC ({\mathbb R}^n))$. So, its limit $\varphi := \lim_{\ell \to \infty} \varphi_\ell$ exists, and satisfies $({\rm{P_A}})$, having the estimate $\displaystyle \| \varphi (t) \|_\infty \leq \frac{4}{3} \| \varphi_0 \|_\infty$ for $t \in [0, T_\ast]$. It is rather straightforward to obtain the uniqueness and regularity of $\varphi$. Moreover, the non-negativity of $\varphi$ easily follows from the maximum principle.
\end{proof}
Note that if $\| \varphi_0 \| \leq L$ and $\sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \| \psi (t) \| \leq L$ with some $L > 0$, then we may derive the estimate $T_\ast \geq C/L$ with $C > 0$.
The solution to $({\rm{P_A}})$ can be rewritten as $\varphi (t) = U (t, 0) \varphi_0$, using time-evolution operators $\big\{ U (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ associated with $A := A(x, t) := d \Delta - \psi (x, t)$; see in e.g. the book of Tanabe \cite{Tanabe79}. The boundedness of solutions $\varphi$ implies that $\| U (t, 0) \|_{L^\infty \to L^\infty} \leq 4/3$ for $t \in [0, T_\ast]$, and then $\| U (t, s) \|_{L^\infty \to L^\infty} \leq 4/3$ for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_\ast$. Here, we have used the notation of an operator-norm $\| \mathcal O \|_{X \to Y} := \sup_{x \in X} \| {\mathcal O} x \|_Y / \| x \|_X$.
\section{time-local solvability}
\noindent We shall give a proof of the time-local solvability on (P) in this section. Let us denote by $\| \cdot \| := \| \cdot \|_\infty$.
\begin{proposition}\label{tlwp}
Assume that $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $d > 0$, and that other parameters are non-negative. Let $u_0$, $v_0 \in BUC ({\mathbb R}^n)$ and $w_0 \in BUC^1 ({\mathbb R}^n)$. Put $M := \max \{ \| u_0 \|, \| v_0 \|, \| w_0 \|, \| \partial_i w_0 \| \}$. If $u_0$, $v_0$ and $w_0$ are non-negative, then there exist a positive time $T_0$ and a triplet $\big( u, v, w \big)$ of time-local unique classical solutions to {\rm{(P)}} in $C([0, T_0]; BUC ({\mathbb R}^n))$, having $0 \leq u (x, t), v (x, t), w (x, t) \leq 2 M$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in [0, T_0]$. Furthermore, $T_0 \geq C/(M^4+1)$ with some $C > 0$ independent of $M$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that all parameter is positive. Making the approximation sequences, we begin with (\ref{1st}). For $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$, we successively define $u_{\ell + 1}$, $v_{\ell + 1}$ and $w_{\ell + 1}$ by $(\ref{iu2})-(\ref{iw2})$. So, $\big( u_{\ell + 1}, v_{\ell + 1}, w_{\ell + 1} \big)$ formally satisfies
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_t u_{\ell + 1} = \Delta u_{\ell + 1} + \left( 1 - u_{\ell + 1} \right) u_\ell - \gamma u_{\ell + 1} v_\ell / (u_\ell+h), & \\[4pt]
\partial_t v_{\ell + 1} = d \Delta v_{\ell + 1} + \mu u_\ell v_\ell / (u_\ell + h) + \alpha w_\ell - (m + v_\ell) v_{\ell + 1}, & \\[4pt]
\partial_t w_{\ell + 1} = \nu u_\ell v_\ell / (u_\ell + h) + \theta v_\ell - \rho w_{\ell + 1}, & \\[4pt]
\big( u_{\ell + 1}, v_{\ell + 1}, w_{\ell + 1} \big) \big|_{t=0} = \big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) &
\end{array}
\right.
\]
for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t >0$ with non-negative functions $u_0$, $v_0$, $w_0$, $u_\ell$, $v_\ell$, $w_\ell$.
In what follows, we estimate $u_\ell$, $v_\ell$, $w_\ell$, $\partial_i u_\ell$, $\partial_i v_\ell$ and $\partial_i w_\ell$. Put
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
K_{1, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \| u_\ell (t) \|, & K_{2, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \| v_\ell (t) \|, \\[5pt]
K_{3, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \| w_\ell (t) \|, & K_{4, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} t^{1/2} \| \partial_i u_\ell (t) \|, \\[5pt]
K_{5, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} (dt)^{1/2} \| \partial_i v_\ell (t) \|, & K_{6, \ell} := \sup_{0 \leq t \leq T} \| \partial_i w_\ell (t) \|
\end{array}
\]
for $T > 0$, $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$ and $1 \leq i \leq n$. To derive uniform estimates we argue the induction of $\ell$, taking $T$ small.
\vspace{2pt} \noindent {\underline{$\ell = 1$}} For $0 \leq u_0(x), v_0(x), w_0(x) \leq M$, by the maximum principle and the fact that $e^{t(d \Delta -m)} = e^{-mt} e^{dt \Delta}$, we easily see that
\[
0 \leq u_1 (x, t) \leq \| u_0 \|, \quad 0 \leq v_1 (x, t) \leq \| v_0 \|, \quad 0 \leq w_1 (x, t) \leq \| w_0 \|
\]
for ${\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$ by $m, \rho > 0$. In addition, it is also easy to obtain that
\[
t^{1/2} \| \partial_i u_1 (t) \| \leq \| u_0 \|, \quad (dt)^{1/2} \| \partial_i v_1 (t) \| \leq \| v_0 \|, \quad \| \partial_i w_1 (t) \| \leq \| \partial_i w_0 \|
\]
for $t > 0$ and $1 \leq i \leq n$ by the estimate of the heat kernel. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{k1}
K_{j, 1} \leq M \quad \text{for} \quad T > 0, \quad 1 \leq j \leq 6 \quad \text{and} \quad 1 \leq i \leq n.
\end{equation}
\vspace{2pt} \noindent {\underline{$\ell = 2$}} Before estimating $u_2$ and $v_2$, we shall confirm bounds for time-evolution operators $U_1$ and $V_1$. By $u_1 \geq 0$ and (\ref{k1}), it holds that
\[
\| \eta_1 (t) \| \leq M + \frac{\gamma M}{h} =: \overline \eta_1 \quad {\text{with}} \quad \eta_1 (x, t) := u_1 (x, t) + \frac{\gamma v_1 (x, t)}{u_1 (x, t) + h}
\]
for $t > 0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem}, for $\big\{ U_1 (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ with $A_1 (x, t) := \Delta - \eta_1 (x, t)$, we have $\displaystyle 0 \leq U_1 (t, s) u_0 \leq \frac{4}{3} \| u_0 \|$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_2'$ with some $T_2' > 0$ depending only on $\overline \eta_1$. So, by (\ref{iu2}) with $\ell = 1$, we have
\[
0 \leq u_2 (t) \leq \| U_1 (t, 0) u_0 \| + \int_0^t \| U_1 (t, s) \zeta_1(s) \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
with $\zeta_1 (x, t) := u_1 (x, t)$ and $0 \leq \zeta_1 (x, s) \leq \overline \zeta_1 := M$, provided if $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_2^\dagger$ with $T_2^\dagger := \min \big\{ T_2', 1/2 \big\}$. Similarly, since
\[
\| \xi_1 (t) \| \leq m + M =: \overline \xi_1 \quad {\text{with}} \quad \xi_1 (x, t) := m + v_1 (x, t)
\]
for $t > 0$, let $\big\{ V_1 (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ be the time-evolution operator associated with $B_1 (x, t) := d \Delta - \xi_1 (x, t)$, we see that $\displaystyle 0 \leq V_1 (t, s) v_0 \leq \frac{4}{3} \| v_0 \|$ for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_2^\sharp$ with some $T_2^\sharp > 0$ depending only on $\overline \xi_1$. So, by (\ref{iv2}),
\[
0 \leq v_2 (t) \leq \| V_1 (t, 0) v_0 \| + \int_0^t \| V_1 (t, s) \chi_1(s) \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
hold with $\chi_1 (x, t) := \mu u_1 (x, t) v_1 (x, t) / \{ u_1 (x, t) + h \} + \alpha w_1 (x, t)$ and $0 \leq \chi_1 (x, s) \leq \overline \chi_1 := (\mu M/h + \alpha) M$, provided if $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_2^\flat$ with $T_2^\flat := \min \big\{ T_2^\dagger, T_2^\sharp, h/(2 \mu M + 2 \alpha h) \big\}$. For the estimate of $w_2$, we obtain
\[
0 \leq w_2 (t) \leq \| e^{- \rho t} w_0 \| + \int_0^t e^{- \rho (t-s)} \| \nu u_1 v_1 / (u_1 + h) + \theta v_1 \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_2^\natural$ with $T_2^\natural := \min \big\{ T_2^\flat, h/(\nu M + h \theta) \big\}$. To derive the estimate for $\partial_i u_2$, we use the heat semigroup expression:
\[
u_2 (t) = e^{t \Delta} u_0 + \int_0^t e^{(t-s) \Delta} \left[ \zeta_1 - \eta_1 u_2 \right] (s) \, ds,
\]
rewriting (\ref{iu2}). Hence, it holds that
\[
t^{1/2} \| \partial_i u_2 (t) \| \leq \| u_0 \| + t^{1/2} \int_0^t (t-s)^{-1/2} \left[ \overline \zeta_1 + \overline \eta_1 \| u_2 \| \right] ds \leq 2M
\]
for $t \in (0, T_2^\heartsuit]$ with $T_2^\heartsuit := \min \{ T_2^\natural, h / (2 h + 4 h M + 4 \gamma M) \}$. As similar way, for $\partial_i v_2$, we appeal to the heat semigroup expression again:
\begin{align*}
& (dt)^{1/2} \| \partial_i v_2 (t) \| \\
& \qquad \leq (dt)^{1/2} \| \partial_i e^{d t \Delta} v_0 \| + (dt)^{1/2} \int_0^t \| \partial_i e^{d (t-s) \Delta} \left[ \chi_1 - \xi_1 v_2 \right] \| ds \\
& \qquad \leq \| v_0 \| + t^{1/2} \int_0^t (t-s)^{-1/2} \left[ \overline \chi_1 + \overline \xi_1 2 M \right] ds \leq 2M
\end{align*}
for $t \in (0, T_2^\diamondsuit]$ with $T_2^\diamondsuit := \min \{ T_2^\heartsuit, h / (2 \mu M + 2 \alpha h + 4 hm + 4 h M) \}$. Furthermore, we see that
\begin{align*}
\partial_i w_2 (t) & = e^{- \rho t} \partial_i w_0 \\
& \quad + \int_0^t e^{- \rho (t-s)} \left[ \frac{\nu h (\partial_i u_1) v_1 + \nu u_1 (\partial_i v_1) (u_1 + h)}{(u_1 + h)^2} + \theta \partial_i v_1 \right] ds
\end{align*}
holds true, and this implies that
\begin{align*}
\| \partial_i w_2 (t) \| & \leq M + \int_0^t \left\{ \frac{\nu h \sqrt{d} M + \nu M (M + h)}{h^2} + \theta \right\} M (d s)^{-1/2} ds \\
& \leq 2 M \quad {\text{for}} \quad t \in [0, T_2]
\end{align*}
with $T_2 := \min \{ T_2^\diamondsuit, d h^4/[4 \nu h \sqrt{d} M + 4 \nu M^2 + 4 \nu h M + 4 h^2 \theta]^2 \}$.
Therefore, it is shown that $u_2, v_2, w_2 \geq 0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{k2}
K_{j, 2} \leq 2 M \quad \text{for} \quad t \in (0, T_2], \quad 1 \leq j \leq 6 \quad \text{and} \quad 1 \leq i \leq n.
\end{equation}
\vspace{2pt} \noindent {\underline{$\ell = 3$}} We stand for the time-evolution operator $\big\{ U_2 (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ with $A_2 (x, t) := \Delta - \eta_2 (x, t)$ and $\eta_2 (x, t) := u_2 (x, t) + \gamma v_2 (x, t)/ \{ u_2 (x, t) + h \}$. By Lemma~\ref{lem}, $U_2 (t, s) u_0 \geq 0$ and $\| U_2 (t, s) \|_{L^\infty \to L^\infty} \leq 4/3$ for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_3'$ with some $T_3' > 0$, since $0 \leq \eta_2 (x, t) \leq \overline \eta := 2 M + 2 \gamma M/h$ by (\ref{k2}). So, we get
\[
0 \leq u_3 (x, t) \leq \| U_2 (t, 0) u_0 \| + \int_0^t \| U_2 (t, s) \zeta_2 (s) \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in [0, T_3^\dagger]$ with $T_3^\dagger := \min \{ T_3', 1/4 \big\}$. Here we have used that $0 \leq \zeta_2 (x, t) := u_2 (x, t) \leq \overline \zeta := 2 M$. Similarly, denote the time-evolution operator by $\big\{ V_2 (t, s) \big\}_{t \geq s \geq 0}$ associated with $B_2 (x, t) := d \Delta - \xi_2 (x, t)$. Since $0 \leq \xi_2 (x, t) := m + v_2 (x, t) \leq \overline \xi := m + 2 M$, $V(t, s) v_0 \geq 0$ and $\| V_2 (t, s) \|_{L^\infty \to L^\infty} \leq 4/3$ holds for $0 \leq s \leq t \leq T_3^\sharp$ with some $T_3^\sharp > 0$ by Lemma~\ref{lem}. Hence, we can see that
\[
0 \leq v_3 (x, t) \leq \| V_2 (t, 0) v_0 \| + \int_0^t \| V_2 (t, s) \chi_2 (s) \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in [0, T_3^\flat]$ with $T_3^\flat := \min \big\{ T_3^\dagger, T_3^\sharp, h/(8 \mu M + 4 \alpha h) \big\}$. Here we have used $0 \leq \chi_2 (x, t) := \mu u_2 (x, t) v_2 (x, t) / \{ u_2 (x, t) + h \} + \alpha w_2 (x, t) \leq \overline \chi := 4 \mu M^2/h + 2 \alpha M$ by (\ref{k2}). It is also easy to show that
\[
0 \leq w_3 (x, t) \leq \| w_0 \| + \int_0^t \| \nu u_2 v_2 / (u_2 + h) + \theta v_2 \| ds \leq 2 M
\]
for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in [0, T_3^\natural := \min \big\{ T_3^\flat, h/(4 \nu M + 2 h \theta) \big\}$. By the heat semigroup expression, we obtain that
\[
t^{1/2} \| \partial_i u_3 (t) \| \leq \| u_0 \| + t^{1/2} \int_0^t (t-s)^{-1/2} \left[ \| \zeta_2 \| + \| \eta_2 u_3 \| \right] ds \leq 2M
\]
for $t \in (0, T_3^\heartsuit]$ with $T_3^\heartsuit := \min \{ T_3^\natural, h / (4 h + 8 h M + 8 \gamma M) \}$. As similar way, we derive
\[
(dt)^{1/2} \| \partial_i v_3 (t) \| \leq \| v_0 \| + t^{1/2} \int_0^t (t-s)^{-1/2} \left[ \| \chi_2 \| + \| \xi_2 v_3 \| \right] ds \leq 2M
\]
for $t \in (0, T_3^\diamondsuit]$ with $T_3^\diamondsuit := \min \{ T_3^\heartsuit, h / (4 h m + 8 h M + 8 \mu M + 4 \alpha h) \}$. For estimate $\partial_i w_3$, we have
\begin{align*}
\| \partial_i w_3 (t) \| & \leq M + \int_0^t \left\| \frac{\nu h (\partial_i u_2) v_2 + \nu u_2 (\partial_i v_2) (u_2 + h)}{h^2} + \theta \partial_i v_2 \right\| ds \\
& \leq 2 M \quad {\text{for}} \quad t \in (0, T_0]
\end{align*}
with $T_0 := \min \{ T_3^\diamondsuit, d h^4/[8 \nu h \sqrt{d} M + 16 \nu M^2 + 8 \nu h M + 4 h^2 \theta]^2 \}$. Note that the estimate $T_0 \geq C/(M^4+1)$ is yielded with some $C > 0$.
Therefore, we see that $u_3, v_3, w_3 \geq 0$ and
\[
K_{j, 3} \leq 2M \quad \text{for} \quad t \in (0, T_0], \quad 1 \leq i \leq n \quad {\text{and}} \quad 1 \leq j \leq 6.
\]
\vspace{2pt} \noindent {\underline{$\ell = 4, 5, \ldots$}} Let $\ell \geq 4$. We assume that $u_\ell$, $v_\ell$, $w_\ell \geq 0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{k-ell}
K_{j, \ell} \leq 2 M \quad \text{for} \quad t \in (0, T_0], \quad 1 \leq j \leq 6 \quad {\text{and}} \quad 1 \leq i \leq n
\end{equation}
hold true. We shall compute estimates for $u_{\ell + 1}$, $v_{\ell + 1}$ and $w_{\ell + 1}$. Note that $\eta_\ell \leq \overline \eta$, $\zeta_\ell \leq \overline \zeta$, $\xi_\ell \leq \overline \xi$, $\chi_\ell \leq \overline \chi$ hold, independently of $\ell \geq 3$. So, as the same discussion in the case $\ell = 3$ in above, one can see that $u_{\ell+1}$, $v_{\ell+1}$, $w_{\ell+1} \geq 0$ and
\[
K_{j, \ell+1} \leq 2 M \quad \text{for} \quad t \in (0, T_0], \quad 1 \leq j \leq 6 \quad {\text{and}} \quad 1 \leq i \leq n.
\]
The detail is omitted in here. Hence, the non-negativities of approximation and $(\ref{k-ell})$ hold true for all $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$.
One may see that $\big( u_\ell, v_\ell, w_\ell \big)$ are continuous in $t \in [0, T_0]$ for $\ell \in {\mathbb N}$. It is also easy to see that $\big\{ u_\ell, v_\ell, w_\ell, t^{1/2} \partial_i u_\ell, t^{1/2} \partial_i v_\ell, \partial_i w_\ell \big\}_{\ell = 1}^\infty$ are Cauchy sequences in $C([0, T_0]; BUC)$, choosing $T_0$ small again, if necessary. Let
\[
\big( u, v, w, \hat u, \hat v, \hat w \big) := \lim_{\ell \to \infty} \big( u_\ell, v_\ell, w_\ell, t^{1/2} \partial u_\ell, t^{1/2} \partial v_\ell, \partial_i w_\ell \big).
\]
Obviously, the coincidences $\hat u = t^{1/2} \partial_i u$, $\hat v = t^{1/2} \partial_i v$ and $\hat w = \partial_i w$ hold by construction. Furthermore, it is also ensured that
\[
0 \leq u (x, t), v (x, t), w (x, t) \leq 2M \quad {\text{for}} \,\,\, x \in {\mathbb R}^n \,\,\, {\text{and}} \,\,\, t \in [0, T_0].
\]
The uniqueness follows from $(\ref{int-u})-(\ref{int-w})$ and Gronwall's inequality, directly. If fact, if $\big( u, v, w \big)$ and $\big( u^\ast, v^\ast, w^\ast \big)$ are solutions to (P) with the same initial data $\big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big)$, then $u \equiv u^\ast$, $v \equiv v^\ast$ and $w \equiv w^\ast$ simultaneously hold. Thanks to the boundedness of the first derivatives, it is easy to control the second derivatives in $x$ of $u$ and $v$ for $t \in (0, T_0]$, as well as the first derivatives in $t$ of solutions. So, we may see that $\big( u, v, w \big)$ is a triplet of time-local unique classical solutions to (P). This completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{tlwp}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{r2}{\rm
(i)~If $w_0$ is smooth, then $\big( u, v, w \big)$ is smooth in $x$ and $t$.
\noindent (ii)~For $d = 0$, we can also get time-local well-posedness, if $v_0 \in BUC^1$.
\noindent (iii)~The instability of the trivial solution is easily obtained. Moreover, by strong maximum principle for solutions to the heat equation, $u > 0$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in (0, T_0]$, if $u_0 \not\equiv 0$. This means that ${\rm{supp}} \, u(t) = {\mathbb R}^n$ for any small $t > 0$, even if ${\rm{supp}} \, u_0$ is compact. That is, the propagation speed of solutions to (P) is infinite, as the same as the heat equation. In addition, $v > 0$ and $w > 0$ for $t > 0$, if either $v_0 \not\equiv 0$ or $w_0 \not\equiv 0$.
}\end{remark}
\section{time-global well-posedness}
\noindent In this section, we will derive a priori bounds of solutions and their derivatives. To do so, our first task is to obtain upper bounds of solutions to (P) with large initial data. For the case when $\| u_0 \| \leq 1$, we will discuss in Remark~\ref{r3}-(ii) in below and Section~5.
\begin{proposition}\label{ub}
Suppose the assumption of Proposition~$\ref{tlwp}$. If $\kappa_0 := \| u_0 \| > 1$, then $0 < u (x, t) < \kappa_0$, $0 \leq v \leq \max \big\{ \| v_0 \|, \widetilde v \big\}$ and $0 \leq w \leq \max \big\{ \| w_0 \|, \widetilde w \big\}$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$, as long as the classical solutions exist. Here, $\widetilde v := \mu \kappa_0 / (\kappa_0 + h) + \alpha (\nu \kappa_0 + \theta \kappa_0 + \theta h) / (\rho \kappa_0 + \rho h) - m$ and $\widetilde w := (\nu \kappa_0 + \theta \kappa_0 + \theta h) \widetilde v / (\rho \kappa_0 + \rho h)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $v_0 \equiv 0$ and $w_0 \equiv 0$, then $v \equiv w \equiv 0$ for $t > 0$. Assume either $v_0 \not\equiv 0$ or $w_0 \not\equiv 0$. So, as seen in Remark~\ref{r2}-(iii), we have $u$, $v$, $w > 0$. The behavior of $u$ will be observed. Consider the logistic equation:
\begin{equation}\label{kappa}
\kappa' = (1 - \kappa) \kappa, \quad \kappa (0) = \kappa_0 > 1.
\end{equation}
By maximum principle, $u (x, t) \leq \kappa (t)$ holds for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$, as long as the classical $u$ exists. Since $\kappa (t) = \kappa_0 / (\kappa_0 + e^{-t} - \kappa_0 e^{-t}) < \kappa_0$ for $t > 0$, it is clear that $u < \kappa_0$.
Next, we investigate on $v$. One may assume $\widetilde v > 0$, without loss of generality. Furthermore, we assume $\omega_0 := \| v_0 \| > \widetilde v$. Let $\omega = \omega (t)$ be a solution to
\begin{equation}\label{omega}
\omega' = \mu \frac{\kappa_0 \omega}{\kappa_0 + h} + \frac{\alpha}{\rho} \left( \nu \frac{\kappa_0 \omega}{\kappa_0 + h} + \theta \omega \right) - (m + \omega) \omega = (\widetilde v - \omega) \omega
\end{equation}
with $\omega (0) = \omega_0 > \widetilde v$. Since $\omega$ is monotone decreasing, $\widetilde v < \omega (t) < \omega_0$ for $t > 0$. By maximum principle, $v (x, t) \leq \omega (t)$ holds for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t > 0$. Here, we have used $0 < u/(u+h) \leq \kappa_0/(\kappa_0 + h)$ by $0 < u \leq \kappa_0$. This yields that $v < \omega_0$. If $\| v_0 \| \leq \widetilde v$, then it is easy to see that $v \leq \widetilde v$.
Since $u \leq \kappa_0$ and $v \leq \widetilde v$, one can easily see that $w \leq \widetilde w$, when $\| w_0 \| \leq \widetilde w$. Also, even if $\| w_ 0 \| > \widetilde w$, then $w < \| w_0 \|$ holds by the same observation above.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{r3}{\rm
(i)~By definition, it is clear that $\widetilde v \geq \overline v$ and $\widetilde w \geq \overline w$, if $\kappa_0 \geq 1$. Besides, $\widetilde v \leq \overline v$ and $\widetilde w \leq \overline w$, if $\kappa_0 \leq 1$.
\noindent (ii)~Even $\kappa_0 = \| u_0 \| \leq 1$, the uniform bounds on $v$ and $w$ are obtained; $v \leq \| v_0 \|$ holds with $\| v_0 \| \geq \overline v$, and $w \leq \| w_0 \|$ holds with $\| w_0 \| \geq \overline w$.
}\end{remark}
In what follows, we will give the a priori estimate for $\| \partial_i w (t) \|$, which may grow in $t$. As seen in Proposition~\ref{ub}, we prove that $0 \leq u, v, w \leq N$ as long as the classical solutions exist, if $N$ is chosen as
\[
N := \max \big\{ 1, \kappa_0, \overline v, \widetilde v, \| v_0 \|,\overline w, \widetilde w, \| w_0 \| \big\} \quad {\text{with}} \quad \kappa_0 := \| u_0 \|.
\]
\begin{proposition}\label{d_iw}
If $0 \leq u, v, w \leq N$ for $x \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t \in [0, T]$ with $N$ and $T$, then there exists a $C > 0$ $($independent of $N$ and $T)$ such that
\[
\| \partial_i w (t) \| \leq \| \partial_i w_ 0 \| + C (N^4 + N) \left( t^{1/2} + t^{3/2} \right), \quad t \in [0, T], \,\,\, 1 \leq i \leq n.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first derive the estimate for $\partial_i u$. By (\ref{int-u}), we have
\begin{align*}
\| \partial_i u (t) \| & \leq \| u_0 \| t^{-1/2} + \int_0^t (t-s)^{-1/2} \left\| (1-u) u - \frac{\gamma u v}{u+h} \right\| ds \\
& \leq C (N^2 + N) (t^{-1/2} + t^{1/2})
\end{align*}
for $t \in [0, T]$ and $1 \leq i \leq n$ with some $C$. Similarly, by (\ref{int-v}), we seek
\begin{align*}
& \| \partial_i v (t) \| \\
& \quad \leq \| v_0 \| (d t)^{-1/2} + \int_0^t (dt-ds)^{-1/2} \left\| \frac{\mu u v}{u + h} + \alpha w - (m + v) v \right\| ds \\
& \quad \leq C (N^2 + N) (t^{-1/2} + t^{1/2})
\end{align*}
with some $C$. Finally, by (\ref{int-w}) and estimates above, it turns out that
\begin{align*}
\| \partial_i w (t) \| & \leq \| \partial_i w_0 \| + \int_0^t \left\| \frac{\nu h (\partial_i u) v + \nu u (\partial_i v) (u + h)}{(u + h)^2} + \theta \partial_i v \right\| ds \\
& \leq \| \partial_i w_0 \| + C (N^4 + N) \int_0^t (s^{-1/2} + s^{1/2}) ds \\
& \leq \| \partial_i w_0 \| + C (N^4 + N) (t^{1/2} + t^{3/2})
\end{align*}
for $t \in [0, T]$ and $1 \leq i \leq n$ with some positive constant $C$ depending on parameters, however, independent of $N$ and $T$.
\end{proof}
Note here that Theorem~\ref{th} follows from Proposition~\ref{ub}, Proposition~\ref{d_iw} and the estimate $T_0 \geq C/(M^4+1)$ in Proposition~\ref{tlwp}, since we can extend the obtained unique solutions time-globally, repeating construction.
\section{Invariant regions}
\noindent This section will be devoted to observe invariant regions. The proof of Theorem~\ref{th2}-(i) is easy, since $\big( 1, 0, 0 \big)$ is only one stable constant state. So, we skip it in here.
We are now position to give a proof of Theorem~\ref{th2}-(ii). The key step is to deduce a priori bounds of solutions, due to the maximum principle and comparison with solutions to the system of corresponding ordinary differential equations (\ref{kappa}) and (\ref{omega}). Let us recall the assumption:
\[
\overline v := \mu/(1+h) + \alpha (\nu + \theta + \theta h) / (\rho + \rho h) - m > 0,
\]
$\overline w := (\nu + \theta + \theta h) \overline v / (\rho + \rho h) > 0$ and $R := [ 0, 1 ] \times [ 0 , \overline v ] \times [ 0, \overline w ]$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~{\rm{\ref{th2}-(ii)}}]
We first show that $R$ is an invariant region. Let $\big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) \in R$. By construction of time-local solutions in Proposition~\ref{tlwp}, the non-negativity of solutions is clarified. Note that $\big( 0, 0, 0 \big)$ and $\big( 1, 0, 0 \big)$ are classical solutions in $R$. If $u_0 \equiv 0$, then $u \equiv 0$, in addition, $v \in [0, \overline v]$ and $w \in [0, \overline w]$, since $v^\flat := \alpha \theta / \rho - m \leq \overline v$ and $w^\flat := \theta (\alpha \theta - m \rho) / \rho^2 \leq \overline w$. Also, it is easy to see that $v \equiv 0$ and $w \equiv 0$ hold for $t > 0$, provided if $v_0 \equiv 0$ and $w_0 \equiv 0$.
Let $u_0 \not\equiv 0$ and either $v_0 \not\equiv 0$ or $w_0 \not\equiv 0$. As seen in Remark~\ref{r2}-(iii), it is clear that the classical solutions $u$, $v$, $w$ never touch to $0$, as long as they exist. Moreover, with $u_0 \leq 1$, we observe that $u(\tau) < 1$ for small $\tau > 0$ by the strong maximum principle. Similarly, it turns out that $v(\tau) < \overline v$ by $v_0 \leq \overline v$, as well as $w(\tau) < \overline w$. So, regarding $\tau$ as the initial time, one may assume $\big( u_0, v_0, w_0 \big) \in R^\circ := R \setminus \partial R$, without loss of generality.
Put $(\hat x, \hat t) \in {\mathbb R}^n \times (0, T_0]$ such that $\hat t$ is the first time when $u$ touches to $1$ at $\hat x$. We may assume $|\hat x| < \infty$ by Oleinik's argument; see e.g. \cite{GG99}. Since $u (\hat x, \hat t) = 1$ is the local maximum, at $(\hat x, \hat t)$ we see that $\partial_t u \geq 0$, $\Delta u \leq 0$, $(1 - u) u = 0$ and $-\gamma uv/(u+h) < 0$ by $v > 0$. This contradicts to the fact that $u$ is a solution to (P). Hence, $u$ never touches to $1$.
The same argument works on $v$. Indeed, let $0 < u < 1$, $0 < w < \overline w$, and let $(\check x, \check t) \in {\mathbb R}^n \times (0, T_0]$ such that $\check t$ is the first time when $v$ touches to $\overline v$ at $\check x$. So, at $(\check x, \check t)$, we see that $\partial_t v \geq 0$, $d \Delta v \leq 0$ and
\[
\frac{\mu u v}{u+h} + \alpha w - (m + v) v < \frac{\mu \overline v}{1+h} + \alpha \overline w - (m + \overline v) \overline v = 0.
\]
So, $v$ never touches to $\overline v$. As the same as above, one may confirm that $w$ never touches to $\overline w$ as long as classical solutions exist. This means that a triplet of the solutions always remains in $R^\circ \subset R$.
Next, we show the asymptotic behavior of solutions, briefly. Even if $\| u_0 \| > 1$, by $u (x, t) \leq \kappa (t)$, then there exists a $T_\varepsilon^\ast > 0$ such that $\| u (t) \| < 1 + \varepsilon$ for $t > T_\varepsilon^\ast$. From this and (\ref{omega}), there exists $T_\varepsilon^\sharp > T_\varepsilon^\ast$ such that $\| v (t) \| < \overline v + \varepsilon$ for $t > T_\varepsilon^\sharp$. Finally, one can also show that there exists $T_\varepsilon > T_\varepsilon^\sharp$ such that $\| w (t) \| < \overline w + \varepsilon$ for $t > T_\varepsilon$, by similar way. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th2}-(ii).
\end{proof}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th2}-(iii) is essentially similar to above. So, we omit it in here.
\begin{remark}\label{r4}{\rm
The stability of non-trivial constant states to the system of corresponding ordinary differential equations can be obtained, using linear algebra. For example, if we choose
\[
\mu = \nu = \frac{\gamma}{2}, \, m = \theta = 0, \, \alpha = \rho = \frac{1}{4}, \, \gamma = h + \frac{1}{2}, \leqno{\rm{(E1)}}
\]
then a constant state $\big( u, v, w \big) = \big( 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 \big)$ is linearly stable for any $h > 0$. On the other hand, if we select the parameters as
\[
\mu = \frac{3 \gamma}{4}, \, \nu = \frac{\gamma}{2}, \, m = \frac{\theta}{2} = \frac{1}{8}, \, \alpha = \frac{\rho}{2} = \frac{1}{4}, \, \gamma = h + \frac{1}{2}, \leqno{\rm{(E2)}}
\]
then $\big( 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 \big)$ is again a constant state whose stability is bifurcated in $h$. Indeed, $\big( 1/2, 1/2, 1/2 \big)$ is linearly instable for $h \in (0, 1/2)$, however, linearly stable for $h > 1/2$. The authors believe that such stability is still valid for solutions to (P). For studying Turing instability, it is needed to consider more complicated situation, e.g. when $\mu$ and $\nu$ are functions of $u$.
}\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
The $\l$-calculus is the model underlying functional programming languages and proof assistants. The gap between the model and its incarnations is huge. In particular, the $\l$-calculus does not come with a fixed reduction strategy, while concrete frameworks need one.
A desirable property is that the reduction which is implemented terminates on all terms on which $\beta$ reduction has a reduction sequence to normal form. This is guaranteed by a \emph{normalization theorem}.
Two classic
examples are the \emph{leftmost-outermost} and \emph{head} normalization theorems (theorems 13.2.2 and 11.4.8 in Barendregt
\cite{Barendregt84}). The former states that if the term has a $\beta$-normal form, leftmost-outermost reduction is guaranteed to find it; the latter has a similar but
subtler statement, roughly head reduction computes a head normal form, if the term has any.
Another classic theorem for head reduction states that head reduction\xspace approximates the $\beta$-normal form by computing an essential part of every evaluation sequence. The precise formulation is
a \emph{factorization theorem}: a sequence of $\beta$ steps $t\Rew{\beta}^*s$ can always be re-arranged as a sequence of head steps ($\Rew{h}$) followed by a sequence of non-head steps ($\Rew{\lnot h}$), that is, $t \Rew{h}^* u \Rew{\lnot h}^* s$.
Both head and leftmost-outermost reductions play a key role in the theory of the $\l$-calculus as presented in
Barendregt \cite{Barendregt84} or Krivine \cite{krivine1993lambda}.
Variants of the $\l$-calculus abound and are
continuously introduced: weak, call-by-value, call-by-need, classical, with pattern matching, sharing, non-determinism, probabilistic choice, quantum features, differentiation, \textit{etc}.
So, normalization and factorization theorems need to be studied in many variations. Concepts and techniques to prove these theorems do exist, but they do not have the essential, intuitive structure of other fundamental properties, such as~confluence.
\paragraph{This paper.} Here we provide a presentation of factorization and
normalization revisiting a simple technique
due to Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95}, making it even \emph{simpler} and \emph{more widely applicable}.
We separate the abstract reasoning from the concrete details of head reduction,
and apply the revisited proof method to several case studies.
The presentation is novel and hopefully accessible to anyone familiar with the $\l$-calculus, without a background in advanced notions of rewriting theory.
We provide four case studies,
all following the same method.
Two are revisitations of the classic cases of head and leftmost-outermost (shortened to $\ell o$\xspace) reductions. Two are folklore cases. The first is \emph{weak} ({\em i.e.}\xspace out of $\l$-abstractions) \emph{call-by-value} (shortened to {CbV}\xspace) \emph{reduction}
in its non-deterministic presentation.
The second is \emph{least-level} (shortened to \ll) \emph{reduction}, a reduction\xspace coming from the linear logic literature---sometimes called \emph{by levels}---and which is usually presented
using proof nets (see de Carvalho, Pagani and Tortora de Falco \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/CarvalhoPF11} or Pagani and Tranquilli \cite{DBLP:journals/mscs/PaganiT17}) or calculi related to proof nets (see Terui \cite{DBLP:journals/aml/Terui07} or Accattoli \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/Accattoli12}), rather than in the ordinary $\l$-calculus.
The $\ell o$\xspace and \ll cases are \emph{full\xspace} reductions for $\beta$,
{\em i.e.}\xspace they have the same normal forms as $\beta$.
The head and weak {CbV}\xspace cases are not full\xspace, as they may not compute $\beta$ normal forms.
\paragraph{Takahashi.}
In \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95}, Takahashi uses the natural inductive notion of \emph{parallel}\footnotemark
\footnotetext{
The terminology at work in the literature on $\l$-calculus and the rewriting terminology often clash: the former calls \emph{parallel $\beta$ reduction} what the latter calls \emph{multi-step $\beta$ reduction}---parallel reduction in rewriting is something else.}
$\beta$ reduction (which reduces simultaneously a number of $\beta$-redexes; it is also the key concept in Tait and Martin-L\"of's classic proof of confluence of the $\l$-calculus)
to introduce a simple proof technique
for head factorization, from which head normalization follows.
By iterating head factorization, she also obtains leftmost-outermost normalization, via a simple argument on the structure of~terms due to Mitschke \cite{Mitschke79}.
Her technique has
been employed
for various $\l$-calculi because of its simplicity.
Namely, for the $\l$-calculus with $\eta$ by Ishii \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Ishii18}, the call-by-value $\l$-calculus by Ronchi Della Rocca and Paolini \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/PaoliniR04,RonchiPaolini}, the resource $\l$-calculus by Pagani and Tranquilli \cite{DBLP:conf/aplas/PaganiT09}, pattern calculi by Kesner, Lombardi and {R{\'i}os}\xspace \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1102-3734}, the shuffling calculus by Guerrieri, Paolini and Ronchi Della Rocca \cite{GuerrieriPR15,Guerrieri15,DBLP:journals/lmcs/GuerrieriPR17}, and it has
been formalized with proof assistants by McKinna and Pollack \cite{DBLP:journals/jar/McKinnaP99} and Crary \cite{Crary09standard}.
\paragraph{Takahashi revisited.} Despite its simplicity, Takahashi's proof \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} of factorization relies on substitutivity properties not satisfied by full\xspace reductions such as $\ell o$\xspace and \ll.
Our first contribution is a proof that is independent
of the substitutivity properties of the factorizing reductions.
It relies on a simpler fact, namely the substitutivity of an \emph{indexed} variant $\partobind n$ of parallel $\beta$ reduction $\parRew{\beta}$.
The definition of $\partobind n$ simply decorates the definition of $\parRew{\beta}$ with a natural number $n$ that intuitively corresponds to the number of redexes reduced in parallel by a $\parRew{\beta}$ step.
We
prove factorization theorems for all our four case studies following this simpler scheme. We also highlight an interesting point:
factorization for the two full\xspace reductions cannot be
obtained directly following Takahashi's method\footnotemark
\footnotetext{\label{f:direct}It can be obtained indirectly, as a corollary of standardization, proved by Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} using the concrete structure of terms. Thus the proof is not of an abstract nature.}.
\paragraph{From factorization to essential normalization.} The second main contribution of our paper is the isolation of
abstract properties that together with factorization imply normalization. First of all we abstract head reduction into a generic reduction $\Rew{\esym}$, called \emph{essential}, and non-head reduction $\Rew{\lnot h}$ into a \emph{non-essential} reduction $\Rew{\isym}$. The first additional property for normalization is \emph{persistence}: steps of the factoring reduction $\Rew{\esym}$ cannot be erased by the factored out $\Rew{\isym}$. The second one is a relaxed form of determinism for $\Rew{\esym}$. We show that in such \emph{essential} rewriting systems $\Rew{\esym}$ has a normalization theorem. The argument is abstract, that is, independent of the specific nature of terms. This is in contrast to how Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} obtains normalization from factorization: her proof is based on an induction over the structure of terms, and cannot then be disentangled by the concrete nature of the rewriting system under study.
\paragraph{Normalizing reductions for $\beta$.} We apply both our techniques to our case studies of full\xspace reduction: $\ell o$\xspace and \ll, obtaining simple proofs that they are normalizing reductions for $\beta$.
Let us point out that $\ell o$\xspace is also---at present---the only known deterministic reduction to $\beta$ normal form whose number of steps is a reasonable cost model, as shown by
Accattoli and Dal Lago \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/AccattoliL16}. Understanding its normalization is one of the motivations at the inception of this work.
\paragraph{Normalization with respect to different notions of results.}
As a further feature, our approach provides for free normalization theorems for reductions that are not full\xspace for the rewrite system in which they live.
Typical examples are head and weak {CbV}\xspace reductions, which do not compute $\beta$ and {CbV}\xspace normal forms, respectively.
These normalization theorems arise naturally in the theory of the $\l$-calculus. For instance, functional programming languages implement only weak notions of reduction, and head reduction (rather than $\ell o$\xspace) is the key notion for the $\l$-definability of computable functions.
We obtain normalization theorems for head and weak {CbV}\xspace reductions.
Catching normalization for non-full\xspace reductions sets our work apart from the recent studies on normalization by Hirokawa, Middeldorp, and Moser \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15} and Van Oostrom and Toyama \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16}, discussed below among related works.
\paragraph{Factorization, Normalization, Standardization.} In the literature of the $\l$-calculus, normalization for $\losym$\xspace reduction is often obtained as a corollary of the standardization theorem, which roughly states that every reduction sequence can be re-organized as to reduce redexes according to the left-to-right order (Terese \cite{Terese} following Klop \cite{phdklop} and Barendregt \cite{Barendregt84}, for instance). Standardization is a complex and technical result.
Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95}, using Mitschke's argument \cite{Mitschke79} that iterates
head factorization, obtains a simpler proof technique for $\losym$\xspace normalization---and for standardization as well.
Our work refines that approach, abstracts from it and shows that factorization is a general technique for normalization.
\paragraph{Related work.} Factorization is studied in the abstract
{in \cite{DBLP:conf/ctcs/Mellies97,DBLP:conf/rta/Accattoli12}}.
{Melli{\`e}s}\xspace axiomatic approach \cite{DBLP:conf/ctcs/Mellies97} builds on standardization, and encompasses a wide class of rewriting
systems;
in particular, like us, he can deal with non-full\xspace reductions.
{Accattoli} \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/Accattoli12} relies crucially
on terminating hypotheses, absent instead here.
Hirokawa, Middeldorp, and Moser \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15} and Van Oostrom and Toyama \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16} study normalizing strategies via a clean separation between abstract and term rewriting results.
Our approach to normalization is similar to the one used in \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15} to study $\losym$\xspace evaluation for first-order term rewriting systems.
Our essential systems strictly generalize their conditions: uniform termination replaces determinism
(two of the strategies we present here are not deterministic) and---crucially---persistence strictly generalizes the property in their Lemma 7.
Conversely, they focus on hyper-normalization and on extending the method to systems in which left-normality is relaxed. We do not deal with these aspects.
Van Oostrom and Toyama's study \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16} of
(hyper-)normalization is
based on an elegant and powerful method based on the random descent property and
an ordered notion of commutative diagrams.
Their method and ours are incomparable: we do not rely on (and do not assume) the random descent property (for its definition and uses see van Oostrom \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/Oostrom07})---even if most strategies naturally have that property---and we do
focus on factorization (which they explicitly
avoid),
since we see it as the crucial tool from which normalization can be obtained.
As already pointed out, a fundamental difference with respect to both works is that we consider a more general notion of normalization for reductions that are not full\xspace, that is not captured by either of those approaches.
In the literature, normalization is also proved from iterated head factorization (Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} for $\ell o$\xspace, and Terui \cite{DBLP:journals/aml/Terui07} or Accattoli \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/Accattoli12} for \ll on proof nets-like calculi, or Pagani and Tranquilli \cite{DBLP:journals/mscs/PaganiT17} for \ll on differential proof nets), or as a corollary of standardization (Terese \cite{Terese} following Klop \cite{phdklop} and Barendregt \cite{Barendregt84} for $\ell o$\xspace), or using semantic principles such as intersection types (Krivine \cite{krivine1993lambda} for $\ell o$\xspace and de Carvalho, Pagani and Tortora de Falco \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/CarvalhoPF11} for \ll on proof nets).
Last, Bonelli \emph{et al.} develop a sophisticated proof of normalization for a $\l$-calculus with powerful pattern matching in \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/BonelliKLR17}.
Our technique differs from them all.
\section{Factorization and Normalization, Abstractly}
\label{sect:abstract-rewriting}
In this section, we study factorization and normalization abstractly, that is, independently of the specific structure of the objects to be rewritten.
A \emph{rewriting system} (aka abstract reduction system, see Terese \cite[Ch.~1]{Terese}) $\mathcal S$ is a pair $(S, \to)$
consisting of a set $S$ and a binary
relation $\to \, \subseteq S\times S$ called \emph{reduction}, whose pairs are written $t \to s$ and called \emph{$\to$-steps}.
A \emph{$\to$-sequence\xspace} from $t$ is a sequence $t \to s \to \dots$ of $\to$-steps; $t \to^k \tmtwo}%{s$ denotes a sequence of $k$ $\to$-steps from $t$ to
$s$.
As usual, $\to^*$ (resp. $\to^=$) denotes the transitive-reflexive (resp. reflexive) closure of $\to$. Given two reductions $\Rew{1}$ and $\Rew{2}$ we use $\Rew{1}\!\cdot\!\Rew{2}$ for their composition, defined as $t \Rew{1} \!\cdot\! \Rew{2} s$ if $t \tooneu\Rew{2} s$ for some $u$.
In this section we focus on a given sub-reduction $\Rew{\esym}$ of $\to$, called \emph{essential}, for which we study factorization and normalization with respect to $\to$. It comes with a second sub-reduction $\Rew{\isym}$, called \emph{inessential}, such that $\Rew{\esym} \cup \Rew{\isym} \,=\, \to$. Despite the notation, $\Rew{\esym}$ and $\Rew{\isym}$ are not required to be disjoint. In general, we write $(S,\{\Rew{a},\Rew{b}\})$ for the rewriting system
$(S,\to)$ where $\to ~=~\Rew{a} \cup \Rew{b}$.
\subsection{Factorization.}
A rewriting system $(S,\{\Rew{\esym},\Rew{\isym}\})$
satisfies \emph{$\Rew{\esym}$-factorization} (also called \emph{postponement of $\Rew{\isym}$ after $\Rew{\esym}$})
if $t \to^* s$ implies that there exists $u$ such that $t\Rew{\esym}^* u \Rew{\isym}^* s$.
Compactly, we write $\to^* \, \subseteq \, \Rew{\esym}^*\!\cdot\!\Rew{\isym}^*$.
In diagrams, see \reffig{diagrams}.a.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc @{\hspace{.5cm}} | cc @{\hspace{.5cm}} | cc @{\hspace{.5cm}} | cc}
a)&
\begin{tikzpicture}[ocenter]
\node (t) {\small $t$};
\node (dummy) [right of=t] {};
\node (s1) [right of=dummy] {\small$s$};
\node (u) [below of=dummy] {\small$u$};
\draw[->, labelEndAbove=*] (t) to (s1);
\draw[->,dashed, labelEndLeft=$\esym$, labelEndRight=*] (t) to (u);
\draw[->, dashed, labelEndRight=${\lnot\extsym}$, labelEndLeft=*] (u) to (s1);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\ b)
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[ocenter]
\node (t) {\small $t$};
\node (s1) [right of=t] {\small$s_1$};
\node (s2) [below of=t] {\small$s_2$};
\node (u) [right of=s2] {\small$u$};
\draw[->, labelEndBelow=${\lnot\extsym}$] (t) to (s1);
\draw[->, dashed, labelEndLeft=$\esym$, labelEndRight=*] (t) to (s2);
\draw[->, dashed, labelEndAbove=*, labelEndBelow=${\lnot\extsym}$] (s2) to (u);
\draw[->, labelEndRight=$\esym$] (s1) to (u);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\ c)
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[ocenter]
\node (t) {\small $t$};
\node (s1) [right of=t] {\small$s$};
\node (u) [below of=s1] {\small$u$};
\draw[->, double, labelEndBelow=${\lnot\extsym}$] (t) to (s1);
\draw[->, double, dashed, labelEndAbove] (t) to (u);
\draw[->, labelEndRight=$\esym$] (s1) to (u);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\ d)
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[ocenter]
\node (t) {\small $t$};
\node (s2) [below of=t] {\small$s$};
\node (u) [right of=s2] {\small$u$};
\draw[->, double] (t) to (u);
\draw[->, dashed, labelEndLeft=$\esym$, labelEndRight=*] (t) to (s2);
\draw[->, double, dashed, labelEndBelow=${\lnot\extsym}$] (s2) to (u);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Diagrams: a) factorization, b) weak postponement, c) merge, d) split.}
\label{fig:diagrams}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Proving factorization.}
Factorization is a non-trivial rewriting property, because it is \emph{global}, that is, quantified over all reduction sequences from a term.
To be able to prove factorization, we would like to reduce it
to \emph{local} properties, {\em i.e.}\xspace properties quantified only over one-step reductions from
{a} term.
At first sight it may seem that a local diagram such as the one in \reffig{diagrams}.b would give factorization by a simple induction. Such a diagram however does not allow to infer factorization without further hypotheses---counterexamples can be found in
Barendregt \cite{Barendregt84}.
The following abstract property is a special case for which
a local condition implies factorization.
It was first observed by Hindley \cite{HindleyPhD}.
\begin{lemma}[Hindley, local postponement]
\label{l:hindley}
Let $(S,\{\Rew{\esym},\Rew{\isym}\})$ be a rewriting system. If $\Rew{\isym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^=$ then $\to^* \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The assumption $\Rew{\isym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^=$ implies (\#) $\Rew{\isym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym}^* \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^=$ (indeed, it is immediate to prove that $\Rew{\isym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym}^k \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^=$ by induction on $k$).
We then prove that $\to^k \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$, by induction on $k$. The case $k=0$ is trivial. Assume $ \to \!\cdot\! \to^{k-1}$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $ \to \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$.
If the first step is $\Rew{\esym}$, the claim is proved. Otherwise,
by $(\#)$, from $(\Rew{\isym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym}^*) \cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$ we obtain
$(\Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^=) \cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$.
\end{proof}
Hindley's local condition
is a strong hypothesis for factorization that in general does not hold in $\l$-calculi---not even in the simple case of head reduction\xspace.
However, the property can be applied in combination with another standard technique: switching to \emph{macro} steps that compress $\Rew{\esym}^* $ or $\Rew{\isym}^*$ into just one step, at the price of some light overhead.
This idea is the essence of both Tait--Martin-L\"of's and Takahashi's techniques, based on \emph{parallel steps}.
The role of parallel steps in
Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95}
is here captured abstractly by the notion of \macrostep\ system.
\begin{definition}[Macro-step system]
\label{def:macrostep}
A rewriting system $\mathcal S=(S, \{\Rew{\esym}, \Rew{\isym}\})$ is a \emph{\macrostep\ system} if there are two
reductions $\parRew{}$ and $\parRew{\neg\esym}$ (called \emph{\macrostep s} and \emph{inessential \macrostep s}, respectively) such that
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Macro}:
$\Rew{\isym} ~\subseteq~ \parRew{\neg\esym}~ \subseteq ~\Rew{\isym}^*$.
\item \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg\esym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym} \tmthree}%{u $ then $t \parRew{} \tmthree}%{u$. That is, the diagram in \reffig{diagrams}.c holds.
\item \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{} \tmthree}%{u$ then $t \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym} \tmthree}%{u$. That is, the diagram in \reffig{diagrams}.d holds.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Note that $\parRew{}$ just plays the role of a ``bridge'' between the hypothesis of the merge condition and the conclusion of the split condition---it shall play a crucial role in the concrete proofs in the next sections.
In this paper, concrete instances of $\parRew{}$ and $\parRew{\neg\esym}$ shall be parallel $\beta$ reduction and some of its variants.
\begin{proposition}[Factorization]
\label{prop:parallelsplit-gives-fact}
Every \macrostep\ system $(S, \{\Rew{\esym}, \Rew{\isym}\})$ satisfies $\Rew{\esym}$-factorization.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Merge
and Split,
$\parRew{\neg\esym} \!\cdot\! \Rew{\esym} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym}^=$.
By Hindley's lemma (\reflemma{hindley}) applied to
$\Rew{\esym}$ and $\parRew{\neg\esym}$ (rather than $\Rew{\esym}$ and $\Rew{\isym}$),
we
obtain
$(\Rew{\esym} \cup \parRew{\neg\esym})^* \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym}^*$.
Since $\Rew{\isym} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\neg\esym}$, we have $ (\Rew{\esym} \cup \Rew{\isym})^* \subseteq\, (\Rew{\esym} \cup \parRew{\neg\esym})^* \subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym}^* $.
As $\parRew{\neg\esym} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\isym}^*$, we have $\Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym}^* \, \subseteq \, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$.
Therefore, $\to^* = (\Rew{\esym} \cup \Rew{\isym})^* \subseteq\, \Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Normalization for full\xspace reductions\xspace}
The interest of factorization comes from the fact that the essential
reduction $\Rew{\esym}$ on which factorization pivots has some good properties.
Here we pinpoint the abstract properties which make factorization a privileged method to prove normalization; we collect them into the definition of \emph{\essential system} (\refdef{extsys}).
\paragraph{Normal forms and normalization.} Let us recall what normalization is about.
In general, a term may or may not reduce to a normal form.
And if it does, not all reduction sequences necessarily lead to normal form.
A term is
\emph{weakly} or \emph{strongly normalizing}, depending on if it may or must reduce to normal form.
If a term $t$ is strongly normalizing, any choice of steps will eventually lead to a normal form.
However, if $t$ is weakly normalizing, how do we compute a normal form? This is the problem tackled by \emph{normalization}: by repeatedly performing \emph{only specific steps}, a normal form will be computed, provided that $t $ can reduce to~any.
Recall the statement of the $\losym$\xspace normalization theorem: if $t \Rew{\beta}^* \tmthree}%{u$ with $\tmthree}%{u$ $\beta$-normal, then $t$ $\losym$\xspace-reduces to $\tmthree}%{u$.
Observe a subtlety:
such a formulation relies on the determinism of $\losym$\xspace reduction.
We give a more general formulation of normalizing reduction, valid also for non-deterministic reductions.\\
Formally, given a rewriting system $(S, \to)$, \mbox{a term $t \in S$ is:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\to$-normal} (or in \emph{$\to$-normal form}) if $t \not\to$, {\em i.e.}\xspace there are no $\tmtwo}%{s$ such that $t\to \tmtwo}%{s$;
\item \emph{weakly $\to$-normalizing} if \emph{there exists} a sequence\xspace $t \to^*s$ with $s$ $\to$-normal;
\item \emph{strongly $\to$-normalizing} if there are no infinite $\to$-sequence\xspace{s} from $t$, or
equivalently, if \emph{all} maximal $\to$-sequence\xspace{s} from $t$ are finite.
\end{itemize}
We call \emph{$reduction\xspace$ for} $\to$ any $\Rew{\esym} \,\subseteq\, \to$.
It is \emph{full\xspace} if $ \Rew{\esym}$ and $\to$ have the same normal forms.\footnotemark
\footnotetext{In rewriting theory, a \emph{full\xspace reduction\xspace for $\to$} is called a \emph{reduction strategy for} $\to$. We prefer not to use the term strategy because it has different meaning in the $\l$-calculus, where it is a \emph{deterministic, not necessarily full\xspace}, reduction for $\to$.}
\begin{definition}[Normalizing reduction\xspace]
A full\xspace reduction\xspace $\Rew{\esym}$ for $\to$ is \emph{normalizing} (for $\to$) if, for every term $t$, $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing whenever it is weakly $\to$-normalizing.
\end{definition}
Note that, since
the normalizing reduction\xspace $\Rew{\esym}$ is full\xspace, if $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing then \emph{every} maximal $\Rew{\esym}$-sequence\xspace from $t$ ends in a $\to$-normal form.
\begin{definition}[\Essential system]
\label{def:extsys}
A rewriting system $(S,\{\Rew{\esym},\Rew{\isym}\})$ is \emph{\essential} if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence:} if $t \Rew{\esym} s$ and $t \Rew{\isym} u$, then $u \Rew{\esym} r$ for some $r$.
\item \emph{Uniform termination}: if $t$ is weakly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing, then it is strongly \mbox{$\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing}.
\item \emph{Terminal factorization}: if $t\to^* \tmthree}%{u$ and $\tmthree}%{u$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal, then $ t\Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\isym}^*\tmthree}%{u$.
\end{enumerate}
It is moreover \emph{full\xspace} if $\Rew{\esym}$ is a full\xspace reduction\xspace for $\to$.
\end{definition}
Comments on the definition:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Persistence}: it
means that essential steps are out of reach for inessential steps, that cannot erase them.
The only way of getting rid of essential steps is by reducing them, and so in that sense they are \emph{essential} to normalization.
\item \emph{From determinism to uniform termination}: as we already said, in general $\Rew{\esym}$ is not deterministic. For normalization, then,
it is not enough that there is a sequence\xspace $t \Rew{\esym}^*\tmthree}%{u$ with $\tmthree}%{u$ $\to$-normal (as in the statement of $\losym$\xspace-normalization). We need to be sure that there are no
infinite $\Rew{\esym}$-sequence\xspace{s} from $t$.
This is exactly what is ensured by the uniform termination property.
Note that if $\Rew{\esym}$ is deterministic (or has the diamond or random descent properties) then it is uniformly terminating.
\item \emph{Terminal factorization}: there are two subtleties. First, we need only a weak form of factorization, namely
factorization is only required for $\to$-sequence\xspace{s} ending in a $\Rew{\esym}$-normal form\footnote{The difference between factorization and its terminal case is relevant for normalization:
van Oostrom and Toyama \cite[footnote 8]{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16} give an example of normalizing full\xspace reduction\xspace for a rewriting system in which factorization fails
but terminal factorization holds.}.
Second, the reader may
expect terminal factorization to be required with respect to $\to$-normal rather than $\Rew{\esym}$-normal forms.
The two notions coincide if $\Rew{\esym}$ is full\xspace, and for the time being we only discuss full\xspace essential systems.
We discuss the more general case in \refsect{non-complete}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{example} In the $\l$-calculus with $\beta$ reduction, head reduction $\Rew{h}$ and its associated $\Rew{\lnot h}$ reduction (defined in \refsect{head}) form an \essential system. Similarly, leftmost-outermost $\Rew{\losym}$ reduction and its associated $\Rew{\neg \losym}$ reduction (\refsect{leftmost}) form a full\xspace \essential system. Two more examples are in \refsect{weak-cbv} and \refsect{stratified-cbn}.
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}[Essential full\xspace normalization]
\label{thm:complete-normalization}
Let
$(S,\{\Rew{\esym},\Rew{\isym}\})$ be a full\xspace \essential system. Then $\Rew{\esym}$ is a normalizing reduction\xspace for $\to$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $t$ be a weakly $\to$-normalizing term, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t \to^* \tmthree}%{u$ for some term $\tmthree}%{u$ in $\to$-normal form (and so in $\Rew{\esym}$-normal form, since $\Rew{\esym} \,\subseteq\, \to$).
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Terminal factorization} implies $t \Rew{\esym}^*\tmtwo}%{s \Rew{\isym}^* \tmthree}%{u$ for some $s$, since $u$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal.
\item Let us show that $\tmtwo}%{s$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal: if not, then $\tmtwo}%{s\toer$ for some $r$, and a straightforward induction on the length of $\tmtwo}%{s \Rew{\isym}^*\tmthree}%{u$ iterating \emph{persistence} gives that $\tmthree}%{u \Rew{\esym} p$ for some $p$, against the hypothesis that $\tmthree}%{u$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal. Absurd.
\item By the previous point, $t$ is weakly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing. By \emph{uniform termination}, $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{A more general notion of normalizing reduction\xspace.}
\label{sect:non-complete}
Essential systems actually encompass also important notions of normalization for
reductions that are \emph{not full\xspace},
such as \emph{head normalization}.
These cases arise naturally in the $\l$-calculus literature, where partial notions of result such as head normal forms or values are of common use.
Normalization for non-full\xspace reductions is instead not so common in the rewriting literature outside the $\l$-calculus. This is why, to guide the reader, we presented first the natural case of full\xspace reductions.
Let us first discuss head reduction: $\Rew{h}$ is deterministic and not full\xspace with respect to $\Rew{\beta}$, as its normal forms may not be $\Rew{\beta}$-normal forms. The well-known property of interest is \emph{head normalization} (Cor.~11.4.8 in Barendregt's book \cite{Barendregt84}):
\begin{center}
If $t \Rew{\beta}^* s$ and $s$ is head normal\footnotemark
\footnotetext{``$t$ has a head normal form'' is the usual formulation for ``$t \Rew{\beta}^* s$ for some $s$ that is head normal''. We prefer the latter to avoid the ambiguity of the former about the reduction leading from $t$ to one of its head normal forms ($\Rew{\beta}^*$ or $\Rew{h}^*$?).}
then $\Rew{h}$ terminates on $t$.
\end{center}
\commCF{The above is Barendregt statement. Takahashi statement is:
\begin{center}
\begin{center}
if $t$ has a head normal form, then $t \Rew{h}^* \tmthree}%{u$ for some $\tmthree}%{u$ in head normal form.
\end{center}
if $t$ has a head normal form, iff the $\Rew{h}$-reduction from $t$ terminates.
\end{center}
}
The statement has two subtleties. First,
$t$ may $\Rew{\beta}$-reduce to a term in $\Rew{h}$-normal form in many different ways,
possibly without using $\Rew{h}$, so that
the hypotheses may not imply that $\Rew{h}$ terminates.
Second,
the conclusion is ``\emph{$\Rew{h}$ terminates on $t$}'' and not $t\Rew{h}^*s$, because in general
the maximal $\Rew{h}$-sequence from $t$ may end in a term $u\neqs$.
For instance, let $I=\la y y$: then
$I(x(II))\Rew{\beta} I(x I)\Rew{\beta} x I$ is a $\Rew{\beta}$-sequence\xspace to head normal form, and yet
the maximal $\Rew{h}$-sequence $I(x(II))\Rew{h} x(II)$ ends in a different term.
Now, let us abstract from head normalization, taking into account that in general the essential reduction\xspace $\Rew{\esym}$---unlike
head reduction\xspace---may not be deterministic, and so we
ask for strong $\Rew{\esym}$-normalization rather than for $\Rew{\esym}$-termination.
\begin{theorem}[Essential normalization]
\label{thm:par-normalization}
Let
$(S,\{\Rew{\esym},\Rew{\isym}\})$ be an \essential system. If
$t \to^* u$ and $u$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal, then $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Exactly as for \refthm{complete-normalization}, fullness\xspace is not used in that proof.
\end{proof}
In the next section we shall apply \refthm{par-normalization} to head reduction and obtain the head normalization theorem we started with. Another example of a normalization theorem for a non-full\xspace reduction is
in \refsect{weak-cbv}.
Note that the full\xspace variant of the theorem (\refthm{complete-normalization}) is in fact an instance of the general one (\refthm{par-normalization}).
\section{\texorpdfstring{The $\l$-Calculus}{The lambda-Calculus}}
\label{sect:lambda}
This short section recalls basic definitions and properties of the $\l$-calculus and introduces the indexed variant of parallel $\beta$.
The set $\Lambda$ of \emph{terms} of the $\l$-calculus is given by the following grammar:
\[ \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}}rll}
\textsc{Terms} & t,s,u,r &::=& x \mid \la\vart \mid ts
\end{array}\]
We use the usual notions of free and bound variables, $t \isub\vars$ for the meta-level capture-avoiding substitution of $s$ for the free occurrences of $x$ in $t$, and $\sizeptx$ for the number of free occurrences of $x$ in $t$.
The definition of $\beta$ reduction $\Rew{\beta}$ is:
\[
\begin{array}{c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textsc{$\beta$ reduction} }
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$(\la\vart) s \Rew{\beta} t \isubx{s}$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\beta} t' s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart\ \Rew{\beta} \la\vart' $}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\beta} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}\]
Let us recall two basic substitutivity properties of $\beta$ reduction.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{p:tob-subs-one}
\emph{Left substitutivity of $\Rew{\beta}$}:
if $t \Rew{\beta} t'$ then $t\isub\vars \Rew{\beta} t'\isub\vars$.
\item \label{p:tob-subs-two}
\emph{Right substitutivity of $\Rew{\beta}$}:
if $s \Rew{\beta} s'$ then $t\isub\vars \Rew{\beta}^* t\isubx{s'}$. It is possible to spell out the number of $\Rew{\beta}$-steps, which is exactly the number of free occurrences of $x$ in $t$, that is, $t\isub\vars \Rew{\beta}^{\sizeptx} t\isubx{s'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Parallel $\beta$ reduction.} Parallel $\beta$-reduction $\parRew{\beta}$ is defined by:
\begin{center}
\def4pt{1pt}
$\begin{array}{c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textsc{Parallel $\beta$ reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \parRew{\beta} x$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la \vart \parRew{\beta} \la x t'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\beta} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \parRew{\beta} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\beta} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\lax t)s \parRew{\beta} t'\isub x {s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
Tait--Martin-L\"of's proof of the confluence of $\Rew{\beta}$ relies on the
diamond property of $\parRew{\beta}$\footnotemark,
\footnotetext{Namely, if $s_1 \; \mbox{}_{\beta}{\Leftarrow}\ t \parRew{\beta} s_2$
then there exists $u$ such that $s_1 \parRew{\beta} u \; \mbox{}_{\beta}{\Leftarrow}\ s_2$.} in turn based on the
following property (see Takahashi~\cite[p.~1]{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95})
\begin{center}
\emph{Substitutivity of $\parRew{\beta}$}:
if $t \parRew{\beta} t'$ and $s \parRew{\beta} s'$ then $t\isub\vars \parRew{\beta} t'\isubx{s'}$.
\end{center}
While the diamond property of $\parRew{\beta}$ does not play a role for factorization, one of the contributions of this work is a new proof technique for factorization relying on the substitutivity property of an indexed refinement of $\parRew{\beta}$.
\paragraph{Indexed parallel $\beta$ reduction.}
The new \emph{indexed} version $\partobind n$ of parallel $\beta$ reduction $\parRew{\beta}$ is equipped
with a natural number $n$ which is, roughly, the number of redexes reduced in parallel by a $\parRew{\beta}$; more precisely, $n$ is the length of a particular way of sequentializing the redexes reduced by $\parRew{\beta}$.
The definition of $\partobind{n}$ is as follows (note that erasing the index one obtains exactly $\parRew{\beta}$, so that $\parRew{\beta} \,=\, \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \partobind{n}$):
\begin{center}
\def4pt{1pt}
$\begin{array}{c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textsc{Indexed parallel $\beta$ reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \partobind 0 x$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobind n t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la \vart \partobind n \la x t'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobind n t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \partobind m s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \partobindlong {n + m} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobind n t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \partobind m s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\lax t)s \partobindlong {n + \sizep{t'}x \cdot m +1} t'\isub x {s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
The intuition behind the last clause
is: $(\lax t)s$ reduces to $t'\isub x {s'}$ by
\begin{enumerate}
\item first reducing $(\lax t)s$ to $t\isub x {s}$ ($1$ step);
\item then reducing in $t\isub x {s}$ the $n$ steps corresponding to the sequence\xspace $t \partobind n t'$, obtaining $t'\isub x {s}$;
\item then reducing $s$ to $s'$ for every occurrence of $x$ in $t'$ replaced by $s$, that is, $m$ steps $\sizep{t'}x$ times, obtaining $t'\isub x {s'}$.
\end{enumerate}
Points 2 and 3 hold because of the substitutivity properties of $\beta$ reduction.
It is easily seen that $\partobind 0$ is
the identity relation on terms.
Moreover, $\Rew{\beta} \ =\ \partobind 1$, and $\partobind n \ \subseteq \ \Rew{\beta}^n$, as expected.
The substitutivity of $\partobind n$ is proved by simply indexing the proof of substitutivity of $\parRew{\beta}$.
\begin{lemma}[Substitutivity of $\partobind n$]
\label{l:partobind-subs}
If $t \partobind n t'$ and $s \partobind m s'$, then $t \isub\vars \partobind{k} t' \isubx{s'}$ where $k = n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the derivation of $t \partobind n t'$.
Consider its last rule.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: two sub-cases
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = x$: then $t = x \partobind 0 x = t'$ then $t \isub\vars = x\isub\vars = s \partobind m s' = x \isubx{s'} = t' \isubx{s'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = 0+1\cdot m = m$.
\item $t = y$: then $t = y \partobind 0 y = t'$ and $t \isub\vars = y\isub\vars = y \partobind 0 y = y \isubx{s'} = t' \isubx{s'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m =
0 + 0 \cdot m = 0$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobind{n} u'$;
we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \neq x$ and $y$ is not free in $s$ (and hence in $s'$), so $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{s})$ and $t'\isub{x}{s'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{s'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace
$t = u r \partobind{n} u' r'= t'$ with $u \partobind {n_u} u'$, $r \partobind {n_r} r'$ and $n = n_u + n_r$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$ and $r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$. Then
\[
\def4pt{1pt}
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .5in}
\AxiomC{$u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub\vars = u\isub\vars r\isub\vars \partobind{k} u'\isubx{s'} r'\isubx{s'} = t'\isubx{s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .2in}
\def4pt{4pt}
\]
where $k = n_u + \sizep{u'}x \!\cdot m + n_r + \sizep{r'}x \!\cdot m = n + (\sizep{u'}x + \sizep{r'}x)\cdot m = n + \sizep{t'}x \!\cdot m$.
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}, {\em i.e.}\xspace\
$t = (\lay u)r \partobind{n} u'\isub y {r'} = t'$
with $u \partobind {n_u} u'$, $r \partobind {n_r} r'$ and $n = n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_r +1$.
We can assume without loss of generality that $y\neq x$ and $y$ is not free in $s$ (and so in $s'$),
hence $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'\isuby {r'}}x = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot\sizep{r'}{x}$ and $\sizep{u'\isub{x}{s'}}{y} = \sizep{u'}{y}$ and $t\isub\vars = (\la\vartwou\isub\vars) (r\isub\vars)$ and $t'\isubx{s'} = u'\isubx{s'} \isuby{r'\isubx{s'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$ and $r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$.
Then
\[
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .5in}
\AxiomC{$u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub\vars = (\la\vartwou\isub\vars) (r\isub\vars)
\partobind{k}
u'\isubx{s'} \isuby{r'\isubx{s'}}= t'\isubx{s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .2in}
\]
where
$k = n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m)+1
=
n_u + \sizep{u'}y\cdot n_r + 1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot m + \sizep{u'}y\cdot \sizep{r'}x \cdot m = n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m.$
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\section{Head Reduction, Essentially}
\label{sect:head}
We here revisit Takahashi's study \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} of head reduction.
We apply the abstract schema for essential reductions developed in \refsect{abstract-rewriting}, which is the same schema used by Takahashi, but we provide a simpler proof technique for one of the required properties (split).
First of all, head reduction $\Rew{h}$
(our essential reduction here)
and its associated inessential reduction $\Rew{\lnot h}$ are defined by:
\[\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} cccc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsc{Head reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \Rew{h} t\isub\vars$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{h} s$}
\AxiomC{$t\neq\la\vart'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t u \Rew{h} s u$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{h} s$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \Rew{h} \la\vars$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}
\\[18pt]
\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textsc{$\neg$Head reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax t') s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\lnot h} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\lnot h} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \Rew{\lnot h} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\lnot h} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\lnot h} t' s $}
\DisplayProof \,.
\end{array}
\end{array}\]
Note that $\Rew{\beta} \, = \, \Rew{h} \cup \Rew{\lnot h}$ but $\Rew{h}$ and $\Rew{\lnot h}$ are not disjoint: $I (II) \Rew{h} II$ and $I(II) \Rew{\lnot h} II$ with $I = \la{z}{z}$.
Indeed, $I(II)$ contains two distinct redexes, one is $I(II)$ and is fired by $\Rew{h}$, the other one is $II$ and is fired by $\Rew{\lnot h}$;
coincidentally, the two reductions lead to the same term.
As for Takahashi, a parallel $\neg$head step
$t \parRew{\neg h} s$ is a parallel step $t \parRew{\beta} s$ such that $t \Rew{\lnot h}^* s$. We give explicitly the inference rules for $\parRew{\neg h}$:
\begin{center}
\textsc{Parallel $\neg$head reduction}
\def4pt{1pt}
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .1in}
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \parRew{\neg h} x$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\beta} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \parRew{\neg h} (\lax t') s'$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\neg h} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \parRew{\neg h} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\neg h} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \parRew{\neg h} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\def4pt{4pt}
\def\hskip .2in{\hskip .2in}
\end{center}
Easy inductions show that $\Rew{\lnot h} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\neg h} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\lnot h}^*$. It is immediate that $\Rew{h}$-normal terms are head normal forms
in the sense of Barendregt \cite[Def. 2.2.11]{Barendregt84}. We do not describe the shape of head normal forms.
Our proofs never use it,
unlike Takahashi's ones. This fact stresses the abstract nature of our proof method.
\paragraph{Head factorization.} We show that $\Rew{h}$ induces a \macrostep\ system, with respect to $\Rew{\lnot h}$, $\parRew{\beta}$, and $\parRew{\neg h}$, to obtain $\Rew{h}$-factorization by \refprop{parallelsplit-gives-fact}.
Therefore, we need to prove merge and split.
Merge is easily verified by induction on $t \partonoths$.
The interesting part is the proof of the split property, that in the concrete case of head reduction becomes: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{h}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg h} s$.
This is obtained as a consequence of the following easy \emph{indexed split} property based on the indexed variant of parallel $\beta$. The original argument of Takahashi \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} is more involved, we discuss it after the new proof.
\newcounter{prop:macro-head}
\addtocounter{prop:macro-head}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[Head macro-step system]
\label{prop:macro-head}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:macro-head-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg h} \!\cdot\! \Rew{h} u$ then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{p:macro-head-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \partonoths$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{h} \!\cdot\! \partobind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{p:macro-head-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{h}^* \!\cdot\! \partonoths$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \{ \Rew{h}, \Rew{\lnot h} \})$ is a \macrostep\ system with respect to $\parRew{\beta}$ and $\parRew{\neg h}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Easy induction on $t \partonoths$.
Details are in \SLV{\cite{long}.}{the Appendix, p.~\pageref{propappendix:macro-head}. }
\item By induction on $t \partobind n s$.
We freely use the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \partonothx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$
with $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows from the~{\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application}:
$t = r p \partobind{n} r' p' = s$ with $r \partobind {n_1} r'$, $p \partobind {n_2} p'$ and $n = n_1 + n_2$.
There are only two subcases:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r p \parRew{\neg h} r' p'$, and then the claim holds;
\item or $r p \not\parRew{\neg h} r' p'$, and then neither $r \parRew{\neg h} r'$ nor $r$ is an abstraction (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg h} r' p'$).
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobind{n_1} r'$,
$n_1>0$ and there exists $r''$ such that $r \Rew{h} r'' \partobind {n_1-1} r'$.
Thus, $t = r p \Rew{h} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$ r'' p \partobindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\]
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
$t = (\lax u)r \partobind{n} u'\isub x {r'} = s$ with $u \partobind {n_1} u'$, $r \partobind {n_2} r''$ and $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$.
We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{h} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\item If $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \partobind n s$ for some $n$. We prove the statement by induction $n$.
By \emph{indexed split} (\refpoint{macro-head-indexed-split}), there are only two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$t \partonoths$}. This is an instance of the statement (since $\Rew{h}^*$ is reflexive).
\item $n>0$ and there exists $r$ such that $t \Rew{h} r \partobind {n-1} s$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobind{n-1} s$, there is $u$ such that $r \Rew{h}^* u \parRew{\neg h} s$, and so $t \Rew{h}^* u \partonoths$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Head factorization]
\label{thm:head-fact}
If $t \Rew{\beta}^* \tmthree}%{u$ then $t\Rew{h}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\lnot h}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Head normalization.} We
{show} that $(\Lambda, \{ \Rew{h}, \Rew{\lnot h} \})$ is an \essential system (\refdef{extsys});
{thus} the essential normalization theorem (\refthm{par-normalization}) provides normalization.
We already proved \emph{factorization} (\refthm{head-fact}, hence terminal factorization).
We {verify}
persistence and determinism (which implies uniform termination) of $\Rew{h}$.
\newcounter{prop:essential-head}
\addtocounter{prop:essential-head}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[Head essential system]
\label{prop:essential-head}
\NoteProof{propappendix:essential-head}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:essential-head-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{h} s$ and $t \Rew{\lnot h} u$ then $u \Rew{h} r$ for some $r$.
\item\label{p:essential-head-determinism} \emph{Determinism}: if $t \Rew{h} s_1$ and $t\Rew{h} s_2$ then $s_1 = s_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{h}, \Rew{\lnot h}})$ is an essential system.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}[Head normalization]
If $t \Rew{\beta}^* s$ and $s$ is a $\Rew{h}$-normal form, then $\Rew{h}$ terminates on $t$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Comparison with Takahashi's proof of the split property.}\label{sect:Takahashi} Our technique differs from Takahashi's in that it is built on simpler properties:
it exploits directly the substitutivity of $\parRew{\beta}$, which is instead not used by Takahashi.
Takahashi's original argument \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} for the split property (\emph{if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t\Rew{h}^* \cdot \parRew{\neg h}$}, what she calls the \emph{main lemma}) is by induction on the (concrete) definition of $\parRew{\beta}$ and relies on two substitutivity properties of $\Rew{h}$ and $\parRew{\neg h}$. Looking at them as the reductions $\Rew{\esym}$ and $\Rew{\isym}$ of an essential system, these properties are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Left substitutivity of $\Rew{\esym}$}: if $u \Rew{\esym} q$ then $u \isub\varr \Rew{\esym} q \isub\varr$;
\item \emph{Left substitutivity of $\parRew{\neg\esym}$}: if $u \parRew{\neg\esym} q$ then $u \isub\varr \parRew{\neg\esym} q \isub\varr$.
\end{itemize}
From them, left substitutivity of the composed reduction $\Rew{\esym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg\esym}$ easily follows. That is, Takahashi's proof of the split property is by induction on $t \parRew{} s$ using left substitutivity of $\Rew{\esym}^*\cdot\parRew{\neg\esym}$ for the inductive case.
We
exploit the substitutivity of $\partoind n$ instead of left substitutivity of $\Rew{\esym}$ and $\parRew{\neg\esym}$.
It holds for a larger number of essential systems because $\partoind{n}$ is simply a decoration of $\parRew{}$, which is substitutive \emph{by design}.
There are important systems where Takahashi's hypotheses do not hold.
One such case is $\ell o$\xspace reduction (\refsect{leftmost})---\emph{the} normalizing
reduction of the $\l$-calculus---we discuss the failure of left substitutivity for $\ell o$\xspace on p.~\pageref{thm:LO-fact-norm};
another notable case is \ll reduction (\refsect{stratified-cbn}); both are full\xspace reductions for~$\beta$.
Let us
point out where the idea behind our approach stems from.
In a sense, Takahashi's proof works by chance: the
split hypothesis is about a \emph{parallel} step $\parRew{\beta}$ but then the key fact used in the proof, left substitutivity of $\Rew{h}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg h}$, does no longer stay in the borders of the parallel step, since
the prefix $\Rew{h}^*$ is an arbitrary long sequence\xspace that may reduce \emph{created} steps. Our proof scheme instead only focuses on the (expected)
substitutivity of $\partoind n$, independently of creations.
\section{\texorpdfstring{The Call-by-Value $\l$-Calculus}{The Call-by-Value lambda-Calculus}}
\label{sect:cbv-calculus}
In this short section, we introduce Plotkin's call-by-value
$\l$-calculus \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Plotkin75},
where
$\beta$ reduction fires only when the argument is a value. In the next section we define \emph{weak} reduction and prove factorization and normalization theorems using the essential technique, exactly as done in the previous section for head reduction.
The set $\Lambda$ of terms is the same as in \refsect{lambda}. Values, call-by-value ({CbV}\xspace) $\beta$-reduction $\Rew{\betav}$, and
{CbV}\xspace indexed parallel reduction $\partobvind{n}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}}rll}
\textsc{Values} & v &::=& x \mid \la\vart
\end{array}$
\\[6pt]
$\begin{array}{c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textsc{$\beta_\val$ reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{$v$ value}
\UnaryInfC{$(\la\vart) v \Rew{\betav} t \isubx{v}$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\betav} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart\ \Rew{\betav} \la\vart' $}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\betav} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\betav} t' s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\betav} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\betav} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\textsc{Indexed parallel $\beta_\val$ reduction}\\[5pt]
\small
\def4pt{1pt}
$\begin{array}{c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \partobvind 0 x$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobvind n t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la \vart \partobvind n \la x t'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobvind n t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \partobvind m s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \partobvindlong {n + m} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \partobvind n t'$}
\AxiomC{$v \partobvind m v'$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\lax t)v \partobvindlong {n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m +1} t'\isub x {v'}$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
The only difference with the usual parallel $\beta$ (defined in \refsect{lambda}) is the requirement that the argument is a value in the last rule.
As before, the non-indexed parallel reduction $\parRew{\betav}$ is simply obtained by erasing the index, so that $\parRew{\betav} \,=\, \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \partobvind{n}$. Similarly, it is easily seen that $\partobvind{0}$ is the identity relation on terms, $\Rew{\betav} \,=\, \partobvind 1$ and $\partobvind n \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\betav}^n$.
Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$ is proved exactly as for $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}).
\newcounter{l:tobv-subs}
\addtocounter{l:tobv-subs}{\value{lemma}}
\begin{lemma}[Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$]
\label{l:tobv-subs}
\NoteProof{lappendix:tobv-subs}
\label{p:tobv-subs-ind-par} If $t \partobvind n t'$ and $v \partobvind m v'$, then $t \isubxv \allowbreak\partobvind{k} t' \isubx{v'}$ where $k = n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Weak Call-by-Value Reduction, Essentially}
\label{sect:weak-cbv}
The \essential step we study for the {CbV}\xspace $\l$-calculus is weak {CbV}\xspace reduction $\Rew{\wsym}$, which does not evaluate function bodies (the scope of $\l$-abstractions). Weak {CbV}\xspace reduction has practical importance, because it is the base of the ML/CAML
family of functional programming languages. We choose it also because it admits the natural and more general \emph{non-deterministic} presentation that follows, even if most of the literature rather presents it in a deterministic way.
\begin{center}
\textsc{Weak {CbV}\xspace reduction} \\[5pt]
$\begin{array}{c@{\ \ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c@{\ \ \hspace*{0.35cm}}c}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$(\lax t) v \Rew{\wsym} t\isubxv$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\wsym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\wsym} t' s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\wsym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\wsym} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\end{center}
Note that in the case of an
application there is no fixed order in the $\Rew{\wsym}$-reduction of the left and right subterms.
Such a non-determinism is harmless as $\Rew{\wsym}$ satisfies a diamond-like property implying confluence, see
\refpropp{essential-weak}{diamond} below.
It is
well-known that the diamond property implies uniform termination, because it implies
that all maximal sequence\xspace{s} from a term
have the same length. Such a further property is known as \emph{random descent},
a special form of uniform termination already considered by Newman \cite{Newman} in 1942, see also van~Oostrom~\cite{DBLP:conf/rta/Oostrom07}.
The inessential reduction $\Rew{\neg \wsym}$ and its parallel version $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$ are defined by:
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} ccc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textsc{$\neg$Weak reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\betav} s$}
\UnaryInfC{$\lax t \Rew{\neg \wsym} \lax s $}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\neg \wsym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\neg \wsym} t' s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\neg \wsym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\neg \wsym} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\textsc{Parallel $\neg$weak reduction}
\def4pt{1pt}
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \parRew{\neg \wsym} x$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\betav} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\neg \wsym} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\neg \wsym} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \parRew{\neg \wsym} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
It is immediate to check that $\Rew{\betav} \, = \, \Rew{\wsym} \cup \Rew{\neg \wsym}$ and
$\Rew{\neg \wsym} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\neg \wsym} \,\subseteq\, \Rew{\neg \wsym}^*$.
\paragraph{Weak {CbV}\xspace factorization.}
We show that $(\Lambda, \{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym} \})$ is a \macrostep\ system, with $\parRew{\betav},\parRew{\neg \wsym}$ as \macrostep{s}. Merge and split are proved exactly as in \refsect{head}.
\newcounter{prop:macro-cbv}
\addtocounter{prop:macro-cbv}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[Weak {CbV}\xspace macro-step system]
\label{prop:macro-cbv}
\NoteProof{propappendix:macro-cbv}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:macro-cbv-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg \wsym}\cdot \Rew{\wsym} u$ then $t \parRew{\betav} u$.
\item\label{p:macro-cbv-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \partonotws$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{\wsym} \!\cdot\! \partobvind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{p:macro-cbv-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\betav} s$ then $t \Rew{\wsym}^* \!\cdot\! \partonotws$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\betav}$ and $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}[Weak {CbV}\xspace factorization]
\label{thm:weak-fact}
If $t \Rew{\betav}^* s$ then $t\Rew{\wsym}^* \!\cdot\! \Rew{\neg \wsym}^* s$.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Plotkin's left reduction.}
The same argument at work in this section adapts easily to factorization with respect to leftmost weak reduction (used by Plotkin \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Plotkin75}), or to rightmost weak reduction, the two natural deterministic variants of $\Rew{\wsym}$.
\paragraph{Weak {CbV}\xspace normalization.}
To obtain a normalization theorem for $\Rew{\wsym}$ via the essential normalization theorem (\refthm{par-normalization}), we need
persistence and uniform termination.
The latter
{follows from} the well-known diamond property of $\Rew{\wsym}$.
\newcounter{essential-weak}
\addtocounter{essential-weak}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[Weak {CbV}\xspace essential system]
\label{prop:essential-weak}
\NoteProof{propappendix:essential-weak}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:essential-weak-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\wsym} s$ and $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} u$ then $u \Rew{\wsym} r$ for some $r$.
\item\label{p:essential-weak-diamond} \emph{Diamond}: if $s\lRew{\wsym} \!\cdot\! \towu$ with $s \neq u$ then $s \Rew{\wsym} \!\cdot\! \lRew{\wsym} u$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is an essential system.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}[Weak {CbV}\xspace normalization]
\label{thm:cbv-normalization}
If $t \Rew{\betav}^* s$ and $s$ is a $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal form, then $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\wsym}$-normalizing.
\end{theorem}
{CbV}\xspace is often considered with respect to \emph{closed} terms only.
In such a case the $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal forms are exactly the (closed) values.
Then weak {CbV}\xspace normalization (\refthm{cbv-normalization}) implies the following, analogous to Corollary 1 in Plotkin \cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/Plotkin75} (the result is there obtained from standardization).
\begin{corollary} Let $t$ be a closed term.
If $t \Rew{\betav}^* v$ for some value $v$, then every maximal $\Rew{\wsym}$-sequence\xspace from $t$ is finite and ends in a value.
\end{corollary}
\section{Abstract Normalisation}
\label{sect:abstract-rewriting}
\section{Leftmost-Outermost Reduction, Essentially}
\label{sect:leftmost}
Here we apply our technique to leftmost-outermost (shortened to \emph{$\losym$\xspace}) reduction $\Rew{\losym}$, the first example of \emph{full\xspace}
reduction for $\Rew{\beta}$.
The technical development is slightly different from the ones in the previous sections, as factorization relies on persistence.
The same shall happen for the full\xspace \ll reduction of the next section.
It seems to be a feature of full\xspace reductions~for~$\Rew{\beta}$.
\paragraph{$\losym$\xspace and $\neg$$\losym$\xspace reductions.} The definition of $\ell o$\xspace reduction relies on two mutually recursive predicates defining normal and neutral terms (neutral = normal and not an abstraction):
\begin{center}
\def4pt{2pt}
\textsc{Normal and neutral terms}\\[5pt]
{\small$\begin{array}{c@{\qquad}c@{\qquad}c@{\qquad}c@{\qquad}c}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x$ is neutral}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ is neutral}
\AxiomC{$t$ is normal}
\BinaryInfC{$ts$ is neutral}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ is neutral}
\UnaryInfC{$t$ is normal}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ is normal}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart$ is normal}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$ }
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
Dually, a term is not neutral if it is an abstraction or it is not normal. It is standard that these predicates correctly capture $\beta$ normal forms and neutrality.
The reductions of the $\ell o$\xspace macro-step system are:
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} ccccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textsc{$\losym$\xspace reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \Rew{\losym} t\isub\vars$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\losym} s$}
\AxiomC{$t\neq\la\vart'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t u \Rew{\losym} s u$}
\DisplayProof \\\\
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\losym} s$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \Rew{\losym} \la\vars$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$u$ is neutral}
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\losym} s$}
\BinaryInfC{$u t \Rew{\losym} u s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} ccccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textsc{$\neg$$\losym$\xspace reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\beta} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \Rew{\neg \losym} (\lax t') s$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ is not neutral}
\AxiomC{$s \Rew{\beta} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\neg \losym} t s '$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\\\\
$ \begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} cccc}
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\neg \losym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \Rew{\neg \losym} t' s $}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\neg \losym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s t \Rew{\neg \losym} s t'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \Rew{\neg \losym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \Rew{\neg \losym} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\def4pt{1pt}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} ccccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textsc{Parallel $\neg$$\losym$\xspace reduction}}
\\[5pt]
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \parRew{\neg \losym} x$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ is not neutral}
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\neg \losym} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t s \parRew{\neg \losym} t' s '$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\\\\
\def4pt{1pt}
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} @{\hspace{.5cm}} cccc}
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\beta} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\beta} s''$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\lax t) s \parRew{\neg \losym} (\lax t') s'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t \parRew{\neg \losym} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \parRew{\neg \losym} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
&
\AxiomC{$t$ neutral}
\AxiomC{$s \parRew{\neg \losym} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \parRew{\neg \losym} t s'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{array}$
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
As
usual, easy inductions show that $\Rew{\beta} \,=\, \Rew{\losym} \cup \Rew{\neg \losym}$ and $\Rew{\neg \losym} \subseteq \parRew{\neg \losym} \subseteq \Rew{\neg \losym}^*$.
Factorization depends on persistence, which is why for $\ell o$\xspace reduction most essential properties are proved before factorization. The proofs are easy inductions.
\newcounter{prop:essential-left}
\addtocounter{prop:essential-left}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[$\ell o$\xspace essential properties]
\label{prop:essential-left}
\NoteProof{propappendix:essential-left}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{p:essential-left-completeness}
\emph{Fullness\xspace}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{\losym} u$.
\item\label{p:essential-left-determinism} \emph{Determinism}: if $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$ and $t\Rew{\losym} s_2$ then $s_1 = s_2$.
\item\label{p:essential-left-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$ and $t \Rew{\neg \losym} s_2$ then $s_2 \Rew{\losym} u$ for some $u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\newcounter{prop:macro-left}
\addtocounter{prop:macro-left}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[$\ell o$\xspace macro-step system]
\label{prop:macro-left}
\NoteProof{propappendix:macro-left}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Merge}: \label{p:macro-left-merge}
if $t \parRew{\neg \losym} \cdot \Rew{\losym} u$ then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item \label{p:macro-left-indexed-split}
\emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\neg \losym} s$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{\losym} \!\cdot\! \partobind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{p:macro-step-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{\losym}^* \!\cdot\! \parRew{\neg \losym} s$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\losym}, \Rew{\neg \losym}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\beta}$ and $\parRew{\neg \losym}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only show the merge property, and only the case that requires persistence---the rest of the proof is in \SLV{the Appendix of \cite{long}}{the Appendix}.
The proof of the merge property is by induction on $t \partonotlos$. Consider the rule
\[\AxiomC{$r$ not neutral}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \losym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p ' = s$}
\DisplayProof\ .\]
Since $r$ is not neutral, it is an abstraction or it is not normal.
If $r$ is an abstraction this case continues as the easy case of $\parRew{\neg \losym}$ for $\beta$-redexes (see \SLV{the Appendix of \cite{long}}{the Appendix}).
Otherwise, $r$ is not normal, {\em i.e.}\xspace $r \Rew{\beta} q$. By fullness\xspace $r \Rew{\losym} q'$ for some $q'$, and by persistence (\refpropp{essential-left}{persistence}) $r'\Rew{\losym} r''$ for
some $r''$. The hypothesis becomes $t = r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p ' \Rew{\losym} r'' p' = u$ with $r \parRew{\neg \losym} r' \Rew{\losym} r''$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $r \parRew{\beta} r''$. Then,
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p\parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\beta} r'' p' = u$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\paragraph{$\ell o$\xspace split.} As pointed out in \refsect{Takahashi}, Takahashi's proof \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95} of the split property relies on left substitutivity of head reduction, that is, if $t \Rew{h} s$ then $t \isub\varu \Rew{h} s \isub\varu$ for all terms $u$. Such a property does not hold for $\ell o$\xspace reduction. For instance, $t = x (I y) \Rew{\losym} x y = t'$ but
$t\isubx {\laz z\varthree} = (\laz z\varthree)(Iy) \not\Rew{\losym} (\laz z\varthree) y = t'\isubx {\laz z\varthree}$.
Therefore her proof technique for factorization cannot prove the factorization theorem for $\ell o$\xspace reduction (see also footnote \ref{f:direct}, page \pageref{f:direct}).\medskip
From \refprop{macro-left} it follows the factorization theorem for $\ell o$\xspace reduction, that together with \refprop{essential-left} proves that $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\losym}, \Rew{\neg \losym}})$ is an essential system, giving normalization of $\Rew{\losym}$ for $\Rew{\beta}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:LO-fact-norm}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\ell o$\xspace factorization}: if $t \Rew{\beta}^* \tmthree}%{u$ then $t\Rew{\losym}^* \!\cdot\!~ \Rew{\neg \losym}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\item \emph{$\ell o$\xspace normalization}: $\Rew{\losym}$ is a normalizing reduction for $\Rew{\beta}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\section{Least-Level Reduction, Essentially}
\label{sect:stratified-cbn}
\newcommand{\text{ s.t. }}{\text{ s.t. }}
In this section we study another normalizing full\xspace reduction for $\Rew{\beta}$, namely \emph{least-level} (shortened to \ll) \emph{reduction} $\Rew{x}$, which is non-deterministic.
The intuition is that \ll reduction
fires a $\beta$-redex of minimal level, where the \emph{level} of a $\beta$-redex is the number of arguments containing it.
The definition of $\Rew{x}$ relies on an indexed variant $\tostratind{k}$ of $\Rew{\beta}$, where $k \in \mathbb{N}$ is the level of the fired $\beta$-redex (do not mix it up with the index of $\partobind n$).
We also define a parallel version $\partostratind{n}$ (with $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$) of $\tostratind{k}$, obtained as a decoration of $\parRew{\beta}$, where $n$ is the minimal level of the $\beta$-redexes fired by a $\parRew{\beta}$ step ($\partostratind{\infty}$ does not reduce any $\beta$-redex).
From now on, $\mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ is considered with its usual order and arithmetic, that is, $\infty + 1 = \infty$.
\begin{center}
\textsc{ $\beta$ reduction of level $k$}
\def4pt{1pt}
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$(\la{x}{t})s \tostratind{0} t \isub{x}{s}$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \tostratind{k} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \tostratind{k} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \tostratind{k} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t s \tostratind{k} t' s$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\AxiomC{$t \tostratind{k} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\tmtwot \tostratind{k\!+\!1} \tmtwot'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\textsc{Parallel $\beta$ reduction of least level $n$}
\def4pt{1pt}
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t \partostratind{k} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \partostratind{h} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$(\la{x}{t})s \partostratind{0} t' \isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\quad
\AxiomC{$t \partostratind{k} t'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la\vart \partostratind{k} \la\vart'$}
\DisplayProof
\quad
\AxiomC{$t \partostratind{k} t'$}
\AxiomC{$s \partostratind{h} s'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t s \partostratind{\min\{k,h\!+\!1\}} t' s'$}
\DisplayProof
\quad
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$x \partostratind{\infty} x$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\def4pt{4pt}
\end{center}
Note that $t \Rew{\beta} s$ if and only if $t \tostratind{k} s$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
The \emph{least (reduction) level} $\Deg{t}\in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ of a term $t$ is defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
\Deg{x} &= \infty
&
\Deg{\la{x}{t}} &= \Deg{t}
&
\Deg{ts} &=
\begin{cases}
0 &\textup{if } t = \la{x}{u}
\\
\min \{\Deg{t}, \Deg{s} \!+\! 1 \} &\textup{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The definitions of \emph{\ll}, \emph{$\neg$\ll}, and \emph{parallel $\neg$\ll reductions} are:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r@{\hspace{.5cm}} c@{\hspace{.5cm}} l}
\textsc{\ll reduction} & $t \Rew{x} s$ & if $t \tostratind{k} s$ with $\degt = k \in \mathbb{N}$;
\\
\textsc{$\neg$\ll reduction} & $t \tonotll s$ & if $t \tostratind{k} s$ with $\degt< k \in \mathbb{N}$;
\\
\textsc{Parallel $\neg$\ll reduction} &$t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ & if $t \partostratind{k} s$ with $k \!=\! \infty$ or $k \!>\! \Deg{t}$.
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
As
usual, easy inductions show that $\Rew{\beta} = \Rew{\ell\ell} \cup \Rew{\neg \ell\ell}$ and $\Rew{\neg \ell\ell} \subseteq \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} \subseteq \Rew{\neg \ell\ell}^*$.
\newcounter{prop:deg}
\addtocounter{prop:deg}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[Least level properties]
\label{prop:deg}
\NoteProof{propappendix:deg}
Let $t$ be a term.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:deg-finite}\emph{Computational meaning of $\ell\ell$}: $\Deg{t} = \inf\{ k \in \mathbb{N} \mid t \tostratind{k} u \text{ for some term } u\}$.
\item\label{p:deg-invariance-leq} \emph{Monotonicity}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then $\Deg{s} \geq \Deg{t}$.
\item\label{p:deg-invariance-equal} \emph{Invariance by $\tonotll$}: if $t \tonotll s$ then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\refpoint{deg-finite} captures the meaning of the least level, and gives fullness\xspace of $\Rew{\ell\ell}$. In particular, $\Deg{t} = \infty$ if and only if $t$ is $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, since $\inf \, \emptyset = \infty$.
Monotonicity states that $\beta$ steps cannot decrease the least level.
Invariance by $\tonotll$
says that $\tonotll$ cannot change the least level. Essentially, this is persistence.
\newcounter{prop:essential-strat}
\addtocounter{prop:essential-strat}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[\ll essential properties]
\label{prop:essential-strat}
\NoteProof{propappendix:essential-strat}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{p:essential-strat-completeness}
\emph{Fullness\xspace}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{\ell\ell} u$ for some $u$.
\item\label{p:essential-strat-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\ell\ell} s_1$ and $t \Rew{\neg \ell\ell} s_2$ then $s_2 \Rew{\ell\ell} u$ for some $u$.
\item\label{essential-strat-diamond} \emph{Diamond}: if $s\lRew{\ell\ell} \cdot \Rew{\ell\ell}u$ with $s \neq u$ then $s \Rew{\ell\ell} \cdot \lRew{\ell\ell} u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
As for $\ell o$\xspace, merge needs persistence, or, more precisely, invariance by $\tonotll$.
\newcounter{prop:macro-strat}
\addtocounter{prop:macro-strat}{\value{proposition}}
\begin{proposition}[\ll macro-step system]
\hfill\label{prop:macro-strat}
\NoteProof{propappendix:macro-strat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:macro-strat-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{p:macro-strat-indexed-split}\emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{x} \cdot \partobindlong {n-1} s$.
\item\label{p:macro-strat-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{x}^* \cdot \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\ell\ell}, \Rew{\neg \ell\ell}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\beta}$ and $\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{\ll factorization}: if $t \Rew{\beta}^* \tmthree}%{u$ then $t\Rew{\ell\ell}^* \cdot \Rew{\neg \ell\ell}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\item \emph{\ll normalization}: $\Rew{\ell\ell}$ is a normalizing reduction for $\Rew{\beta}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{\ll split and $\ell o$\xspace \textit{vs.} \ll.} As for $\ell o$\xspace reduction, left substitutivity does not hold for $\Rew{\ell\ell}$.
Consider $t = x (I y) \Rew{\ell\ell} x y = t'$ where the step has level 1, and $t\isubx {\laz z\varthree} \allowbreak= (\laz z\varthree)(Iy) \not\Rew{\ell\ell} (\laz z\varthree) y = t'\isubx {\laz z\varthree}$ since now there also is a step $(\laz z\varthree)(Iy)\Rew{\ell\ell} (I y)(I y)$ at level 0.
Moreover, \ll and $\ell o$\xspace reductions are incomparable. First, note that
\emph{$\Rew{\ell\ell} \not\subseteq
\Rew{\losym}$}: $t = (\la{x}{II})y \Rew{x} (\la{x}{I})y = s$, because $t \tostratind{0} (\la{x}{I})y$ and $\Deg{t} = 0$, but $t \not\Rew{\losym} s$, indeed $t \Rew{\losym} II$. This fact also shows that $\Rew{\ell\ell}$ is not left–outer in the sense of van Oostrom and Toyama \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16}.
Second, \emph
$\Rew{\losym} \not\subseteq \Rew{\ell\ell}$}: $t = x (x(II)) (II) \Rew{\losym} x (x I)(II) = s$ but $t \not\Rew{x} s$, indeed $t \tonotll s$ because $t \tostratind{2} s$ and $\Deg{t} = 1$, and $t \Rew{\ell\ell} x (x(II)) I \neq s$.
\section{Preliminary Lemmas}
Notation: $p\to^*q$ indicates a finite sequence from $p$ to $q$.
The lemmas below are elementary properties of $\Rew{\beta}$ (resp. $\Rew{\betav}$)
\begin{lemma}\label{l:basicCbN} If $t\Rew{\beta}\tmtwo}%{s$ by a step which is \emph{not} a $\beta$-redex then $s$ is an abstraction (resp. an application) \emph{if and only if so} is $t$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=\la x s'$ iff $t=\la x t'$ with $t'\Rew{\beta} s'$
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=pq$ iff $t = rs$ with ($\tmfour}%{r\Rew{\beta} p$ and $\tmtwo}%{s= q$) or ($\tmfour}%{r= p$ and $\tmtwo}%{s\Rew{\beta} q$).
\end{enumerate}
So if $\tmtwo}%{s=pq$ and $t = rs$, then $p$ is an abstraction iff $r$ is.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:basicCbV} If $t\Rew{\betav}\tmtwo}%{s$ by a step which is \emph{not} a $\beta_\val$-redex
then $s$ is an abstraction (resp. an application) \emph{if and only if so} is $t$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=\la x s'$ iff $t=\la x t'$, with $t'\Rew{\betav} s'$
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=pq$ iff $t = rs$, with ($\tmfour}%{r\Rew{\betav} p$ and $\tmtwo}%{s= q$) or ($\tmfour}%{r= p$ and $\tmtwo}%{s\Rew{\betav} q$).
\end{enumerate}
So if $\tmtwo}%{s=pq$ and $t = rs$, then $p$ is an abstraction iff $r$ is; $q$ is a value iff $s$ is.
\end{lemma}
\section{Least-Level Normalization in CbV}
With the obvious CbV definitions of depth of the $\beta_\val$ step $\tostratind{k}$ and of least-level of a term $\deg t$,
given surface factorization, we obtain normalization.
\CF{Per fare \textbf{induzione sulle forme normali}, non c'e' bisogno di avere una speciale grammatica delle forme normali. }\\
We have proved \emph{surface factorization} :
\begin{theorem}[Weak {CbV}\xspace factorization]
\label{thm:weak-fact0}
If $t \Rew{\betav}^* s$ then $t\tostratind{0}^* \tmtwo}%{s \tostratind{>0}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\end{theorem}
\emph{Least-Level Normalization} follows:
\begin{theorem}[CBV Normalization]
if $t \Rew{\betav}^* r$ with $r$ $\Rew{\betav}$-normal, then $t\Rew{\ell\ell}^* \tmfour}%{r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By induction on the term $r$.
From $t \Rew{\betav}^* r$,
by \refthm{weak-fact0}, we have that \begin{center}
$t\tostratind{0}^* u \tostratind{>0}^* r$.
\end{center}
Cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r=x$. Then $u=x$, and trivially $t\tostratind{0}^* r$.
\item $r=\l x.r'$. Then $u=\l x. u'$, hence $u' \Rew{\betav}^* r'$, where $ r' $ is $\Rew{\betav}$-normal, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace to obtain $u'\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r'$, hence
$t\tostratind{0}^* u=\l x. u' \Rew{\ell\ell}^* \l x.r'=r $.
\item $r=r_pr_q$. The sequence $u \tostratind{>0}^* r$ never use a $\beta_\val$-rule (since all steps have depth $>0$) therefore
(by \reflemma{basicCbV}) $u=pq$, with $p\Rew{\betav}^* r_p$ and $q\Rew{\betav}^* r_q$. Since $r=r_pr_q$ is normal, both $r_p$ and $r_q$ are $\Rew{\betav}$-normal.
\begin{itemize}
\item By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
$p \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_p$ and $q \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_q$.
\item
We \emph{merge} the steps in $p \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_p$ and
$q\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_q$ in increasing order, so to conclude that $pq\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_pr_q$, hence $t\tostratind{0}^* u= pq\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_pr_q=r$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
In all cases, we have proved the claim.
\end{proof}
\newpage
\section{Least-Level Normalization in CbN}
\CF{Supponiamo di aver dimostrato surface factorization per CbN...}
\begin{theorem}[Surface CbN\xspace factorization]
\label{thm:cbn-fact0}
If $t \Rew{\beta}^* s$ then $t\tobat{0}^* \tmtwo}%{s \tobat{>0}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\end{theorem}
Least-Level Normalization follows.
\begin{theorem}[CBN Normalization]
if $t \Rew{\beta}^* r$ with $r$ $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, then $t\Rew{\ell\ell}^* \tmfour}%{r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By induction on the term $r$.
From $t \Rew{\beta}^* r$,
by \refthm{weak-fact0}, we have that \begin{center}
$t\tobat{0}^* u \tobat{>0}^* r$.
\end{center}
Cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r=x$. Then $u=x$, and trivially $t\tobat{0}^* r$.
\item $r=\l x.r'$. Then $u=\l x. u'$, hence $u' \Rew{\beta}^* r'$, where $ r' $ is $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace to obtain $u'\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r'$, hence
$t\tobat{0}^* u=\l x. u' \Rew{\ell\ell}^* \l x.r'=r $.
\item $r=r_pr_q$. The sequence $u \tobat{>0}^* r$ never use a $\beta$-rule, therefore (by \reflemma{basicCbN}), $u=pq$, with $p\Rew{\beta}^* r_p$ and $q\Rew{\beta}^* r_q$.
Since $r=r_pr_q$ is normal, then both $r_p$ and $r_q$ are $\Rew{\beta}$-normal.
\begin{itemize}
\item By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
$p \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_p$ and $q \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_q$.
\item
We \emph{merge} the steps of $p \Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_p$ and
$q\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_q$ in increasing order, so to conclude that $pq\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_pr_q$, hence $t\tobat{0}^* u= pq\Rew{\ell\ell}^* r_pr_q=r$
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
In all cases, we have proved the claim.
\end{proof}
\newpage
\section{Left-Most Normalization in CbN}
\begin{theorem}[Head factorization]
\label{thm:cbn-fact0}
If $t \Rew{\beta}^* s$ then $t\Rew{h}^* \tmtwo}%{s \Rew{\lnot h}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[CBN Normalization]
if $t \Rew{\beta}^* r$ with $r$ $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, then $t\Rew{\losym}^* \tmfour}%{r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By induction on the term $r$.
From $t \Rew{\beta}^* r$,
by Head Factorization, we have that
\begin{center}
$t\Rew{h}^* u \Rew{\lnot h}^* r$.
\end{center}
Cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r=x$. Then $u=x$, and trivially $t\Rew{h}^* r$.
\item $r=\l x.r'$. Then $u=\l x. u'$, hence $u' \Rew{\beta}^* r'$, where $ r' $ is $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace to obtain $u'\Rew{\losym}^* r'$, hence
$t\Rew{h}^* u=\l x. u' \Rew{\losym}^* \l x.r'=r $.
\item $r=r_pr_q$. The sequence $u \Rew{\lnot h}^* r$ never use a $\beta$-rule, therefore, $u=pq$, with $p\Rew{\beta}^* r_p$ and $q\Rew{\beta}^* r_q$. Observe that (i) $r_p$ and $r_q$ are $\Rew{\beta}$-normal and (ii) $r_p$ is not an abstraction (because $r_pr_q$ is normal).
\begin{itemize}
\item By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
$p \Rew{\losym}^* r_p$ and $q \Rew{\losym}^* r_q$.
\item Because of (ii) and \reflemma{basicCbN}, no term in the sequence $p \Rew{\losym} p_1 \Rew{\losym} \dots \Rew{\losym} r_p$ is an abstraction. Hence $pq \Rew{\losym} p_1q\Rew{\losym} \dots \Rew{\losym} r_pq$. Since $r_p$ is normal and not an abstraction, from $q \Rew{\losym}^* r_q$ we also have $r_pq \Rew{\losym}^* r_pr_q$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
In all cases, we have proved the claim.
\end{proof}
\end{document}
\section{Factorization by Level in CbV}
With the obvious CbV definitions of depth of the $\beta_\val$ step $\tostratind{k}$ and of least-level of a term $\deg t$,
given surface factorization, we obtain factorization by level by induction.
\begin{theorem}[Weak {CbV}\xspace factorization]
\label{thm:weak-fact0}
If $t \Rew{\betav}^* s$ then $t\tostratind{0}^* \tmtwo}%{s \tostratind{>0}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[CBV \emph{\ll factorization}]
if $t \Rew{\betav}^* r$ then $t\Rew{\esym}^* \cdot \Rew{\isym}^* \tmfour}%{r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}From $t \Rew{\betav}^* r$,
by \refthm{weak-fact0}, we have that \begin{center}
$t\tostratind{0}^* u \tostratind{>0}^* r$.
\end{center}
We observe that the sequence $u \tostratind{>0}^* r$ has the property \#: no step in the sequence is a $\beta$-rule.
We prove by induction on $r$ the following statement, from which the claim follows by taking $k=\deg r$
\begin{center}
\emph{
If $ u \Rew{\betav}^* r $ and \# holds, then $u \Rew{\esym}^* \cdot \tostratind{>k}^* r$, for each $k\leq \deg r $, }
\end{center}
We procede by cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r=x$. Trivial
\item $r=\l x.q$ Then $u=\l x. p$, hence $p \Rew{\betav}^* q$, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item $r=r_pr_q$. Because of \#, {\em i.e.}\xspace the sequence never use a $\beta$-rule, therefore, $u=pq$, with $p\Rew{\betav}^* r_p$ and $q\Rew{\betav}^* r_q$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Observe that by def. of $\deg r$, if $k\leq \deg r $ then $k\leq \deg{ r_p}$ and $k \leq \deg {r_q}$.
\item By \refthm{weak-fact0}, $p \tostratind{0}^* p' {\tostratind {>0}}^* r_p$ and $q \tostratind{0}^* q' {\tostratind {>0}}^* r_q$
\item By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
$p' \Rew{\esym}^* p'' {\tostratind {>k}}^* r_p$ and $q' \Rew{\betav}^* q'' {\tostratind {>k}}^* r_q$.
\item By merging $p \tostratind{0}^*p' \Rew{\esym}^* p''$ and
$q \tostratind{0}^* q'\Rew{\betav}^* q''$ in increasing order, we conclude that $pq\Rew{\esym}^* p''q''$.
\item We also have
$ p''q'' \tostratind {>k} r_pq'' \tostratind {>k} r_pr_q$.
\end{itemize}
Hence we have proved the statement.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\SLV{}{
\begin{lemma} If $M\parredb N$ then $M\eredb^* \cdot \iparredb N$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}By Lemma \ref{lem:split0}, we have that $M\sred^* U \dparred N$.
We prove by induction on $N$ the following, from which the claim follows by taking $k=\deg N$
\begin{center}
\emph{ For each $k\leq \deg N$,
$U\eredb^* \cdot \parredb \at {>k} N$}
\end{center}
We procede by cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N=x$. ok
\item $N=\lam x.S$ Then $U=\lam x. P$, hence $P\parredb S$, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item $N=!S$. Then $U= !P$, hence $P\parredb S$, and we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item $N=ST$. Therefore, $U=PQ$, $P\parredb S$ and $Q\parredb T$. By def., if $k\leq \deg N $ then $k\leq \deg S$ and $k \leq \deg T$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
$P \eredb^* P' \parredb \at {>k} S$ and $Q \eredb^* Q' \parredb \at {>k} T$. We conclude that $PQ\eredb^* P'Q'$
and $ P'Q' \parredb \at {>k} ST$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
}
\section{Conclusions}
We provide simple proof techniques for factorization and normalization theorems in the $\l$-calculus, simplifying Takahashi's parallel method \cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95},
extending its scope and making it more abstract at the same time.
About the use of parallel reduction,
Takahashi claims: ``\textit{once the idea is stated properly, the essential part of the proof is almost over, because the inductive verification of the statement is easy, even mechanical}'' \cite[p.~122]{DBLP:journals/iandc/Takahashi95}.
Our work reinforces this point of view, as our case studies smoothly follow the abstract~schema.
\paragraph{Range of application.}
We apply our method for factorization and
normalization to two notions of reductions that compute full normal forms:
\begin{itemize}
\item the classic example of $\ell o$\xspace reduction,
covered also by the recent techniques by Hirokawa, Middeldorp and Moser \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15} and
van Oostrom and Toyama \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16};
\item
\ll reduction, which is out of the scope of \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15,DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16} because it is neither deterministic (as required by \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/HirokawaMM15}), nor left–outer in the sense of \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16} (as pointed out here in \refsect{stratified-cbn}).
\end{itemize}
Our approach naturally covers also reductions that do not compute full normal forms, such as head and weak {CbV}\xspace reductions.
These results are out of reach for
van Oostrom and Toyama's technique \cite{DBLP:conf/rta/OostromT16}, as they clarify in their conclusions.
Because of the minimality of our assumptions, we believe that our method applies to a large variety of other cases and variants of the $\l$-calculus.
\SLV{}{
A key feature of our approach is that it derives normalization from factorization.
However, it is worth noting that factorization is not a necessary condition for normalization.\footnotemark
\footnotetext{For instance, in the weak $\l$-calculus---where weak $\beta$-reduction $\rightarrow_{w\beta}$ does not reduce under abstractions---our technique does not apply because weak head reduction $\Rew{wh}$ ({\em i.e.}\xspace head reduction that does not reduce under abstractions) satisfies a weak head normalization theorem (if $t \rightarrow_{w\beta}^* s$ with $s$ $\Rew{wh}$-normal then $\Rew{wh}$ terminates on $t$) but does not factorize: indeed, given the $\rightarrow_{w\beta}$-sequence $(\la{x}\la{y}x)(II) \rightarrow_{\lnot wh} (\la{x}\la{y}x)I \Rew{wh} \la{y}I$, there is no term $t$ such that $(\la{x}\la{y}x)(II) \Rew{wh}^* t \rightarrow_{\lnot wh}^* \la{y}I$.}
}
\section{Technical appendix: omitted proofs and lemmas}
\label{sect:proofs}
The enumeration of propositions, theorems, lemmas already stated in the body of the article is unchanged.
\input{./proofs/proofs-head}
\input{./proofs/proofs-weak-cbv}
\input{./proofs/proofs-leftmost}
\input{./proofs/proofs-stratified-cbn2}
\section{Proof Appendix}
\begin{lemma}[Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$]
if $t \partobvind n t'$ and $s \partobvind m s'$ where $s$ is a value, then $t \isub\vars \partobvindlong {n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m} t' \isubx{s'}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partobvind{n} t'$. Cases:
Cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Variable}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = x \partobvind{0} x = t'$. Then, $\sizep{t'}x = 1$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = s \partobvind{m} s' = t'\isub{x}{s'}$, where $m = 0 + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobvind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n} u'$; we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s'} \cup \{x\}$, hence $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{s})$ and $t'\isub{x}{s'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{s'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = {u}r \partobvind{n_1 + n_2} {u'}r' = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n_1} u'$ and $r \partobvind{n_2} r'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$ and $r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_2 + \sizep{r'}{x} \cdot m} r'\isub{x}{s'}$, hence
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_2 + \sizep{r'}{x} \cdot m} r'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = u\isub{x}{s} r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'} r'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{r'}{x}$ and $n = n_1 + n_2$.
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r$ is a value}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_2} r'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = (\lay u)r \partobvind{n} u'\isub y {r'} = t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
where $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot n_2 +1$.
We can assume without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s'} \cup \{x\}$;
hence, $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\sizep{r'}{x} $ and $t\isub{x}{r} = (\la{y}{u}\isub{x}{s})r\isub{x}{s}$ and $t'\isub{x}{r'} = {u'}\isub{y}{r'}\isub{x}{s'} = u'\isub{y}{s'}\isub{x}{r'\isub{y}{s'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x}} u'\isub{x}{s'}$ and $r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x}} r'\isub{x}{s'}$.
Therefore, since $r\isub{x}{s}$ is a value,
\[\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x}} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub{x}{r} \partobvindlong{n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x}} r'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t \isub{x}{s} = (\lay u)r \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x} + (n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x})\sizep{u'}{y} + 1} u'\isub y {r'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
where $n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x} + (n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x})\sizep{u'}{y} + 1 = n + m(\sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot \sizep{r'}{x}) = n + m \cdot \sizep{t'}{x}$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{abstract-rewriting} (Factorization and Normalization, Abstractly)}
\begin{theorem}[Essential normalization]
Let $\mathcal S$ be an \essential system. If $t \to^* s$ and $s$ is a $\Rew{\esym}$-normal form then $t$ is strongly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $t \to^* \tmthree}%{u$ with $\tmthree}%{u$ $\Rew{\esym}$-normal. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Terminal factorization} implies $t \Rew{\esym}^*\tmtwo}%{s \Rew{\isym}^* \tmthree}%{u$.
\item Let us show that $\tmtwo}%{s$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal: if it is not then $\tmtwo}%{s$ a straightforward induction on the length of $\tmtwo}%{s \Rew{\isym}^*\tmthree}%{u$ iterating \emph{persistence} gives that $\tmthree}%{u \Rew{\esym} p$ for some $p$, against the hypothesis that $\tmthree}%{u$ it is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal. Absurd. We have then proved that that $\tmtwo}%{s$ is $\Rew{\esym}$-normal.
\item By the previous point $t$ is weakly $\Rew{\esym}$-normalizing. By \emph{uniform termination}, $\Rew{\esym}$ is strongly normalizing. \qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{lambda} ($\l$-calculus)}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{head} (head)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:macro-head}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Head macro-step system]
\label{propappendix:macro-head}
\NoteState{prop:macro-head}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:macro-head-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg h}\cdot \Rew{h} u$ then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-head-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \partonoths$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{h} \cdot \partobind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-head-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{h}^* \cdot \partonoths$.
\end{enumerate}
that is, $(\Lambda, \{ \Rew{h}, \Rew{\lnot h} \})$ is a \macrostep\ system with respect to $\parRew{\beta},\parRew{\neg h}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
\refpoints{macro-head-indexed-split}{macro-head-split} are already proved on p.~\pageref{prop:macro-head}.
We prove \refpoint{macro-head-merge} by induction on the definition of $t \parRew{\neg h} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \parRew{\neg h} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \Rew{h} u$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \parRew{\neg h} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \parRew{\neg h} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \Rew{h} u$, necessarily $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \Rew{h} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $t' \parRew{\beta} u'$ and hence:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\beta} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{\beta} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:app}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg h} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\neg h} r'p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align}
Sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = r'p' \Rew{h} r''p' = u$ with $r' \Rew{h} r''$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \parRew{\neg h} r' \Rew{h} r''$, we have $r \parRew{\beta} r''$, and so (as $\parRew{\neg h} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\beta}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\beta} r''p' = u$}
\DisplayProof\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}q')p' \Rew{h} q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$, which means that $r' = \la{x}{q'}$ in \eqref{eq:app}.
According to the definition of $r \parRew{\neg h} r'$, necessarily $r = \la{x}{q}$ with $q \parRew{\neg h} q'$.
Thus, (as $\parRew{\neg h} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\beta}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la {x} q) p \parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-redex}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax r) p \parRew{\neg h} (\lax r') p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
According to the definition of $s \Rew{h} u$, we have $u = r'\isub{x}{p'}$.
Hence,
\[
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax r) p \parRew{\beta} r'\isub{x}{p'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\ . \qedhere
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:essential-head}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Head essential system]
\label{propappendix:essential-head}
\NoteState{prop:essential-head}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:essential-head-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{h} s$ and $t \Rew{\lnot h} u$ then $u \Rew{h} r$ for some $r$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-head-determinism} \emph{Determinism}: if $t \Rew{h} s_1$ and $t\Rew{h} s_2$ then $s_1 = s_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is an essential system.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence}: By induction on $t \Rew{h} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Root step}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{h} p\isub\varq = s$. Sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the left sub-term}: $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p') q=u$ because $p \Rew{\beta} p'$ or $p \Rew{\lnot h} p'$. In both cases $u = (\lax p') q \Rew{h} p'\isub\varq =:r$.
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the right sub-term}: $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p) q'=u$ because $q \Rew{\beta} q'$. Then $u = (\lax p) q' \Rew{h} p\isubx{q'} =:r$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Application}: {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = p q \Rew{h} p'q = s$ with $p \Rew{h} p'$ and $p$ not an abstraction. Sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the left sub-term}: $t = p q \Rew{\lnot h} p'' q=u$ because $p \Rew{\lnot h} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p'' \Rew{h} r'$ for some $r'$. Then $u = p'' q \Rew{h} r'q =:r$.
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the right sub-term}: $t = p q \Rew{\lnot h} p q'=u$ because $q \Rew{\beta} q'$. Then $u = p q' \Rew{h} p'q' =:r$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \lax p \Rew{h} p' = s$. Then $t = \lax p \Rew{\lnot h} \lax''' = u$ for some $p''$ with $p \Rew{\lnot h} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p'' \Rew{h} r'$ for some $r'$. Then $u = \lax''' \Rew{h} \la\varr'$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Determinism}: By induction on a derivation with conclusion $t \Rew{h} s_1$.
Consider its last rule.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{x}{t'} \Rew{h} \la{x}{s_1'} = s_1$ because $t' \Rew{h} s_1'$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{h}$, the only possibility for the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{h} s_2$ is
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \Rew{h} s_2'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \Rew{h} \la{x}{s_2'} = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $s_1' = s_2'$ and hence $s_1 = \la{x}{s_1'} = \la{x}{s_2'} = s_2$.
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \Rew{h} s_1't'' = s_1$ because $t' \Rew{h} s_1'$ and $t' \neq \la{x}{r}$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{h}$, the the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{h} s_2$ can be only
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \Rew{h} s_2'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t't'' \Rew{h} s_2't'' = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $s_1' = s_2'$ and hence $s_1 = s_1't'' = s_2't'' = s_2$.
\item \emph{$\beta$-rule}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\la{x}t')t'' \Rew{h} t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_1$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{h}$, the only possibility for the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{h} s_2$ is
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t'})t'' \Rew{h} t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
&&\text{and hence } s_1 = t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_2.
\text{\qedhere}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{lambda} ($\l$-calculus)}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:partobind-subs}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Substitutivity of $\partobind n$]
\label{lappendix:partobind-subs}
\NoteState{l:partobind-subs}
If $t \partobind n t'$ and $s \partobind m s'$ then $t \isub\vars \partobind {n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m} t' \isubx{s'}$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $t \partobind n t'$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: two sub-cases
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = x$: then $t = x \partobind 0 x = t'$ then $t \isub\vars = x\isub\vars = s \partobind m s' = x \isubx{s'} = t' \isubx{s'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = 0+1\cdot m = m$.
\item $t = y$: then $t = y \partobind 0 y = t'$ then $t \isub\vars = y\isub\vars = y \partobind 0 y = y \isubx{s'} = t' \isubx{s'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = n +0\cdot m=n$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobind{n} u'$; we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \neq x$, hence $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{s})$ and $t'\isub{x}{s'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{s'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{s} \partobindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_r} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = u r \partobindlong {n_u + n_r} u' r'= t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + n_r$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$ and $r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$. Then
\[\AxiomC{$u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub\vars = u\isub\vars r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'} r'\isubx{s'}= t'\isubx{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
that proves the statement because $$n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m = n + (\sizep{u'}x + \sizep{r'}x)\cdot m = n + \sizep{t'}x \cdot m$$
\item $\beta$, {\em i.e.}\xspace
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_r} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lay u)r \partobindlong {n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_r +1} u'\isub y {r'} = t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_r +1$. We can assume without loss of generality that $y\neq x$,
hence $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'\isuby {r'}}x = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot\sizep{r'}{x} $ and $t\isub\vars = (\la\vartwou\isub\vars) (r\isub\vars)$ and $t'\isubx{s'} = u'\isubx{s'} \isuby{r'\isubx{s'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$ and $r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$. Then
\[\AxiomC{$u\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub\vars \partobindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub\vars = (\la\vartwou\isub\vars) (r\isub\vars) \partobindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m)+1} u'\isubx{s'} \isuby{r'\isubx{s'}}= t'\isubx{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
The number on the $\parRew{}$ arrow satisfies
$$n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m)+1
=
\underbrace{n_u + \sizep{u'}y\cdot n_r + 1}_n + \underbrace{\sizep{u'}x \cdot m + \sizep{u'}y\cdot \sizep{r'}x \cdot m}_{\sizep{t'}x\cdot m}$$
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{head} (head)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:quant-out-in-split}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Head macro-step system]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split}
\NoteState{prop:quant-out-in-split}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{p:quant-out-in-split-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg h}\cdot \Rew{h} u$ then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{p:quant-out-in-split-indexed} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \partonoths$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{h} \cdot \partobind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{p:quant-out-in-split-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{h}^* \cdot \partonoths$.
\end{enumerate}
that is, $(\Lambda, \{ \Rew{h}, \Rew{\lnot h} \})$ is a \macrostep\ system with respect to $\parRew{\beta},\parRew{\neg h}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
\refpoints{quant-out-in-split-indexed}{quant-out-in-split-split} are already proved on p.~\pageref{prop:quant-out-in-split}.
We prove \refpoint{quant-out-in-split-merge} by induction on the definition of $t \parRew{\neg h} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \parRew{\neg h} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \Rew{h} u$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \parRew{\neg h} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \parRew{\neg h} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \Rew{h} u$, necessarily $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \Rew{h} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $t' \parRew{\beta} u'$ and hence:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\beta} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{\beta} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:app}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg h} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\neg h} r'p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align}
Sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = r'p' \Rew{h} r''p' = u$ with $r' \Rew{h} r''$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \parRew{\neg h} r' \Rew{h} r''$, we have $r \parRew{\beta} r''$, and so (as $\parRew{\neg h} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\beta}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\beta} r''p' = u$}
\DisplayProof\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}q')p' \Rew{h} q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$, which means that $r' = \la{x}{q'}$ in \eqref{eq:app}.
According to the definition of $r \parRew{\neg h} r'$, necessarily $r = \la{x}{q}$ with $q \parRew{\neg h} q'$.
Thus, (as $\parRew{\neg h} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\beta}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la {x} q) p \parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-redex}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax r) p \parRew{\neg h} (\lax r') p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
According to the definition of $s \Rew{h} u$, we have $u = r'\isub{x}{p'}$.
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax r) p \parRew{\beta} r'\isub{x}{p'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Head essential system]
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{h} s$ and $t \Rew{\lnot h} u$ then $u \Rew{h} r$ for some $r$.
\item \emph{Determinism}: if $t \Rew{h} s_1$ and $t\Rew{h} s_2$ then $s_1 = s_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is an essential system.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence}: by induction on $t \Rew{h} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Root step}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{h} p\isub\varq = s$. Sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the left sub-term}: $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p') q=u$ because $p \Rew{\beta} p'$ or $p \Rew{\lnot h} p'$. In both cases $u = (\lax p') q \Rew{h} p'\isub\varq =:r$.
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the right sub-term}: $t = (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p) q'=u$ because $q \Rew{\beta} q'$. Then $u = (\lax p) q' \Rew{h} p\isubx{q'} =:r$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Application}: {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = p q \Rew{h} p'q = s$ with $p \Rew{h} p'$ and $p$ not an abstraction. Sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the left sub-term}: $t = p q \Rew{\lnot h} p'' q=u$ because $p \Rew{\lnot h} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p'' \Rew{h} r'$ for some $r'$. Then $u = p'' q \Rew{h} r'q =:r$.
\item \emph{$\Rew{\lnot h}$ in the right sub-term}: $t = p q \Rew{\lnot h} p q'=u$ because $q \Rew{\beta} q'$. Then $u = p q' \Rew{h} p'q' =:r$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \lax p \Rew{h} p' = s$. Then $t = \lax p \Rew{\lnot h} \lax''' = u$ for some $p''$ with $p \Rew{\lnot h} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p'' \Rew{h} r'$ for some $r'$. Then $u = \lax''' \Rew{h} \la\varr'$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Determinism}: \ben{to do}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} By induction on $t$.
We show that for each possible case of $t$, persistence holds, and only one reduction applies (\emph{determinism}).
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = (\lax p)$. Only the \emph{root step} applies. Since $t \Rew{\lnot h} u$ we have
\begin{itemize}
\item either $ (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p') q=u$.
\item or $ (\lax p) q \Rew{\lnot h} (\lax p) q'=u$.
\end{itemize}
In both cases, the \emph{root step} applies to $u$.
\item $t = p q $ with $p$ not an abstraction. Only rule 2. applies, and $p \Rew{h} p'$.
Since $t \Rew{\lnot h} u$ we have
\begin{itemize}
\item either $ p q \Rew{\lnot h} p' q=u$, where $p'$ is not an abstraction
\item or $ p q \Rew{\lnot h} p q'=u$, where $p$ is not an abstraction.
\end{itemize}
In both cases, rule 2. applies to $u$.
\item $t = \lax p $. Only rule 3. applies, with a premiss $p \Rew{h} p'$. We also have
$t = \lax p \Rew{\lnot h} \lax'''$, which gives $p \Rew{\lnot h} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p'' \Rew{h} r'$ for some $r'$. Then rule 3. applies to $u = \lax'''$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{leftmost} (leftmost-outermost)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:essential-left}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[$\ell o$\xspace essential properties]
\label{propappendix:essential-left}
\NoteState{prop:essential-left}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:essential-left-completeness} \emph{Fullness\xspace}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{\losym} u$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-left-determinism} \emph{Determinism}: if $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$ and $t\Rew{\losym} s_2$, then $s_1 = s_2$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-left-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$ and $t \Rew{\neg \losym} s_2$, then $s_2 \Rew{\losym} u$ for some $u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Fullness\xspace}: by induction on $t$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = x$: then $t \not\tobs$, and so the statement trivially holds.
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la\vart' \Rew{\beta} \la\vars' = s$. It follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = r p$. Three sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$r$ is an abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $r = \la\varq$: then $t = (\la\varq) p \Rew{\losym} q\isub\varq$.
\item \emph{$r$ is not an abstraction but it is not normal}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $r \Rew{\beta} r'$ for some $r'$: then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace $r \Rew{\losym} q$ for some $q$ and so $t = r p \Rew{\losym} \tmsixp$.
\item \emph{$r$ is neutral}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t$ is not normal implies $p$ not normal. Then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace $p \Rew{\losym} p'$ for some $p'$, and so $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r p'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Determinism}: By induction on a derivation with conclusion $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$.
Consider its last rule.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{x}{t'} \Rew{\losym} \la{x}{s_1'} = s_1$ because $t' \Rew{\losym} s_1'$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\losym}$, the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{\losym} s_2$ can be only
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \Rew{\losym} s_2'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \Rew{\losym} \la{x}{s_2'} = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $s_1' = s_2'$ and hence $s_1 = \la{x}{s_1'} = \la{x}{s_2'} = s_2$.
\item \emph{Application left}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \Rew{\losym} s_1't'' = s_1$ because $t' \Rew{\losym} s_1'$ and $t' \neq \la{x}{r}$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\losym}$, the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{\losym} s_2$ can only be (since $t$ is neither an abstraction nor neutral)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \Rew{\losym} s_2'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t't'' \Rew{\losym} s_2't'' = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $s_1' = s_2'$ and hence $s_1 = s_1't'' = s_2't'' = s_2$.
\item \emph{Application right}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \Rew{\losym} t's_1'' = s_1$ because $t'' \Rew{\losym} s_1''$ and $t'$ is neutral.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\losym}$, the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{\losym} s_2$ can only be (since $t$ is normal and not an abstraction)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t'' \Rew{\losym} s_2''$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t't'' \Rew{\losym} t's_2'' = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$, we have $s_1' = s_2'$ and hence $s_1 = t's_1'' = t's_2'' = s_2$.
\item \emph{$\beta$-rule}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\la{x}t')t'' \Rew{\losym} t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_1$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\losym}$, the only possibility for the last rule of a derivation for $t \Rew{\losym} s_2$ is
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t'})t'' \Rew{\losym} t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_2$}
\DisplayProof
&&\text{and hence } s_1 = t'\isub{x}{t''} = s_2.
\text{\qedhere}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Persistence}: by induction on $t \Rew{\losym} s_1$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Root}: $t = (\lax r) p \Rew{\losym} r\isubx' = s_1$. Three sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = (\lax r) p \Rew{\neg \losym} (\lax r') p = s_2$ because $r \Rew{\beta} r'$. Then $s_2 = (\lax r') p \Rew{\losym} r'\isubx' =: u$.
\item $t = (\lax r) p \Rew{\neg \losym} (\lax r') p = s_2$ because $r \Rew{\neg \losym} r'$. Exactly as the previous one.
\item $t = (\lax r) p \Rew{\neg \losym} (\lax r) p ' = s_2$ because $p \Rew{\beta} p'$. Then $s_2 = (\lax r) p' \Rew{\losym} r\isubx'' =: u$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \lax r \Rew{\losym} \lax r'= s_1$. Then $t = \lax r \Rew{\neg \losym} \lax r''= s_2$ and the statement follows from the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace and closure of $\Rew{\losym}$.
\item \emph{Left of an application}: $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r_1 p = s_1$ with $r \Rew{\losym} r_1$ and $r$ not an abstraction. Two sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = r p \Rew{\neg \losym} r_2 p = s_2$ because $r \Rew{\neg \losym} r_2$. Then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace there exists $q$ such that $r_2 \Rew{\losym} q$. Note that $\Rew{\neg \losym}$ cannot create a root abstraction (because it never reduces the root redex) so that if $r$ is not an abstraction then $r_2$ is not an abstraction and $s_2 = r_2 p \Rew{\losym} q p =:u$.
\item $t = r p \Rew{\neg \losym} r p' = s_2$ by one of the two rules for able to derive it. In both cases $p \Rew{\beta} p'$. Then $s_2 = r p' \Rew{\losym} r_1 p' =:u$ and $s_1 = r_1 p \Rew{\beta} r_1 p' =u$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Right of an application}: $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r p_1 = s_1$ with $p \Rew{\losym} p_1$ and $r$ neutral. Then necessarily $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r p_2 = s_2$ with $p \Rew{\neg \losym} p_2$. The statement then follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:macro-left}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[$\ell o$\xspace macro-step system]
\label{propappendix:macro-left}
\NoteState{prop:macro-left}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:macro-left-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg \losym} \cdot \Rew{\losym} u$ then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-left-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\neg \losym} s$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{\losym} \cdot \partobind {n-1} s$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-left-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{\losym}^* \cdot \parRew{\neg \losym} s$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\losym}, \Rew{\neg \losym}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\beta}$ and $\parRew{\neg \losym}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Merge}: by induction on $t \parRew{\neg \losym} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item Rule
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax r) p \parRew{\neg \losym} (\lax r') p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
Then $(\lax r) p \parRew{\neg \losym} (\lax r') p' \Rew{\losym} r'\isubx{p'} = u$. We simply have:
\[ \AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la\varr)p \parRew{\beta} r'\isubx{p'} = u$}
\DisplayProof\]
\item Rule
\[\AxiomC{$r$ not neutral}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \losym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p ' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
Since $r$ is not neutral, it is an abstraction or it is not normal. If $r$ is an abstraction this case continues goes as the first case. Otherwise, $r$ is not normal, and by persistence (\refpropp{essential-left}{persistence}) $r'$ is not normal.
Fullness\xspace (\refpropp{essential-left}{completeness}) of $\Rew{\losym}$ gives $r' \Rew{\losym} r''$ for a certain $r''$. The hypothesis becomes $t = r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p ' \Rew{\losym} r'' p' = u$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $r \parRew{\beta} r''$. Then,
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p\parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\beta} r'' p' = u$}
\DisplayProof\]
\item Rule
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \losym} r'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la\varr \parRew{\neg \losym} \la\varr' = s$}
\DisplayProof \]
Then $\la\varr \parRew{\neg \losym} \la\varr' \Rew{\losym} \la\varr'' = u$ with $r' \Rew{\losym} r''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $r \parRew{\beta} r''$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la \varr \parRew{\beta} \la x r'' = u$}
\DisplayProof\]
\item Rule
\[\AxiomC{$r$ neutral }
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\neg \losym} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r p' = s$}
\DisplayProof \]
Then the hypothesis is $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r p' \Rew{\losym} r p'' = u$ with $p' \Rew{\losym} p''$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $p \parRew{\beta} p''$, and since $\parRew{\beta}$ is reflexive,
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\beta} r$}
\AxiomC{$p\parRew{\beta} p''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\beta} r p'' = u$}
\DisplayProof\]
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Indexed split}: By induction on the definition of $t \partobind n s$. We use freely the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \parRew{\neg \losym} x = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows from the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\label{eq:app}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
with $n = n_1 + n_2$. There are only two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$, and then the claim holds;
\item or $r p \not\parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$, then the following conditions hold (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$):
\begin{enumerate}
\item $r$ is not an abstraction;
\item if $r$ is neutral then $p \not\parRew{\neg \losym} p'$;
\item if $r$ is not neutral then $r \not\parRew{\neg \losym} r'$;
\end{enumerate}
So, if $r$ is neutral, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $p \partobind{n_2} p'$, $n_2 > 0$ and there is $p''$ such that $p \Rew{\losym} p'' \partobind{n_2-1} r'$; thus, $t = r p \Rew{\losym} rp''$ and
\[
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p'' \partobindlong {n_2-1} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r p'' \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2-1} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\]
Otherwise $r$ is not neutral and hence, by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobind{n_1} r'$,
$n_1>0$ and there exists $r''$ such that $r \Rew{\losym} r'' \partobind {n_1-1} r'$;
thus, $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r'' p \partobindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\]
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_2} r''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax u)r \partobindlong {n_1 + \sizep{s}x \cdot n_2 +1} u'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + \sizepsx \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{\losym} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizepsx \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Split}: exactly as in the head case (\refpropp{macro-head}{split}), using the Indexed Split property for $\ell o$\xspace (\refpoint{macro-left-indexed-split} above).
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs and lemmas of \refsect{stratified-cbn}}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:perpetuity-strat}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Persistence]
\label{lappendix:perpetuity-strat}
\NoteState{l:perpetuity-strat}
If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ then $\Deg{s} \leq \Deg{t}$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $t \partostratind{n} s$ for some $n > \Deg{t}$.
We prove that $\Deg{s} \leq \Deg{t}$ by induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = \infty = \Deg{s}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
As $n > \Deg{t} = \Deg{t'}$, then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{s'} \leq \Deg{t'} = \Deg{t}$ by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $\Deg{t}$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t_0} \leq \Deg{t_1} + 1$ and $t_0$ is not an abstraction;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0$ (since $\Deg{t_0} = \Deg{t} < n \leq n_0$), we have $\Deg{s_0} \leq \Deg{t_0}$, and so (as $\Deg{t_0} \leq \Deg{t_1} + 1$) $\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s_0}, \Deg{s_1} + 1\} \leq \min\{\Deg{t_0}, \Deg{t_1} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t_1} + 1 \leq \Deg{t_0}$ and $t_0$ is not an abstraction;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1$ (since $\Deg{t_1} + 1 = \Deg{t} < n \leq n_1+1$ and hence $\Deg{t_1} < n_1$), we have $\Deg{s_1} \leq \Deg{t_1}$, and so (as $\Deg{t_1} + 1 \leq \Deg{t_0}$) $\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s_0}, \Deg{s_1} + 1\} \leq \min\{\Deg{t_0}, \Deg{t_1} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = 0$ and $t_0$ is an abstraction.
According to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$, since $n > 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore $\Deg{s} = 0 = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $0 = n > \Deg{t}$, which is impossible.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Internal-external merge]
\label{propappendix:i-e-merge-strat}
\NoteState{prop:i-e-merge-strat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $t \partostratind{n}s \tostratind{m} u$ with $n > m$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item By induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \tostratind{m} u$ for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, by necessity $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \tostratind{m} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \parRew{\betav} u'$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{\betav} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$;
since $m < n \leq n_0$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$, we have $t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$, and so (as $\partostratind{n_1} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_0s_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$;
since $m-1 < n-1 \leq n_1$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$, we have $t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$, and so (as $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 \tostratind{0} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$ with $m = 0$;
as $n > 0$ then, according to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore (as $\partostratind{k} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t_0})t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\item As $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \partostratind{n} s \tostratind{m} u$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n > \Deg{t}$ and $m = \Deg{s}$.
By persistence (\reflemma{perpetuity-strat}), $\Deg{t} \geq \Deg{s}$.
Hence, $n > m$ and we can then merge (by \refpropp{i-e-merge-strat}{ind}) to $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Decomposition of parallel $\beta$-steps]
\label{l:decomp-strat}
If $t \partobind{n} s$ then $t \partostratind{m} s$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$ then $m \neq \infty$ and $t \tostratind{m} u$ for some term $u$ such that $u \partobindlong{n-1} s$ and $u \partostratind{j} s$ with $j \geq m $ (possibly $j = \infty$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction $(n,k) \in \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$ with the lexicographical order, where $k$ is the length of the derivation of $t \partobind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind{0} x = s$ where $n = 0$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind{n} s'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \partostratind{m} s'$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \partostratind{m} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{m} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m \neq \infty$ and $t' \tostratind{m} u'$ for some term $u'$ such that $u' \partobindlong{n-1} s'$ and $u' \partostratind{j} s'$ with $j \geq m$ (possibly $j = \infty$), so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \tostratind{m} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \tostratind{m} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u' \partostratind{j} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{j} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u' \partobind{n-1} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partobind{n-1} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partobind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + n_1$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{m} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $m = \min\{m_0,m_1+1\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m_0, m_1 \neq \infty$ and $t_0 \tostratind{m_0} u_0$ and $t_1 \tostratind{n_1} u_1$ for some terms $u_0, u_1$ such that $u_0 \partobindlong{n_0-1} s_0$ and $u_1 \partobindlong{n_1-1} s_1$ and $u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$ and $u_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$ with $j_0 \geq m_0$, $j_1 \geq m_1$ (possibly $j_0,j_1 = \infty$).
There are two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $m = m_0$; then, $m_0 \leq m_1+1$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} u_0t_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0-1} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{j_0, m_1+1\} \geq m_0 = m$;
\item $m = m_1+1$; then, $m_1 + 1 \leq m_0$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} t_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1-1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{m_0, j_1+1\} \geq m_1+1 = m$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partobind{n} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x}n_1 + 1 > 0$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
Let $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1}$.
By \reflemma{partobind-subs}, $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partobindlong{n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ where $n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1 = n - 1$.
Clearly,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \tostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace (since $n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1 = n -1$), $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partostratind{j} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$, in particular $j \geq 0$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Stratified indexed split]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-strat}
\NoteState{prop:quant-out-in-split-strat}
If $t \partobind n s$ then either $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{x} u \partobindlong {n-1} s$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
If $n = 0$, then $t = s$ (because $\partobind{0}$ is the identity relation) and so $t \partostratind{\infty} s$ (because $\partostratind{\infty}$ is the identity relation), hence $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
Otherwise $n > 0$ and then, by \reflemma{decomp-strat}, $t \partostratind{k} s$ and $t \tostratind{k} u$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and some term $u$ such that $u \partobind{n-1} s$.
There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $k > \Deg{t}$ and then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ (since $t \partostratind{k} s$);
\item or $k = \Deg{t}$ and so $t \Rew{x} u \partobindlong{n-1} s$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollaryAppendix}[Stratified split]
\label{coroappendix:e-i-split-strat}
\NoteState{coro:e-i-split-strat}
If $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ for some $u$.
\end{corollaryAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $t \partobind{n} s$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
We prove the statement by induction on $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
If $n = 0$, then $t = s$ (because $\partobind{0}$ is the identity relation) and so $t \partostratind{\infty} s$ (because $\partostratind{\infty}$ is the identity relation), hence $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
Otherwise $n > 0$ and then, by \reflemma{decomp-strat}, $t \partostratind{k} s$ and $t \tostratind{k} u$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and some term $u$ such that $u \partobind{n-1} s$.
There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $k > \Deg{t}$ and then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ (as $t \partostratind{k} s$), so we conclude taking $u = t$;
\item or $k = \Deg{t}$ and then $t \Rew{x} r \partobindlong{n-1} s$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobind{n-1} s$, there is a term $u$ such that $r \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$;
therefore, $t \Rew{x} r \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Note that the last proof uses only \reflemma{decomp-strat}, not \refprop{quant-out-in-split-strat}!
\subsection{Omitted proofs and lemmas of \refsect{stratified-cbn}}
\begin{lemma}[Persistence]
\label{l:perpetuity-strat}
If $t \partostratind{n} s$ and $t \tostratind{m} u$ with $m < n$, then there exists a term $r$ such that $s \tostratind{m} r$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
This is impossible because there is no $u$ such that $t \tostratind{m} u$ for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
By definition of $t \tostratind{m} u$, by necessity $u = \la{x}u'$ with $t' \tostratind{m} u'$
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $s' \tostratind{m} r'$ for some term $r'$.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$s' \tostratind{m} r'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = \la{x}{s'} \tostratind{m} \la{x}{r'} = r$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $t \tostratind{m} u$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} u_0t_1 = u$ with $t_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$;
since $m < n \leq n_0$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0$, we have $s_0 \tostratind{m} r_0$ for some term $r_0$, and so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$s_0 \tostratind{m} r_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} r_0s_1 = r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} t_0u_1 = u$ with $t_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$;
since $m-1 < n-1 \leq n_1$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1$, we have $s_1 \tostratind{m} r_1$ for some term $r_1$, and so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$s_1 \tostratind{m-1} r_1$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} s_0r_1 = r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = (\la{x}{t_0})t_1 \tostratind{0} t_0\isub{x}{t_1} = u$ with $m = 0 < n$.
According to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$s = (\la{x}s_0)s_1 \tostratind{0} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = r$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = 0$. This is impossible because there is no term $u$ such that $t \tostratind{m} u$ with $ m < 0$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:i-e-merge-strat}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Internal-external merge]
\label{propappendix:i-e-merge-strat}
\NoteState{prop:i-e-merge-strat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $t \partostratind{n}s \tostratind{m} u$ with $n > m$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item By induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \tostratind{m} u$ for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, by necessity $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \tostratind{m} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \parRew{\betav} u'$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{\betav} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$;
since $m < n \leq n_0$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$, we have $t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$, and so (as $\partostratind{n_1} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_0s_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$;
since $m-1 < n-1 \leq n_1$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$, we have $t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$, and so (as $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 \tostratind{0} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$ with $m = 0$;
as $n > 0$ then, according to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore (as $\partostratind{k} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t_0})t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\item As $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \partostratind{n} s \tostratind{m} u$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$, where (by definition of $\Rew{x}$) $m$ is minimal for $s$, {\em i.e.}\xspace if $s \tostratind{m'} u'$ then $m'\geq m$, and (by definition of $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$), $t \tostratind{k} r$ for term $r$ and some $k < n$.
By perpetuity (\reflemma{perpetuity-strat}) there exists a term $r'$ such that $s \tostratind{k} r'$, and $k \geq m$ by minimality of $m$.
Hence, $n > m$ and we can then merge (by \refpropp{i-e-merge-strat}{ind}) to $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Substitutivity of $\partostratind{}$]
\label{l:tostrat-subs}
If $t \partostratind{n} t'$ and $s \partostratind{m} s'$ with $n,m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$, then $t \isub\vars \partostratind{k} t' \isubx{s'}$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = y \partostratind{\infty} y = t'$.
There are two sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $y = x$ and then $t\isub{x}{s} = s \partostratind{m} s' = t'\isub{x}{s'}$;
\item or $y \neq x$ and then $t\isub{x}{s} = y \partostratind{\infty} y = t'\isub{x}{s'}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vartwou \partostratind{n} \la y u' = t'$ because $u \partostratind{n} u'$.
We can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s'} \cup \{x\}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u \partostratind{j} u'$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$, so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u \partostratind{j} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = \la{y}{u\isub{x}{s}} \partostratind{j} \la{y}{u'\isub{x}{s'}} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} t'_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} t'_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} t'_0 t'_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{j_0} t_0'\isub{x}{s}$ and $t_1\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{j_1} t_1'\isub{x}{s}$ for some $j_0, j_1 \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{j_0} t_0'\isub{x}{s}$}
\AxiomC{$t_1\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{j_1} t_1'\isub{x}{s}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = t_0\isub{x}{s}t_1 \isub{x}{s} \partostratind{j} t_0'\isub{x}{s}t_1'\isub{x}{s} = t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{j_0, j_1+1\}$.
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{y}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0' \isub{y}{t_1'} = t'$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
We can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s} \cup \{x\}$, hence $t'\isub{x}{s} = t_0'\isub{y}{t_1'}\isub{x}{s} = t_0'\isub{x}{s}\isub{y}{t_1'\isub{x}{s}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{k_0} t_0'\isub{x}{s}$ and $t_1\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{k_1} t_1'\isub{x}{s}$ for some $k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{k_0} t_0'\isub{x}{s}$}
\AxiomC{$t_1\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{k_1} t_1'\isub{x}{s}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = (\la{y}t_0\isub{x}{s})t_1\isub{x}{s} \partostratind{0} t_0'\isub{x}{s} \isub{y}{t_1'\isub{x}{s}} = t'\isub{x}{s}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Decomposition of parallel $\beta$-steps]
\label{l:decomp-strat}
If $t \partobind{n} s$ then $t \partostratind{m} s$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$ then $m \neq \infty$ and $t \tostratind{m} u$ for some term $u$ such that $u \partobindlong{n-1} s$ and $u \partostratind{j} s$ with $j \geq m $ (possibly $j = \infty$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partobind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind{0} x = s$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind{n} s'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \partostratind{m} s'$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \partostratind{m} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{m} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m \neq \infty$ and $t' \tostratind{m} u'$ for some term $u'$ such that $u' \partobindlong{n-1} s'$ and $u' \partostratind{j} s'$ with $j \geq m$ (possibly $j = \infty$), so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \tostratind{m} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \tostratind{m} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof&
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\AxiomC{$u' \partostratind{j} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{j} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\\
\shortintertext{and}
&\AxiomC{$u' \partobind{n-1} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partobind{n-1} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partobind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + \cdot n_1$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{m} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $m = \min\{m_0,m_1+1\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m_0, m_1 \neq \infty$ and $t_0 \tostratind{m_0} u_0$ and $t_1 \tostratind{n_1} u_1$ for some terms $u_0, u_1$ such that $u_0 \partobindlong{n_0-1} s_0$ and $u_1 \partobindlong{n_1-1} s_1$ and $u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$ and $u_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$ with $j_0 \geq m_0$, $j_1 \geq m_1$ (possibly $j_0,j_1 = \infty$).
There are two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $m = m_0$; then, $m_0 \leq m_1+1$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \tostratind{n} u_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{n} u_0t_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
&
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0-1} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{j_0, m_1+1\} \geq m_0 = m$;
\item $m = m_1+1$; then, $m_1 + 1 \leq m_0$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \tostratind{m} u_1$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} t_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
&
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1-1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\\\
\shortintertext{and}
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{m_0, j_1+1\} \geq m_1+1 = m$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partobind{n} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x}n_1 + 1 > 0$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
Let $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1}$.
By \reflemma{tob-subs}, $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partobindlong{n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ where $n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1 = n - 1$.
Clearly,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \tostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
According to substitutivity (\reflemma{tostrat-subs}), $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partostratind{j} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$, in particular $j \geq 0$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:quant-out-in-split-strat}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Indexed external-internal split]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-strat}
\NoteState{prop:quant-out-in-split-strat}
If $t \partobind n s$ then either $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{x} u \partobindlong {n-1} s$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
If $n = 0$, then $t = s$ (because $\partobind{0}$ is the identity relation) and so $t \partostratind{\infty} s$ (because $\partostratind{\infty}$ is the identity relation), hence $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
Otherwise $n > 0$ and then, by \reflemma{decomp-strat}, $t \partostratind{k} s$ and $t \tostratind{k} u$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and some term $u$ such that $u \partobind{n-1} s$ and $u \partostratind{j} s$ with $j \geq k$.
There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $k$ is not minimal for $t$ ({\em i.e.}\xspace $t \tostratind{k'} u'$ for some $u'$ and some $k' < k$), and then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ (since $t \partostratind{k} s$);
\item or $k$ is minimal for $t$ ({\em i.e.}\xspace if $t \tostratind{k'} u'$ for some $u'$ then $k' \geq k$), and so $t \Rew{x} u \partobind{n-1} s$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs and lemmas of \refsect{stratified-cbn} (least-level)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:deg}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Least level properties]
\label{propappendix:deg}
\NoteState{prop:deg}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:deg-finite}\emph{Computational meaning of $\ell\ell$}: $\Deg{t} = \inf\{ k \in \mathbb{N} \mid t \tostratind{k} u \text{ for some term } u\}$.
\item\label{pappendix:deg-invariance-leq} \emph{Monotonicity}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then $\Deg{s} \geq \Deg{t}$.
\item\label{pappendix:deg-invariance-equal} \emph{Invariance by $\tonotll$}: if $t \tonotll s$ then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item
By induction on $t$.
For any term $r$, we set $\inf_r = \inf\{ k \in \mathbb{N} \mid r \tostratind{k} u \text{ for some term } u \}$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t$ is a variable. Then, $\Deg{t} = \infty$ and $t$ is $\Rew{\beta}$-normal.
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{x}{s}$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s}$ and, by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\Deg{s} = \inf_s$;
now,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$s \tostratind{k} u$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}s \tostratind{k} \la{x}u$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
and there is no other rule for $\tostratind{n}$ whose conclusion is of the form $\la{x}{s} \tostratind{n} p$;
therefore, $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s} = \inf_s = \inf_t$.
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t't''$.
There are two sub-cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $t' = \la{x}s'$, then $\Deg{t} = 0$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}s')t'' \tostratind{0} s'\isub{x}{t''} $}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
thus $\inf_t = 0 = \Deg{t}$.
\item $t'$ is not an abstraction, then $\Deg{t} = \min \{\Deg{t'}, \Deg{t''}+1\}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\Deg{t'} = \inf_{t'}$ and $\Deg{t''} = \inf_{t''}$;
now,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \tostratind{k} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t't'' \tostratind{k} s't''$}
\DisplayProof
&&\text{and}&&
\AxiomC{$t'' \tostratind{k} s''$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t't'' \tostratind{k+1} t's''$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
and there is no other rule for $\tostratind{n}$ whose conclusion is of the form $t't'' \tostratind{n} p$ (as $t'$ is not an abstraction);
hence, $\Deg{t} = \min\{\inf_{t'}, \inf_{t''}+1\} = \inf_t$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Monotonicity}: by induction on the definition of $t \Rew{\beta} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{x}{t'} \Rew{\beta} \la{x}{s'} = s$ because $t' \Rew{\beta} s'$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t'} \leq \Deg{s'} = \Deg{s}$ by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application left}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \Rew{\beta} s't'' = s$ because $t' \Rew{\beta} s'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\Deg{t'} \leq \Deg{s'}$.
Hence, $\Deg{t} = \min \{\Deg{t'}, \Deg{t''} +1\} \leq \min \{ \Deg{s'}, \Deg{t''} + 1\} = \Deg{s}$.
\item \emph{Application right}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \Rew{\beta} t's'' = s$ because $t'' \Rew{\beta} s''$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\item \emph{$\beta$-redex}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\la{x}t')t'' \Rew{\beta} t'\isub{x}{t''} = s$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = 0 \leq \Deg{s}$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Invariance by $\tonotll$}: By hypothesis, $t \tostratind{n} s$ for some $n > \Deg{t}$.
We proceed by induction on the definition of $t \tostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \tostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \tostratind{n} s'$.
As $n > \Deg{t} = \Deg{t'}$, then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{s'} = \Deg{t'} = \Deg{t}$ by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application left}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \tostratind{n} s' t'' = s$ because $t' \tostratind{n} s'$.
According to the definition of $\Deg{t}$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t'} \leq \Deg{t''} + 1$ and $t'$ is not an abstraction;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t'$ (since $\Deg{t'} = \Deg{t} < n$), we have $\Deg{s'} = \Deg{t'}$, and so $\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s'}, \Deg{t''} + 1\} = \min\{\Deg{t'}, \Deg{t''} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t''} + 1 \leq \Deg{t'}$ and $t'$ is not an abstraction;
by \refpropp{deg}{invariance-leq} (since $\tostratind{n} \subseteq \Rew{\beta}$),
$\Deg{t'} \leq \Deg{s'}$ and therefore
$\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s'}, \Deg{t''} + 1\} = \Deg{t''}+1 = \min\{\Deg{t'}, \Deg{t''} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = 0$ and $t'= \la{x}u'$.
According to the definition of $t \tostratind{n} s$, since $n > 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u' \tostratind{n} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}u' \tostratind{n} \la{x}{s'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}u')t'' \tostratind{n} (\la{x}{s'})t'' = s$}
\DisplayProof
&&
\text{or}
&&
\AxiomC{$t'' \tostratind{n-1} s''$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}u')t'' \tostratind{n} (\la{x}{u'})s'' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
therefore $\Deg{s} = 0 = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Application right}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = t' t'' \tostratind{n} t' s'' = s$ because $t'' \tostratind{n-1} s''$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = (\la{x}t')t'' \tostratind{0} t' \isub{x}{t''} = s$
where $0 = n > \Deg{t} = 0$, which is impossible.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l:not-abs}
Let $t \Rew{x} s$ with $\Deg{t} > 0$.
If $t$ is not an abstraction, then $s$ is not an abstraction.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $t = t't''$ and $t'$ is not an abstraction (otherwise $\Deg{t} = 0$).
Therefore, according to the definition of $\Rew{x}$, there are only two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $t = t' t'' \tostratind{k} s't'' = s$ because $t' \tostratind{k} s'$ and $k = \Deg{t}$;
\item or $t = t't'' \tostratind{k} t' s'' = s$ because $t'' \tostratind{k - 1} s''$ and $k = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
In both cases, $s$ is not an abstraction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Substitutivity by level]
\label{l:substitutivity-strat}
If $t \tostratind{k} s$ then $t\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{k} s\isub{x}{u}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \tostratind{k} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la{y}{t'} \tostratind{k} \la{y}{s'} = s$ with $t' \tostratind{k} s'$.
We can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{u} \cup \{x\}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t'\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{k} s'\isub{x}{u}$ and hence $t\isub{x}{u} = \la{y}t'\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{k} \la{y}s'\isub{x}{u} = s\isub{x}{u}$.
\item \emph{Application left}: $t = t't'' \tostratind{k} s't'' = s$ with $t' \tostratind{k} s'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t'\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{k} s'\isub{x}{u}$ and hence $t\isub{x}{u} = t'\isub{x}{u} t''\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{k} s'\isub{x}{u} t''\isub{x}{u} = s\isub{x}{u}$.
\item \emph{Application right}: $t = t't'' \tostratind{k} t's'' = s$ with $k > 0$ and $t'' \tostratind{k} s''$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\item \emph{$\beta$-redex}: $t = (\la{y}t')t'' \tostratind{0} t'\isub{y}{t''} = s$.
We can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{u} \cup \{x\}$.
Then, $t\isub{x}{u} = (\la{y}t'\isub{x}{u})t''\isub{x}{u} \tostratind{0} t'\isub{x}{u}\isub{y}{t''\isub{x}{u}} = t'\isub{y}{t''}\isub{x}{u} = s\isub{x}{u}$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:essential-strat}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[\ll essential properties]
\label{propappendix:essential-strat}
\NoteState{prop:essential-strat}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:essential-strat-completeness}
\emph{Fullness\xspace}: if $t \Rew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{\ell\ell} u$ for some $u$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-strat-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\ell\ell} s_1$ and $t \Rew{\neg \ell\ell} s_2$ then $s_2 \Rew{\ell\ell} u$ for some $u$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-strat-diamond} \emph{Diamond}: if $s\lRew{\ell\ell} \cdot \Rew{\ell\ell}u$ with $s \neq u$ then $s \Rew{\ell\ell} \cdot \lRew{\ell\ell} u$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Fullness\xspace}: Since $t$ is not $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, then $\infty \neq \Deg{t} = \min\{k \in \mathbb{N} \mid t \tostratind{k} r \text{ for some } r\}$ by \refpropp{deg}{finite}.
Therefore, $t \Rew{x} u$ for some $u$.
\item \emph{Persistence}: Since $t$ is not $\Rew{\beta}$-normal, $\infty \neq \Deg{t} = \min\{k \in \mathbb{N} \mid t \tostratind{k} r \text{ for some } r\}$ by \refpropp{deg}{finite}.
By least level invariance (\refpropp{deg}{invariance-equal}), $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s_2}$ and hence, according to \refpropp{deg}{finite} again, we have $\infty \neq \Deg{s_2} = \min\{k \in \mathbb{N} \mid s_2 \tostratind{k} u \text{ for some } u\}$.
Therefore, there exists $u$ such that $s_2 \Rew{x} u$.
\item \emph{Diamond}:
The idea of the proof is that, when $(\la{x}t)s \Rew{x} t\isub{x}{s}$, the $\beta$-redexes in $s$ can be duplicated in $t\isub{x}{s}$ but they are not at least level and $\Rew{x}$ does not reduce outside the least level.
Formally, according to the definition of $\Rew{x}$, we have to prove that $s \ltostratind{k} t \tostratind{k} u$ with $k = \Deg{t}$, then $s \tostratind{m} r \ltostratind{n} u$ for some $r$, where $m = \Deg{s}$ and $n = \Deg{u}$.
To get the right {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, we prove also that $\Deg{s} = k = \Deg{u}$ (and so $s \tostratind{k} r \ltostratind{k} u$).
Clearly, $t$ is not a variable, otherwise it would be $\Rew{\beta}$-normal.
If $t = \la{x}{t'}$, then $s = \la{x}{s'}$ and $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \ltostratind{k} t' \tostratind{k} u'$ and $s' \neq u'$ and $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t'}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $s' \tostratind{m} r \ltostratind{n} u'$ for some term $r$, with $\Deg{s} = \Deg{s'} = k = \Deg{u'} = \Deg{u}$, hence $s = \la{x}s' \tostratind{k} \la{x}{r} \ltostratind{k} \la{x}{u'} = u$.
Finally, consider $t = t_0t_1$.
The case where $t_0 = \la{x}{t_2}$ and $s = t_2\isub{x}{t_1} \ltostratind{k} t \tostratind{k} (\la{x}t_2)u_1 = u$ with $t_1 \tostratind{k-1} u_1$ is impossible, because $k = \Deg{t} = 0$.
The remaining cases for $t = t_0t_1$ are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s = t_0s_1 \ltostratind{k} t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{k} u_0t_1 = u$ with $t_0 \tostratind{k} u_0$ and $t_1 \tostratind{k} s_1$ and $ \Deg{t_0} = \Deg{t} = \Deg{t_1} + 1 = k > 0$.
Then, $t_0$ is not an abstraction (otherwise $\Deg{t} = 0$) and, by \reflemma{not-abs}, $u_0$ is not an abstraction.
By \refpropp{deg}{invariance-leq}, $\Deg{s_1} \geq \Deg{t_1}$ and $\Deg{u_0} \geq \Deg{t_0}$.
Hence, $\Deg{s} = \min\{ \Deg{t_0}, \Deg{s_1}+1 \} = \Deg{t_0} = \Deg{t_1}+1 = \min\{\Deg{u_0}, \Deg{t_1}+1\} = \Deg{u}$ and so $s \tostratind{k} u_0s_1 \ltostratind{k} u$.
\item $s = s_0 t_1 \ltostratind{k} t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{k} u_0t_1 = u$ with $s_0 \ltostratind{k} t_0 \tostratind{k} u_0$ and $s_0 \neq u_0$ and $k = \Deg{t} = \Deg{t_0} \leq \Deg{t_1}+1$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, there is $r_0$ such that $s_0 \tostratind{k} r_0 \ltostratind{k} u_0$ where $\Deg{s_0} = k = \Deg{u_0}$.
Thus, $s \tostratind{k} r_0t_1 \ltostratind{k} u$.
If $s_0$ or $u_0$ is an abstraction, then $\Deg{s} = 0$ or $\Deg{u} = 0$ and hence (by \refpropp{deg}{invariance-leq}) $0 = \Deg{s} \geq \Deg{t}$ or $0 = \Deg{s} \geq \Deg{t}$, so in both cases $k = \Deg{t} = 0 = \Deg{s} = \Deg{u}$.
Otherwise, $\Deg{s} = \min\{\Deg{s_0}, \Deg{t_1}+1 \} = k = \min\{\Deg{u_0}, \Deg{t_1}+1 \} = \Deg{u}$.
\item $s = t_0s_1 \ltostratind{k} t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{k} t_0u_0 = u$ with $s_1 \ltostratind{k-1} t_1 \tostratind{k-1} u_1$ and $k = \Deg{t} = \Deg{t_1}+1$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\item $s = t_2\isub{x}{t_1} \ltostratind{k} t = (\la{x}t_2)t_1 \tostratind{k} (\la{x}{s_2})t_1 = u$ where $t_0 = \la{x}{t_2}$ and $t_2 \tostratind{k} s_2$ and $k = \Deg{t_2} = \Deg{t} = 0 = \Deg{u}$.
Thus, $t_2 \tostratind{0} s_2$ and $t \tostratind{0} t_2\isub{x}{t_1}$.
By substitutivity by level (\reflemma{substitutivity-strat}), $t_2\isub{x}{t_1} \tostratind{0} s_2\isub{x}{t_1}$ and so $\Deg{t_2\isub{x}{t_1}} =0$ by \refpropp{deg}{finite}.
Therefore $t_2\isub{x}{t_1} \tostratind{0} s_2\isub{x}{t_1} \ltostratind{0} u$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Merge by level]
\label{l:merge-by-level}
If $t \partostratind{n}s \tostratind{m} u$ with $n > m$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \tostratind{m} u$ for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, by necessity $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \tostratind{m} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \parRew{} u'$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$;
since $m < n \leq n_0$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$, we have $t_0 \parRew{\beta} u_0$, and so (as $\partostratind{n_1} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\beta}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\beta} u_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\beta} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\beta} u_0s_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$;
since $m-1 < n-1 \leq n_1$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$, we have $t_1 \parRew{} u_1$, and so (as $ \partostratind{n_0} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{} u_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{} s_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}{s_0'})s_1 \tostratind{0} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$ with $s_0 = \la{x}s_0'$ and $m = 0$;
as $n > 0$ then, according to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore (as $\partostratind{k} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{}$)
\[
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t_0})t_1 \parRew{} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.\qedhere
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:macro-strat}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[\ll macro-step system]
\hfill\label{propappendix:macro-strat}
\NoteState{prop:macro-strat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:macro-strat-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-strat-indexed-split}\emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{x} \cdot \partobindlong {n-1} s$.
\item\label{pappendix:macro-strat-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{x}^* \cdot \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\ell\ell}, \Rew{\neg \ell\ell}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\beta}$ and $\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Merge}: As $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \partostratind{n} s \tostratind{m} u$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n > \Deg{t}$ and $m = \Deg{s}$.
Since $\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} \subseteq \tonotll^*$ and $\tonotll$ cannot change the least level (\refpropp{deg}{invariance-equal}), $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s}$
and so $n > m$.
By Merge by Level (\reflemma{merge-by-level}), $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\item \emph{Indexed split}: By induction on the definition of $t \partobind n s$.
We freely use the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$.
Then, $t = x \partonotstratx = s$ since $x \partostratind{\infty} x$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:app-parallel}
\AxiomC{$\tmfour}%{r \partobind {n_1} \tmfour}%{r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align}
with $n = n_1 + n_2$.
There are only two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r p \partonotstrat r' p'$, and then the claim holds;
\item or $rp \not\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} r'p'$ and hence any derivation with conclusion $\tmfour}%{r p \partostratind{d} \tmfour}%{r' p'$ is such that $d =\deg{\tmfour}%{r p} \in \mathbb{N}$.
Let us rewrite the derivation \eqref{eq:app-parallel} replacing $\partobind{n}$ with $\partostratind{k}$: we have\footnote{This is possible because the inference rules for $\partobind{n}$ and $\partostratind{k}$ are the same except for the way they manage their own indexes $n$ and $k$.}
\[\AxiomC{$\tmfour}%{r \partostratind {d_{\tmfour}%{r}} \tmfour}%{r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partostratind{d_{p}} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = \tmfour}%{r p \partostratind d \tmfour}%{r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
where $d = \min\{d_r, d_p +1 \}$.
Thus, there are two sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d = d_r \leq d_p+1$ and then $d=\deg {r p}\leq \deg r \leq d_{r}=d $ (the first inequality holds by definition of $\Deg{rp}$), hence $\deg r = d_{r}$;
we apply the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace\ to $r \partobind {n_1} r'$ and we have that $r \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} r'$, or $n_1>0$ and $r \Rew{x} u_1 \partobind {n_1-1} \tmfour}%{r'$;
but $r \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} r'$ is impossible because otherwise $r p \partonotstrat r' p'$ (as $d_r \leq d_p+1$of s);
therefore, $n_1>0$ and $r \Rew{x} u_1 \partobind {n_1-1} \tmfour}%{r'$, and so $n>0 $ and $t = rp \Rew{x} u_1p \partobindlong {n_1-1+n_2} r'p' = s$.
\item $d=d_{p}+1 \leq d_{r}$ and then $d=\deg {r p}\leq \deg p +1 \leq d_{p}+1 =d $, hence $\deg p =
d_{p}$; we conclude analogously to thee previous sub-case.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_2} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax u)r \partobindlong {n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1} u'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{x} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\item\emph{Split}: Exactly as in the head case (\refpropp{macro-head}{split}), using the Indexed Split property for \ll (\refpoint{macro-strat-indexed-split} above).
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\newcommand{\tmfive}{p}
\subsection{Omitted proofs and lemmas of \refsect{stratified-cbn}}
\newcommand{\partonotstrat}{\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}}
We show that $\parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}$ does not increase the degree of a term. Hence in particular the same holds for $\tonotstrat$.
\newcounter{l:perpetuity-strat}
\addtocounter{l:perpetuity-strat}{\value{lemma}}
\begin{lemma}[Persistence]
\label{l:perpetuity-strat}
\NoteProof{lappendix:perpetuity-strat}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $t \parRew{} s$ then $\Deg{s} \geq \Deg{t}$.
\item If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{1.} is easily proved by a straightfoward induction on $\parRew{}$.
\textbf{2}. is proved by induction on $t$. By hypothesis, $t \partostratind{n} s$ for some $n > \Deg{t}$.
We prove that $\Deg{s} = \Deg{t}$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = x \parRew{} x = s$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s}$.
\item $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ with $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
Since $n > \Deg{t} = \Deg{t'}$, by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace we have $\Deg{s} = \Deg{s'} = \Deg{t'} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $t$ is an \emph{application}. We consider two case, according to the definition of $\Deg{t}$
\begin{itemize}
\item Assume $t=(\la{x}t_0)t_1$. We have $\Deg{t}=0$ and since $t \partostratind{n} s$ with $n > 0$,
the only possible derivation is the following.
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \parRew{} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \parRew{} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\Deg{s} = 0 = \Deg{t}$.
\item Assume $t=t_0t_1$, where $t_0$ is not an abstraction. We have
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$ and $ \deg{t} =\min \{\deg {t_0}, \deg {t_1} +1)\}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\deg {t_0}$ is minimal, then
$n_0\geq n > \deg {t_0} $. Therefore $t_0 \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s_0$ and by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\deg{t_0}=\deg{\tmtwo}%{s_0}$.
We also know (by point 1.) that $\deg {\tmtwo}%{s_1}\geq \deg {t_1}$, hence $ \deg{\tmtwo}%{s} =\min \{\deg {\tmtwo}%{s_0}, \deg {\tmtwo}%{s_1} +1)
= \deg {\tmtwo}%{s_0}= \deg {t_0} = \deg{t}$.
\item If $\deg {t_1} +1$ is minimal, then $n_1+1 \geq n> \deg {t_1+1}$, hence $n_1 > \deg{t_1}$. Therefore $t_1 \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s_1$ and by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\deg{t_1}=\deg{\tmtwo}%{s_1}.$, and we conclude similarly to the previous case.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:perpetuity-strat}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Persistence]
\label{lappendix:perpetuity-strat}
\NoteState{l:perpetuity-strat}
If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ then $\Deg{s} \leq \Deg{t}$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $t \partostratind{n} s$ for some $n > \Deg{t}$.
We prove that $\Deg{s} \leq \Deg{t}$ by induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, $\Deg{t} = \infty = \Deg{s}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
As $n > \Deg{t} = \Deg{t'}$, then $\Deg{s} = \Deg{s'} \leq \Deg{t'} = \Deg{t}$ by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $\Deg{t}$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t_0} \leq \Deg{t_1} + 1$ and $t_0$ is not an abstraction;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0$ (since $\Deg{t_0} = \Deg{t} < n \leq n_0$), we have $\Deg{s_0} \leq \Deg{t_0}$, and so (as $\Deg{t_0} \leq \Deg{t_1} + 1$) $\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s_0}, \Deg{s_1} + 1\} \leq \min\{\Deg{t_0}, \Deg{t_1} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = \Deg{t_1} + 1 \leq \Deg{t_0}$ and $t_0$ is not an abstraction;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1$ (since $\Deg{t_1} + 1 = \Deg{t} < n \leq n_1+1$ and hence $\Deg{t_1} < n_1$), we have $\Deg{s_1} \leq \Deg{t_1}$, and so (as $\Deg{t_1} + 1 \leq \Deg{t_0}$) $\Deg{s} = \min \{\Deg{s_0}, \Deg{s_1} + 1\} \leq \min\{\Deg{t_0}, \Deg{t_1} + 1\} = \Deg{t}$.
\item $\Deg{t} = 0$ and $t_0$ is an abstraction.
According to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$, since $n > 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore $\Deg{s} = 0 = \Deg{t}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $0 = n > \Deg{t}$, which is impossible.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Merge]
\label{propappendix:i-e-merge-strat}
\NoteState{prop:i-e-merge-strat}
\ If $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
We first prove a stronger hypothesis, from which the claim follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We prove the following property
\begin{center}
(\#) If $t \partostratind{n}s \tostratind{m} u$ with $n > m$, then $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\end{center}
by induction on the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$.
Then, there is no $u$ such that $s \tostratind{m} u$ for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partostratind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partostratind{n} s'$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, by necessity $u = \la{x}{u'}$ with $s' \tostratind{m} u'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \parRew{\betav} u'$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \parRew{\betav} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0,n_1+1\}$.
According to the definition of $s \tostratind{m} u$, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$;
since $m < n \leq n_0$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$, we have $t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$, and so (as $\partostratind{n_1} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} u_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_0s_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = s_0s_1 \tostratind{m} u_0s_1 = u$ with $s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$;
since $m-1 < n-1 \leq n_1$,
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$, we have $t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$, and so (as $t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} u_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $s = (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 \tostratind{0} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$ with $m = 0$;
as $n > 0$ then, according to the definition of $t \partostratind{n} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{n_0} s_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}t_0 \partostratind{n_0} \la{x}s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{n} (\la{x}{s_0})s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = \min\{n_0, n_1+1\}$; therefore (as $\partostratind{k} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{\betav}$)
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \parRew{\betav} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}{t_0})t_1 \parRew{\betav} s_0\isub{x}{s_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\item As $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s \Rew{x} u$, then $t \partostratind{n} s \tostratind{m} u$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n > \Deg{t}$ and $m = \Deg{s}$.
By (\reflemma{perpetuity-strat}, $\Deg{t} = \Deg{s}$.
Hence, $n > m$ and we can then merge (by \refpropp{i-e-merge-strat}{ind}) to $t \parRew{\beta} u$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Decomposition of parallel $\beta$-steps]
\label{l:decomp-strat}
If $t \partobind{n} s$ then $t \partostratind{m} s$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$ then $m \neq \infty$ and $t \tostratind{m} u$ for some term $u$ such that $u \partobindlong{n-1} s$ and $u \partostratind{j} s$ with $j \geq m $ (possibly $j = \infty$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By induction $(n,k) \in \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$ with the lexicographical order, where $k$ is the length of the derivation of $t \partobind{n} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind{0} x = s$ where $n = 0$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = x \partostratind{\infty} x = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind{n} \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind{n} s'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t' \partostratind{m} s'$ for some $m \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \partostratind{m} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{m} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m \neq \infty$ and $t' \tostratind{m} u'$ for some term $u'$ such that $u' \partobindlong{n-1} s'$ and $u' \partostratind{j} s'$ with $j \geq m$ (possibly $j = \infty$), so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \tostratind{m} u'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}{t'} \tostratind{m} \la{x}{u'} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u' \partostratind{j} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partostratind{j} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u' \partobind{n-1} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$u = \la{x}{u'} \partobind{n-1} \la{x}{s'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partobind{n} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + n_1$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = t_0 t_1 \partostratind{m} s_0 s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $m = \min\{m_0,m_1+1\}$.
If moreover $n > 0$, then by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $m_0, m_1 \neq \infty$ and $t_0 \tostratind{m_0} u_0$ and $t_1 \tostratind{n_1} u_1$ for some terms $u_0, u_1$ such that $u_0 \partobindlong{n_0-1} s_0$ and $u_1 \partobindlong{n_1-1} s_1$ and $u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$ and $u_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$ with $j_0 \geq m_0$, $j_1 \geq m_1$ (possibly $j_0,j_1 = \infty$).
There are two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $m = m_0$; then, $m_0 \leq m_1+1$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \tostratind{m} u_0$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} u_0t_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0-1} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{j_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = u_0t_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{j_0, m_1+1\} \geq m_0 = m$;
\item $m = m_1+1$; then, $m_1 + 1 \leq m_0$ and
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \tostratind{m-1} u_1$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = t_0t_1 \tostratind{m} t_0u_1 = u$}
\DisplayProof
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
&
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partobind{n_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1-1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partobind{n-1} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\shortintertext{and}
\AxiomC{$u_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{j_1} s_1$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = t_0u_1 \partostratind{j} s_0s_1 = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $j = \min\{m_0, j_1+1\} \geq m_1+1 = m$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta$-step}:
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partobind{n_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partobind{n_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partobind{n} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $n = n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x}n_1 + 1 > 0$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $t_0 \partostratind{m_0} s_0$ and $t_1 \partostratind{m_1} s_1$ for some $m_0, m_1 \in \mathbb{N}$.
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t_0 \partostratind{m_0} t_0'$}
\AxiomC{$t_1 \partostratind{m_1} t_1'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \partostratind{0} t_0' \isub{x}{t_1'} = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
Let $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1}$.
By \reflemma{partobind-subs}, $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partobindlong{n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ where $n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1 = n - 1$.
Clearly,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}t_0)t_1 \tostratind{0} t_0 \isub{x}{t_1} = u$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace (since $n_0 + \sizep{t_0}{x} n_1 = n -1$), $u = t_0\isub{x}{t_1} \partostratind{j} t_0'\isub{x}{t_1'} = s$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{\infty\}$, in particular $j \geq 0$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Stratified indexed split]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-strat}
\NoteState{prop:quant-out-in-split-strat}
If $t \partobind n s$ then either $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell}s$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{x} u \partobindlong {n-1} s$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
If $n = 0$, then $t = s$ (because $\partobind{0}$ is the identity relation) and so $t \partostratind{\infty} s$ (because $\partostratind{\infty}$ is the identity relation), hence $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
Otherwise $n > 0$ and then, by \reflemma{decomp-strat}, $t \partostratind{k} s$ and $t \tostratind{k} u$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and some term $u$ such that $u \partobind{n-1} s$.
There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $k > \Deg{t}$ and then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ (since $t \partostratind{k} s$);
\item or $k = \Deg{t}$ and so $t \Rew{x} u \partobindlong{n-1} s$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollaryAppendix}[Stratified split]
\label{coroappendix:e-i-split-strat}
\NoteState{coro:e-i-split-strat}
If $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ for some $u$.
\end{corollaryAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $t \partobind{n} s$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
We prove the statement by induction on $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
If $n = 0$, then $t = s$ (because $\partobind{0}$ is the identity relation) and so $t \partostratind{\infty} s$ (because $\partostratind{\infty}$ is the identity relation), hence $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
Otherwise $n > 0$ and then, by \reflemma{decomp-strat}, $t \partostratind{k} s$ and $t \tostratind{k} u$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and some term $u$ such that $u \partobind{n-1} s$.
There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $k > \Deg{t}$ and then $t \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$ (as $t \partostratind{k} s$), so we conclude taking $u = t$;
\item or $k = \Deg{t}$ and then $t \Rew{x} r \partobindlong{n-1} s$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobind{n-1} s$, there is a term $u$ such that $r \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$;
therefore, $t \Rew{x} r \Rew{x}^* u \parRew{\lnot\ell\ell} s$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Note that the last proof uses only \reflemma{decomp-strat}, not \refprop{quant-out-in-split-strat}!
=========================
\subsection{STRATIFIED: Proposta di prova per Indexed Split e Split}
\newcommand{\tmfive}{p}
\CF{Scriverei la prova di Indexed Split esattamente come quella per Head. La prova sotto e' cut-and-paste dalla prova di Head;
ho cambiato solo il caso applicazione.
Non mi sembra di vedere difficolta' particolari; in un certo senso e' piu' facile, perche' non occorre distinguere se in $rp$ il termine $r$
e' astrazione. \textbf{Ho segnalato in blu il punto chiave}.
Cosa ne pensate?
}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Indexed split]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-strat}
\NoteState{prop:quant-out-in-split-strat}
If $t \partobind n s$ then either $t\partonotstrat \tmtwo}%{s$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{x} \tmthree}%{u \partobindlong {n-1} \tmtwo}%{s$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\proof
By induction on $t \partobind n s$. We freely use the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \partonotstratx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$\tmfour}%{r \partobind {n_1} \tmfour}%{r'$}
\AxiomC{$\tmfive \partobind {n_2} \tmfive'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = \tmfour}%{r \tmfive \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2} \tmfour}%{r' \tmfive' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
(with $n = n_1 + n_2$). We examine the conclusion.
If $\tmfour}%{r \tmfive \partonotstrat \tmfour}%{r' \tmfive' $ the claim holds.
Otherwise, we have $\tmfour}%{r \tmfive \partostratind {d} \tmfour}%{r' \tmfive'$ with $d=\deg{\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}$. Let us write explicitly all the depths:
\[\AxiomC{$\tmfour}%{r \partostratind {d_{\tmfour}%{r}} \tmfour}%{r'$}
\AxiomC{$\tmfive \partostratind{d_{\tmfive}} \tmfive'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = \tmfour}%{r \tmfive \partostratind d \tmfour}%{r' \tmfive' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
We first \blue{prove that if $d=\deg{\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}$ then either $\deg \tmfour}%{r = d_{\tmfour}%{r}$ or $\deg \tmfive = d_{\tmfive}$}. We then use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace\ on the opportune premiss.
\begin{itemize}
\item Observe that
$\deg {\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}\leq \deg {\tmfour}%{r } $ and $\deg {\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}\leq \deg {\tmfive}+1 $ hold in both cases defining $\deg{\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}$.
By definition, $d=\min\{ d_{\tmfour}%{r}, d_{\tmfive}+1 \}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a.)] If $d=d_{\tmfour}%{r}$, then $d=\deg {\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}\leq \deg \tmfour}%{r \leq
d_{\tmfour}%{r}=d $, hence $\deg \tmfour}%{r =
d_{\tmfour}%{r}$.
\item[(b.)] If $d=d_{\tmfive}+1$, then $d=\deg {\tmfour}%{r \tmfive}\leq \deg \tmfive +1 \leq d_{\tmfive}+1 =d $, hence $\deg \tmfive =
d_{\tmfive}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item If (a.) holds, we apply the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace\ to $\tmfour}%{r \partobind {n_1} \tmfour}%{r'$, and obtain that $n_1>0$ and $\tmfour}%{r \Rew{x} \tmthree}%{u_1 \partobind {n_1-1} \tmfour}%{r'$, hence $n>0 $ and $\tmfour}%{r\tmfive \Rew{x} \tmthree}%{u_1\tmfive$ and $\tmthree}%{u_1 \tmfive\partobind {n_1-1+n_2} \tmfour}%{r'\tmfive'$. If (b.) holds, we apply the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace\ to $\tmfive \partobind {n_2} \tmfive'$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_2} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax u)r \partobindlong {n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1} u'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{x} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\begin{corollary}[Split]
If $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{x}^* u \partonotstrats$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
If $t \parRew{\beta} s$ then $t \partobind n s$ for some $n$. We prove the statement by induction on $n$. By Indexed Split, there are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{$\blue{u} \partonotstrats$}. This is an instance of the statement (take $u = t$).
\item \emph{$n>0$ and there exists $r$ such that $t \Rew{x} r \partobind {n-1} s$}. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, there exists $u$ such that $r \Rew{x}^* u \partonotstrat s$, and so $t \Rew{x}^* u \partonotstrats$.\qed
\end{itemize}
\CF
la prova sopra e' cut-and-paste di \refcoro{e-i-split}. Io direi semplicemente: \\
\blue{The proof is identical to that of \refcoro{e-i-split}, where $\Rew{x}$ e $\partonotstrat$ respectively replace $\Rew{h}$ and $\parRew{\neg h}$.}}
\newpage
\subsection{Domanda sulle altre prove di indexed split }
\CF{Mi domando se anche nelle altre prove di indexed split, non sia piu' semplice (mentalmente) usare per l'applicazione lo schema:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\tmfour}%{r \tmfive \Rightarrow_{\neg e} \tmfour}%{r'\tmfive'$ the claim holds
\item otherwise, we use the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace
\end{enumerate}
}
\subsubsection{Head: la prova seguente di Indexed Split basta?}
\CF{E' corretto nell'applicazione sostituire i tre sottocasi con la parte blu seguente?}
\begin{proposition}[Indexed split]
If $t \partobind n s$ then $t \partonoths$, or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{h} u \partobind {n-1} s$.
\end{proposition}
\proof
By induction on $t \partobind n s$. We use freely the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \partonothx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + n_2$. \blue{We examine the conclusion.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $r p \parRew{\neg h} r' p'$, the claim is holds.
\item Otherwise, observe that the left premiss is not of the form $r \parRew{\neg h} r'$ (otherwise, $r p \parRew{\neg h} r' p'$ ). By the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
\emph{$n_1>0$ and there exists $r''$ such that $r \Rew{h} r'' \partobind {n_1-1} r'$}. Then $t = r p \Rew{h} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r'' p \partobindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
\end{itemize}
}
\item \emph{$\beta$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_2} r''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax u)r \partobindlong {n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1} u'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{h} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemma{partobind-subs}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Leftmost: indexed split}
\CF{Tento di implementare anche nel caso della leftmost, ma qui vado per puro pattern-matching, perche' LO e' una riduzione che io non capisco}
\begin{proposition}[Indexed split]
\label{prop:quant-out-in-split-left}
If $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\neg \losym} s$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{\losym} u \partobind {n-1} s$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $t \partobind n s$. We use freely the fact that if $t \partobind n s$ then $t \parRew{\beta} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \parRew{\neg \losym} x = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobind n s'$. It follows by the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace.
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + n_2$.\blue{We examine the conclusion.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$, the claim holds.
\item Otherwise, observe that $r$ is not neutral (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$ by the 5th rule) and the left premiss is not of the form
$r \parRew{\neg \losym} r'$ (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg \losym} r' p'$ by the 2nd rule). By the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace,
\emph{$n_1>0$ and there exists $r''$ such that $r \Rew{\losym} r'' \partobind {n_1-1} r'$}. Then $t = r p \Rew{\losym} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r'' p \partobindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
\end{itemize}
}
\item \emph{$\beta$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobind {n_2} r''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lax u)r \partobindlong {n_1 + \sizep{s}x \cdot n_2 +1} u'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
With $n = n_1 + \sizepsx \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax u)r \Rew{\losym} u\isub\varr$ and by substitutivity of $\partobind n$ (\reflemmap{partobind-subs}{ind-par}) $u\isub\varr \partobindlong{n_1 + \sizepsx \cdot n_2} u' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{cbv-calculus} (\texorpdfstring{{CbV}\xspace $\l$-calculus}{{CbV}\xspace lambda-calculus})}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:tobv-subs}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$]
\label{lappendix:tobv-subs}
\NoteState{l:tobv-subs}
If $t \partobvind n t'$ and $v \partobvind m v'$ then $t \isubxv \partobvind{k} t' \isubx{v'}$ where $k = n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $t \partobind n t'$. It follows the exact same pattern of the proof of substitutivity of $\partobind n$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: two sub-cases
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = x$: then $t = x \partobvind 0 x = t'$ then $t \isubxv = x\isubxv = v \partobvind m v' = x \isubx{v'} = t' \isubx{v'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = 0+1\cdot m = m$.
\item $t = y$: then $t = y \partobvind 0 y = t'$ then $t \isubxv = y\isubxv = y \partobvind 0 y = y \isubx{v'} = t' \isubx{v'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = n +0\cdot m=n$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobvind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n} u'$; we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \neq x$, hence $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{v} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{v})$ and $t'\isub{x}{v'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{v'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{v'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{v'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{v} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{v'} = t'\isub{x}{v'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_r} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = u r \partobvindlong {n_u + n_r} u' r'= t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + n_r$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$ and $r\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{v'}$. Then
\[\AxiomC{$u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{v'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isubxv = u\isubxv r\isubxv \partobvind{k} u'\isubx{v'} r'\isubx{v'}= t'\isubx{v'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $k = n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m$, which proves the statement because $$k = n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m = n + (\sizep{u'}x + \sizep{r'}x)\cdot m = n + \sizep{t'}x \cdot m.$$
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$-step}, {\em i.e.}\xspace ($w$ and $\wal'$ are values)
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$w \partobvind {n_{w}} \wal'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lay u)w \partobvindlong {n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_{w} +1} u'\isub y {\wal'} = t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_{w} +1$. We can assume without loss of generality that $y\neq x$,
hence, $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'\isuby {\wal'}}x = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot\sizep{\wal'}{x} $ and $t\isubxv = (\la\vartwou\isubxv) (w\isubxv)$ and $t'\isubx{v'} = u'\isubx{v'} \isuby{\wal'\isubx{v'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$ and $w\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_{w} +\sizep{\wal'}x \cdot m} \wal'\isubx{v'}$.
Then
\[
\def4pt{1pt}
\AxiomC{$u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$}
\AxiomC{$w\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_{w} +\sizep{\wal'}x \cdot m} \wal'\isubx{v'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isubxv = (\la\vartwou\isubxv) (w\isubxv) \partobvind{k} u'\isubx{v'} \isuby{\wal'\isubx{v'}}= t'\isubx{v'}$}
\DisplayProof
\def4pt{4pt}
\]
where $k = n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_{w} +\sizep{\wal'}x \cdot m)+1 = n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_{w} +\sizep{\wal'}x \cdot m)+1
=
n_u + \sizep{u'}y\cdot n_{w} + 1 + \sizep{u'}x \cdot m + \sizep{u'}y\cdot \sizep{\wal'}x \cdot m
= n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{weak-cbv} (weak {CbV}\xspace)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:macro-cbv}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Weak {CbV}\xspace macro-step system]
\label{propappendix:macro-cbv}
\NoteState{prop:macro-cbv}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg \wsym}\cdot \Rew{\wsym} u$ then $t \parRew{\betav} u$.
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \partonotws$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{\wsym} \cdot \partobvind {n-1} s$.
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\betav} s$ then $t \Rew{\wsym}^* \cdot \partonotws$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\betav}$ and $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Merge}: by induction on $t \partonotws$. Note that the cases in which $s=x$ or $s=\l x. \tmtwo}%{s'$ are not possible. Hence $ s=r'p' $ and $t \partonotws$ is derived as follows
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'p' =s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $ r' \Rew{\wsym} r''$ then $s = r'' p'$. The {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace gives $r \parRew{\betav} r''$, and $t \parRew{\betav} s$ is derived as follows (remember that $\parRew{\neg \wsym} \subseteq \parRew{\betav}$):
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\betav} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\betav} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\betav} r''p' =s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\item If $ p' \Rew{\wsym} p''$ it is analogous to the previous case.
\item If $ s \Rew{\wsym} u$ by a top $\beta_\val$ step then $r' = \la x \tmsix}%{q'$. Now, by definition of $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$ the step $r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ necessarily has the form $r = \la x \tmsix}%{q \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la x \tmsix}%{q' = r'$ for some $\tmsix}%{q$ such that $\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\betav} \tmsix}%{q'$. Then the hypothesis is $t = (\la x \tmsix}%{q) p \parRew{\neg \wsym} (\la x \tmsix}%{q') p' \Rew{\wsym} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$ and $t \parRew{\betav} s$ is derived as follows (remember that $\parRew{\neg \wsym} \subseteq \parRew{\betav}$):
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\betav} \tmsix}%{q'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\betav} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la x \tmsix}%{q) p \parRew{\betav} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} =s $}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Indexed split}: by induction on the definition of $t \partobvind n s$.
We freely use the fact that if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \parRew{\betav} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobvind 0 x = s$.
Then, $t = x \partonotwx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobvind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobvind n s'$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}t' \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la{x}s' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobvindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_1 + n_2$. There are only two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r p \parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$, and then the claim holds.
\item or $r p \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$, and then $r \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ or $p \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$ (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$).
Suppose $r \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ (the other case is analogous).
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobvind{n_1} r'$,
$n_1>0$ and there is $r''$ such that $r \Rew{\wsym} r'' \partobvind {n_1-1} r'$.
So, $t = r p \Rew{\wsym} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobvindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r'' p \partobvindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\]
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_1} p'$}
\AxiomC{$r$ is a value}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_2} r'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = (\lax p)r \partobvindlong {n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1} p'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$.
We have $t = (\lax p)r \Rew{\wsym} p\isub\varr := u$ and substitutivity of $\partobvind n$ (\reflemma{tobv-subs}) gives $u = p\isub\varr \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2} p' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Split}: exactly as in the head case (\refpropp{macro-head}{split}), using the Indexed Split property for weak {CbV}\xspace (\refpoint{macro-cbv-indexed-split} above).
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{essential-weak}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Weak {CbV}\xspace essential system]
\label{propappendix:essential-weak}
\NoteState{prop:essential-weak}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:essential-weak-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\wsym} s$ and $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} u$ then $u \Rew{\wsym} r$ for some $r$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-weak-diamond} \emph{Diamond}: if $s\lRew{\wsym} t \towu$ with $s \neq u$ then $s \Rew{\wsym} r \lRew{\wsym} u$ for some $r$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is an essential system.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence}: By induciton on the definition of $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \lax' \Rew{\neg \wsym} \lax''$ because $p \Rew{\betav} p'$. This case is impossible because $t$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$ normal, against the hypothesis that $t \Rew{\wsym} u$.
\item \emph{Application left}: $t = pq \Rew{\neg \wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q = s$ because $p \Rew{\neg \wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\wsym} $, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t = pq \Rew{\wsym} p_\wsymq = u$ with $p \Rew{\wsym} p_{\mathtt w}$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $p$, we have $p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} \Rew{\wsym} r'$ for some term $r'$, and so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} \Rew{\wsym} r'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q \Rew{\wsym} r'q =: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = pq \Rew{\wsym} pq' = u$ with $q \Rew{\wsym} q'$;
hence
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$q \Rew{\wsym} q'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q \Rew{\wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q' =`: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = (\la{x}{p'})q \Rew{\wsym} p'\isub{x}{q} = u$ where $p = \la{x}{p'}$ and $q$ is a value.
According to the definition of $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$p \Rew{\betav} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}p' \Rew{\neg \wsym} \la{x}p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}p')q \Rew{\neg \wsym} (\la{x}{p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'})q = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} = \la{x}{p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'}$; therefore
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$s = (\la{x}p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}')q \Rew{\wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'\isub{x}{q} =: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Application right}: analogous to the previous point.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Diamond}:
The idea of the proof is that, when $(\la{x}t)v \Rew{\wsym} t\isub{x}{v}$, the $\beta_\val$-redexes in $v$ (which is a value) can be duplicated in $t\isub{x}{v}$ but they are under an abstraction and $\Rew{\wsym}$ does not reduce under abstractions.
Formally, the proof is by induction on $t$.
Note that $t$ is not a value, because values are $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal, since $\Rew{\wsym}$ does not reduce under abstractions.
Therefore, $t = t_0t_1$.
The case where $t_0 = \la{x}{t'}$ and $t_1$ is a value is impossible, because $t_0$ and $t_1$ would be $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal and so from $s \lRew{\wsym} t \Rew{\wsym} u$ it would follow $s = t'\isub{x}{t_1} = u$, which contradicts the hypothesis.
The remaining cases for $t = t_0t_1$ are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s = t_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_0t_1 = u$ with $t_0 \Rew{\wsym} u_0$, and $t_1 \Rew{\wsym} s_1$.
Then, $s \Rew{\wsym} u_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} u$.
\item $s = s_0 t_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_0t_1 = u$ with $s_0 \lRew{\wsym} t_0 \Rew{\wsym} u_0$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, there is $r_0$ such that $s_0 \Rew{\wsym} r_0 \lRew{\wsym} u_0$.
Thus, $s \Rew{\wsym} r_0t_1 \lRew{\wsym} u$.
\item $s = t_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} t_0u_0 = u$ with $s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_1$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{cbv-calculus} ({CbV}\xspace $\l$-calculus)}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:tobv-subs}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$]
\label{lappendix:tobv-subs}
\NoteState{l:tobv-subs}
If $t \partobvind n t'$ and $v \partobvind m v'$ then $t \isubxv \partobvindlong {n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m} t' \isubx{v'}$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $t \partobind n t'$. It follows the exact same pattern of the proof of substitutivity of $\partobind n$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: two sub-cases
\begin{itemize}
\item $t = x$: then $t = x \partobvind 0 x = t'$ then $t \isubxv = x\isubxv = v \partobvind m v' = x \isubx{v'} = t' \isubx{v'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = 0+1\cdot m = m$.
\item $t = y$: then $t = y \partobvind 0 y = t'$ then $t \isubxv = y\isubxv = y \partobvind 0 y = y \isubx{v'} = t' \isubx{v'}$ that satisfies the statement because $n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m = n +0\cdot m=n$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobvind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n} u'$; we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \neq x$, hence $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{v} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{v})$ and $t'\isub{x}{v'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{v'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{v'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{v'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{v} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{v} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{v'} = t'\isub{x}{v'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_r} r'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = u r \partobvindlong {n_u + n_r} u' r'= t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + n_r$. By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$ and $r\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{v'}$. Then
\[\AxiomC{$u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} r'\isubx{v'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isubxv = u\isubxv r\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'} r'\isubx{v'}= t'\isubx{v'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
that proves the statement because $$n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +n_r +\sizep{r'}x \cdot m = n + (\sizep{u'}x + \sizep{r'}x)\cdot m = n + \sizep{t'}x \cdot m$$
\item $\beta$, {\em i.e.}\xspace
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_u} u'$}
\AxiomC{$\val'' \partobvind {n_{\val''}} \val'''$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\lay u)\val'' \partobvindlong {n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_{\val''} +1} u'\isub y {\val'''} = t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_u + \sizep{u'}y \cdot n_{\val''} +1$. We can assume without loss of generality that $y\neq x$,
hence, $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'\isuby {\val'''}}x = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot\sizep{\val'''}{x} $ and $t\isubxv = (\la\vartwou\isubxv) (\val''\isubxv)$ and $t'\isubx{v'} = u'\isubx{v'} \isuby{\val'''\isubx{v'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$ and $\val''\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_{\val''} +\sizep{\val'''}x \cdot m} \val'''\isubx{v'}$. Then
\[\AxiomC{$u\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m} u'\isubx{v'}$}
\AxiomC{$\val''\isubxv \partobvindlong {n_{\val''} +\sizep{\val'''}x \cdot m} \val'''\isubx{v'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isubxv = (\la\vartwou\isubxv) (\val''\isubxv) \partobvindlong {n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_{\val''} +\sizep{\val'''}x \cdot m)+1} u'\isubx{v'} \isuby{\val'''\isubx{v'}}= t'\isubx{v'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
The number on the $\parRew{\betav}$ arrow satisfies
$$n_u +\sizep{u'}x \cdot m +\sizep{u'}y\cdot(n_{\val''} +\sizep{\val'''}x \cdot m)+1
=
\underbrace{n_u + \sizep{u'}y\cdot n_{\val''} + 1}_n + \underbrace{\sizep{u'}x \cdot m + \sizep{u'}y\cdot \sizep{\val'''}x \cdot m}_{\sizep{t'}x\cdot m}$$
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{weak-cbv} (weak {CbV}\xspace)}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:macro-cbv}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Weak {CbV}\xspace macro-step system]
\label{propappendix:macro-cbv}
\NoteState{prop:macro-cbv}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-merge} \emph{Merge}: if $t \parRew{\neg \wsym}\cdot \Rew{\wsym} u$ then $t \parRew{\betav} u$.
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-indexed-split} \emph{Indexed split}: if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \partonotws$, or $n>0$ and $t \Rew{\wsym} \cdot \partobvind {n-1} s$.
\item \label{pappendix:macro-cbv-split} \emph{Split}: if $t \parRew{\betav} s$ then $t \Rew{\wsym}^* \cdot \partonotws$.
\end{enumerate}
That is, $(\Lambda, \set{\Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is a macro-step system with respect to $\parRew{\betav}$ and $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Merge}: by induction on $t \partonotws$. Note that the cases in which $s=x$ or $s=\l x. \tmtwo}%{s'$ are not possible. Hence $ s=r'p' $ and $t \partonotws$ is derived as follows
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'p' =s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $ r' \Rew{\wsym} r''$ then $s = r'' p'$. The {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace gives $r \parRew{\betav} r''$, and $t \parRew{\betav} s$ is derived as follows (remember that $\parRew{\neg \wsym} \subseteq \parRew{\betav}$):
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\betav} r''$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\betav} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\betav} r''p' =s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\item If $ p' \Rew{\wsym} p''$ it is analogous to the previous case.
\item If $ s \Rew{\wsym} u$ by a top $\beta_\val$ step then $r' = \la x \tmsix}%{q'$. Now, by definition of $\parRew{\neg \wsym}$ the step $r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ necessarily has the form $r = \la x \tmsix}%{q \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la x \tmsix}%{q' = r'$ for some $\tmsix}%{q$ such that $\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\betav} \tmsix}%{q'$. Then the hypothesis is $t = (\la x \tmsix}%{q) p \parRew{\neg \wsym} (\la x \tmsix}%{q') p' \Rew{\wsym} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} = u$ and $t \parRew{\betav} s$ is derived as follows (remember that $\parRew{\neg \wsym} \subseteq \parRew{\betav}$):
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = (\la x \tmsix}%{q) p \parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} =s $}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Indexed split}: by induction on the definition of $t \partobvind n s$.
We freely use the fact that if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \parRew{\betav} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobvind 0 x = s$.
Then, $t = x \partonotwx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobvind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobvind n s'$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}t' \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la{x}s' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobvindlong {n_1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_1 + n_2$. There are only two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $r p \parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$, and then the claim holds.
\item or $r p \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$, and then $r \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ or $p \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$ (otherwise $r p \parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p'$).
Suppose $r \not\parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ (the other case is analogous).
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobvind{n_1} r'$,
$n_1>0$ and there is $r''$ such that $r \Rew{\wsym} r'' \partobvind {n_1-1} r'$.
So, $t = r p \Rew{\wsym} r'' p$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobvindlong {n_1-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_2} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$r'' p \partobvindlong {n_1-1 + n_2} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\ .
\]
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_1} p'$}
\AxiomC{$r$ is a value}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_2} r'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = (\lax p)r \partobvindlong {n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1} p'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$.
We have $t = (\lax p)r \Rew{\wsym} p\isub\varr := u$ and substitutivity of $\partobvind n$ (\reflemma{tobv-subs}) gives $u = p\isub\varr \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2} p' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Split}: exactly as in the head case (\refpropp{macro-head}{split}), using the Indexed Split property for weak {CbV}\xspace (\refpoint{macro-cbv-indexed-split} above).
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\newpage
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{essential-weak}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Weak {CbV}\xspace essential system]
\label{propappendix:essential-weak}
\NoteState{prop:essential-weak}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{pappendix:essential-weak-persistence} \emph{Persistence}: if $t \Rew{\wsym} s$ and $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} u$ then $u \Rew{\wsym} r$ for some $r$.
\item\label{pappendix:essential-weak-diamond} \emph{Diamond}: if $s\lRew{\wsym} t \towu$ with $s \neq u$ then $s \Rew{\wsym} r \lRew{\wsym} u$ for some $r$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $(\Lambda, \set{ \Rew{\wsym}, \Rew{\neg \wsym}})$ is an essential system.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\blue{\begin{proof}We prove that if $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} \tmtwo}%{s$ and $\tmtwo}%{s$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal, then $t$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal, by induction on the term $\tmtwo}%{s$. Cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=x$ does not apply, because no $\Rew{\neg \wsym}$-step is possible.
\item $\tmtwo}%{s=\la x \tmfour}%{r$. We have $t=\la x \tmfour}%{r \Rew{\neg \wsym} \la x \tmfour}%{r'=\tmtwo}%{s$,
and $\tmfour}%{r \Rew{\neg \wsym} \tmfour}%{r'$, with $\tmfour}%{r'$ $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal. By the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $\tmfour}%{r $ is $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal, hence so is $t=\la x \tmfour}%{r$.
\item $\tmtwo}%{s= \tmsix}%{q\tmfour}%{r$. Then $t=\tmsix}%{q_1\tmfour}%{r_1$, with either $\tmsix}%{q_1\Rew{\neg \wsym}\tmsix}%{q$ (and $\tmfour}%{r_1=\tmfour}%{r$),
or $\tmfour}%{r_1\Rew{\neg \wsym}\tmfour}%{r$ (and $\tmsix}%{q_1=\tmsix}%{q$).
\begin{enumerate}
\item By the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace., $\tmsix}%{q_1$ and $\tmfour}%{r_1$ are both $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal.
\item The $\beta$-rule does not apply, because if $ \tmsix}%{q_1 $ is an abstraction and $\tmfour}%{r_1$ is a value, then $ \tmsix}%{q$ is an abstraction and $\tmfour}%{r$ is a value,
against the assumption that $\tmtwo}%{s$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal.
\end{enumerate}
Hence, no rule for $\Rew{\wsym}$ applies, and $\tmfour}%{r=\tmsix}%{q_1\tmfour}%{r_1$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}}
\begin{proof}\hfill
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Persistence}: By induction on the definition of $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} s$.
Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \lax' \Rew{\neg \wsym} \lax''$ because $p \Rew{\betav} p'$. This case is impossible because $t$ is $\Rew{\wsym}$ normal, against the hypothesis that $t \Rew{\wsym} u$.
\item \emph{Application left}: $t = pq \Rew{\neg \wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q = s$ because $p \Rew{\neg \wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}$.
According to the definition of $\Rew{\wsym} $, there are the following sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t = pq \Rew{\wsym} p_\wsymq = u$ with $p \Rew{\wsym} p_{\mathtt w}$;
by {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $p$, we have $p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} \Rew{\wsym} r'$ for some term $r'$, and so
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} \Rew{\wsym} r'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q \Rew{\wsym} r'q =: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = pq \Rew{\wsym} pq' = u$ with $q \Rew{\wsym} q'$;
hence
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$q \Rew{\wsym} q'$}
\UnaryInfC{$s = p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q \Rew{\wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}q' =`: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,;
\end{align*}
\item $t = (\la{x}{p'})q \Rew{\wsym} p'\isub{x}{q} = u$ where $p = \la{x}{p'}$ and $q$ is a value.
According to the definition of $t \Rew{\neg \wsym} s$,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$p \Rew{\betav} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}$}
\UnaryInfC{$\la{x}p' \Rew{\neg \wsym} \la{x}p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = (\la{x}p')q \Rew{\neg \wsym} (\la{x}{p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'})q = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $p_{\neg{\mathtt w}} = \la{x}{p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'}$; therefore
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{}
\UnaryInfC{$s = (\la{x}p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}')q \Rew{\wsym} p_{\neg{\mathtt w}}'\isub{x}{q} =: r$}
\DisplayProof
\,.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{Application right}: analogous to the previous point.
\end{itemize}
\item \emph{Diamond}:
The idea of the proof is that, when $(\la{x}t)v \Rew{\wsym} t\isub{x}{v}$, the $\beta_\val$-redexes in $v$ (which is a value) can be duplicated in $t\isub{x}{v}$ but they are under an abstraction and $\Rew{\wsym}$ does not reduce under abstractions.
Formally, the proof is by induction on $t$.
Note that $t$ is not a value, because values are $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal, since $\Rew{\wsym}$ does not reduce under abstractions.
Therefore, $t = t_0t_1$.
The case where $t_0 = \la{x}{t'}$ and $t_1$ is a value is impossible, because $t_0$ and $t_1$ would be $\Rew{\wsym}$-normal and so from $s \lRew{\wsym} t \Rew{\wsym} u$ it would follow $s = t'\isub{x}{t_1} = u$, which contradicts the hypothesis.
The remaining cases are:
\begin{itemize}
\item $s = t_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_0t_1 = u$ with $t_0 \Rew{\wsym} u_0$, and $t_1 \Rew{\wsym} s_1$.
Then, $s \Rew{\wsym} u_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} u$.
\item $s = s_0 t_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_0t_1 = u$ with $s_0 \lRew{\wsym} t_0 \Rew{\wsym} u_0$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, there is $r_0$ such that $s_0 \Rew{\wsym} r_0 \lRew{\wsym} u_0$.
Thus, $s \Rew{\wsym} r_0t_1 \lRew{\wsym} u$.
\item $s = t_0s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t = t_0t_1 \Rew{\wsym} t_0u_0 = u$ with $s_1 \lRew{\wsym} t_1 \Rew{\wsym} u_1$.
Analogous to the previous case.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Omitted proofs of \refsect{weak-cbv}}
\setcounter{lemmaAppendix}{\value{l:tobv-subs}}
\begin{lemmaAppendix}[Substitutivity of $\partobvind n$]
\label{lappendix:tobv-subs}
\NoteState{l:tobv-subs}
If $t \partobvind n t'$ and $s \partobvind m s'$ where $s$ is a value, then $t \isub\vars \partobvindlong {n + \sizep{t'}x\cdot m} t' \isubx{s'}$.
\end{lemmaAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partobvind{n} t'$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = x \partobvind{0} x = t'$. Then, $\sizep{t'}x = 1$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = s \partobvind{m} s' = t'\isub{x}{s'}$, where $m = 0 + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = \la{y}{u} \partobvind{n} \la{y}{u'} = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n} u'$; we can suppose without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s'} \cup \{x\}$, hence $\sizep{u'}{x} = \sizep{t'}{x}$ and $t\isub{x}{s} = \la{y}(u\isub{x}{s})$ and $t'\isub{x}{s'} = \la{y}(u'\isub{x}{s'})$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$, thus
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\UnaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = \la {y}u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} \la{y}u'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\,.
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}, {\em i.e.}\xspace $t = {u}r \partobvind{n_1 + n_2} {u'}r' = t'$ because $u \partobvind{n_1} u'$ and $r \partobvind{n_2} r'$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$ and $r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_2 + \sizep{r'}{x} \cdot m} r'\isub{x}{s'}$, hence
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_2 + \sizep{r'}{x} \cdot m} r'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t\isub{x}{s} = u\isub{x}{s} r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n + \sizep{t'}{x} \cdot m} u'\isub{x}{s'} r'\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
where $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{r'}{x}$ and $n = n_1 + n_2$.
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$u \partobvind {n_1} u'$}
\AxiomC{$r$ is a value}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_2} r'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = (\lay u)r \partobvind{n} u'\isub y {r'} = t'$}
\DisplayProof\]
where $n = n_1 + \sizep{u'}{x} \cdot n_2 +1$.
We can assume without loss of generality that $y \notin \fv{s} \cup \{x\} \supseteq \fv{s'} \cup \{x\}$;
hence, $\sizep{t'}{x} = \sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\sizep{r'}{x} $ and $t\isub{x}{r} = (\la{y}{u}\isub{x}{s})r\isub{x}{s}$ and $t'\isub{x}{r'} = {u'}\isub{y}{r'}\isub{x}{s'} = u'\isub{y}{s'}\isub{x}{r'\isub{y}{s'}}$.
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace, $u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x}} u'\isub{x}{s'}$ and $r\isub{x}{s} \allowbreak\partobvindlong{n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x}} r'\isub{x}{s'}$.
Therefore, since $r\isub{x}{s}$ is a value,
\[\AxiomC{$u\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x}} u'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\AxiomC{$r\isub{x}{r} \partobvindlong{n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x}} r'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\BinaryInfC{$t \isub{x}{s} = (\lay u\isub{x}{s})r\isub{x}{s} \partobvindlong{n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x} + (n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x})\sizep{u'}{y} + 1} u'\isub y {r'}\isub{x}{s'} = t'\isub{x}{s'}$}
\DisplayProof\]
where $n_1 + m \cdot \sizep{u'}{x} + (n_2 + m \cdot \sizep{r'}{x})\sizep{u'}{y} + 1 = n + m(\sizep{u'}{x} + \sizep{u'}{y}\cdot \sizep{r'}{x}) = n + m \cdot \sizep{t'}{x}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:i-e-merge-cbv}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Merge]
\label{propappendix:i-e-merge-cbv}
\NoteState{prop:i-e-merge-cbv}
If $t \partonotws \Rew{\wsym} u$ then $t \parRew{\betav} u$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the form of $ s $.
Cases $s=x$ or $s=\l x. \tmtwo}%{s'$ are not possible. Hence $ s=r'p' $ and $t \partonotws$ is derived as follows
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = rp \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'p' $}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $ s \Rew{\wsym} u$ by a $\beta_\val$-rule (let $r=\la x \tmsix}%{q'$, $p$ value) then $s= (\la x \tmsix}%{q') p' \Rew{\wsym} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} $ and we conclude by the following derivation
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$\tmsix}%{q\parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\beta} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$ (\la x \tmsix}%{q) p \parRew{\beta} \tmsix}%{q'\isub{x}{p'} $}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\item Otherwise, either $ r' \Rew{\wsym} r''$ or $p' \Rew{\wsym} p''$, and we apply the {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace\ to the concerned premiss, concluding by application rule.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\setcounter{propositionAppendix}{\value{prop:quant-out-in-split-cbv}}
\begin{propositionAppendix}[Indexed split]
\label{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-cbv}
\NoteState{propappendix:quant-out-in-split-cbv}
If $t \partobvind n s$ then either $t \partonotws$ or $n>0$ and there exists $u$ such that $t \Rew{\wsym} u \partobvind {n-1} s$.
\end{propositionAppendix}
\begin{proof}
By induction on the definition of $t \partobvind n s$.
We use freely the fact that if $t \partobvind n s$ then $t \parRew{\betav} s$. Cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Variable}: $t = x \partobvind 0 x = s$. Then $t = x \partonotwx = s$.
\item \emph{Abstraction}: $t = \la \vart' \partobvind n \la x s' = s$ because $t' \partobvind n s'$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\AxiomC{$t' \parRew{\betav} s'$}
\UnaryInfC{$t = \la{x}t' \parRew{\neg \wsym} \la{x}s' = s$}
\DisplayProof
\end{align*}
\item \emph{Application}:
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {m} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \partobvindlong {n + m} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
By {\textit{i.h.}}\xspace applied to $r \partobvind{n} r'$ and $p \partobvind{m} p'$, there are three sub-cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$ and $p \parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$, and then
\[\AxiomC{$r \parRew{\neg \wsym} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \parRew{\neg \wsym} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$t = r p \parRew{\neg \wsym} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof\,;\]
\item or $n > 0$ and there exists $r''$ such that $r \Rew{\wsym} r'' \partobvind {n-1} r'$;
then, $t = r p \Rew{\wsym} r'' p := u$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r'' \partobvindlong {n-1} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {m} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = r'' p \partobvindlong {n-1 + m} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof \,;\]
\item or $m > 0$ and there exists $p''$ such that $p \Rew{\wsym} p'' \partobvind {m-1} p'$;
then, $t = r p \Rew{\wsym} r p'' := u$ and
\[\AxiomC{$r \partobvindlong {n} r'$}
\AxiomC{$p'' \partobvind {m-1} p'$}
\BinaryInfC{$u = rp'' \partobvindlong {n + m - 1} r' p' = s$}
\DisplayProof \,.\]
\end{enumerate}
\item \emph{$\beta_\val$ step}:
\[\AxiomC{$p \partobvind {n_1} p'$}
\AxiomC{$r$ is a value}
\AxiomC{$r \partobvind {n_2} r'$}
\TrinaryInfC{$t = (\lax p)r \partobvindlong {n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1} p'\isub x {r'} = s$}
\DisplayProof\]
with $n = n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2 +1 > 0$. We have $t = (\lax p)r \Rew{\wsym} p\isub\varr := u$ and by \reflemmap{tobv-subs}{ind-par} $u = p\isub\varr \partobvindlong{n_1 + \sizep{p'}x \cdot n_2} p' \isubx{r'} = s$.
\qedhere
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\blue{\paragraph{On the definition of Internal Parallel Step.}
A parallel steps is internal, written
$M\parRew{\neg \wsym} N$, if
$M\parRew{} N$ and $M\Rew{\neg \wsym}^* N$ (obviously, $\parRew{\neg \wsym} \,\subseteq\, \parRew{}$). We give explicitly the inference rules. We prove that the inference rules characterize the definition of parallel internal step.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:basicpar}If $t \parRew{\betav} \tmtwo}%{s$ then $t \to^* \tmtwo}%{s$. Moreover, if $\parRew{\betav}$ is obtained via the $\parallel\beta_\val$-rule, then $t \Rew{\betav}^*t'\Rew{\betav} \tmtwo}%{s$ where the last step is a $\beta_\val$-rule.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Induction on the derivation of $t \parRew{} \tmtwo}%{s$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t \parRew{\betav} \tmtwo}%{s$ and $t \Rew{\neg \wsym}^*\tmtwo}%{s$
\item $t \parRew{\neg \wsym}\tmtwo}%{s$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{itemize}
\item $1\rightarrow 2$ by induction on $t$. We observe that if $t=\tmfour}%{r\tmtwo}%{s$, $t \parRew{\betav} \tmtwo}%{s$ can only be conclusion of a
$\parallel$App-rule, and not of a $\parallel$$\beta_\val$-rule, because $t \Rew{\neg \wsym}^*\tmtwo}%{s$ and \reflemma{basicpar}.
\item $2\rightarrow 1$ is immediate
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}}
\section{Technical appendix: omitted proofs and lemmas}
\label{sect:proofs}
The enumeration of propositions, theorems, lemmas already stated in the body of the article is unchanged.
\input{./proofs/proofs-head}
\input{./proofs/proofs-weak-cbv}
\input{./proofs/proofs-leftmost}
\input{./proofs/proofs-stratified-cbn2}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Background and intro}
Tensors, for current purposes, are functionally multidimensional arrays of complex numbers. A \emphdef{tensor network} is a factorization of a large tensor into a family of simpler tensors which tracks their interrelationships--usually graphically, as by \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_graphical_notation}{Penrose notation}--so as to make the uncompressed tensor product recoverable in principle.
Good introductions are freely available (e.g.~\cite{Practical-intro, Nutshell, Hand-waving}) into the role of the tensor network in models of quantum chemistry, quantum many-body physics, and, most recently, classical approximations of quantum computation. In these simulations, the contents of the component tensors stand for superpositions of quantum particles, and their bonds for the degrees of entanglement between them. A maximally entangled system, of course, is not simplified by factorization; but the importance of locality in the systems being modeled enables it in practice. With this approach one can manipulate features of tensors whose unfactored form would require computational resources %
far in excess of what is physically possible, not to mention practical.
The pinch is felt when a calculation calls for the scalar equivalent of a closed network, as this requires contracting all bonds, i.e., indices; the complexity of which procedure is usually exponential in the number of component tensors. If the operation known as `contraction' is the generalization of the trace of a two-dimensional tensor, then contracting two or more tensors is a generalization of \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_chain_multiplication}{matrix chain multiplication}; like with matrices, the order of the pairwise contractions is irrelevant to the value obtained but highly consequential for the efficiency. Full contraction of even minimally entangled networks has been proved to be \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp-P}{$\sharp$P-hard}~\cite{Sharp-P} and generally unfeasible, providing strong motivation to identify the exceptional cases. Our present preoccupation, the problem of finding a best contraction order for an existing tensor network---as opposed to incorporating different factorizations into the search---is historically known %
as \emphdef{single-term optimization}, has a clean graph-theoretic analogy, and is unfortunately NP-hard~\cite{LamLoops}, in contrast to the one-dimensional matrix-multiplication problem.%
Optimization, for matrix multiplication or tensor contraction, generally means minimizing the total number of paired multiplication-addition operations in a multiply-nested loop, approximating, in a big-Theta sense, the time required by a single-core processor in the standard random-access machine (RAM) computation model.\commenting{Is that the right name for that ``machine"?} Any further compile-time or runtime accelerations can improve on this strategy only up to a hardware-dependent multiplicative constant. This sequential-time-complexity metric is the one used with \Netcon~\cite{Netcon}, which is still, to our knowledge, the most aggressive graph-based single-term optimization algorithm, but which, by dint of its exactitude, is usable only for small to moderately sized networks of less than one hundred tensors.
In fact, rather than focus primarily on contraction order, it is much more common to use lossy compression techniques~\cite{Survey-of-contraction-methods}.
An exception is the well-known MPS method~\cite{MPS}, which is unidimensional enough that finding and executing a contraction order can be managed efficiently. However, one has only to look at the bidimensional version of MPS, PEPS~\cite{PEPS}, to see both tasks reach maximum difficulty.
Our interest is in networks with many tensors, but low average tensor dimension, for which an exact contraction result is required but an approximately minimal contraction \emph{cost} is acceptable.
This kind of result could be used, for instance, to validate the approximate contraction methods currently in vogue.
Correspondingly, an approximation technique that minimizes the cost, not of the entire contraction, but of the most expensive part of it, leads us to carving-width, which, introduced in~\cite{Ratcatcher}, is one of a family of ``widths'' researched at length by Robertson and Seymour for quantifying edge complexity of a graph.
The original of these, and the most studied, is %
\maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treewidth}{\emphdef{treewidth}};
its applicability to tensor networks was noted in an influential paper by \textcite{Markov-Shi}, used practically by \textcite{Breaking49}, and benchmarked comparatively by \textcite{ConSequence}.
On the other hand, the relevance of carving-width to tensor networks was, to our knowledge, first remarked upon in an arXival e-print by \textcite{bubble-width}, who, rediscovering it in a
restricted form, knew it as `bubble width'; it is used in its primary sense by \textcite{OliveiraOliveira2017}.
We have come to believe that its obscurity is undeserved, for several reasons:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The (comparatively) well-known treewidth was designed for unweighted graphs, so it only works on tensors of uniform bond dimension. %
This may hold for quantum circuits, but not other species of tensor networks, which is probably why it is has seen more use in circuit simulation than in the other quantum disciplines. A generalized weighted treewidth~\cite{WeightedTreewidth} is extant, but has not received the same level of attention. By contrast, carving-width works with all nonnegative real edge weights.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{Seymour and Thomas used natural numbers, but the extension to reals is uncomplicated, up to the imprecision of floating-point calculation.}
\item Second, because treewidth requires a vertex-weighted graph, not edge-weighted, one must take the \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_graph}{line graph} first.
As shown in~\cref{sec:carving-width}, finding a \emphdef{carving-decomposition} automatically yields a tree-decomposition of the line graph.
\item Most importantly, the carving-decomposition constructed for a minimal carving-width is a binary tree and provides the basis for a datatype, explained in the next section, which best describes an arbitrary contraction order. In other words, the step between assessing the cost of a near-optimal contraction order, and finding the order itself, is short.
\end{enumerate}
An obstacle to using them, even as a means to a larger end, is that carving-width~\cite{Ratcatcher} and treewidth (including for unweighted graphs~\cite{Treewidth-is-NP-complete}) are both NP-complete problems %
and must themselves be approximated. For the important class of planar graphs
(drawn with no crossing edges), however, there exists the original Seymour-Thomas algorithm, rather whimsically called the `\ratcatcher,' which can find the carving-width in pseudopolynomial time; whereas %
2019 has passed with the existence of a comparable exploit for treewidth remaining an open problem, providing one more motivation for working with carving-width. %
In \cref{sec:Application} we demonstrate how finding the carving-decomposition of a tensor network (using the \ratcatcher algorithm) can provide %
reasonable contraction orders for said network, provided that it is planar, and we demonstrate an application to a PEPS-like grid. %
\Cref{sec:conclusion} discusses potential extensions.
\section{Graph-theoretical formulation%
}
\label{sec:graph-theory-defs}
\label{sec:Preliminaries}
A tensor network is, conveniently, isomorphic to an undirected weighted graph $G=\p{\V0,\E0,w}$ without self-loops or parallel edges. Vertices are identified with tensors, edges with tensor indices, and edge weights with index dimensions; the degrees of the vertices give the tensors' orders. Edges are identified with subsets of $\V0$ of cardinality $2$.
Parallel edges, while supportable, are disallowed, because any bundle of such edges may be replaced with a single edge, weighted with the product of their weights. Loops can similarly be eliminated by summing over the corresponding indices~\cite{Netcon}. Importantly, these simplification operations never harm efficiency by adding to the resource requirements of contraction.
Also, there is no semantic distinction between an edge with weight $1$ and a nonexistent edge, meaning that they may be interchanged at will.
\label{no-free-indices}
Finally, a tensor network often has indices initially left \emph{free}, to serve as model inputs. This does not a valid graph make, so we assume that free indices get bound to probability vectors and contracted preliminarily.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{The alternative, tying all the dangling edges to a new vertex and leaving them uncontracted, increases contraction time exponentially in the number of inputs.}
An example graph $\G$ is given in \cref{fig:2x3 tensor}: a `tensor train' as would be part of a MPS process.
\smallfig{%
\centering
\subfile{pic_2x3_graph_example.tex}
\caption{A $2\times 3$-tensor network}
\label{fig:2x3 tensor}
}%
We use capitals $A,B,\ldots,F$ to label vertices and miniscules %
$a,b,\ldots,g$ for edges. %
For instance, the index joining tensors $A$ and $B$, $a$, is equivalent to the edge $\cb{A,B}$, and has dimension $\wI{a} = \wpar{\cb{A,B}}$, with $\weightname : \E0 \to \Np$ denoting the weight function.
\subsection{Contraction}
\Cref{fig:2x3 minor} shows a possible contraction sequence for the graph of \cref{fig:2x3 tensor}.
\def\@minorSize{0.34\textwidth}%
\begin{figure}[ht]
\subcaptionbox{$\Forall b,c,d.\ \T{\p{AB}}_{bcd} = \sum_a\T{A}_{ac} \T{B}_{abd}$%
\label{fig:first-minor}}
[\@minorSize]
{\subfile{pic_2x3_minor_1.tex}}
\subcaptionbox{$\Forall b,e.\ \T{\p{CF}}_{bg} = \sum_e\T{C}_{be} \T{F}_{eg}$}
[\@minorSize]
{\subfile{pic_2x3_minor_2.tex}}
\subcaptionbox{$\Forall c,d,g.\ \T{\p{DE}}_{cdg} = \sum_f \T{D}_{cf} \T{E}_{dfg}$%
\label{fig:third-minor}}
[\@minorSize]
{\subfile{pic_2x3_minor_3.tex}}
\par\bigskip
\subcaptionbox{$\Forall b,g.\ \T{\p{ABDE}}_{bg} = \sum_{cd} \T{\p{AB}}_{bcd} \T{\p{DE}}_{cdg}$}
[0.5\textwidth]
{\subfile{pic_2x3_minor_4.tex}}
%
\subcaptionbox{$\T{ABCDEF} = \sum_{bg} \T{\p{ABDE}}_{bg} \T{\p{DE}}_{bg}$}
[0.5\textwidth]%
{\subfile{pic_2x3_minor_5.tex}}
\caption{A succession of graph minors of~\cref{fig:2x3 tensor}, showing a full contraction and the accompanying summations. Edges are being contracted in the sequence $\sqb{a,\,e,\,f,\,cd,\,bg}$.}
\label{fig:2x3 minor}
\end{figure}%
We enumerate the tensors that arise during the contraction of a network using subsets of $\V0$. For any $X\subseteq V$, the tensor corresponding to $X$ is the one formed by merging all the (fundamental) tensors of $X$; that is, by contracting all edges in the induced subgraph $\G[X]$. In step~\ref{fig:third-minor}, for example, the contraction is of tensors $X = \cb{A,B}$ and $X' = \cb{D,E}$, outputting $X\cup X' = ABDE$. Clearly, due to the distributive law the output of
a sequence of contractions does not depend on the order of combination.
However, the cost, in terms of computational complexity, does.
To illustrate this we need the concept of a `cut', which is a separation of $\G$ into disconnected subgraphs by the removal of a subset of $\E0$.
\begin{definition}[$2$-cut]%
\label{def:2-cut}
A $2$-cut, \emph{edge-cut}, or just \emph{cut} is a bipartition of $\E0$.
For $X,X'\subseteq \V0$ with $X\cap X'=\emptyset$, define the \emphdef{cut-set} $\cutsetI{X,X'}$ as the set of edges needed to disconnect $G[X]$ from $G[X']$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def. of 2-cut}
\cutsetI{X,X'} \defeq \sbuild[big]{ \{A,B\} \in \E }{ A\in X, B\in X' }\,.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{The $\cutsetname$ notation is adapted from~\cite{Ratcatcher}.}
\end{equation}
In other words, $\cutsetI{X,X'}$ is the set of edges having one endpoint in $X$ and one in $X'$. %
\end{definition}
This generalizes easily to the idea of a multiway $m$-cut $\cutsetI{X_1,\ldots,X_m}$; but the only other case we will specifically need is $m=3$:
\begin{definition}[$3$-cut]
\label{def:3-cut}
For $X,X',X''\subseteq V$ with $X\cap X'=\emptyset$, $X\cap X''=\emptyset$, and $X'\cap X''=\emptyset$, define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def. of 3-cut}
\cutsetI{X,X',X''} \defeq \cutsetI{X,X'} \dunion \cutsetI{X,X''} \dunion \cutsetI{X',X''}\,.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{We use $\dunion$ to emphasize that this is a union of disjoint sets.}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}%
For subsets of edges $F\subseteq \E0$, it useful to define the weight of $F$ to be the product of the weights of the edges in $F$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
\wpar{F}=\prod_{e\in F} \w{e}\,.
\end{equation*}
This makes possible:
\begin{definition}[Cut-weight]
For $X_1,\ldots,X_m$ with
$\bigdunion_i X_i = \V0$, the \emphdef{cut-weight}, $\wpar{X_1,\ldots,X_m}$, is given by
\begin{equation*}
\wpar{X_1,\ldots,X_m} = \wpar{\cutsetI{X_1,\ldots,X_m}}\,,
\end{equation*}
with obvious applicability to $2$- and $3$-cuts.
\end{definition}
To motivate use of these definitions, we first need to refine the meaning of `contraction sequence.'
We start the contraction sequence $\cS$ with the $\n$ fundamental tensors as input, identifying each of which with a singleton subset of $\V0$.
For every contractive step in the sequence, we always select two tensors $X$ and $Y$ and contract them to a new tensor $Z=XY$. In total, we create $\n-1$ new tensors by pairwise contractions, with the last one being the scalar value of the fully contracted network. %
Each tensor created along the way corresponds to the union of the preceding subsets of $\V0$---mapping, in turn, to tensors earlier in the sequence. We now have a list of $2\n-1$ subsets of $V$, with the second half describing the contractions. E.g., for \cref{fig:2x3 minor},
\begin{gather*}
%
\cS = \Bigl[
\cb{A}^1,\cb{B}^2,\cb{C}^3,\cb{D}^4,\cb{E}^5,\cb{F}^6,
\Bigr. \\
\Bigl. \cb{A,B}^7, \cb{C,F}^8, \cb{D,E}^9, \cb{A,B,D,E}^{10}, \cb{A,B,C,D,E,F}^{11}
\Bigr]\,,
\end{gather*}
\renewcommand{\P}{P^{(i)}}%
\newcommand{\GP}{\G_{\P}}%
with positional IDs added as superscripts. Each contractive step $i\in \ii{\n}{2\n-1}$ %
can also be associated with a \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_minor}{minor} of $\G$, that is, a partially contracted graph, as follows.
Let $\P$ be the partition of $\V0$ formed by taking the first $i$ elements of the sequence, removing any member which is a subset of another. $\P$ is homomorphic to the minor $\GP = \p{\P,\E{\P},\wsub{\P}}$, where, for all $X,Y\in \P$,
\begin{equation*}
\weight[\P]{X,Y} \defeq \weight[\G]{X,Y} = \wpar{\cutsetII{X,Y}{\G}}\,;
\end{equation*}
while $\E{\P}$ is simply the set of vertex pairs for which $\wsub{\P}$ is not 1.%
Generalizing these precedential relationships, we see that each $\P$ is a layer in a \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semilattice}{join-semilattice}. More specifically, a \emphdef{contraction order} can be described by a binary tree %
$T$ with an injective map
$\phi :\ii{1}{\p{2\n-1}} \to \V{T}$.
This $\phi$ must satisfy the so-called \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_heap}{max-heap} property: the ID of each internal node has to be greater that the IDs of both its children. Intuitively, an ID marks the point in $\cS$ at which the corresponding tensor is produced, and it makes sense that its two constituent tensors must have been created first. Thus the vertices of $\G$ map to $T$'s leaves.
\bigskip
Formally:
\begin{definition}[Rooted \ctree]%
\label{def:rooted ctree}
A rooted \ctree $\cTr$ of the weighted graph $G = \p{\V0,\E0,\weightname}$ is a rooted, labeled, unordered, full binary tree with each external node identified with a unique $v\in \V0$.
This tree type was used earlier in%
~\cite{Oliveira}, though the labeling offered there differs somewhat from ours. We label both nodes and arcs,%
\nolinebreak\footnote{To reduce ambiguity, we call components \emph{vertices} and \emph{edges} when referring to the network $\G$ and \emph{nodes} and \emph{arcs} only with \ctrees---a small abuse of terminology for undirected trees.}
as follows:
%
\begin{itemize}
\item
The removal of an arc $a$ partitions the leaves into the two disjoint sets $X_a$ and $\overline{X}_a$; the label of arc $a$ is
\[
\lbl_a \defeq \cutsetI{X_a,\overline{X}_a}\,.
\]
\item
The removal of an internal node $n$ partitions the leaves into the three mutually disjoint sets $X_n$, $Y_n$, and $\overline{X_n Y_n}$; the label of node $n$ is %
\[
\lbl_n \defeq \cutsetI{X_n, Y_n, \overline{X_n Y_n}}\,.
\]
For the special case of the root node, one of these sets is empty, making it a %
de facto 2-cut. The other internal nodes are all 3-cuts.
\item
The label of an external node $v$ is
\[
\lbl_v \defeq \sbuild{ e \in \E }{ v\in e }\,,
\]
that is, all edges incident at $v$. Note that $\lbl_v$ is equal to $\lbl_a$, where $a$ is the unique arc connecting the leaf node to the rest of the \ctree. Due to the redundancy, labels of this sort will be omitted from figures, such as \cref{fig:contraction-binary-tree}. %
\end{itemize}
\begin{indention}
\begin{remark}
It is important to observe that the nodes $n$ of the rooted \ctree $\cTr$ could be naturally identified with subsets of $\V0$. However, we do not make this identification a required part of the definition because---as we shall shortly see---it will be very useful to consider `free' \ctrees with which such identification is no longer possible.
\end{remark}
\end{indention}
\end{definition}%
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\resizebox*{!}{\contreeHeight}{\subfile{pic_rooted-contraction-tree_example.tex}}
\caption{Example rooted \ctree for \cref{fig:2x3 tensor}, with additional labels in boldface.}
\label{fig:contraction-binary-tree}
\end{figure}
It should be clear that many contraction sequences give rise to the same $\cTr$, per the variability of the $\phi$ mapping.
The benefit of using 2- and 3-cuts %
(\cref{def:2-cut,def:3-cut}), is that they provide a complexity measure which abstracts away unnecessary information.
\begin{definition}[Tensor space complexity]
The number of bytes needed to store tensor $X$, up to a multiplicative constant, is the cut-weight
\begin{equation*}
\wpar{X,\overline{X}}\,,
\end{equation*}
and for a \ctree arc $a$ with $\lbl_a = \cutsetI{X_a,\overline{X}_a}$,
\begin{equation*}
\w{a} \defeq \wpar{\lbl_a} = \wpar{X_a,\overline{X}_a}\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}%
\begin{definition}[Contraction time complexity]
Symmetrically, the number of primitive operations in contracting tensors $X$ and $Y$ to get $XY=X\dunion Y$ is, up to a multiplicative constant, the cut-weight
\begin{equation*}
\wpar{X,Y,\overline{XY}}\,.%
\end{equation*}
For a \ctree node $n$,
\begin{equation*}
\w{n} \defeq \wpar{\lbl_n} = \wpar{X,Y,\overline{XY}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}%
\begin{definition}[Space bottleneck]
Define the \emphdef{space bottleneck},
$\Bspace{\cTr}$, of a \ctree as the maximum over all arcs:
\[
\Bspace{\cTr} = \max_{a} \cb[big]{ \w{a} }\,.
\]
\end{definition}%
\begin{definition}[Time bottleneck]
Symmetrically, define the \emphdef{time bottleneck}, $\Btime{\cTr}$, as the maximum over all nodes:
\[
\Btime{\cTr} = \max_{n} \cb[big]{ \w{n} } \,.
\]
For unweighted graphs, this reduces to the \emphdef{contraction complexity} of \textcite{Markov-Shi}.%
\end{definition}%
\begin{definition}[Total time]
Finally, define the \emphdef{total time complexity}, $\Ctime{\cTr}$, the sum over all internal nodes:
\[
\Ctime{\cTr} = \sum_{n} \w{n}\,.
\]
\end{definition}%
It is trivially true that $\Bspacename \le \Btimename \le \Ctimename$, a relationship we will examine further in the next section. For now, note that given the root $r$ with incident arcs $\a1$ and $\a2$, then
$\lbl_r = \lbl_{\a1} = \lbl_{\a2}$. This means that the root node never determines $\Bspacename$ or $\Btimename$, suggesting that we consider a homeomorphic rootless tree.
\begin{definition}[{[Free] \ctree}]
An \emphdef{unrooted} or \emphdef{free \ctree} (in future, just \emphdef{\ctree}) $\cTf$ of the weighted graph $\G = \p{\V0,\E0,\weightname}$ is a free, unordered binary tree with leaves mapped bijectively to $\V0$ and nodes and arcs labeled as in \cref{def:rooted ctree}, save, of course, the root $r$.
Any $\cTr$ can be converted to a $\cTf$ by removing the root and splicing its arcs together so as to make its children neighbors. $\Bspacename$ and $\Btimename$ are the same for $\cTf$ and $\cTr$, while $\Ctime{\cTr} = \Ctime{\cTf} + \w{r}$. A contraction sequence can only be built from a rooted tree; however, because we can always ``re-root'' $\cTf$ optimally (and efficiently; see \cref{sec:postprocessing}), the contribution made by $r$ to the time complexity is asymptotically negligible. %
Hence we will treat all \ctrees as free by default.%
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\resizebox{!}{\contreeHeight}{%
\subfile{pic_free-contraction-tree_example.tex}
}%
\caption{\Ctree on \cref{fig:2x3 tensor} (\iftoggle{preferFreeToUnrooted}{`free'}{rootless} version of \cref{fig:contraction-binary-tree}).}
\label{fig:contraction-tree}
\end{figure}
\end{definition}%
\section{Space %
\textit{vs.} time optimization}
\label{sec:treewidth and carving-width}
$\Bs0$, $\Bt0$, and $\Ct0$ for \ctrees measure local optima; their definitions can be made global with respect to a given $\G$ simply by minimizing over all possible \ctrees. There are $\p{2\n-3}!!$ such $\cTf$.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{I.e., the number of free, unordered, terminally-labeled binary trees~\cite{counting-rooted-contraction-trees}. The rooted kind has $\p{2\n-5}!!$.} %
The \Netcon algorithm of \textcite{Netcon} uses branch-and-bound techniques to construct %
$\argmin\,\Ctime{\cTr}$ %
directly; however, it turns out that $\Bspace{\G}$ and $\Btime{\G}$ also are the targets of existing algorithmic methods. The choice of labels for the \ctree was made to match this intuition: informally, arc labels denote space complexity, and node labels, time; and either can be obtained from its counterpart.
\cref{sec:treewidth} and \cref{sec:carving-width} provide the formal details as to how the \ctree encodes, respectively, treewidth and carving-width, while \cref{sec:Relationships} offers some simple bounds.
\subsection{Weighted treewidth and \texorpdfstring{$\Btimename$}{Bt}}
\label{sec:treewidth}
A \emphdef{tree-decomposition} of a graph, also known as a \emphdef{junction tree}, \commenting{as described in~\cite{Treewidth}} is formed by grouping the vertices of that graph into sets, or `bags,' according to a trifecta of rules---which are reviewed below---so that these bags form the nodes of a tree. The object is to keep the bags as small as possible, because the \emphdef{width} of the tree-decomposition is determined by the cardinality of the largest bag; the \emphdef{treewidth}, or $\tw{\G}$, is the smallest width of any tree-decomposition feasible; %
and a variety of algorithms that are NP-hard for arbitrary graphs---tensor networks, for example---are exponential merely in the treewidth, becoming tractable when that is provably bounded. For weighted graphs, the extension to a \emphdef{weighted treewidth}, or $\wtw{\G}$, by \textcite{WeightedTreewidth} is more appropriate.
However, because either form of treewidth is defined for vertex-weighted graphs---whereas ours have weighted edges---we must operate instead on the \emphdef{line graph}%
, a construction in which vertices map to members of $\E0$ and cliques to neighbors of members of $\V0$.
\begin{definition}[Weighted tree-decomposition of $L$]
The weighted tree-decomposition $\cTd$ of the line graph $L$ of $\G=\p{\V0,\E0,\weightname}$
is a tree whose nodes $n$ are labeled by subsets $\bag1{n}$ of $\E0$, together %
satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate} \label{tree-decomp props}
\item \label{enu:property 1 of a tree decomposition}
For each index $i\in \E0$, there exists at least one node $n$ with $i\in \bag1n$.
\item \label{enu:property 2 of a tree decomposition}
For each pair of indices $i'$ and $i''$ incident on the same vertex $v\in \V0$, there exists at least one node $n$ with $\cb{i',i''} \subseteq \bag1n$.
\item \label{enu:property 3 of a tree decomposition}
For each index $i\in \E0$, the subgraph induced by the subset of nodes $\sbuild{n}{i\in \bag1n}$ is connected. In the machine-learning literature this is known as the \emph{running intersection property}.%
\end{enumerate}
The \emphdef{weighted width} of the tree-decomposition $\cTd$ is
\[
\ww{\cTd} \defeq \max_n \Big\{ \wpar{b_n} \Big\}\,,
\]
where the maximum is taken over all nodes of the tree $\cTd$.
The weighted treewidth of the line graph, $\wtw{L}$, is the minimal weighted width
\[
\wtw{L} \defeq \min_{\cTd} \Big\{ \ww{\cTd} \Big\}\,,
\]
taken over all admissible tree-decompositions of $L$.
\end{definition}
Instead of counting the bags' contents, one multiplies the associated weights. The original application was to \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network}{Bayesian networks}, where the weight $\weightII{i}{\G}$ measured the domain of some random variable; here we use it as the range of a tensor index.
\begin{theorem}[\Ctree $\mono$ tree-decomposition]
An arbitrary \ctree $\cTf$, modulo %
\footnote{Stripping the leaf nodes is optional. They will never contribute to the treewidth.}%
its 2-cuts $\cutsetname_a$, forms a tree-decomposition of the line graph $L$ having width $\Btime{\cTf}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $e = \cb{v,v'}$ be any index in $\E0$. By construction of the labels of the leaf nodes, we have $e\in\labI{v}$ and also $e\in\labI{v'}$.
Properties~\ref{enu:property 1 of a tree decomposition} and~\ref{enu:property 2 of a tree decomposition} follow immediately.
This leaves the running intersection property.
\begin{nestedproof}
\begin{lemma}[\RIP] %
\label{lem:path property}
Let $\cTf$ be an arbitrary free \ctree. For any $e\in \E0$, the subgraph induced by the subset of nodes
\[
\sbuild{n}{e\in \labI{n}}
\]
is a path.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Begin with a version of $\cTf$ which is ``bare,'' having leaf nodes still mapped to $\V0$ but being otherwise unlabeled. Then construct an alternative labeling $\alt\lblname$ using the desired property and show that the resulting tree $\alt\cTf$ is equivalent to $\cTf$.
The alternative labeling $\hd{n}$ of the nodes and $\hd{a}$ of the arcs is defined thus:
\begin{itemize}
\item For every leaf node $v$, set $\hd{v}=\edges{v}$.
\item For every internal node $n$ and every arc $a$, add $e\in \E0$ to their label sets $\hd{n}$ and $\hd{a}$, respectively, if and only if they are on the unique path connecting the two leaf nodes %
$v$ and $v'$, with $e\in \edges{v}\cap \edges{v'}$.
\end{itemize}
It suffices to show that $\cTf$ and $\alt\cTf$ coincide on all labels. For the external nodes this is immediate. For any internal node $n$, recall that the definition of a 3-cut %
(\cref{eq:def. of 3-cut}) partitions the leaf set into nonempty subsets $X \dunion Y \dunion Z = V$, with
\begin{equation*}
\labI{n} = \cutsetI{X,Y,Z} = \cutsetI{X,Y} \dunion \cutsetI{X,Z} \dunion \cutsetI{Y,Z}\,.
\end{equation*}
Meanwhile, in $\alt\cTf$, the \RIP---explicitly supported---means that $i$ appears in $\hd{n}$ if and only if it has its endpoints in exactly two of $\cb{X,Y,Z}$:
\begin{equation*}
\newcommand{\lor}{\lor}
\Forall e\, \Forall n.\ e\in\hd{n} \iff e\in\cutsetI{X,Y} \lor e\in\cutset{X,Z} \lor e\in\cutset{Y,Z}\,,
\end{equation*}
formally equivalent to the 3-cut definition. A similar argument applies to arc labels in $\alt\cTf$ and the definition of 2-cut %
(\cref{eq:def. of 2-cut}). $\cTf$ and $\alt\cTf$ are the same up to monomorphism.
\begin{remark}
The information contained within the node labels %
${\lblname_n}$ %
of a \ctree is the same as that compassed by the arc labels
${\lblname_a}$, in the sense that from either set the other may be deduced. Using the running intersection property, it is not hard to prove that, for some arc $a=\cb{n,n'}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:intersection-property}
\labI{a} = \labI{n} \cap \labI{n'}\,,
\end{equation}
or that for any internal node $n$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:union-property}
\labI{n} = \labI{a} \cup \labI{a'}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $a'$ are two of its three arcs.%
\end{remark}%
\end{proof}%
\end{nestedproof}%
This finishes property~\ref{enu:property 3 of a tree decomposition}.
\end{proof}%
\begin{theorem}[Tree-decomposition $\epi$ \ctree]
Let $\cTd$ be an arbitrary tree-decomposition of the line graph $L$ of $\G$. Then, $\cTd$ can always be efficiently transformed to a new tree-decomposition $\cTd'$ such that $\ww{\cTd'}\le\ww{\cTd}$ and $\cTd'$ forms a free \ctree.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Use the following %
three-step %
algorithm to meet the specific structural requirements of a \ctree (degree-3 internal nodes, and so on):
\newcommand{\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}}{\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{step:add-leaves}
As before, take the bare version of $\cTd$ from which all but the leaf labels have been struck. Grow the tree by attaching some $\n$ new leaf nodes identified with $v\in V$. The attachment point for each $v$ may be an arbitrary $n$ such that $\edgesI{v}\subseteq \bag1{n}$; for example, the lexicographic minimum.
Calling this new tree $\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}$, empty all its internal nodes' bags entirely and refill them from $\V0$ based on the alternative labeling used in \cref{lem:path property}, that is, by putting $e = \cb{v,v'}$ into the path between $v$ and $v'$. Label the arcs correspondingly.
$\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}$ with bags $\hd{n}$ at this point defines a valid tree-decomposition of $\L{G}$: properties \ref{enu:property 1 of a tree decomposition} and \ref{enu:property 2 of a tree decomposition} are trivially satisfied by the leaf nodes $v$, where we have $\hd{v}=\edges{v}$.
Property~\ref{enu:property 3 of a tree decomposition} is satisfied because the labeling $\hd{n}$ meets the stronger condition that the subgraph $\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}\sqb{\sbuild[big]{v}{ e\in \hd{v}}}$ induced, for any edge $e\in \E0$, is a path.
Moreover, because $\hd{n}\subseteq \bag1{n}$, thanks to the \RIP, we know that the weighted width, $\ww{\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}}$, cannot have grown.
All nodes left with empty bags should be contracted into their neighbors---as should nodes with degree $2$. (This sub-step is unnecessary if we can stipulate from the start that no bag in $\cTd$ is a subset of another, a condition known in e.g.~\cite{Reduced-tree-decomps} as \emphdef{reduced} form.) Any remaining degree-$1$ node must be one of the newly added leaves.
\item Label arcs using \cref{eq:intersection-property}. $\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}$ is now a free \ctree, except that its internal nodes may not be---indeed, likely are not---ternary.
\item \label{step:split-bags}
\renewcommand{\m}[1]{%
\ifstrequal{#1}{1}{%
m'%
}{%
\ifstrequal{#1}{2}{%
m''%
}{%
\csname ERROR in 'm' macro\endcsname%
}
}%
}
Each node with more than three arcs now gets split, with the process repeated until all that remain have degree 3. Let $n$ be an offending node, and let $\a2, \a3$ be any two of its arcs. We \emphdef{split} $n$ into two nodes $\m1, \m2$ and connect them with a new arc $\a4$ so that
\begin{align*}
\edges{\m1} &= \cb{\a2, \a3, \a4} \\
\edges{\m2} &= \cb{\a4} \dunion \p{\edges{n} \setminus \cb{\a1,\a2}}%
\end{align*}
with labels
\begin{align*}
\hd{\m1} &= \hd{\a2} \cup \hd{\a3} \\
\hd{\m2} &= \bigcup \, \sbuild[Big]{\hd{a}}{a \in \edges{\m2}} \\
%
%
\hd{\a4} &= \hd{\m1} \cap \hd{\m2}\,.
\end{align*}
Note that this is the same labeling scheme used in \cref{lem:path property}.
Clearly, the widths of the bags of $\m1$ and $\m2$ cannot be larger than that of $n$; $\card{\edges{\m1}} =3$ and $\card{\edges{\m2}} = \card{\edges{n}} - 1$.
\begin{remark}
If desired, it is always possible to find a split of $n$ so that at least one of $\m1$ or $\m2$ has strictly smaller width.
In nontrivial cases, that is, unless $\Exists v\in \V0$ such that $\hd{n} = \edges{v}$, the splitting process can be used as an opportunity to shrink both child nodes.
\end{remark}
\end{enumerate}
At this point, we have a free binary tree with $\cardinality{\Vpar{\alt{\cT}_{\mathrm{d}}}}=2\n-2$ whose external nodes correspond one-to-one to the sets $\sbuild{\edges{v}}{ v\in\V0}$ . The resulting node- and arc-labeled tree forms a \ctree, up to epimorphism. The entire process of trimming and relabeling can be done with, naïvely, time complexity in $\O{\card{\V0} \cdot \card{\E0}}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Carving-width and \texorpdfstring{$\Bspacename$}{Bs}}
\label{sec:carving-width}
Introduced by \textcite{Ratcatcher} as an ancilla to a third tree-based metric, \emphdef{branchwidth},
carving-width is the least well known of the three.
Weighted-graph branchwidth and carving-width are notable for their own merit in addressing the `call-routing problem' for telecoms. %
We will omit branchwidth from the discussion and proceed directly to carving-width%
. One prompt advantage over treewidth is that
the edges-to-vertices interchange in the last section is needed no longer.%
\begin{definition}
\label{def:carving-decomp}
\newcommand{\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{C}}
A \emphdef{carving-decomposition}, also known as a \emphdef{routing tree}, %
$\mathcal{C}$
of $\G$ is a free, full binary tree supporting the vertices of $\G$ for leaves.
For each $a \in \E{\mathcal{C}}$, removing $a$ would partition $\V{\G}$ into two sets, $S_1,S_2$, by the remaining connected components. Each $a$ is labeled with the cut-edges $\cutset{S_1,S_2}$. The \emphdef{load} of $a$ is the sum of weights
$\sum \sbuild{\w{e}}{e\in \cutsetI{S_1,S_2}}$; %
the \emph{width} or \emphdef{congestion} of $\mathcal{C}$ is the heaviest load in the tree; and the \emphdef{carving-width}, $\carw{\G}$, is defined as the lowest achievable width, symmetrically to treewidth.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{The frankly more appealing $cw\p{\G}$ is often seen, but that abbreviation can also mean \emphdef{cut-width}, another tree complexity measure.}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Free \ctree $\iso$ carving-decomposition]\label{thm:carv contr}
An arbitrary \ctree $\cTf$, modulo its 3-cuts $\cutsetname_n$, is isomorphic to a carving-decomposition.
$\Bspace{\cTf}$ is equal, up to logarithmic concavity, to the carving-width:
\begin{equation*}
\carw{\G} = \log{\Bs{\G}}\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Straightforwardly, the 2-cuts of the \ctree duplicate, by design, the branch structure of a carving-decomposition. The isomorphism between weights is merely a matter of transferring between the groups $\p{\N,+}$ and $\p{\R^{*},\times}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\Bspacename$}{Bs}, \texorpdfstring{$\Btimename$}{Bt}, and \texorpdfstring{$\Ctimename$}{Ct} united}
\label{sec:Relationships}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Bs Bt Ct}
The asymptotic relationship between $\Bs0$, $\Bt0$, and $\Ct0$ is fairly tight:
\begin{gather}
\Bs0 \le \Bt0 \le \p{\Bs0}^{1.5} \label{eq:Bs-Bt} \\
\Btimename + 4\p{\n-3} \le \Ctimename \le \p{\n-2}\Btimename \, \label{eq:Bt-Ct}
\end{gather}
whether taken with respect to a given \ctree or its graph.
\end{theorem}%
\begin{proof}
The left inequality of \cref{eq:Bs-Bt}, $\Bs0 \le \Bt0$, is trivial.
For the right, use the following lemma:
\renewcommand{6}[1]{%
\ifnumcomp{#1}{=}{1}{a}{%
\ifnumcomp{#1}{=}{2}{a'}{%
\ifnumcomp{#1}{=}{3}{a''}{%
\ifnumcomp{#1}{=}{4}{a'''}{%
\csname Bad arg to macro. \endcsname
}
}
}
}
}%
\begin{nestedproof}
\begin{lemma} For any internal node $n$ in a free \ctree with adjacent arcs $\a1,\a2,\a3$,
\begin{align}
\w{n} = \sqrt{\w{\a1}\, \w{\a2}\, \w{\a3}}\,.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the \maybehref{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion\%E2\%80\%93exclusion_principle}{inclusion-exclusion principle} of measure theory,
\[
\w{n} = \w{\a1}\, \w{\a2}\, \w{\a3}
\ \div\
\p{%
\prod_{e \in \lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2}} \w{e}
\prod_{e \in \lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a3}} \w{e}
\prod_{e \in \lab{\a2} \cap \lab{\a3}} \w{e}
}%
\ \times\
\prod_{e \in \lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2} \cap \lab{\a3}} \w{e}\,.
\]
Because our networks are not hypergraphs, the three-way intersection $\lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2} \cap \lab{\a3}$ is always empty. Using set algebra, we can rewrite the large product that is the middle expression as
\[
\prod\, \sbuild[big]{\w{e}}{ e\in \p{\lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2}}
\dunion \p{\lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a3}}
\dunion \p{\lab{\a2} \cap \lab{\a3}} }
\]
\[
\prod\, \sbuild[Big]{\w{e}}{ e\in
\sqb[big]{ \lab{\a1} \cap \p{\lab{\a2} \cup \lab{\a3}} }
\cup
\sqb[big]{ \lab{\a2} \cap \p{\lab{\a1} \cup \lab{\a3}} }
\cup
\sqb[big]{ \lab{\a3} \cap \p{\lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2}} }
}%
\,.
\]
Recalling that ${\lab{\a2} \cup \lab{\a3}} = {\lab{\a1} \cup \lab{\a3}} = {\lab{\a1} \cap \lab{\a2}} = \lab{n}$, from \cref{eq:union-property}, this reduces to
\begin{gather*}
\prod\, \sbuild[big]{ \w{e} }{ e\in
\p{ \lab{\a1} \cap \lab{n} }
\cup
\p{ \lab{\a2} \cap \lab{n} }
\cup
\p{ \lab{\a3} \cap \lab{n} }
}%
\\
\prod\, \sbuild[big]{\w{e}}{ e \in \p{\lab{\a1} \cup \lab{\a2} \cup \lab{\a3}} \cap \lab{n} } \\
\prod_{e\in \lab{n}} \w{e}
\end{gather*}
which is simply $\w{n}$. Thus
$
\w{n} = {\w{\a1}\, \w{\a2}\, \w{\a3}} \div {\w{n}}
$
as was intended.
\end{proof}
\end{nestedproof}%
Now assume $\w{n}=\Bt1{\cT}$. Knowing that $\a1,\a2,$ and $\a3$ cannot exceed $\Bs1{\cT}$, then in the worst case we have $\Bt1{\cT} = \sqrt{\p{\Bs1{\cT}}^3}$, which finishes \cref{eq:Bs-Bt}.
The same is true for $\Bs1{G}$ and $\Bt1{G}$ because $\Bs1{\cT}$ cannot be worse than $\p{\Bs1{\cT'}}^{1.5}$ for the $\cT'$ with the best possible carving-width.
The inequalities of \cref{eq:Bt-Ct} are merely the minimum and maximum possible when summing over all $\n-2$ contractions. In the case of the lower bound, the minimal $\ctimename$-value for an individual contraction is $4$. This is because, in order for $\G$ to be connected, at most one out of the three 2-cuts which form $\cutsetI{n}$ may be empty, with cut-weights $\ge 2$ for the other two.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is not guaranteed that a $\Bspacename$-optimal \ctree should be $\Btimename$-optimal, or conversely. \Cref{fig:Bs-Bt-mismatch} shows a simple $K_4$ graph for which the \ctree indicated by $\cb{AB,CD}$ is $\Bspacename$-optimal, but that of $\cb{AC,BD}$ is $\Btimename$-optimal.
\smallfig{%
\centering
\resizebox*{!}{1in}{%
\subfile{pic_Bs_Bt_counterexample.tex}%
}
\caption{$\Bspacename$ and $\Btimename$ uncorrelated. Edge labels are bond dimensions.}
\label{fig:Bs-Bt-mismatch}
}%
\end{remark}
\section{Efficient computation of contraction orders for planar tensor networks}
\label{sec:Application}
\subsection{`Ratcon'}
The \ratcatcher algorithm, which gets its name from a game theory analogy the authors of~\cite{Ratcatcher} use in their verification proof, addresses what is referred to as the call-routing problem: given a collection of calls made between a set of locations, design a network to route these calls such that the maximum network congestion is minimized. Provided the graph representing calls between locations is planar, Seymour and Thomas demonstrated that the decision problem of whether the maximum congestion, the carving-width, is less than some integer $k$ can be solved in polynomial time. %
The \ratcatcher is used as a subroutine in incrementally constructing a carving-decomposition for an input graph. Knowing that carving-width and $\Bspacename$ are analogues under the isomorphism outlined in \cref{thm:carv contr}, it is possible to find the minimal $\Bspacename$ and a corresponding free \ctree for a planar tensor network in polynomial time. In this section we review our implementation of the \ratcatcher algorithm and its use in constructing a rooted \ctree with the corresponding carving-width, from which a space-optimal contraction order is derived. We will refer to the entire process as \emph{\ratcon}.
\subsection{Generation of sample planar tensor networks for experimentation}
\label{sec:experimental-design}
We describe now how we chose the tensor networks used to evaluate the performance of the \ratcon algorithm. We wanted our tensor networks to resemble those that occur naturally when describing and simulating interesting quantum many-body systems.
\emphdef{Matrix product states} (MPS; e.g.~\cite{MPS}) play a popular role in simulating one-dimensional quantum systems. Because the network graph of such a system is a path, a MPS tensor can be contracted very efficiently by treating all contractions as matrix multiplications. \emphdef{Projected entangled pair states} (PEPS; e.g.~\cite{PEPS}) are a two-dimensional generalization of MPS %
whose subsystems correspond to the vertices of triangular, square, or hexagonal grids. Unfortunately, PEPS tensor networks cannot be contracted efficiently, and it is typically necessary to perform approximate instead of exact contractions when faced with simulating a system of more than several dozens of tensors. %
Singular value decomposition is the tool employed in these `truncation' methods to reduce the bond dimensions of tensors that grow too large~\cite{Survey-of-contraction-methods}.
The goal of the present paper is understanding the computational cost when the contraction phase, at least, is as exact as possible. We would like to have an efficient algorithm for computing a close-to-optimal contraction ordering for PEPS networks, in order to bring the cost of exactitude down to the realm of the possibility for instances containing hundreds of tensors. %
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2in]{half_sandwich.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Ket tensor network for a PEPS state.}
\label{fig:half_sandwich}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2in]{sandwich.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Bra-ket tensor network for a PEPS state.}
\label{fig:sandwich}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:half_sandwich} shows a PEPS two-dimensional quantum state consisting of qubits arranged on a $5 \times 5$ grid. The perpendicular edges are free indices of weight $2$ (because the state space of a qubit is a two-dimensional Hilbert space). The weights of the horizontal edges correspond to so-called bond dimensions and are in general nonuniform.
\Cref{fig:sandwich} shows a tensor network of a shape that often needs contracting to compute some interesting physical quantity, such as the expected value of an observable.
It is clear that this ``bra-ket'' graph is not planar and, thus, that it is not possible to directly apply the \ratcon algorithm. Na\"{i}ve ways of planarizing these graphs, such as ``squashing'' the upper and lower grids by prioritizing contraction of the vertical edges, tend to produce highly objectionable scores, because the dimensions of the virtual bonds get squared.
To test the performance of the \ratcon algorithm, then, we have settled for considering half-graphs, that is, square grids that look like the graph in \cref{fig:half_sandwich}, but without the free edges. Tests on the full PEPS forms are deferred until such time as an approximation extension into three dimensions can be found.
\subsubsection{Lognormal prior}
To find a domain which produces challenging, but not impossible, samples, we begin with square grid graphs---because of the relation to PEPS, and because of their high genera, with which they are naturally complex---and apply independent bond dimensions as edge weights, subject to acceptance-rejection testing. We wish to make as few assumptions about prior probabilities as possible. %
To restrict the space to ``realistic'' sizes, we reject any sample graph which would require more than 5\,TiB of working memory, assuming 16-byte complex-valued tensor elements: chosen to reflect the amount required by \textcite{Breaking49} in their exact simulation.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{The precise value they report is $2^{42}$ bytes.} %
Thus $\Bspace{\G} \le 2^{36}$.
Furthermore, to rule out insufficiently entangled systems, we keep only graphs which would remain biconnected after removal of unit edges.
A plain uniform distribution being useless under these restrictions, we use instead a normal prior---or rather lognormal, because every sample thereof can be rounded to a positive integer, and which should better reflect the exponential growth that occurs over the course of, for example, imaginary time evolution~\cite{ITE}.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{Our colleagues provide in \cite{Simulation-on-AWS} a more detailed explanation of ITE applied to PEPS, and how it motivated the search for better contraction heuristics.} %
The mean $\mu$ for the lognormal distribution, or rather $\exp(\mu)$, varies with $L$, set to the largest value for which a uniform grid would be contractible within the aforestated memory bounds. The standard deviation $\sigma$ is allowed to vary from edge to edge, as a uniform, continuous, i.i.d. random variable. %
Maxima for $\sigma$ are determined, for each $(L,\,\mu)$ pair in turn, by estimating, through a simple examination of a graphical plot of many candidates' $\Bspacename$ scores, where the probability of finding a graph meeting the feasibility criteria would drop, effectively, to zero. Only an upper bound is needed.
The object for this sample population, as filtered through the rejection criteria, is to represent graphs at the extreme of what can be done practically and without loss, where the contraction order will make the greatest difference.
\subsection{Pre-processing of tensor networks%
}\label{sec:Ratcon}
Once a tensor network for a given $L$ has had its bond dimensions generated, the logarithmic mapping described in \cref{thm:carv contr} is applied to the network. Unlike the original integral formulation of carving-width for the \ratcatcher, we now have real-valued, or rather floating-point, weights. This reduces the accuracy of the carving-width representation according to the arithmetic constraints of the architecture used.
Following the logarithmic mapping, the carving-width of the input graph is calculated using a modified binary search: the lower bound of this search begins at the largest fundamental bond dimension, and the upper bound is determined by incrementally and exponentially scaling a value $k$ until the \ratcatcher reports that it has exceeded the carving-width. %
A conventional binary search is then conducted on the interval $[\nicefrac{k}{2}, k)$ until the carving-width is found. The time complexity of the \ratcatcher component, which solves the decision problem at each iteration, is $\O{\n^2}$.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{As $\G$ is planar, $\E\G \in \Th{\V\G}$.} The \ratcatcher is called $\Th{\log_2 \BsI{\G}}$ times in this binary search and so runs in $\O{\n^2\cdot \log\BsI{\G}}$ time. The algorithm is pseudopolynomial due to the dependency of carving-width on the total weight of the graph, and not the number of edges. %
Importantly, this proportionality to $\carw\G = \log_2 \BsI{\G}$ should only pose a problem when $\Ctimename$ is so large as to prohibit contraction---in which case the whole exercise would be pointless in practice.
With the carving-width now available, a carving-decomposition%
\nolinebreak\footnote{Actually a `carving', a set-theory isomorph of the carving-decomposition.} %
can be constructed using what is called by %
\textcite{HicksRat,HicksCycle} the \emphdef{edge-contraction} algorithm, which incrementally locates %
%
eligible edges of the partially-contracted graph: %
an edge is \emphdef{eligible} if its weight is no more than %
the carving-width of the current minor; if its contraction results in a minor that is also biconnected; and if this new minor has carving-width no more than that of the original $\G$. %
%
To improve contraction total time, the edge-contraction procedure must be done more than once, because a typical graph supports many $\Bspacename$-optimal \ctrees with widely varying $\Ctimename$ values. A simple compensation is to perform many random edge contractions and keep the best one.
This makes the time complexity for this phase of processing $\O{N\cdot \n^4\cdot \log\BsI{\G}}$, where $N$ is chosen for the edge-contraction sample size.
\subsection{Post-processing of carving-decompositions}
\label{sec:postprocessing}
The carving-decomposition returned by the edge-contraction phase is next used to generate a space-efficient contraction order. This step can be broken into two: rooting the carving-decomposition (free \ctree) to yield a rooted \ctree, which provides a contraction template with a locally-optimal time bottleneck, and then deriving a contraction order from that template. When rooting a free \ctree, the goal is to minimize the resulting $\Ctimename$. Finding a location to root the tree is slightly dependent on whether the tensor network will be contracted sequentially or in parallel, i.e., whether multiple contractions can be done simultaneously.
Here we treat only the most straightforward case of a \emph{sequential time-optimal strategy}, which means inserting a root node $r$ %
into $\cTf$ so that $\CtimeI{\cTr}$ is minimized. Since $\Ctime{\cTr} - \Ctime{\cTf} = \wI{r}$, we have only to minimize the complexity $\wI{r}$ itself, which we can do very quickly by splitting the edge %
$$ \argmin_{e\in\E\cTf}\w{e} $$
and naming that new node as the root.
\newcommand{\texttt{node}\xspace}{\texttt{node}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Tleft}[1]{\ensuremath{\leftchild{\text{#1}}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Tright}[1]{\ensuremath{\rightchild{\text{#1}}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\texttt{lseq}\xspace}{\texttt{lseq}\xspace}
\newcommand{\texttt{rseq}\xspace}{\texttt{rseq}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\cspacename_{\ell}}}{\ensuremath{\cspacename_{\ell}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\cspacename_{r}}}{\ensuremath{\cspacename_{r}}}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\Cspacename_{\ell}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Cspacename_{\ell}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\Cspacename_{r}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\Cspacename_{r}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\texttt{lfirst}\xspace}{\texttt{lfirst}\xspace}
\newcommand{\texttt{rfirst}\xspace}{\texttt{rfirst}\xspace}
\newcommand{\texttt{contraction}}{\texttt{contraction}}
\newcommand{\texttt{seq}\xspace}{\texttt{seq}\xspace}
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{Memory-optimization heuristic}\label{alg:mem-seq}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Procedure{Sequence}{\texttt{node}\xspace}
\If{\texttt{node}\xspace is a leaf}
\State \Return \big($\emptylist$, $\Cspace{\texttt{node}\xspace}$, $\Cspace{\texttt{node}\xspace}$\big)
\Else
\State \big(\texttt{lseq}\xspace, \ensuremath{\Cspacename_{\ell}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\cspacename_{\ell}}\big) $\gets$ \Call{Sequence}{\Tleft{\texttt{node}\xspace}}
\State \big(\texttt{rseq}\xspace, \ensuremath{\Cspacename_{r}}\xspace, \ensuremath{\cspacename_{r}}\big) $\gets$ \Call{Sequence}{\Tright{\texttt{node}\xspace}}
\State \texttt{lfirst}\xspace $\gets$ \ensuremath{\cspacename_{\ell}} + \ensuremath{\Cspacename_{r}}\xspace \Comment{Cost of contracting the left subtree first}
\State \texttt{rfirst}\xspace $\gets$ \ensuremath{\cspacename_{r}} + \ensuremath{\Cspacename_{\ell}}\xspace \Comment{Cost of contracting the right subtree first}
\State \texttt{contraction} $\gets$ $\{\Tleft{\texttt{node}\xspace}$, $\Tright{\texttt{node}\xspace}\}$ \Comment{Identify the subtree contracted next}
\If{\texttt{lfirst}\xspace $\le$ \texttt{rfirst}\xspace}
\State \texttt{seq}\xspace $\gets$ \texttt{lseq}\xspace \concat \texttt{rseq}\xspace \concat [\texttt{contraction}] \Comment{Contract left subtree first}
\State \Return \Big(\texttt{seq}\xspace, $\max \big\{\cspaceI{\texttt{node}\xspace}$, \texttt{lfirst}\xspace\big\}, $\cspaceI{\texttt{node}\xspace}$\Big)
\Else
\State \texttt{seq}\xspace $\gets$ \texttt{rseq}\xspace \concat \texttt{lseq}\xspace \concat [\texttt{contraction}] \Comment{Contract right subtree first}
\State \Return \Big(\texttt{seq}\xspace, $\max \big\{ \cspaceI{\texttt{node}\xspace}$, \texttt{rfirst}\xspace\big\}, $\cspaceI{\texttt{node}\xspace}$\Big)
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Secondarily, we conserve memory in the process of generating a contraction sequence. We can now offer a measure of space complexity $\CspacenameG$, pursuant to the assumption that the resources for storing a tensor may be reclaimed as soon as that tensor has been contracted with another, but not before the contraction has finished, and that the multiplicands and their product must be stored separately. This is not strictly optimal, because it always fully contracts one of the subtrees before attending to the other, but is adequate for a proof of concept.%
\nolinebreak\footnote{An always-optimal algorithm is described by \textcite{Memory-optimal-evaluation}.}
Let $\Tr$ be a rooted \ctree. For convenience, define $\cspaceI{n}$ for every node. If $n$ is an endpoint of arc $a = \cb{n,n'}$, where $n$ is farther from the root---deeper---than $n'$, then let
$$ \cspaceI{n} \defeq \wI{a} $$
with $\cspaceI{r} = 1$. If $n$ is an internal node, we designate its child nodes as $\leftchild{n}$ and $\rightchild{n}$. Then
$$\CspaceI{\Tr} \defeq \CspaceI{r}$$
using the recursive definition
\begin{customeq}
\CspaceI{n} &\defeq
\begin{dcases*}
\wI{n} & \ensuremath{\where n \in \V{\G}} \\
\max\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\cspaceI{n}, \\
\min\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\CspaceI{\leftchild{n}} + \cspaceI{\rightchild{n}}, \\
\cspaceI{\leftchild{n}} + \CspaceI{\rightchild{n}}
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{array}
\right\} & otherwise.%
\end{dcases*}
\label{eq:Cs}
\end{customeq}
Other post-processing optimization formul\ae{} are possible if, for example, one wishes to trade space for time and attempt true simultaneous contractions. We have not taken that route, in part for simplicity, and in part because the concurrent element can be delegated to software libraries such as the Cyclops Tensor Framework~\cite{CTF}.
The memory-conservation function $\Cspace{\cdot}$ is realized in \cref{alg:mem-seq}, which constructs a concomitant concrete contraction sequence and returns it as a list of edges. If $\wpar{\cdot}$ and $\cspaceI{\cdot}$ are appropriately precomputed, the time complexity of \cref{alg:mem-seq} remains $\Th{\n}$, which leaves \ratcon at $\O{\n^4 \cdot \log\BsI{\G}}$. From the output sequence we may calculate $\Ctimename$ in linear time.
\subsection{Hardware}
All tests have been conducted on AWS EC2 \texttt{c5.large} instances running Ubuntu 16.04~\cite{aws}. \Ratcon-related processes are implemented in Python\ 3.6 and byte-compiled using PyPy\,3.6\ v7.1.0, approximately doubling their performance as compared to basic CPython. %
For \Netcon, we use the authors' original C++ backend~\cite{Netcon}, compiled through GCC\ 5.4.0 with \emph{-O3} optimization. There is also a MATLAB frontend which we have adapted to GNU Octave, but the C++ component accounts for more than 98\% of the execution time. Our implementation of the \ratcatcher incorporates some, but not all, of the optimizations described in the $A_1$ implementation by \textcite{BianRes}.
\newcommand{\colheadf}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\newcommand{$\cw{}$\xspace}{$\cw{}$\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{$\cw{}$ time}\xspace}{\colheadf{$\cw{}$ time}\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{Average EC time}\xspace}{\colheadf{Average EC time}\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{Ratcon time}\xspace}{\colheadf{Ratcon time}\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{Ratcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace}{\colheadf{Ratcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{Netcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace}{\colheadf{Netcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace}
\newcommand{\colheadf{Netcon{} time}\xspace}{\colheadf{Netcon{} time}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\frac{\ratcontimecol}{\netcontimecol}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\frac{\colheadf{Ratcon time}\xspace}{\colheadf{Netcon{} time}\xspace}}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace}
\newcommand{\errorfactor\xspace}{\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace\xspace}
\newcommand{\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace}
\newcommand{\Ctratio}{
\ensuremath{\frac{\colheadf{Ratcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace{}}{\colheadf{Netcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace{}}%
}\xspace}%
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\subcaptionbox{%
Mean%
\label{tab:mean-log}
}{%
\input{tab_results_mean.tex}
}%
\par\bigskip
\subcaptionbox{%
Median%
\label{tab:median-log}
}{%
\input{tab_results_median.tex}
}%
\par\bigskip
\subcaptionbox{%
Standard deviation%
\label{tab:stddev-log}
}{%
\input{tab_results_stdev.tex}
}%
\caption{Results. All times presented are in seconds. %
$\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace = \ensuremath{\frac{\ratcontimecol}{\netcontimecol}}\xspace$, $\errorfactor\xspace = \Ctratio$.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\subsection{Experimental results} \label{sec:Results}
\Cref{tab:results} summarizes the statistics after running both \Netcon and \Ratcon on $30$ sample graphs per $L$ value, with edge-contraction sample size $N=100$, for $L\in [5..10]$.
We use this range simply because for $L<5$ the single-term optimization problem is too easy, and for $L>10$ \Netcon is too slow.
The `\colheadf{$\cw{}$ time}\xspace' column records the time spent by the \Ratcatcher solving the initial pseudopolynomial function problem, %
i.e., finding $\carw{G}=\log_2\BsI{G}$.
`\colheadf{Ratcon time}\xspace' is this value plus the cumulative EC (edge contraction) time; `\colheadf{Average EC time}\xspace' is the mean iteration time thereof. `\colheadf{Ratcon{} $\Ctimename$}\xspace' reflects the best \ctrees found for each graph.
For each graph \Netcon was used to find the optimum $\Ctimename$, unless its running time, given in the `\colheadf{Netcon{} time}\xspace' column, exceeded a predefined limit of 7200 seconds, or two hours, in which case it got prematurely terminated. This occurred for one $L=9$ sample and fully sixteen out of thirty $L=10$ graphs as \Netcon reached its operational limits. Cells in the tables marked with an asterisk had these incomplete samples excluded from their calculation.
\ensuremath{\tau}\xspace is the ratio of the running times on a graph-by-graph basis. \Ratcon underperforms for small $L$, where the time lost in repeated ECs dominates, then becomes exponentially faster at $L=9$ or $10$.
The last column, %
\errorfactor\xspace, is the error factor in the total time estimation.
For example, the mean $3.92$ for $L=6$ indicates that if a full tensor-network contraction were performed on one of these 36-vertex graphs, it could be expected to take four times as long using a \Ratcon-derived contraction order as the best possible. The $L=9$ mean is skewed, by an order of magnitude, due to a single outlier boasting %
an error factor of $249$. We never obtained an $\ensuremath{\rho}\xspace{}$ less than $30$ for this particular graph, even after trying thousands of edge-contractions; we have to infer that this is one of the graphs for which the $\Bspacename$ approximation seldom or never results in a fast contraction order.%
\section{Conclusions and directions for future work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
One way of applying these results is as follows. A tensor contraction requires taking an equal number of sums as products, nearly; for complex numbers, addition and multiplication use 2 and 6 floating-point operations, respectively; therefore $8\cdot \Ct{\G}$ gives a good lower bound on the number of arithmetic instructions to run a full contraction sequence. %
Referring to the statistics for the (completed) $L=10$ experiments, we can say that if a contraction sequence takes $0.09$ times as long to find with \Ratcon but $3.36$ times as long to execute, then the tipping-even point is found by
\renewcommand{\r}{\text{FLOPS}}
\begin{align*}
\p{3.36 - 1}\cdot \frac{8\times 1.06\cdot 10^{14}}{\r} &\le \p{1-0.09}\times %
4.25\cdot 10^{3} \\
%
\r &\ge 5.17\cdot 10^{11}\,,
\end{align*}
suggesting that \Ratcon would be the more efficient on a computer capable of 500\,GFLOPS or better. %
In practice, we would recommend that the researcher always hedge her bets by running a \Netcon search in parallel with contraction of a \Ratcon-derived sequence. If \Netcon comes up with a stronger sequence, she can restart the contraction and be none the worse.
Note that the times given are not intended as true benchmarks. Their purpose is mainly to demonstrate how the relative error remains small and at the same order of magnitude as grid size increases. Our \ratcatcher implementation is not especially heavily optimized and would be faster if it were rewritten in a statically-typed language such as C++, and included the rest of the enhancements proposed in~\cite{BianRes,HicksRat,HicksCycle}. The heuristic from \cref{alg:mem-seq} could be replaced by the algorithm from \cite{Memory-optimal-evaluation}.
The greatest shortcoming of the \ratcatcher, obviously, is its planarity limitation. Extending $\Bspacename$-optimization to general tensor networks would mean introducing another degree of approximation. \textcite{Khuller&c}, for example, provide for an error factor of $\O{\log \n}$ on the carving-width; however, in moving to the multiplicative ring, this would translate to a space bottleneck of $\p{\Bspacename}^{\O{\log\n}}$.
The exponential bloat would apply equally if we preferred to switch to treewidth. $\Btimename$ is intuitively closer than $\Bspacename$ to $\Ctimename$, and \textcite{ConSequence} report some (exact!) treewidth algorithms outperforming \Netcon in speed. As previously mentioned, these apply only to \emph{unweighted} graphs; we would need to adapt them to weighted treewidth~\cite{WeightedTreewidth}, then use some form of the edge-contraction process to form a \ctree.
Finally, inasmuch as the primary goal of this paper is to highlight the \ctree datatype itself, there is no reason not to apply ML or other metaheuristic techniques %
directly to the construction of these trees. We have made a step in this direction with a simple genetic algorithm for evolving contraction sequences, included with the rest of the \Ratcon source code, which may be found at \url{https://github.com/TensorCon}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Illya Hicks for letting us use his \ratcatcher source code as a reference point for our own implementation; Robert Pfeifer and the American Physical Society for giving permission to redistribute \Netcon; and Eduardo Mucciolo for sharing the graphics of \cref{fig:half_sandwich,fig:sandwich}, as well as the term `bottleneck.'
\emph{This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant CCF-1525943.}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Abstract}
Healthy human prostate epithelial cells have the unique ability to produce and secrete large amounts of citrate into the lumen of the prostate. Citrate is a Krebs cycle metabolite produced in the condensation reaction between acetyl-CoA and oxaloacetate in the mitochondria of the cell. With the application of \textsuperscript{13}C enriched substrates, such as \textsuperscript{13}C glucose or pyruvate, to prostate cells or tissues, it is possible to identify the contributions of different metabolic pathways to this production and secretion of citrate. In this work we present a quantitative model describing the mitochondrial production and the secretion of citrate by prostatic epithelial cells employing the \textsuperscript{13}C labeling pattern of secreted citrate as readout. We derived equations for the secretion fraction of citrate and the contribution of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex versus the anaplerotic pyruvate carboxylase pathways in supplying the Krebs cycle with carbons from pyruvate for the production of citrate. These measures are independent of initial \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of the administered supplements and of \textsuperscript{13}C J-coupling patterns, making this method robust also if SNR is low. We propose the use of readout variables of this model to distinguish between citrate metabolism in healthy and diseased prostate tissue, in particular upon malignant transformation.
\section{Introduction}
Healthy prostate epithelial cells have the unique capability of secreting citrate in the ducts or lumen of the prostate.\supercite{Costello1997}, where it can reach levels up to about 180 mM. Citrate accumulation in the prostate is promoted by inhibition of the citrate converting enzyme \textit{m}-aconitase through zinc binding, which is taken up at relatively high levels in epithelial prostate cells.\supercite{Costello1997,Costello1999,Bertilsson2012} The characteristic citrate accumulation is lost upon malignancy,\supercite{Singh2006} and a decreased citrate signal in MR spectroscopic images of the prostate is used as a biomarker for the presence of cancer.\supercite{Heerschap,Kurhanewicz1995,Kurhanewicz2016} Prostate cancer accounts for one in five cancers and is responsible for one in ten cancer related deaths in men worldwide.\supercite{Bray2013,Ferlay2013} Understanding metabolic reprogramming in malignant transformation may help to better diagnose and treat prostate cancer.\supercite{Kelly2016,Tayari2017,Testa2016,Twum-ampofo2016}
Citrate is the product of a condensation reaction of oxaloacetate and acetyl-CoA catalyzed by citrate synthase as the first step of the Krebs cycle. A major compound from which acetyl-CoA is derived is glucose, which is metabolized into pyruvate by glycolysis and subsequently enters the the mitochondria where it is converted into acetyl-CoA to enter the Krebs cycle. In this step two carbons enter the cycle, which is equal to the carbon efflux as carbon dioxide, during one Krebs cycle turn. Because of citrate efflux into the luminal space, removing six carbons from the cycle, anaplerotic contributions are required to maintain the carbon pool of the Krebs cycle. One of these anaplerotic contributions can come from pyruvate being converted into oxaloacetate by pyruvate carboxylase (PC). The influx of this four-carbon metabolite can partly balance the efflux of six carbon citrate every Krebs cycle turn.
\bigskip\\
The carbon flow for citrate production and secretion can be assessed by supplying prostate tissue or cells \textit{in vivo} or \textit{in vitro} with \textsuperscript{13}C substrates and monitoring the fate of the \textsuperscript{13}C-labels by \textsuperscript{13}C MR spectroscopy or high resolution \textsuperscript{13}C NMR spectroscopy and subsequently looking at the specific \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of metabolic products. In this way metabolic routes involved in citrate generation can be delineated and quantified.
\bigskip\\
Multiple metabolic flux modeling studies have modeled Krebs cycle activity in different tissues and cell types under different conditions. This has been done using (extensive) metabolic networks involving fluxes between the metabolites in the network, like positional isotopomers\supercite{Schmidt1997}, bonded cumomer analysis\supercite{Wiechert1999} or elementary metabolite unit based methods\supercite{Antoniewicz2007}. For example, in human melanoma cell line DB1, rat C6 glioma cells, H460 NSCLC cells, hepatocytes and brown adipocytes and in isolated cardiac mitochondria relative fluxes of total TCA cycle activity $V_{TCA}$ and exchange flux $V_x$ of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate with glutamate $V_x$ have been determined \textit{in vitro}.\supercite{Shestov2016,Shestov2016a,PORTAIS1993,Wu2007,Jiang2017,Young2008,Egnatchik2018} But also \textit{in vivo} in mouse and rat brain and heart \supercite{Xin2015,Carvalho2004,Malloy1996,Burgess2001,Yang2006} and human brain.\supercite{Chen2001,Mason1995,Cheshkov2017} The fast exchange between glutamate and $\alpha$-ketoglutarate is one common element in these studies. Overall, the different contributions of pyruvate carboxylase activity, malic enzyme activity, glutaminolysis and other cataplerotic and anaplerotic processes\supercite{Owen2002} for different tissues and cells make it hard to generalize Krebs cycle metabolism in such a way that it can be used to predict prostate metabolism. Moreover, the unique features of citrate metabolism in the prostate make it hard to translate values found in these other studies to prostate metabolism. Most NMR investigations with \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of prostate tissue have been performed with hyperpolarization of the substrates\supercite{Chen2017,BancroftBrown2019}, but none have been focusing on citrate metabolism.
\bigskip\\
The unique characteristic secretion of citrate by prostatic cells provides a six-carbon readout of this Krebs cycle activity, which has not been explored before as far as we know. A first practical approach to explore this property would be in studies of prostate cells, but most prostatic epithelial cell lines lack the capacity of citrate secretion. However, the prostate cancer metastasis cell line LNCaP has been shown to still have the capacity to secrete citrate and therefore may serve as a convenient model system to evaluate if \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of secreted citrate can be explored as a readout for carbon flow inside the cell.\supercite{Cornel1995,Franklin1995,Korenchuk} Using only simple ratios of the presence of \textsuperscript{13}C in citrate, which can be extracted from MR spectroscopic data or high resolution \textsuperscript{13}C NMR spectra, we developed a simple quantitative model for cellular citrate production in this work. On one hand we determine an index for citrate production and secretion versus Krebs cycle consumption and on the other hand an estimate of the balance between pyvuvate carboxylase (PC) and pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) activity in citrate production.
\section{Scope of data suitable for the model}
To follow citrate metabolism in healthy or malignant prostate epithelial tissue \textit{in vivo}, or \textit{in vitro} in primary cell cultures or cell lines, various \textsuperscript{13}C labeled substrates can be used. Although in principle we could model the metabolic pathways for any of these, for the purpose described above, we specifically focused on the application of {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate (both substrates result in the same citrate labeling pattern, as shown below) and on {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate (also both resulting in the same citrate labeling pattern). In practice, these substrates can be administered long enough to the cells (e.g. 48h) to reach a steady state of \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of citrate secreted in the extracellular fluid or incubation medium. Extracellular material can then be collected and analyzed by high resolution \textsuperscript{13}C (and \textsuperscript{1}H) NMR spectroscopy. Citrate resonances can be identified and quantified (e.g. using \textit{j}MRUI AMARES\supercite{Vanhamme1997,Naressi2001,Stefan2009}) for further use, e.g as input in the model. Using {[3,4-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[1-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate would not result in labeling of citrate via the PDC pathway, but only via the PC pathway.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figures/simple_first_figure_v1.png}
\caption{Schematic overview of the basic elements of the quantitative model for citrate secretion. Pyruvate can contribute carbons to the Krebs cycle either as Acetyl-CoA, through pyruvate dehydrogenase complex route (PDC), or in oxaloacetate, via the pyruvate carboxylase route (PC). Oxaloacetate and acetyl-CoA undergo a condensation reaction providing citrate, which is partially secreted. Note that this figure shows only the basics of our model and that other contributions to these pathways (anaplerotic and cataplerotic) are considered (see text).}
\label{fig:14}
\end{figure}
\section{Quantitative model}
The distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons in citrate, as determined from NMR spectra, reflects on the ratio of pyruvate going into the Krebs cycle via pyruvate carboxylase (as oxaloacetate) and pyruvate dehydrogenase (as acetyl-CoA) on one hand and on the fraction of molecules leaving the Krebs cycle, in every turn of this cycle, to be secreted into the lumen or incubation medium on the other hand (Figure \ref{fig:14}). Here we derive a quantitative model describing prostatic citrate production depending on a (constant) secretion fraction $c$ and on the fractions of carbons (either \textsuperscript{13}C labeled or unlabeled) entering via acetyl-CoA ($f^{PDC}$) or oxaloacetate ($f^{PC}$), with $f^{PC}+f^{PDC} =1$. The \textsuperscript{13}C labeling at the six different positions in citrate secreted and carbon dioxide produced at cycle turn $n$ is described by $\overrightarrow{C}(n)$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\overrightarrow{C}(n) = \begin{pmatrix}C_1(n)\\[5pt]C_2(n)\\[5pt]C_3(n)\\[5pt]C_4(n)\\[5pt]C_5(n)\\[5pt]C_6(n)\\[5pt]CO_2(n)\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c(1-c)^n\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Since every Krebs cycle turn a fraction $c$ of citrate leaves the cycle and fraction $(1-c)$ remains in the cycle a factor $c(1-c)^n$ is included. For example, if at $n=3$ citrate molecules are secreted with 20\% label on $C_2$, 10\% on $C_4$ and 5\% on $C_5$ and $C_6$, and 3\% label is lost in carbon dioxide, this would be described by: \begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\overrightarrow{C}(n) = \begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]0.2\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]0.1\\[5pt]0.05\\[5pt]0.05\\[5pt]0.03\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c(1-c)^3\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Equations describing the labeling of each of the six carbons in secreted citrate are derived further on in this paper.
\subsection{Fate of \textsuperscript{13}C labels in the Krebs cycle}\label{sec:3}
When a \textsuperscript{13}C label enters the Krebs cycle it can end up at different positions in citrate (see Figure \ref{fig:13}). If a label continues along the Krebs cycle it can eventually end up in citrate again, but now at a different position, or even distributed equally over two citrate carbon positions. This is because succinate and fumarate are symmetrical intermediates in the Krebs cycle resulting in the indistinguishable labeling of C1 and C4 or of C2 and C3 in succinate and fumarate. Eventually this leads to an equal distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C labels at two carbon positions in citrate. The position of \textsuperscript{13}C labels at citrate carbons C1-C6 and oxaloacetate (OAA) at cycle turn $n+1$ versus $n$ are shown in Table \ref{tab:1}.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\begin{center}
$\begin{array}{ccccc}
Citr(n)&\Rightarrow&OAA(n)&\Rightarrow&Citr(n+1) \\[5pt]\hline\\ [-1.5ex]
C1&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C1+\frac{1}{2}C4&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C5+\frac{1}{2}C6\\[5pt]
C2&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C2+\frac{1}{2}C3&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C3+\frac{1}{2}C4\\[5pt]
C3&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C2+\frac{1}{2}C3&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C3+\frac{1}{2}C4\\[5pt]
C4&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C1+\frac{1}{2}C4&\Rightarrow&\frac{1}{2}C5+\frac{1}{2}C6\\[5pt]
C5&\Rightarrow&CO\textsubscript{2}\\[5pt]
C6&\Rightarrow&CO\textsubscript{2}\\
\end{array}$
\caption{Shifting of carbons of citrate during the Krebs cycle. Shown are citrate (Citr) at Krebs cycle turn $n$, oxaloacetate (OAA) at cycle turn $n$ and citrate at cycle turn $n+1$. Cycle turn $n$ starts at the secretion of citrate and ends upon formation of new citrate in the subsequent cycle turn.}\label{tab:1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Carbon_labeling.png}
\caption{Schematic representation of the fate of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons entering the Krebs cycle during subsequent cycle turns. A.) The distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C labels originating from {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate. (B) Idem for {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate. Pyruvate carbons converted to oxaloacetate by pyruvate carboxylase (PC) are indicated by blue circles and those converted into acetyl-CoA by pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) by red circles. Rapid exchange between oxaloacetate and fumarate equally distributes the labeling of oxaloacetate via PC over the two middle carbons. In this figure the carbon numbers in each compound are indicated and for simplicity mitochondrial and cellular export of citrate is omitted. In this figure no new \textsuperscript{13}C label is flowing into the Krebs cycle during the subsequent cycle turns, this however is taken into account in the sections below.}
\label{fig:13}
\end{figure}
\subsection{First labeling of citrate ($n=0$)} \label{sec:2}
The (\textsuperscript{13}C) carbons of pyruvate can enter the Krebs cycle via the pyruvate carboxylase (PC) and the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) route. We define Krebs cycle turn $n$ as the number of full Krebs cycle turns completed before secretion of citrate from the Krebs cycle. This means that if citrate is secreted right after it is labeled, this is Krebs cycle turn $n=0$. This is the only cycle turn where \textsuperscript{13}C carbons enter the Krebs cycle via PC because the oxaloacetate during the next Krebs cycle turns ($n>0$) originates from the citrate in the previous Krebs cycle turn that is not secreted. On the other hand, this oxaloacetate undergoes a condensation reaction with a \textsuperscript{13}C labeled acetyl-CoA forming citrate every Krebs cycle turn, so carbons enter the Krebs cycle via PDC every cycle turn. The first labeled citrate (at $n=0$) can have a different label depending on the labeling of pyruvate (or acetyl-CoA). For {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate the route of labeling of citrate is shown in Figures \ref{fig:13} and \ref{fig:10}. The \textsuperscript{13}C labeled oxaloacetate (OAA) and \textsuperscript{13}C labeled acetyl-CoA can, together with unlabeled oxaloacetate or acetyl-CoA, undergo a condensation reaction to produce unlabeled, single- or double \textsuperscript{13}C labeled citrate. This results in citrate labeled at C2 (PDC) and/or C1/4 (PC) respectively at $n=0$. The labeling of oxaloacetate is distributed over two carbons due to rapid exchange between oxaloacetate, malate and (symmetrical) fumarate.\supercite{Magnusson1991,Merritt2011} If {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate are applied as substrate the labeling paths as shown in Figure \ref{fig:13}B (or Figure \ref{fig:11}) are followed, resulting in citrate labeling at C1 (PDC) and/or C2/3 (PC) respectively at $n=0$.
\bigskip\\
Note here that if $P$ and $A$ were to be the fractions of \textsuperscript{13}C label ending up in oxaloacetate via PC or in acetyl-CoA via PDC respectively, the resulting distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C label over the three citrate positions that are possibly labeled at $n=0$ is equal to $\frac{P}{2}$ at two positions and $A$ at the other. For the {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiment this would be $A$ label at C2 and $P$ labels distributed over C3 and C4. For the \textsuperscript{13}C {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiment this results in $A$ label at the C1 position and $P$ label distributed over the C3 and C4 position.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\small{
\begin{tikzpicture}[grow=right, parent anchor=east, child anchor=west, sloped, level distance=3cm, sibling distance=1cm]
\node{{[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}Glc}
child{
node {{[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Pyr}
child {
node(B){OxaAc}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
child{
node(G) {{[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Ac-CoA}
child[grow=-5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(A) {{{[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
child[grow=5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(E) {{{[2,4-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}/{[2,3-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{PDC}}}
}
child {
node(F) {{[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}/{[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}OxAc}
child[grow=5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(C) {{{[4-\textsuperscript{13}C]}/{[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[above] {\small{\textit{PC}}}
}
child {
node(D) {Ac-CoA}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[above] {\small{\textit{Glycolysis}}}
};
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]A.west) to [out=170,in=0] (B.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]C.west) to [out=-170,in=0] (D.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]E.west) -- ([yshift=-0.1cm]F.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]A.west) -- ([yshift=-0.1cm]G.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]E.west) -- ([yshift=0.1cm]G.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]C.west) -- ([yshift=0.1cm]F.east);
\draw (8.2cm,0) node[rectangle, minimum height=3cm,minimum width=2cm, fill=gray,fill opacity=0.6] {
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Citrate\\
synthase\\
\end{tabular}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{For $n=0$ the \textsuperscript{13}C labels originating from {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate end up in oxaloacetate (at C2 or C3) via pyruvate carboxylase or in acetyl-CoA (at C2) via pyruvate dehydrogenase complex before ending up in citrate after the condensation reaction of acetyl-CoA and oxaloacetate. This can result in unlabeled (not shown), single labeled and double labeled citrate. Glc = glucose, Pyr = pyruvate, Ac-CoA = acetyl-CoA, OxAc = oxaloacetate.}
\label{fig:10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\small{
\begin{tikzpicture}[grow=right, parent anchor=east, child anchor=west, sloped, level distance=3cm, sibling distance=1cm]
\node{{[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}Glc}
child{
node {{[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Pyr}
child {
node(B){OxaAc}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
child{
node(G) {{[1-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Ac-CoA}
child[grow=-5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(A) {{{[1-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
child[grow=5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(E) {{{[1,3-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}/{[1,4-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{PDC}}}
}
child {
node(F) {{[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}/{[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}OxAc}
child[grow=5.71,level distance=5cm] {
node(C) {{{[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}/{[4-\textsuperscript{13}C]}Citr}}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[above] {\small{\textit{PC}}}
}
child {
node(D) {Ac-CoA}
edge from parent[draw=none]
}
edge from parent[->]
node[above] {\small{\textit{Glycolysis}}}
};
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]A.west) to [out=170,in=0] (B.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]C.west) to [out=-170,in=0] (D.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]E.west) -- ([yshift=-0.1cm]F.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=0.1cm]A.west) -- ([yshift=-0.1cm]G.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]E.west) -- ([yshift=0.1cm]G.east);
\draw[<-] ([yshift=-0.1cm]C.west) -- ([yshift=0.1cm]F.east);
\draw (8.2cm,0) node[rectangle, minimum height=3cm,minimum width=2cm, fill=gray,fill opacity=0.6] {
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Citrate\\
synthase\\
\end{tabular}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{For $n=0$ the \textsuperscript{13}C labels originating from {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate can either end up in oxaloacetate (at C2 or C3) via pyruvate carboxylase or in acetyl-CoA (at C1) via pyruvate dehydrogenase complex before it ends up in citrate after the condensation reaction of acetyl-CoA and oxaloacetate. This can result in unlabeled (not shown), single labeled and double labeled citrate. Glc = glucose, Pyr = pyruvate, Ac-CoA = acetyl-CoA, OxAc = oxaloacetate.}
\label{fig:11}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pyruvate carboxylase versus pyruvate dehydrogenase complex}
To determine the fractional contributions of the PC and PDC routes to the final citrate pool in the luminal fluid or incubation medium it is essential to realize that depending on how many Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C label completes before being secreted, the contribution is different. Let's start with fraction A \textsuperscript{13}C labels getting into citrate via PDC and fraction P \textsuperscript{13}C labels getting into citrate via PC. Subsequently fraction $c$ of the citrate will be secreted (we have defined this as Krebs cycle turn $n=0$) and fraction $(1-c)$ continues in the Krebs cycle. Now $(1-c)$ carbon skeletons will be labeled again upon condensation of the carbon skeleton (oxaloacetate) with $(1-c)$ \textsuperscript{13}C acetyl-CoA forming $(1-c)$ citrate. Of this citrate again fraction $c$ is secreted (at cycle turn $n=1$) and fraction $(1-c)$ continues down the Krebs cycle and the process repeats itself. This is summarized in Figure \ref{fig:9}. Pyruvate carboxylase only contributes to the \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of the citrate pool in the luminal fluid or incubation medium at $n=0$ and pyruvate dehydrogenase complex contributes to the citrate pool during all Krebs cycle turns. In general, during cycle turn $n>0$ there will be $A(1-c)^n$ labels entering the cycle and $Ac(1-c)^n$ citrate molecules will be secreted. Only at $n=0$ there will be $A+P$ labels entering the cycle and $c(A+P)$ citrate molecules will be secreted. The sum of all fractions of \textsuperscript{13}C labels entering the Krebs cycle has to be equal to $f^{PC}+f^{PDC} =1$ and since the only time labels originating from the PC route can enter the cycle is at turn $n=0$, we can easily see that the fraction $f^{PC}$ of pyruvate carbons is equal to the fraction $P$ of \textsuperscript{13}C pyruvate carbons described above. As fraction $f^{PDC}$ has to be equal to the sum of fractions of \textsuperscript{13}C labels entering via acetyl-CoA, this comes down to the following sum:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
f^{PDC} = A\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}(1-c)^n = \frac{A}{c}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
This means that if at $n=0$ the fraction $f^{PC}$ of pyruvate \textsuperscript{13}C labels enter the cycle via the PC route and fraction $A=cf^{PDC}$ enters the cycle via the PDC route, summed over all possible Krebs cycle turns a total of $f^{PC} + \frac{cf^{PDC}}{c} = f^{PC} + f^{PDC} = 1$ \textsuperscript{13}C of the labels enter the Krebs cycle (Figure \ref{fig:1}).\\
\subsection{Average number of completed Krebs cycle turns before citrate secretion} \label{sec:7}
The average number of Krebs cycle turns before secretion of citrate (This is not the same as the average number of Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes, see Appendices for the average number of cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes) depends on the secretion fraction $c$. To calculate this average number of cycle turns $<n>$ the sum can be calculated of the fractions secreted every cycle $c(1-c)^n$ multiplied with their corresponding Krebs cycle turn indices $n$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
<n>=c\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}n(1-c)^n=\frac{1-c}{c}\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
The average number of cycle turns is equal to the ratio of the fraction of molecules that stay in the Krebs cycle $(1-c)$ over the fraction of molecules that are secreted $c$.
\subsection{Effect of \textsuperscript{13}C enrichment} \label{sec:4}
Until now, we assumed that all pyruvate or glucose carbons are \textsuperscript{13}C labeled and that both the pyruvate pool and acetyl-CoA pool are fully labeled. This probably doesn't reflect the true situation in cells or tissue because of influx of unlabeled pyruvate (e.g. via Malic Enzyme or PEPCK) or acetyl-CoA (e.g. via beta oxidation). To take this into account, introducing enrichment factors in the equations is needed. Suppose only fraction $\epsilon_p$ of pyruvate and fraction $\epsilon_a$ of acetyl-CoA is \textsuperscript{13}C labeled, then fractions $\epsilon_p\epsilon_a cf^{PDC}$ (via pyruvate dehydrogenase complex) and $\epsilon_p f^{PC}$ (via pyruvate carboxylase) of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons will enter the Krebs cycle at $n=0$, $\epsilon_p\epsilon_a cf^{PDC}(1-c)$ at $n=1$, $\epsilon_p\epsilon_a cf^{PDC}(1-c)^2$ at $n=2$ and so forth. This means that the contributions of the individual cycle turns to the sum (final \textsuperscript{13}C distribution over citrate carbons) are all multiplied by $\epsilon_p$, but only the carbons going via the PDC route (involving acetyl-CoA) are also multiplied with $\epsilon_a$. This only holds if the values of $\epsilon_p$ and $\epsilon_a$ are not time-dependent. If high enough concentrations or constant inflow of \textsuperscript{13}C substrate is provided, we can safely assume this to be true during most of the infusion or incubation period. For sake of simplicity we will first derive equations for the \textsuperscript{13}C distribution of citrate assuming both enrichment fractions to be 1, and later reintroduce these fractions.
\subsection{Assumptions made in deriving the quantitative model} \label{sec:10}
In deriving this model we assumed firstly that \textsuperscript{13}C carbons of pyruvate can only enter the Krebs cycle via the pyruvate carboxylase (PC) route, resulting in labeled oxaloacetate or via the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) route, resulting in labeled acetyl-CoA. Other pathways are assumed to be negligble. Secondly we assume that a dominant part of molecules leaving the Krebs cycle is due to citrate secretion, and therefore we later define the total fraction of citrate and other molecules (citrate equivalents) to be an apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$. If there are no other cataplerotic pathways involved, this fraction $d$ is equal to the true citrate secretion fraction $c$. This is assumed during the derivation of the equations below, but fraction $d$ is reintroduced afterwards for completeness. Thirdly, we assume that the \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichments of both the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pool are constant over time. Deriving the equations below we assume both to be 1, but take them into account later. We also assume that \textsuperscript{13}C-labeled citrate or citrate equivalents (Krebs cycle metabolites) diverged from the Krebs cycle only to reenter the Krebs cycle through exchange, and not at a different position in the Krebs cycle after being converted into another Krebs cycle metabolite, so no short-cuts within the Krebs cycle. The effect of these short-cuts is assumed to be negligible and therefore ignored in this manuscript. We also assume that the fraction of carbon skeletons diverging from the Krebs cycle every cycle turn remains constant over the time period of the experiments.If labeled citrate is used for lipid synthesis, this can result in backflow of labels into the Krebs cycle via oxaloacetate, this effect is expected to be negligible and is therefore not taken into account.\\
Important to note is: Anaplerotic inflow of (unlabeled) carbons from e.g. glutamine, aspartate or malate during supplementation with {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate do not contribute to the \textsuperscript{13}C-labeling pattern of citrate since they do not contribute (see assumption below) \textsuperscript{13}C-carbons to either the \textsuperscript{13}C pools of pyruvate or acetyl-CoA. Next to this, exchange of Krebs cycle metabolites with metabolites outside the Krebs cycle does not change the labeling pattern of the citrate that is secreted, but do lead to loss of citrate equivalents. For example, exchange of oxaloacetate with a potential aspartate pool or the exchange of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate with the glutamate pool does not change the labeling pattern of the $\alpha$-ketoglutarate that continues in the Krebs cycle. Even if it continues to be converted to glutamine and back. It does however lead to loss of carbon skeletons (citrate equivalents) if there's net flux of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate to the glutamate pool. These cataplerotic pathways are thus contributing to the apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$ and this apparent citrate secretion fraction is thus an overestimation of the real citrate secretion fraction. Fast exchange between malate, fumarate and oxaloacetate results in full scrambling of the carbons in oxaloacetate produced via the pyruvate carboxylase pathway. And the fast exchange between citrate, isocitrate and $\alpha$-ketoglutarate results in loss of citrate C6 labeling, taken into account by introducing a dilution factor $\epsilon_c$ later on.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\small{
\makebox[\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[parent anchor=east, child anchor=west, grow=right, sloped, level distance=5cm, sibling distance=1.2cm]
\node{\textsuperscript{13}C-Pyr}
child{
node (b) {$A(1-c)^\infty$ acetyl-CoA}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{$n=\infty$}}}
}
child[ultra thin, dotted]{
node[thin] (d) {$etc$}
edge from parent[draw=none,anchor=south]
}
child{
node (c) {$A(1-c)^2$ \textsuperscript{13}C acetyl-CoA}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{$n=2$}}}
}
child{
node {$A(1-c)$ \textsuperscript{13}C acetyl-CoA}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{$n=1$}}}
}
child{
node {$A$ \textsuperscript{13}C acetyl-CoA}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{$n=0$}}}
}
child{
node (a) {$P$ \textsuperscript{13}C oxaloacetate}
edge from parent[->]
node[below] {\small{\textit{$n=0$}}}
};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt,mirror,raise=0cm},yshift=0cm] (6.8cm,-3.2cm) -- (6.8cm,2.1 cm);
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt,mirror,raise=0cm},yshift=0cm] (6.8cm,2.4cm) -- (6.8cm,3.2cm);
\draw node(k)[xshift=7.5cm,yshift=-0.6cm] {\footnotesize $f^{PDC}$};
\draw node(l)[xshift=7.5cm,yshift=2.8cm] {\footnotesize $f^{PC}$};
\draw[dashed] (b) -- (d);
\draw[dashed] (d) -- (c);
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt,mirror,raise=0cm},xshift=0cm] (8cm,-.8cm) -- (8cm,3cm);
\draw node(l)[xshift=11.7cm,yshift=1.1cm] {$\displaystyle =P+A\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}(1-c)^n = P+\frac{A}{c}=1\displaystyle \Rightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{cc} f^{PC}=P\\ f^{PDC}=\frac{A}{c}\end{array}\right.$};
\end{tikzpicture}}}
\caption{Fate of \textsuperscript{13}C labels of pyruvate entering the Krebs cycle and ending up in citrate. Fraction $P=f^{PC}$ enters via the pyruvate carboxylase pathway as oxaloacetate (only at $n=0$), fraction $f^{PDC}=\frac{A}{c}$ flows into the Krebs cycle via the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex pathway as acetyl-CoA.}\label{fig:9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Startingfractionsmodel_19.png}
\caption{Fractions of carbons diverging via pyruvate carboxylase $f^{PC}$ and via pyruvate dehydrogenase complex $f^{PDC}$ versus secretion fraction $c$.
\newline The sum of $f^{PC}$ and $f^{PDC}$ is equal to $1$. The initial fraction (at $n=0$) of carbons entering the Krebs cycle via PDC ($f^{PDC}_0$), depends on the value of $c$, since $f^{PDC}=f^{PDC}_0\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}(1-c)^n=\frac{f^{PDC}_0}{c}$. Next to this, $f^{PDC}_0 \leq f^{PC}$, since for every oxaloacetate labeled via the PC route, there is an acetyl-CoA needed (labeled by PDC) at $n=0$, making the blue line start at $f^{PC}=cf^{PDC}$\label{fig:1}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Providing {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to tissue/cells} \label{sec:5}
To analyze how glucose or pyruvate contribute to the production and secretion of citrate, {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate can be provided to epithelial cells or tissue for a longer period of time. Glucose is taken up by the cells and converted into pyruvate during glycolysis. In case of {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose the \textsuperscript{13}C label will be located at the C3 position of pyruvate as shown in section \textit{"\nameref{sec:2}"}. Subsequently this label can end up at the oxaloacetate C2 and C3 position, or acetyl-CoA C2 position. The first will result in labeling at C3 or C4 of citrate, the latter at C2. So, the \textsuperscript{13}C carbon distribution in citrate at cycle turn $n=0$ will look like (neglecting carbon dioxide for now):
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n=0)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\cf^{PDC}\\\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\\\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}c
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
After one turn the distribution will have shifted according to Table \ref{tab:1} and a new label is entered at the C2 position via PDC.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n=1)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]cf^{PDC}\\[5pt]\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c(1-c)
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
We assume here that all the label entering at the C2 position is \textsuperscript{13}C enriched as discussed in section \textit{"\nameref{sec:4}"}. For cycle turns $n\geq2$ the distribution at cycle $n$ can be written in a more general way as:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n\geq2)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]cf^{PDC}\\[5pt]
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=n}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}cf^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=n}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}cf^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=n}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}cf^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=n}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}cf^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
We would like to know the distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C labels over the six citrate carbons in the extracellular fluid or incubation medium when the citrate \textsuperscript{13}C distribution is in a steady state. This distribution can be calculated by summing the contributions of citrate secreted during each individual Krebs cycle turn $n$ to the total secreted citrate:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr}^{1,6\mbox{-}glc}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\overrightarrow{C}(n)=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]
cf^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}(1-c)^j\\[5pt]
cf^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=j}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
cf^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=j}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
cf^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=j}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
cf^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=j}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-c)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]f^{PDC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\left((1-c)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\left((1-c)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
These equations give the \textsuperscript{13}C label distribution over the six carbons in secreted citrate. This distribution only depends oction $c$ and the fraction of carbon entering the Krebs cycle via the pyruvate carboxylase route, $f^{PC}$, since $f^{PDC}=1-f^{PC}$. The \textsuperscript{13}C distribution for $f^{PC}=0.2$ is plotted against $c$ in figure \ref{fig:2}, the distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C labels over the six citrate carbons (and the fraction ending up in CO\textsubscript{2}) is strongly dependent on secretion fraction $c$. The distribution over the different carbons serves as a fingerprint for secretion fraction $c$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/C_distr_vs_c_glcPdot2.png}
\caption{\textsuperscript{13}C distribution over the six citrate carbons versus secretion fraction $c$ after providing {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to prostate epithelial tissue or cells. In this graph the fraction of carbons following the pyruvate carboxylase pathway, $f^{PC}$, is assumed to be $f^{PC}=0.2$. The \textsuperscript{13}C labeling is normalized to the total amount of \textsuperscript{13}C label going into the Krebs cycle.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Providing {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to tissue/cells} \label{sec:9}
Another way to determine how differently labeled glucose or pyruvate contribute to the production of citrate, {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate could be provided to epithelial tissue or prostate epithelial cells for a long enough period of time. Pyruvate is taken up by the cells and in this case the \textsuperscript{13}C label will be located at a different pyruvate carbon position compared to the experiments with {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate (vide supra). When this \textsuperscript{13}C label enters the Krebs cycle, it can end up at the oxaloacetate C2 and C3 position, via the pyruvate carboxylase route, or at the acetyl-CoA C1 position via the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex route. The first will result in a first labeling at C3 and C4 of citrate, the latter at C1. So, the \textsuperscript{13}C carbon distribution in citrate at cycle turn $n=0$ will look like (again, neglecting carbon dioxide for now):
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n=0)=\begin{pmatrix}cf^{PDC}\\0\\\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\\\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}c
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
After one turn this distribution will have shifted again as described in section \textit{"\nameref{sec:5}"} (see also Table \ref{tab:1}) and new label is added, via the PDC route, at the C1 (via PDC) position of citrate every cycle turn.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n=1)=\begin{pmatrix}cf^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{4}f^{PC}\end{pmatrix}c(1-c)
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
From cycle turn $n\geq2$ on the distribution at cycle turn $n$ can be written in a more general way as
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{C}(n\geq2)=\begin{pmatrix}cf^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}+\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}f^{PC}+\frac{c}{2}f^{PDC}\end{pmatrix}c(1-c)^n
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
The distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons over the carbons in the secreted citrate can be calculated again by calculating the sum of the contributions of all individual Krebs cycle turns $n$
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\begin{split}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr}^{glc\mbox{-}2,5}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\overrightarrow{C}(n)=&\begin{pmatrix}c\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}(1-c)^nf^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-c}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-c}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{c}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}(1-c)^if^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-c}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{c}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}(1-c)^if^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-c}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\end{pmatrix}c\\
=&\quad\begin{pmatrix}f^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\end{pmatrix}c
\end{split}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
These equations give the steady state \textsuperscript{13}C label distribution in citrate in the extracellular space or incubation medium after supplementation with {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate. The distribution depends on the secretion fraction $c$ and on the fractions of \textsuperscript{13}C carbon entering the Krebs cycle via the pyruvate carboxylase route, $f^{PC}$, and via the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex route, $f^{PDC}$, (with $f^{PDC}=1-f^{PC}$). The distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons for $f^{PC}=0.2)$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:3} plotted against secretion fraction $c$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/C_distr_vs_c_pyrPdot2.png}
\caption{\textsuperscript{13}C distribution over the six citrate carbons versus secretion fraction $c$ after providing {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to prostate epithelial tissue or cells. In this graph the fraction of carbons following the pyruvate carboxylase pathway, $f^{PC}$, is assumed to be $f^{PC}=0.2$. The \textsuperscript{13}C labeling is normalized to the total amount of \textsuperscript{13}C label going into the Krebs cycle. Enrichments $\epsilon_p$, $\epsilon_a$ and dilution fraction $\epsilon_c$ are assumed to be 1 here and no efflux of metabolites is taken into account apart from citrate secretion ($c=d$)}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{CO\textsubscript{2} production}
Next to citrate production and secretion we also have to take into account how much carbon dioxide is produced every cycle and sum these contributions to see how much \textsuperscript{13}C labels are lost as carbon dioxide. During a Krebs cycle turn one six-carbon molecule of citrate is converted into a four-carbon metabolite oxaloacetate and two carbons are lost as carbon dioxide. The first carbon is lost during the conversion of isocitrate into $\alpha$-ketoglutarate and the second carbon is lost in the next step of the Krebs cycle during the conversion of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate into succinyl-CoA. The first originates from the C6 carbon in citrate and the latter originates from citrate C5. So, the carbon dioxide production at cycle turn $n$ is equal to the sum of citrate carbons C5 and C6 at this cycle turn $n$ times $(1-c)$ instead of times $c$ since the production of carbon dioxide during cycle $n$ takes place after the secretion of $(1-c)^n$ citrate. In other words, only the \textsuperscript{13}C carbons at C5 and C6, which are not secreted (fraction $(1-c)^n$) at cycle $n$, are lost as carbon dioxide. This means we could calculate the carbon dioxide production at cycle turn $n$ by summing the \textsuperscript{13}C distribution at C5 and C6 and multiply this by $\frac{1-c}{c}$. Because the \textsuperscript{13}C distribution at C5 and C6 is equal, this could be written as:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n)= 2\frac{1-c}{c}\overrightarrow{C5}(n)
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
To calculate the resulting CO\textsubscript{2} produced over time the contributions of all cycle turns have to be summed.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}_{distr}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n)=2\frac{1-c}{c}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\overrightarrow{C5}(n)
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Another way of calculating this is by evaluating the individual contributions for every cycle turn $\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n)$ to the total CO\textsubscript{2} for different values of $n$, like we did before for the carbons in citrate. For {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate this looks like:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n=0)&=0\\
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n=1)&=0\\
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n=2)&=\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}(1-c)^2\\
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n\geq3)&=cf^{PDC}\sum\limits^{i=n-2}_{i=1}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}+\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n-1}}f^{PC}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
This means we can calculate the total amount of CO\textsubscript{2} by summing these contributions:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}_{distr}=&f^{PC}\sum\limits^{n=\infty}_{n=2}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n-1}}+cf^{PDC}\sum\limits^{n=\infty}_{n=3}\sum\limits^{i=n-2}_{i=1}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^i}\\
=&(1-c)^3f^{PDC}-\frac{c(1-c)^3}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{1+c}f^{PC}\\
=&\frac{2(1-c)}{c}\left[\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\left((1-c)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)c\right]
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
In the last step the equation has been rewritten to show that the total CO\textsubscript{2} indeed is equal to the final \textsuperscript{13}C distribution at citrate C5 (or C6) times $2\frac{1-c}{c}$. Since the total \textsuperscript{13}C entering the Krebs cycle in our model is equal to $f^{PC}+f^{PDC} = 1$ and we only take citrate production/secretion and CO\textsubscript{2} into account in our model the total \textsuperscript{13}C found in citrate and CO\textsubscript{2} should also add up to 1. If we take the sum of the label distribution of the carbons of citrate and add the amount of CO\textsubscript{2} we should end up with $f^{PC}+f^{PDC}=1$. For {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate this looks like:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{Citr}^{glc\mbox{-}1,6,sum}_{extr.cell.}&=cf^{PDC}\left(1+2\frac{1-c}{1+c}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{1+c}\right) + f^{PDC}\frac{(1-c)^3}{1+c} \\ & +cf^{PC}\left(\frac{2}{1+c}+\frac{1-c}{1+c}\right) + f^{PC}\frac{(1-c)^2}{1+c}\\
&=f^{PDC}+f^{PC}=1
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
We can repeat this exercise for the addition of {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate. For this, we first have to take into account the values of $\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n)$ for different values of $n$, like we did before for the carbons in citrate:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n=0)&=0\\
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n=1)&=0\\
\overrightarrow{CO_2}(n\geq2)&=(cf^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2^{n-1}}f^{PC})(1-c)^n
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Now we can again calculate the total amount of CO\textsubscript{2} produced during the experiment by summing over $n$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{CO_2}_{distr}=&cf^{PDC}\sum\limits^{n=\infty}_{n=2}(1-c)^n+f^{PC}\sum\limits^{n=\infty}_{n=2}\frac{(1-c)^n}{2^{n-1}}\\
=&(1-c)^2f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{1+c}f^{PC}\\
=&2\frac{(1-c)}{c}\left(\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)c\right)
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
So again the CO\textsubscript{2} production is equal to the sum of carbon labeling at citrate C5 and C6 times the factor $\frac{1-c}{c}$. The total amount of carbon entering the system has to be equal to the amount of carbon ending up in either citrate carbons or CO\textsubscript{2}. If we take the sum of the labeling in the carbons of citrate and add the amount of CO\textsubscript{2} we should again end up with $f^{PC}+f^{PDC}=1$. For {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate this looks like:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\overrightarrow{Citr}^{glc\mbox{-}2,5,sum}_{extr.cell.}&=\left(\frac{2}{1+c}+\frac{1-c}{1+c}\right)cf^{PC}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{1+c}f^{PC}\\
&+(2-c)cf^{PDC}+(1-c)^2f^{PDC}\\
&=f^{PC}+f^{PDC}=1
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
So the total of \textsuperscript{13}C label entering the Krebs cycle is equal to the total \textsuperscript{13}C label we find after the experiment in citrate (extracellular or in the incubation medium) and in CO\textsubscript{2}.
\subsection{PDC versus PC contribution to citrate \textsuperscript{13}C-labeling}
The equations we derived for the \textsuperscript{13}C distribution over citrate carbons after \textsuperscript{13}C substrate application can easily be split in separate contributions of the pyruvate carboxylase route and the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex route. For the application of {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate we arrive at the following expressions: \begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\overrightarrow{^{13}C}^{glc\mbox{-}1,6}_{distr}=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]f^{PDC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\left((1-c)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\left((1-c)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^3}{c(1+c)}f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{c(1+c)}f^{PC}\end{pmatrix}c
=\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]1\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^3}{c(1+c)}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}cf^{PDC}
+\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{c(1+c)}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}cf^{PC}\label{eq:2}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Note here that carbon dioxide is now also included in the vector (last value). And for the application of {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate we can do the same and end up with the following equations:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}^{glc\mbox{-}2,5}_{distr}=\begin{pmatrix}f^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{c}f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-c)^2}{c(1+c)}f^{PC}\end{pmatrix}c
=\begin{pmatrix}1\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
0\\[5pt]
0\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{c}\end{pmatrix}cf^{PDC}
+\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+c}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-c}{2(1+c)}\\[5pt]
\frac{(1-c)^2}{c(1+c)}\end{pmatrix}cf^{PC}\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
\subsection{Overestimation of secretion fraction $c$} \label{sec:8}
Next to citrate, other molecules are extracted from the Krebs cycle for other metabolic processes. This means that the fraction of citrate molecules remaining in the cycle will be smaller than $(1-c)$. Let's define an apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$ which includes both citrate and other molecules (citrate equivalents) leaving the Krebs via other metabolic processes, for example in reactions involving aspartate and glutamate. So $d\geq c$ or $1-d \leq 1-c$. Now we can recalculate the equations derived earlier, first for {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\begin{split}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr,app. secr.}^{glc\mbox{-}1,6}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{1-c}\right)^n\overrightarrow{C}(n)=&\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]
df^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}(1-d)^j\\[5pt]
df^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=j}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
df^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=j}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
df^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=j}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]
df^{PDC}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{j=\infty}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{i=j}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^i}+f^{PC}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{j=\infty}\frac{(1-d)^j}{2^{j+1}}\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c\\
=&\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]f^{PDC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{1+d}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{1+d}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{2(1+d)}\left((1-d)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{2(1+d)}\left((1-d)f^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]\end{pmatrix}c\label{eq:5}
\end{split}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
For {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate we can do the same:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\begin{split}\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr,app. secr.}^{glc\mbox{-}2,5}=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{1-c}\right)^n\overrightarrow{C}(n)=&\begin{pmatrix}d\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}(1-d)^nf^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=0}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{d}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}(1-d)^if^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{d}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}(1-d)^if^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{i=\infty}\left(\frac{1-d}{2}\right)^if^{PC}\end{pmatrix}c\\
=&\quad\begin{pmatrix}f^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]
\frac{1-d}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)\end{pmatrix}c\label{eq:6}
\end{split}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
The resulting equations are similar to the equations obtained earlier, but $c$ is replaced by $d$ everywhere and then all equations are multiplied by $\frac{c}{d}$. Taking this into account in the curves in figures \ref{fig:2} and \ref{fig:3}, would mean that they have $d$ instead of $c$ on the x-axis, and are scaled with factor $c/d$.
\subsection{\textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pool} \label{sec:11}
Until now, we assumed the \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA to be 100\%. This does not represent the real situation in cells or tissue, therefore we introduce enrichment fractions $\epsilon_p$ and $\epsilon_a$. All equations are multiplied with $\epsilon_p$ and the terms involving carbons flowing via the PDC route are multiplied additionally with $\epsilon_a$. Another potential factor to take into consideration is the fast exchange between citrate, isocitrate and $\alpha$-ketoglutarate. During this exchange the C6 of citrate is exchanged with free CO\textsubscript{2}, which potentially is unlabeled. If there's any \textsuperscript{13}C labeling at C6, this might be diluted by this exchange with unlabeled CO\textsubscript{2}. To take the effect of this exchange on the citrate C6 level into account, a dilution factor $\epsilon_c$ is introduced. For {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate this comes down to:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\begin{split} \label{eq:7}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr}^{glc\mbox{-}1,6}=&\begin{pmatrix}0\\[5pt]\epsilon_af^{PDC}\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)\epsilon_a}{1+d}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)\epsilon_a}{1+d}\epsilon_af^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{1-d}{2(1+d)}\left((1-d)\epsilon_af^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)\epsilon_c}{2(1+d)}\left((1-d)\epsilon_af^{PDC}+f^{PC}\right)\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)^3\epsilon_a}{d(1+d)}f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-d)^2}{d(1+d)}f^{PC}\end{pmatrix}\epsilon_pd\end{split}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
And for {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate this would be:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}\begin{split} \label{eq:8}
\overrightarrow{^{13}C}_{distr}^{glc\mbox{-}2,5}=&\begin{pmatrix}\epsilon_af^{PDC}\\[5pt]0\\[5pt]\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}\\[5pt]\frac{1-d}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}+\epsilon_af^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)\epsilon_c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}+\epsilon_af^{PDC}\right)\\[5pt]\frac{(1-d)^2\epsilon_a}{d}f^{PDC}+\frac{(1-d)^2}{d(1+d)}f^{PC}\end{pmatrix}\epsilon_pd\end{split}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
\subsection{Mass balance} \label{sec:12}
The efflux of other metabolites confined in the apparent secretion fraction $d$ does not mean that there is actually a fraction $d$ of Krebs cycle metabolites lost every cycle, but rather shows how much \textsuperscript{13}C labeled citrate equivalents are either diverged from the cycle or exchanged for unlabeled metabolites. This means that even if there's low influx of carbons via pyruvate carboxylase ($f^{PC}$), there's still citrate secretion possible, as long as the Krebs cycle is supplied sufficiently with carbons from unlabeled molecules (like glutamine, glutamate and aspartate). The apparent secretion fraction $d$ therefore tells us something about both citrate diverging from the Krebs cycle, citrate equivalent diverging from the Krebs cycle and the exchange of labeled molecules with unlabeled molecules (e.g. in the $\alpha$-ketoglutarate and (rather large) glutamate pool).
\section{Calculation of secretion fraction $c$ and PC fraction $f^{PC}$}
\subsection{Experimental ratios}
From the equations obtained in sections \textit{"\nameref{sec:9}"} and \textit{"\nameref{sec:5}"} (also summarized in Table \ref{tab:2}) we can define experimental ratios of \textsuperscript{13}C citrate signal integrals which can be easily obtained from \textsuperscript{13}C MR spectra. Since citrate C2 and C4 on one hand and C1 and C5 on the other are chemically equivalent, we only have to consider ratios composed of C1/5, C2/4, C3 and C6. We suggest the following experimental ratios of fitted \textsuperscript{13}C citrate integrals to be used because they consist of the carbons with the highest signal intensity (and consequently SNR), for most of the values of $c$: $R_1$ for {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_1 = \frac{(C_2+C_4)-C_3}{(C_2+C_4)}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
The reason for choosing this ratio is that, when looking at the equations derived for the \textsuperscript{13}C distribution over the citrate, C3 and C4 have equal signal intensities. By subtracting C3 from C2+C4 (one peak) we get C2, so $R_1$ reports on the fraction that C2 makes up of C2+C4.
For the {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments we suggest $R_2$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 &= \frac{C_1+C_5}{C_3}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
These ratios can then be used as experimental input values for the quantitative model we derived in this work describing citrate production and secretion in prostate epithelial tissue or cell lines. After providing prostate tissue or cells either with {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate or with {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate, the extracellular material, being extracellular fluid or incubation medium, can be analyzed using \textsuperscript{13}C NMR spectroscopy. After identification and quantification of the citrate resonance peaks the two ratios, defined above, can be calculated. These are then used to calculate secretion fraction $c$ and pyruvate carboxylase contribution $f^{PC}$ as described below.
\subsection{Real citrate secretion fraction $c$}
With ratio $R_1$ (from the {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments) and ratio $R_2$ (from the {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments) we can calculate the secretion fraction. First we rewrite the equation for $R_1$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
R_1 = \frac{C_{2/4}-C_3}{C_{2/4}}=\frac{C_2+C_4-C_3}{C_2+C_4}=\frac{f^{PDC}+\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}-\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}-\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}}{f^{PDC}+\frac{1-c}{1+c}f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
From {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments we can calculate ratio $R_2$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 =& \frac{C_{1/5}}{C_{3}}=\frac{C_1+C_5}{C_3}=\frac{f^{PDC}+\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)}{\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}}\end{align}\end{linenomath}
This can be simplified by extracting an equation for $f^{PDC}$ dependent on $c$ and $R_1$,
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}f^{PDC}=\frac{R_1}{(1+c)-R_1}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
and substituting this into the equation for $R_2$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 =\frac{\frac{R_1}{1+c-R_1}+\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}\left(1-\frac{R_1}{1+c-R_1}\right)+\frac{R_1}{1+c-R_1}\right)}{\frac{1}{1+c}\left(1-\frac{R_1}{1+c-R_1}\right)}\end{align}\end{linenomath}
This can now be solved for $c$ by rewriting this into a quadratic equation:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}-(R_1+1)c^2 + (4R_1-2R_2)c + (R_1-2R_2+4R_1R_2+1)=0\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
After substituting values for $R_1$ and $R_2$ in this quadratic equation, we can solve for $c$. For example, for for $c=0.3$ and $f^{PC}=0.2$, $R_1$ would be $\approx0.58$ and $R_2$ would be $\approx7.37$, filling this in gives:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}-1.58c^2 -12.43c + 3.87=0\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Solving the quadratic equation of course gives us back $c=0.3$.
\subsection{Fraction $f^{PC}$ versus $f^{PDC}$} \label{sec:1}
Now, using the expression we derived above we can calculate the fractions $f^{PDC}$ and $f^{PC}$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
f^{PDC}&=\frac{R_1}{1+c-R_1}\\
f^{PC}=&1-f^{PDC}\label{eq:4}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Using the values for $c$ and $f^{PC}$ we can calculate the total integrals of the citrate and carbon dioxide carbons according to equations \ref{eq:2} and \ref{eq:3} (see also Figures \ref{fig:4} and \ref{fig:5}). Looking at the predicted \textsuperscript{13}C integrals for the different citrate carbons assuming $c=0.3$ and $f^{PC}=0.2$, we can see that indeed C2/4 and C3 in the {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiment is the best choice taking into account SNR, and for the {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiment the C\textsubscript{1/5} and C\textsubscript{3} or C\textsubscript{6} signals would be best to evaluate. However, often the peak of citrate C\textsubscript{6} overlaps with another peak in the \textsuperscript{13}C spectrum (e.g. pyroglutamate), making C\textsubscript{3} the best choice.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Relative_integrals_glc_CO2_multiple.png}
\caption{Relative \textsuperscript{13}C NMR signal integrals of the six citrate carbons and carbon dioxide for different values of $f^{PC}$ with $c=0.3$ (A-C), and different values of $c$ with $f^{PC}=0.2$ (D-F), after the application of {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to prostate epithelial tissue or cells. Carbons C1 and C5, and C2 and C4 have the same chemical shift and their signal integrals are therefore summed here. In these figures, the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pool are assumed to be fully labeled and no other efflux of metabolites/citrate equivalents are taken into account.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/Relative_integrals_pyr_CO2_multiple.png}
\caption{Relative \textsuperscript{13}C NMR signal integrals of the six citrate carbons and carbon dioxide for different values of $f^{PC}$ with $c=0.3$ (A-C), and different values of $c$ with $f^{PC}=0.2$ (D-F), after application of {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate to prostate epithelial tissue or cells. Carbons C1 and C5, and C2 and C4 have the same chemical shift and their signal integrals are therefore summed here. In these figures, the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pool are assumed to be fully labeled and no other efflux of metabolites/citrate equivalents are taken into account.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Average number of Krebs cycle turns}
Using equation \ref{eq:1} derived in section \textit{"\nameref{sec:7}"} the average number of Krebs cycle turns that are completed before secretion of a citrate molecule can be calculated:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
<n>=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nc(1-c)^n=\frac{1-c}{c}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
\subsection{Pyruvate carboxylase fraction dependence on secretion fraction}
In section \textit{"\nameref{sec:1}"} (vide supra) an expression was derived for fractions $f^{PDC}$ and $f^{PC}$ (using $f^{PC}=1-f^{PDC}$) depending on $c$ and $R_1$ (Equation \ref{eq:4}). We can derive a similar equation for $f^{PC}$ only depending on $c$ and $R_2$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 =& \frac{C_{1/5}}{C_{3}}=\frac{C_1+C_5}{C_3}=\frac{f^{PDC}+\frac{1-c}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}+f^{PDC}\right)}{\frac{1}{1+c}f^{PC}}\\
f^{PC}=& \frac{(1+c)(3-c)}{2(R_2+1)+(3-c)c}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Using this and equation \ref{eq:4}, we can plot $c$ versus $f^{PC}$ for different values of $R_1$ and $R_2$ (Figure \ref{fig:7}). The intersection of the lines for $R_1$ and $R_2$ represent a unique combination of secretion fraction $c$ and pyruvate carboxylase fraction $f^{PC}$, derived from these ratios of \textsuperscript{13}C NMR signal intensities of citrate carbons.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/PCvsc_plot_general.png}
\caption{Fraction pyruvate carboxylase $f^{PC}$ versus secretion fraction $c$ with lines representing different values for $R_1$ and $R_2$.}
\label{fig:7}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Error propagation}
The experimental ratios obtained in \textsuperscript{13}C experiments are subject to errors due to SNR limitations of the spectra and this has its effect on variability of the values for $c$ and $f^{PC}$ that we calculated. Assuming a standard deviation equal to 1\%, 2\% or 4\% of the largest signal integral (e.g. C2) for all components in the ratio (in a way similar to relative noise levels of 1\%, 2\% and 4\%) we calculated the error propagation for $c$ and $f^{PC}$. For $c=0.3$ and $f^{PC}=0.2$ the error bounds are presented in figure \ref{fig:6}. A large spread in possible values for $c$ is seen at increasing error, while a more moderate spread is observed in values for $f^{PC}$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/PC_vs_c_error_multiple_withcolor.png}
\caption{Confidence intervals for pyruvate carboxylase fraction $f^{PC}$ and secretion fraction $c$ at different error levels. These intervals are shown for $f^{PC}=0.2$, $f^{PC}=0.3$ and $f^{PC}=0.4$, and for the secretion fraction $c=0.3$ and $c=0.6$. Confidence intervals were calculated for errors (or noise levels) of 1\%, 2\% and 4\% of the biggest integral in the equations for $R_1$ and $R_2$ (From the equations derived in sections \textit{"\nameref{sec:5}"} and \textit{"\nameref{sec:9}"} follows that C\textsubscript{2/4} is the largest integral for $R_1$ and C\textsubscript{1/5} for $R_2$ for all physical values of $c$ and $f^{PC}$).}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Efflux from the Krebs cycle of other metabolites in addition to citrate and different pool \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichments}
\subsubsection{Secretion fraction with efflux of other metabolites in addition to citrate}
In the previous sections we neglected the contributions of other metabolic pathways (both cataplerotic and anaplerotic), connected to the Krebs cycle carbon pool, in the efflux of carbons from this cycle. To take this into account we introduced an 'apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$' in the section \textit{"\nameref{sec:8}"} covering all contributions to the efflux of metabolites from the Krebs cycle. We also assumed equal (full) \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pools. We can use the results in Equations \ref{eq:7} and \ref{eq:8} to recalculate the results and see what the effect of these parameters is. Using $R_1$ and $R_2$ and the equations in this section (Eq. \ref{eq:5} and \ref{eq:6}) we can only calculate the total fraction of molecules flowing out of the Krebs cycle, $d$. Within the current experimental scope we cannot separate secretion of citrate from other pathways transporting carbons out of the Krebs cycle. Still, we can assume $c\leq d$. An expression for $R_1$ including $d$ and the enrichment fractions is as follows:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
R_1 = \frac{C_{2/4}-C_3}{C_{2/4}}=\frac{C_2+C_4-C_3}{C_2+C_4}=\frac{\epsilon_a f^{PDC}+\frac{1-d}{1+d}\epsilon_af^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}-\frac{1-d}{1+d}\epsilon_af^{PDC}-\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}}{\epsilon_af^{PDC}+\frac{1-d}{1+d}\epsilon_af^{PDC}+\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}}\frac{\epsilon_p}{\epsilon_p}\\
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
We can now again rewrite the expression to obtain $f^{PDC}$ as a function of $d$ and $R_1$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}f^{PDC}=\frac{R_1}{\epsilon_a(1+d)-R_1(2\epsilon_a-1)}\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
From the {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate experiments we can calculate ratio $R_2$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 = \frac{C_{1/5}}{C_{3}}=\frac{C_1+C_5}{C_3}=\frac{\epsilon_af^{PDC}+\frac{1-d}{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}+\epsilon_af^{PDC}\right)}{\frac{1}{1+d}f^{PC}}\frac{\epsilon_p}{\epsilon_p}\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Substituting values for $R_1$ and $R_2$ we can now solve for $d$
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}-\epsilon_a(R_1+1)d^2 + \epsilon_a(4R_1-2R_2)d + \epsilon_a(R_1-2R_2+4R_1R_2+1)=0\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Taking into account additional efflux of carbons from the Krebs cycle (Difference between apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$ and true citrate secretion fraction $c$), the real secretion fraction for citrate $c$ is evidently smaller or equal to the value found for $d$.
\subsubsection{Fraction $f^{PC}$ versus $f^{PDC}$ with efflux of other metabolites}
Above we presented an expression of fraction $f^{PDC}$), taking into account other efflux of citrate equivalents in an apparent secretion fraction $d$. We can derive an expression for $f^{PC}$:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
f^{PDC}=&\frac{R_1}{\epsilon_a(1+d)-R_1(2\epsilon_a-1)}\\
f^{PC}=&1-f^{PDC}
\end{split}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
Taking into account other efflux besides citrate from the Krebs cycle, fortunately does not affect the values calculated for $f^{PC}$ or $f^{PDC}$.
\subsubsection{Average number of Krebs cycle turns including efflux of citrate equivalents/other molecules $d$}
An expression for the average number of completed cycle turns before secretion of a citrate molecule, taking an apparent secretion fraction $d$ into account, is straightforwardly obtained by replacing $c$ for $d$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{equation}
<n>=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nd(1-d)^n=\frac{1-d}{d}
\end{equation}\end{linenomath}
\subsubsection{True citrate secretion fraction $c$ versus apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$}
It is not possible to distinguish $c$ and $d$ from each other within the experimental scope for which our model is designed, but we do know that the secretion fraction $c$ has to be smaller than $d$ if there is carbon, in addition to citrate carbons, flowing out of the Krebs cycle. So less than the calculated fraction $d$ of citrate molecules are secreted every cycle turn. The average number of completed cycle turns before secretion of citrate, in the situation that there are no other processes involved, would be even larger.
\section{Discussion \& Conclusions}
In this paper we present a quantitative model describing metabolic pathways in the production of labeled citrate in the mitochondria of prostatic epithelial cells and its secretion into the luminal space or incubation medium. Our model focuses on the application of \textsuperscript{13}C labeled substrates and the distribution of \textsuperscript{13}C labels over the 6 carbons in secreted citrate as a read-out for intracellular metabolism. In the design of the model we have taken common characteristics of the Krebs cycle into account such as the rapid carbon exchange between oxaloacetate, malate and fumarate.\supercite{Magnusson1991,Merritt2011} We show how to calculate the fraction of citrate leaving the Krebs cycle for secretion, i.e. $c$, and how to calculate the fractions of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex (PDC) versus the anaplerotic pyruvate carboxylase (PC) pathway in supplying the Krebs cycle with carbons from pyruvate, i.e. $f^{PC}$ and $f^{PDC}$. For this purpose we suggest two simple ratios of \textsuperscript{13}C NMR signal integrals of citrate that can be obtained after supplementation with \textsuperscript{13}C labeled glucose or pyruvate to prostate tissue \textit{in vivo} or cell lines \textit{in vitro}. These measures are shown to be independent of \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of the administered supplements. Since the total NMR integrals of the citrate carbons are measured, the model is independent of \textsuperscript{13}C J-coupling patterns, making this method more robust if SNR is low. It can be adjusted for use with other \textsuperscript{13}C labeled supplements, especially if those are feeding the acetyl-CoA pool.
\bigskip\\
For this model we assumed that the \textsuperscript{13}C pool of glucose and pyruvate are large compared to the Krebs cycle \textsuperscript{13}C pool, which results in an average constant flow of \textsuperscript{13}C labels entering the Krebs cycle over time. Another assumption made in deriving this model is the constant secretion fraction of citrate over time. If the tissue or cells are provided with a constant flow of \textsuperscript{13}C label for a long period of time, we can assume that the epithelial cells on average are in a steady state with respect to citrate production and general metabolism during this period.
\bigskip\\
After citrate diverges from the Krebs cycle and is transported to the cytosol it can be used in \textit{de novo} lipid sythesis and in further metabolic conversions. Assuming lipid synthesis and secretion of citrate by the transporters out of the cells is constant over time this doesn't influence the \textsuperscript{13}C labeling pattern found for citrate in the extracellular fluid or incubation medium since an equal fraction of all citrate present in the cytosol will be lost to lipid synthesis or other metabolism independent of the \textsuperscript{13}C labeling of citrate. Only if the \textsuperscript{13}C labels subsequently end up in the Krebs cycle again this could influence the final outcome of the experiments, but we assume this to be negligible.
\bigskip\\
Initially we assumed that, apart from secretion of citrate and carbon dioxide, no other efflux of carbons occurs during each cycle turn. In this way we derived an expression for the average true citrate secretion fraction $c$. However, carbons may leave the Krebs cycle elsewhere. Thus, the secretion fraction calculated from experimental values using this model concerns the total fraction of molecules diverging from the Krebs cycle during one cycle turn, not only citrate. We show that the efflux of other metabolites does not have an effect on the value of $f^{PC}$ or $f^{PDC}$ but it does result in an overestimation of secretion fraction $c$.To take this into account we introduce an apparent secretion fraction $d$, which represents Krebs cycle efflux of carbons from citrate and other molecules and thus gives an upper value for the secretion of citrate. Efflux from the Krebs cycle pool can be due to for example conversion of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate into glutamate by glutamate dehydrogenase, pyruvate production from oxaloacetate via PEPCK and aspartate transaminase activity. The latter is part of the malate-aspartate shuttle and catalyzes the conversion of $\alpha$-ketoglutarate into glutamate and of oxaloacetate into aspartate, and contributes to the efflux of metabolites from the Krebs cycle for production of amino acids and proteins. Multiple metabolic flux modeling studies have calculated total Krebs cycle fluxes and net influx and efflux from the Krebs cycle. In some cases exchange fluxes were calculated in addition to net fluxes. Especially interesting is the high exchange flux associated with the exchange between $\alpha$-ketoglutarate and glutamate, which can be comparable to total Krebs cycle fluxes \textit{in vivo} in tissues like heart\supercite{Burgess2001,Carvalho2004} and brain\supercite{Chen2001,Mason1995,Xin2015,Yang2006}, but also \textit{in vitro} in metastatic cell lines like melanoma\supercite{Shestov2016,Shestov2016a}, hepatocyte and hepatoma\supercite{Egnatchik2018} and glioma\supercite{PORTAIS1993} cells. Depending on the size of the unlabeled glutamate pool this can result in a fast isotopical dilution of the $\alpha$-ketoglutarate pool, resulting in loss of \textsuperscript{13}C labeled carbon skeletons. These processes and possibly further loss of \textsuperscript{13}C-labeled Krebs cycle metabolites accounts for the total efflux of \textsuperscript{13}C carbons from the Krebs cycle. Until now no literature values for similar exchange fluxes are available for prostate tissues or cell systems. Future efforts can be made to extend the model with an estimation of loss of \textsuperscript{13}C labeled carbon skeletons to glutamate using the intracellular glutamate pool size and (relative) exchange fluxes. The \textsuperscript{13}C-enrichment of the pyruvate and acetyl-CoA pool are taken into consideration as well, assuming these to be equal leads to an overestimation of the fraction $f^{PC}$. Therefore it is needed to include analysis of enrichments of these pools into experimental setups.
\bigskip\\
The high labeling efficiency of citrate using the \textsuperscript{13}C substrates described here make these substrates ideal candidates for studying metabolism underlying the unique secretion of citrate by prostate tissue. Still, extending this model to other \textsuperscript{13}C labeled substrates or other isotopes like \textsuperscript{14}C or \textsuperscript{2}H would open windows on more details of this metabolism.
\bigskip\\
In the context of our model we propose ratios of \textsuperscript{13}C NMR signals of citrate, $R_1$ and $R_2$, as read-out indices of metabolism involved in citrate production and secretion in prostatic tissue. From these indices we can calculate Krebs cycle efflux or true citrate secretion fraction $c$ (or apparent citrate secretion fraction $d$) and the fraction of pyruvate carbons entering the Krebs cycle via the PC or PDC routes. A change in these indices could indicate a shift in metabolism associated with the development of prostate diseases, such as prostate cancer, and could be used to probe therapy effectiveness. For this it would be necessary to first measure baseline indices in healthy prostate tissue by measuring citrate secreted by healthy epithelial tissue \textit{in vivo} and secondly determine how much these indices changes upon disease, in particular malignancy, or treatment.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Propagation of error}
The error in estimating the true integrals of citrate \textsuperscript{13}C carbons found in \textsuperscript{13}C MR spectra results in an error in the estimation of proposed ratios $R_1$ and $R_2$.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_1 &= \frac{C2/4-C3}{C2/4}\\
R_1 \pm \sigma_{R_1}&= \frac{(C2/4\pm\sigma_{C2/4})-(C3\pm\sigma_{C3})}{(C2/4\pm\sigma_{C2/4})}\\
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
We assume a similar error on all \textsuperscript{13}C MR signals, so $\sigma_{C3}=\sigma_{C2/4}=\sigma$. This means the standard error can be estimated using the following equations:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\frac{\sigma_{R_1}}{R_1} &\approx \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{(C2/4-C3)^2}+\frac{\sigma^2}{C2/4^2}}\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{R_1^2C2/4^2}+\frac{\sigma^2}{C2/4^2}}\\
&= \frac{\sigma}{C2/4}\sqrt{\frac{2}{R_1^2}+1}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
This means that if we assume the standard error to be a fraction $\alpha$ of the largest integral, there are two possible solutions
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\frac{\sigma_{R_1}}{R_1} &\approx \alpha\sqrt{\frac{2}{R_1^2}+1}\qquad \text{for $C2/4 \geq C3$, $\sigma=\alpha C2/4$}\\
\frac{\sigma_{R_1}}{R_1} &\approx \alpha(1-R_1)\sqrt{\frac{2}{R_1^2}+1}\qquad \text{for $C2/4 \leq C3$, $\sigma=\alpha C3$}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
\\
For ratio $R_2$ a similar derivation can be used
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
R_2 &= \frac{C1/5}{C3}\\
R_2 \pm \sigma_{R_2}&= \frac{(C1/5\pm\sigma_{C1/5})}{(C3\pm\sigma_{C3})}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
We assume a similar error on all \textsuperscript{13}C MR signals, so $\sigma_{C3}=\sigma_{C1/5}=\sigma$. This means the standard error can be estimated using the following equations:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\frac{\sigma_{R_2}}{R_2} &\approx \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{C1/5^2}+\frac{\sigma^2}{C3}}\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^2}{R_2^2C3^2}+\frac{\sigma^2}{C3^2}}\\
&= \frac{\sigma}{C3}\sqrt{\frac{1}{R_2^2}+1}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
This means that if we assume again that the standard error is a fraction $\alpha$ of the largest integral, there are two possible solutions:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\frac{\sigma_{R_2}}{R_2} &\approx \alpha\sqrt{\frac{1}{R_2^2}+1}\qquad \text{for $C3 \geq C1/5$, $\sigma=\alpha C3$}\\
\frac{\sigma_{R_2}}{R_2} &\approx \alpha\sqrt{1+R_2^2}\qquad \text{for $C3 \leq C1/5$, $\sigma=\alpha C1/5$}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
These equations are used in plotting the error bounds in Figure \ref{fig:6}.
\subsection{Average number of Krebs cycle turns for a \textsuperscript{13}C label}
The average number of Krebs cycle turns that a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes before ending up in either citrate or carbon dioxide depends on the carbon position it starts out from at $n=0$. For a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon starting at citrate C2 or C3 the fraction of \textsuperscript{13}C carbon ending up in citrate during Krebs cycle turn $n$ is:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
C_{2/3}^{Citr}(n=0)&= c\\
C_{2/3}^{Citr}(n=1)&= c(1-c)\\
C_{2/3}^{Citr}(n\geq2)&= \frac{c(1-c)^n}{2^{n-2}}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
And the fractions of \textsuperscript{13}C carbon ending up in carbon dioxide at cycle turn $n$ is:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
C_{2/3}^{CO_2}(n=0)&= 0\\
C_{2/3}^{CO_2}(n=1)&= 0\\
C_{2/3}^{CO_2}(n\geq2)&=\frac{(1-c)^{n+1}}{2^{n-1}}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Multiplying this by the corresponding Krebs cycle turn index $n$ and summing this over all possible values of $n$ gives us the average number of Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon starting at C2 or C3 completes before ending up in citrate or carbon dioxide.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
<n_{C2/3}^{Citr}>&=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nC_{2/3}^{Citr}(n)=c(1-c)\left(1+2\frac{(1-c)(3+c)}{(1+c)^2}\right)\\
<n_{C2/3}^{CO_2}>&=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nC_{2/3}^{CO_2}(n)=\frac{(3+c)(1-c)^3}{(1+c)^2}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
We can do the same for citrate C1 and C4, this results in:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
C_{1/4}^{Citr}(n=0)&= c\\
C_{1/4}^{Citr}(n=1)&= c(1-c)\\
C_{1/4}^{Citr}(n\geq2)&= 0
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
And the following contributions for cycle turn $n$ for carbon dioxide:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
C_{1/4}^{CO_2}(n=0)&=0\\
C_{1/4}^{CO_2}(n=1)&=(1-c)^2\\
C_{1/4}^{CO_2}(n\geq2)&= 0
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Again we can calculate the average number of cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon starting at citrate C1 or C4 completes before secretion in citrate or ending up in carbon dioxide.
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
<n_{C1/4}^{Citr}>&=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nC_{1/4}^{Citr}(n)=c(1-c)\\
<n_{C1/4}^{CO_2}>&=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{n=\infty}nC_{2/3}^{CO_2}(n)=(1-c)^2
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
Depending on the \textsuperscript{13}C substrate that is used the \textsuperscript{13}C carbons in citrate start at different positions at $n=0$. For {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate \textsuperscript{13}C carbon ends up at C2 via the PDC route and at C3 or C4 via the PC route. For {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate the \textsuperscript{13}C carbons start at citrate C1 via PDC and at citrate C3 or C4 via PC. The result is that the true average number of Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes before ending up in citrate or carbon dioxide also depends on the value of $f^{PC}$. Calculating this for the {[1,6-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[3-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate substrates:
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
<n_{glc\mbox{-}1,6}^{Citr}>&=\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)<n_{C2/3}^{Citr}>+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}<n_{C1/4}^{Citr}>\\
&=\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)c(1-c)\left(1+2\frac{(1-c)(3+c)}{(1+c)^2}\right)+f^{PC}\frac{c(1-c)}{2}\\
<n_{glc\mbox{-}1,6}^{CO_2}>&=\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)<n_{C2/3}^{CO_2}>+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}<n_{C1/4}^{CO_2}>\\
&=\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)\frac{(3+c)(1-c)^3}{(1+c)^2}+f^{PC}\frac{(1-c)^2}{2}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
And for the {[2,5-\textsuperscript{13}C\textsubscript{2}]}glucose or {[2-\textsuperscript{13}C]}pyruvate substrate
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
<n_{glc\mbox{-}1,6}^{Citr}>&=\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}<n_{C2/3}^{Citr}>+\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)<n_{C1/4}^{Citr}>\\
&=\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}c(1-c)\left(1+2\frac{(1-c)(3+c)}{(1+c)^2}\right)+\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)c(1-c)\\
<n_{glc\mbox{-}1,6}^{CO_2}>&=\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}<n_{C2/3}^{CO_2}>+\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)<n_{C1/4}^{CO_2}>\\
&=\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\frac{(3+c)(1-c)^3}{(1+c)^2}+\left(f^{PDC}+\frac{1}{2}f^{PC}\right)(1-c)^2
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
The average number of Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes before being secreted in citrate or carbon dioxide is plotted for $f^{PC}=0.2$ in Figure \ref{fig:12}. The longer a \textsuperscript{13}C stays in the Krebs cycle, the bigger the fraction that will be secreted as carbon dioxide, but also as citrate, the figure shows this balance and the optima. Depending on which \textsuperscript{13}C substrates are used and the pyruvate carboxylase fraction $f^{PC}$, the maximum of the citrate curves shifts. At this maximum a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon stays in citrate the longest.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/avg_13C_c03p02.png}
\caption{Average number of Krebs cycle turns a \textsuperscript{13}C carbon completes before being secreted in citrate or being lost into carbon dioxide versus secretion fraction $c$. The fraction pyruvate carboxylase is set to $f^{PC}=0.2$ and the values at $c=0.3$ are indicated with squares.}
\label{fig:12}
\end{figure}
\section{Figures}
In this section all figures are shown with their captions.\\
|
\section*{Introduction}
This paper is a continuation of a previous work \cite{Ev}. Whilst the previous paper was restricted to triangles in the elliptic plane, these investigations also deal with triangles in the extended hyperbolic plane. In addition, both papers differ in the selection of centers, central lines, central conics and cubics. \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm} The first section gives an introduction to the metric used on the projective plane. We assume that the reader is familiar with euclidean triangle geometry, but in order to introduce the terminology and fix notations, we give some basic definitions, rules and theorems. There are many introductory books on euclidean triangle geometry; we refer to presentations of Yiu \cite{Y} and Douillet \cite{D}. For geometry on the sphere / elliptic geometry we recommend the book \cite{TL} by Todhunter and Leathem. Several publications appeared in the last decade dealing with triangle geometry in the hyperbolic plane, to name Ungar \cite{U1, U2}, Wildberger \cite{W1}, Wildberger and Alkhaldi \cite{W2}, Horv\'ath \cite{H1, H2}, Vigara \cite{Vi} and Russell \cite{Ru}.\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm} The topics of the second section are: centers based on orthogonality, centers related to circumcircles and incircles, radical centers and centers of similitude, orthology, Kiepert perspectors and related objects, Tucker circles, isoptics, and substitutes for the Euler line.\vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
Remark: A detailed proof is not given for every statement, but quite often the statement can be checked by simple computation (supported by a CAS-program).
\section{Metric geometry in the projective plane \vspace*{0.5 mm}}
\subsection{} \textbf{The projective plane, its points and its lines}\hspace*{\fill} \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}Let $V$ be the three dimensional vector space $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, equipped with the canonical dot product $\boldsymbol{p} \cdot \boldsymbol{q} = (p_1,p_2,p_3) \cdot (q_1,q_2,q_3) = p_1q_1+p_2q_2+p_3q_3$, and let
$\mathcal{P}$ denote the projective plane $({V}{-}\{\boldsymbol{0}\})/\mathbb{R}^\times$. The image of a non-zero vector $\boldsymbol{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3) \in V $ under the canonical projection $\Pi{:\,} V \rightarrow \mathcal{P}$ will be denoted by $(p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ and will be regarded as a point in this plane. \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}Given two different points $P$ and $Q$ in this projective plane, there exists exactly one line incident with these two points. It is called the \textit{join} $P \vee Q$ of $P$ and $Q$. If $\boldsymbol{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3)$, $\boldsymbol{q} = (q_1,q_2,q_3)$ are two non zero vectors with $\Pi(\boldsymbol{p}) = P$ and $\Pi(\boldsymbol{q}) = Q$, then the line $P \vee Q$ through $P$ and $Q$ is the set of points $\Pi(s \boldsymbol{p} + t \boldsymbol{q})$ with $s, t \in \mathbb{R}$.
One can find linear forms $l \in V^{*}{-}\{\boldsymbol{0^*}\}$ with $\text{ker}(l) = \text{span}(\boldsymbol{p}, \boldsymbol{q})$. A suitable $l$ is, for example, $l = \,\ast\!(\boldsymbol{p}\times \boldsymbol{q}) = (\boldsymbol{p}\times \boldsymbol{q})^*$, where $\times$ stands for the canonical cross product in $V = \mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\ast$ for the isomorphism $V \rightarrow V^*, {\ast}(\boldsymbol{r}) = \boldsymbol{r}{\cdot}(.).$ The linear form $l$ is uniquely determined up to a nonzero real factor, so there is a ${1{:}1}$-correspondence between the lines in the projective plane and the elements of $\mathcal{P}^* = (V^{*}{-}\{\boldsymbol{0^*}\})/\mathbb{R}^\times$. We identify the line $l = P \vee Q$ with the element $(p_2q_3 - p_3q_2:p_3q_1 - p_1q_3:p_1q_3 - p_2q_1)^* \in \mathcal{P}^*.$\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}In the projective plane, two different lines $k = (k_1{:}k_2{:}k_3)^*, l = (l_1{:}l_2{:}l_3)^*$ always meet at one point $k \wedge l = \Pi((k_1,k_2,k_3)\times (l_1,l_2,l_3))$, the so-called \textit{meet} of these lines.
\subsection{} \textbf{Collineations, correlations and polarities}\hspace*{\fill} \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}The automorphism group Aut$(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$ can be identified with the projective linear group PGL$(V)$ = GL$(V)/\mathbb{R}^\times$. These automorphisms on $\mathcal{P}$ are called \textit{collineations} because the image of a line under an automorphism is again a line.
A \textit{correlation} is a bijective mapping $c{:}\;\mathcal{P}\cup \mathcal{P}^* \rightarrow \mathcal{P}\cup \mathcal{P}^*$ with the following property:
The restriction $c\vert _\mathcal{P}$ of $c$ to $\mathcal{P}$ is a point-to-line transformation that maps collinear points to concurrent lines, while $c\vert _\mathcal{P^*}$is a line-to-point transformation that maps concurrent lines to collinear points. Thus there are for each correlation $c$ uniquely determined linear mappings $c_1{:\,}\mathcal{P}\rightarrow\mathcal{P}^*,\, c_2{:\,}\mathcal{P}^*\rightarrow\mathcal{P}$ with $c_1 = c\vert _\mathcal{P}$ and $c_2=c\vert _{\mathcal{P}^*}.$
If $c_2$ is the inverse of $c_1$, this correlation is an involution. In this case, $c_1, c_2$ are symmetric mappings since $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{P}^*$ have even dimensions, and the correlation $c$ is a \textit{polarity}.\vspace*{0.5 mm}
\subsection{Elliptic and hyperbolic metric structures on $\mathcal{P}$}\hspace*{\fill}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}We now fix a nonzero real number $\rho$.
By $\delta$ we denote the polarity which
maps a point $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ to its \textit{dual line} $P^\delta = (\rho p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)^*$ and a line $l = (l_1{:}l_2{:}l_3)^*$ to its \textit{dual point} $l^\delta = (l_1{:}\rho l_2{:}\rho l_3)$.
\subsubsection{} We make use of $\delta$ to introduce orthogonality. A line $k = (k_1{:}k_2{:}k_3)^*$ is \textit{orthogonal} (or \textit{perpendicular}) to a line $l = (l_1{:}l_2{:}l_3)^*$ when the dual $k^\delta$ of $k$ is a point on $l$; this is precisely when $k_1 l_1 + \rho k_2 l_2 +\rho k_3 l_3 = 0$. Obviously, if $k$ is orthogonal to $l$, then $l$ is orthogonal to $k$. Two points $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ and $Q = (q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3)$ are \textit{orthogonal} to each other if $\rho p_1 q_1 + p_2 q_2 + p_3 q_3 = 0$. This is the case exactly when their dual lines $P^\delta$ and $Q^\delta$ are orthogonal. Self-orthogonal points and lines are called \textit{isotropic}.
The isotropic points form the so-called \textit{absolute conic} $\mathcal{C}_{\!abs}$. This is either the empty set, in which case the geometry is called \textit{elliptic}, or it is a proper conic and the geometry is called \textit{hyperbolic}.\hspace*{\fill}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}Each symmetric real 3x3-matrix $\mathfrak{M}$ with $\textrm{det}\, \mathfrak{M}\ne 0$ determines a scalar product (symmetric bilinear form)
$\;{\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}}{:\,}V{\times}V{\,\rightarrow\,}\mathbb{R}$ by\vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\centerline{$(v_1,v_2,v_3)\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}$$\,(w_1,w_2,w_3)\, =\, \boldsymbol(v_1,v_2,v_3)\mathfrak{M}\begin{pmatrix} w_1 \\ w_2\\ w_3 \end{pmatrix}.$}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The orthogonality of points and lines can be expressed with the help of the scalar products ${\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}}$ and ${\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}}\,$ where $\mathfrak{S} = \text{diag}(\rho,1,1)$.
Two points $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ and $Q = (q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3)$ are orthogonal precisely when $(p_1{,}p_2{,}p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}(q_1{,}q_2{,}q_3) = 0$,\, two lines $k = (k_1{:}k_2{:}k_3)^*$ and $l = (l_1{:}l_2{:}l_3)^*$ are orthogonal precisely when $(k_1{,}k_2{,}k_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(l_1{,}l_2{,}l_3) = 0.$
\subsubsection{}
Consider some point $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ and some line $l = (l_1{:}l_2{:}l_3)^*$ with $l \ne P^\delta.$ \\
The perpendicular from $P$ to $l$ is the line \vspace*{-1 mm}
\begin{equation*}
\;\;\;\text{perp}(l,P) := P \vee l^\delta = (p_2l_3{-}p_3l_2: \rho(p_3l_1{-}p_1l_3): \rho(p_1l_2{-}p_2l_1))^*, \vspace*{-1 mm}
\end{equation*}
and the point on $l$ orthogonal to $P$ is \vspace*{-1 mm}
\begin{equation*}
\text{perp}(P,l) := l \wedge P^\delta = (\rho (p_2l_3{-}p_3l_2): p_3l_1{-}p_1l_3: (p_1l_2{-}p_2l_1)).\vspace*{-1 mm}
\end{equation*}
The line through $P$ \textit{parallel} to $l$ is\vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{17mm}$\text{par}(l,P) := \text{perp}(\text{perp}(l,P),P)$.\\
The point\vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{17mm}$\text{ped}(P,l) := \text{perp}(\text{perp}(P,l),l)$,\vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
is the \textit{orthogonal projection} of $P$ on $l$, also called the \textit{pedal} of $P$ on $l$.
\subsubsection{Line segments and angles.}Define the function $\chi{:}\;V \rightarrow \{-1,0,1\}$ by\vspace*{-1 mm}
\[\chi(p_0,p_1,p_2) =
\begin{cases}
\;\;\,0,\;\;\text{if }\, (p_1,p_2,p_3) = (0,0,0)\;, \\
\;\;\,1,\;\;\text{if }\, (p_1,p_2,p_3) > (0,0,0)\; \textrm{with respect to the lexicographic order,} \\
-1,\;\;\text{if }\, (p_1,p_2,p_3) < (0,0,0)\; \textrm{with respect to the lexicographic order.} \\
\end{cases}\vspace*{-1 mm}\]
For an anisotropic point $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ let $P^\circ \in V$ be the vector \vspace*{-2 mm}\\
\[\,P^\circ\!:= \frac{\chi(p_1,p_2,p_3)}{\sqrt{|(p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}(p_1,p_2,p_3)|}} (p_1,p_2,p_3) =\frac{\chi(p_1,p_2,p_3)}{\sqrt{|\rho p_1^{ 2} + p_2^{ 2}+ p_3^{ 2}|}} (p_1,p_2,p_3).\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
\]
$P^\circ$ is obviously uniquely determined by $P$. \vspace*{1 mm}\\
For any two different points $P$ and $Q$ we introduce two line segments $[P,Q]_{+}, [P,Q]_{-}$, these are the closures of the two connected components of the set $P \vee Q - \{P, Q\}$. If $R,S$ are two different anisotropic points in $[P,Q]_+$, then $[R,S]_+ = \{\Pi(s R^\circ{+\,}t S^\circ) |\, s,t{\,\in\,}\mathbb{R}, st \geq 0\}$ is a subset of $[P,Q]_+$, and if $R,S$ are two different anisotropic points in $[P,Q]_-$, then $[R,S]_- = \{\Pi(s R^\circ{+\,}t S^\circ) |\, s,t{\,\in\,}\mathbb{R}, st \leq 0\}$ is a subset of $[P,Q]_-$.\vspace*{-1.5 mm}\\
We define angles as subsets of the pencil of lines through a point, which is the vertex of this angle: Given three noncollinear points $Q, R, S$, put\vspace*{-2 mm}
\begin{equation*}\vspace*{-1 mm}
\angle_{+} QSR := \{S \vee P |\, P \in [Q,R]_+\}\,,\;\angle_{-} QSR := \{S \vee P |\, P \in [Q,R]_-\}\,.
\end{equation*}
\vspace*{-1 mm}The union of these two angles is the complete pencil of lines through $S$.
\subsubsection{The length of a segment and the measure of an angle.} \label{subsubsec:The length of a segment and the measure of an angle.}
We introduce the measure of segments and angles using concepts that were developed by C. V\"or\"os in Hungary at the beginning of the $20^{\textrm{th}}$ century and more recently (2014) described by Horv\'ath in two papers \cite{H1, H2}, where he applied these to various configurations in hyperbolic geometry.\\
To each line segment $s$ and to each angle $\phi$ is assigned its measure $\mu(s)$ resp. $\mu(\phi)$ which is a complex number with a real part in $\bar{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty,\infty\}$ and an imaginary part in the interval $[0,\pi]$. \vspace*{-3 mm}\\
Define for each anisotropic point $P = (p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ a number $\varepsilon_{\!P} \in \{1,-i\}$ by\\
\noindent\hspace*{25mm} \hspace*{20 mm}$\varepsilon_{\!P} := 1/\sqrt{P^\circ {\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}}]} P^\circ}\;$\footnote{$^)$ We follow the convention $\sqrt{r \exp(\phi\,i)} = \sqrt{r}\exp(\frac{1}{2}\phi\,i)$ for $r \in \mathbb{R}^+ \textrm{and}\; 0\leq \phi<2\pi $.}$^).$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
First we describe the measure $\mu([P,Q]_{\pm})$ of line segments with anisotropic endpoints $P,Q,$ $P \ne Q$. (The remaining cases will be treated afterwards.)\\Here, the function $\mu$ satisfies the following rules:\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}(1)$\;\;\mu([P,Q]_{+})$ and $\mu([P,Q]_{-})$ are finite complex numbers with imaginary parts\\
\noindent\hspace*{11mm}in the interval $[\,0,\pi\,]$ satisfying\\
\noindent\hspace*{11mm}$\mu([P,Q]_{+}) + \mu([P,Q]_{-}) = \mu(P \vee Q) = \pi i$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}(2)$\;\;\cosh(\mu[P,Q]_{+}) = \varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q} P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ.$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}(3)$\;\;$If $R$ is an anisotropic inner point of $[P,Q]_+$,\\
\noindent\hspace*{11mm}then $\mu([P,R]_+) + \mu([R,Q]_+) = \mu([P,Q]_+).$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}(4)$\;\;Q = \text{perp}(P,P{\vee}Q)$\, precisely when \,$\mu([P,Q]_+) = \mu([P,Q]_-) = \frac{\pi}{2} i$.\vspace*{2 mm}\\
Let us look at special cases.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
In the elliptic case, all points $R$ are anisotropic with $\varepsilon_{\!R} = 1$. For two different points $P$ and $Q$ we have
$-1 < P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}\,Q^\circ < 1$ and $\mu([P,Q]_{\pm}) = s i$ with a real number $s, \,0 < s < \pi.$ \vspace*{1 mm}\\
The hyperbolic case is more complicated. The set of anisotropic points in $\mathcal{P}$ consists of two connected components. One component is the part \textit{outside} the absolute conic; it consists of all nonisotropic points of tangents of $\mathcal{C}_{\!abs}$. The other component contains the points \textit{inside} the conic; each line through a point of this region meets the absolute conic twice. The inner part consists of points $R$ with $\varepsilon_{\!R} = -i$,
the outer part contains all points $R$ with $\varepsilon_{\!R} = 1$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
If all points on $P \vee Q$ are anisotropic, the situation is similar to the elliptic case. We have $\varepsilon_{\!R} = 1$ for each point $R$ on $P \vee Q$, and we have $-1 < P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}\,Q^\circ < 1$ and $\mu([P,Q]_{\pm}) = s i$ with a real number $s$, $0 < s < \pi.$ \vspace*{1 mm}\\
If $P \vee Q$ is isotropic, then it contains exactly one isotropic point, which is the touchpoint of this line with the absolute conic. If this point is outside the segment $[P,Q]_+$, then
$\varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q} P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}\,Q^\circ = 1, \mu([P,Q]_+) = 0$, and $\mu([P,Q]_-) = \pi i$. Otherwise, $\varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q} P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}\,Q^\circ = -1,\, \mu([P,Q]_+) = \pi i$, \,and $\mu([P,Q]_-) = 0$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The remaining case: There are two isotropic points on $P \vee Q$. We consider several subcases:\\
Subcase 1: $P$ and $Q$ are inside the absolute conic. Then there is no isotropic point in $[P,Q]_+$, while there are two such points in $[P,Q]_-$. The length $\mu([P,Q]_+)$ has to be a real number in order to satisfy the condition $\cosh(\mu[P,Q]_{+}) = \varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q} P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}\,Q^\circ$, since
the number on the right side of this equation is a real number $>1$. We have the choice of $\mu([P,Q]_+)$ being positive or negative and decide for the positive value.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
Subcase 2: One of the points $P, Q$ is inside, the other one is outside the absolute conic. Let us assume $P$ is outside; then the point $R := \text{perp}(P,P{\vee}Q)$ lies inside the absolute conic. In this case, \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\mu([P,Q]_+) = \,\mu([R,Q]_+) + \frac{\pi}{2} i, \; \mu([P,Q]_-) = \,-\mu([R,Q]_+) + \frac{\pi}{2} i$, \;if $R \in [P,Q]_+$, and\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\mu([P,Q]_+) = -\mu([R,Q]_+) + \frac{\pi}{2} i, \;\mu([P,Q]_-) = \mu([R,Q]_+) + \frac{\pi}{2} i$, \;if $R \in [P,Q]_-$. \vspace*{1 mm}\\
Subcase 3: Both, $P$ and $Q$, are points outside the absolute conic. With $R := \text{perp}(P,P{\vee}Q)$ and $S := \text{perp}(Q,P{\vee}Q)$ we get\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{15mm}$\cosh(\mu([P,Q]_+) = \varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q} P^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,Q^\circ = \varepsilon_{\!R}\varepsilon_{\!S} R^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,S^\circ = \cosh(\mu([R,S]_+)$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
The rules (1) and (4) require $\mu([P,Q]_+) = -\mu([R,S]_+) < 0$. \vspace*{1 mm}\\
An analysis of the different cases shows that by knowing the two numbers $\varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q}$ and $P^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,Q^\circ$ we can determine $\mu([P,Q]_\pm)$.\vspace*{3 mm}\\
We now set the lengths of the segments $[P,Q]_\pm$ if at least one endpoint is isotropic. In this case, $\mu([P,Q]_{\pm})$ is not an element in $\mathbb{C}$, the real part of $\mu([P,Q]_\pm)$ is either $+\infty$ or $-\infty$. Again we "decline" various cases.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
If $P \vee Q$ is an isotropic line and $P$ is an isotropic point, then $Q$ is anisotropic and \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{23mm}$P = \text{perp}(Q,P \vee Q)$,\, $\mu([P,Q]_+) = \mu([P,Q]_-) = \frac{\pi}{2} i$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
If $P \vee Q$ is an anisotropic line and just one of the points $P, Q$, let us say $P$, is isotropic, then: \\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\mu([P,Q]_+) = \infty + \frac{1}{4}\pi i$,\; $\mu([P,Q]_-) = -\infty + \frac{3}{4}\pi i$ in case of $\varepsilon_{\!Q}= -i$.\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\mu([P,Q]_+) = -\infty + \frac{1}{4}\pi i$,\; $\mu([P,Q]_-) = \infty + \frac{3}{4}\pi i$ \,if $\varepsilon_{\!Q}= 1\,$ and $\,P$ is the only isotropic\\ \noindent\hspace*{5mm}point in $[P,Q]_+$,\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\mu([P,Q]_+) = \infty + \frac{3}{4}\pi i$,\; $\mu([P,Q]_-) = -\infty + \frac{1}{4}\pi i$ \,if there are two isotropic points\\ \noindent\hspace*{5mm}in $[P,Q]_+$.\\
If $P$ and $Q$ are isotropic, then $\mu([P,Q]_{\pm}) = \pm \infty + \frac{\pi}{2} i$.\vspace*{2 mm}\\
The measure of angles:\; We use the same symbol $\mu$ for the measure of angles as for line segments. The angle $\angle_{+} QSR$ is either identical with $\{P^\delta\,|\,P\in [(S\vee Q)^\delta, (S \vee R)^\delta]_{+}\}$ or with $\{P^\delta\,|\,P\in [(S\vee Q)^\delta, (S \vee R)^\delta]_{-}\}$. In the first case we set $\mu(\angle_{\pm} QSR) = \mu([(S\vee Q)^\delta, (S \vee R)^\delta]_{\pm})$, in the second $\mu(\angle_{\pm} QSR) = \mu([(S\vee Q)^\delta, (S \vee R)^\delta]_{\mp})$. If the points $R, S, Q$ and the lines $S{\vee}Q,\, S{\vee}R$ are anisotropic, then \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\cosh(\mu(\angle_{+} QSR)) = -\cosh(\mu(\angle_{-} QSR))$\hspace*{60 mm}}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle = \frac{(S^\circ\times Q^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(S^\circ\times R^\circ)}{\sqrt{(S^\circ\times Q^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(S^\circ\times Q^\circ)}\,\sqrt{(S^\circ\times R^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(S^\circ\times R^\circ)}}$\,\hspace*{29 mm}}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{ $\displaystyle= \frac{(S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} S^\circ)(Q^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ) - (S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} Q^\circ)(S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ)}{\sqrt{(S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} S^\circ)(Q^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} Q^\circ) - (S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} Q^\circ)^2}\,\sqrt{(S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} S^\circ)(R^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ) - (S^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ)^2}}\;.$}\vspace*{1 mm}
\subsubsection{The distance between points and the (angle) distance between lines.}
We introduce an order $\prec$ on $\bar{\mathbb{R}} + \mathbb{R} i$\; by\vspace*{-3 mm}\\
\centerline{$a_1 + b_1 i \prec a_2 + b_2 i \;\;\;\text{iff} \;\;\;
\begin{cases}
&b_1 < b_2 \vspace*{-2 mm}\\
\text{or}\vspace*{-2 mm}&\\
&b_1 = b_2 \;\;\text{and }\, a_1 < a_2\;,
\end{cases}$}\vspace*{2 mm}\\
and define a function $d{:\,}\mathcal{P}\times \mathcal{P} \rightarrow \{a{+}bi\, |\, a \in \bar{\mathbb{R}}, b \in [0,\frac{\pi}{2}] \}$ by\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$d(P,Q) =
\begin{cases}
0,\;\;\text{if } P = Q\;, \\
\mu([P,Q]_+),\;\text{if }\, P \ne Q \;\,\textrm{and}\;\, \mu([P,Q]_+ \prec \mu([P,Q]_-\;, \\
\mu([P,Q]_-),\;\text{otherwise}\,.
\end{cases}$}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
We call $d$ a distance function on $\mathcal{P}$, even though it is obviously not a proper metric. This distance is continuous on $\mathcal{P} - \mathcal{C}_{\!abs}$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm} For anisotropic points $P$ and $Q$, the distance $d(P,Q)$ is uniquely determined by the two numbers $\cosh^2(d(P,Q))$ and $\varepsilon_{\!P}\varepsilon_{\!Q}$.
If $P$ and $Q$ are both isotropic, then $\cosh^2(d(P,Q)) = -\infty$ and $d(P,Q) = -\infty + \frac{\pi}{2} i$. If only $P$ is isotropic, then $\cosh^2(d(P,Q)) = \frac{1}{2} -\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{ 2}\infty\,i$ and $d(P,Q) = -\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{2}\infty + \frac{\pi}{4} i$. \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm} In the same way we define a function measuring the distance between two lines, and we also use the same symbol $d$. Thus, given two lines $k$ and $l$, then $d(k,l) = d(k^\delta,l^\delta)$.
\subsubsection{Barycentric coordinates of a point on a line.}
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two different anisotropic points on an anisotropic line and $R_\pm \in [P,Q]_\pm$ be two other anisotropic
points on this line, then $R_\pm = \Pi(x P^\circ \pm y{\,}Q^\circ)$ with any two real numbers $x, y$ satisfying\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$(\ast)\;\;x\,:\,y = \sinh(d(R_\pm,Q))\,\varepsilon_{\!P}{\,:\,}\sinh(d(R_\pm,P))\,\varepsilon_{\!Q}$ .}\vspace*{1mm}\\
Real numbers $x, y$ satisfying $(\ast)\;$are called \textit{barycentric coordinates} of $P_\pm$ with respect to the points $P,Q$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\textit{Proof} of $(\ast):$ Let $R\,$ be an anisotropic point on $P\vee Q$. Assume $R^\circ = x P^\circ {+\,} y\,Q^\circ$, $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$. Then:\vspace*{0 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{22mm}$\displaystyle\sinh^2(d(P,R)) = \cosh^2(d(P,R)) - 1 $\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{44mm}$= \displaystyle\frac{(R^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}P^\circ)^2 \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}}{R^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ} - 1 $ \vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{44mm}$\displaystyle= \frac{((x P^\circ{+\,}y\,Q^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}P^\circ)^2 \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}}{(x P^\circ{+\,}y\,Q^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}}(x P^\circ{+\,}y\,Q^\circ)} - 1$\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{44mm}$=\displaystyle\frac{x^2\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2} + {2 xy P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ} + y^2 (P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ)^2\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}} {x^2\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2} + {2 xy P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ} + y^2\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}} - 1$\\
\noindent\hspace*{44mm}$= \displaystyle\frac{y^2({(P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ})^2 \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}-\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2})}{{R^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ}}.$ \\
\noindent\hspace*{0mm}In the same way we get
$\hspace*{1mm}\displaystyle\sinh^2(d(Q,R)) = \frac{x^2({(P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ})^2 \varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}-\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2})}{{R^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} R^\circ}}\;.$\hspace*{0mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{0mm}Thus:
$\displaystyle\frac{\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}\sinh^2(d(P,R))}{\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}\sinh^2(d(Q,R))} = \frac{y^2({(P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ})^2 \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}-1)}{x^2({(P^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}Q^\circ})^2 \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}-1)} =\frac{y^2(\cosh^2(d(P,Q))-1)}{x^2(\cosh^2(d(P,Q))-1)} = \frac{y^2}{x^2}\;.$\vspace*{2mm}\\
\noindent Now we look at different cases.\\
If all points of $P \vee Q$ are anisotropic, then $\varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!Q}=\varepsilon_{\!R}=1$ and $d(P,R), d(Q,R) \in [0,\frac 12 \pi i]$. Therefore, $(x,y) \in \mathbb{R} (-i\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), -i\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R))).$\hspace*{0.3mm}\\
If $P\vee Q$ is a line passing through two isotropic points, we consider four subcases:\\
$(1)\,: \varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!Q}=\varepsilon_{\!R}$. Then $d(P,R), d(Q,R) \in \mathbb{R}$ and \\
\hspace*{8 mm}$(x,y) \in \mathbb{R} (\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), \varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = 1$,\\
\hspace*{8 mm}$(x,y) \in \mathbb{R} (-i\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), -i\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = -i$.\\
$(2):$ $\varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!Q}\ne\varepsilon_{\!R}$, hence $d(P,R), d(Q,R) \in \frac12 \pi i +\mathbb{R}$.\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$If $\varepsilon_{\!P}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!Q}{\,=\,}1$, then $(x,y) \in $ $\mathbb{R} (-i\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), -i\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$.\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$If $\varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!Q} = -i$, then $(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}(\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)),\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R))).$\\
$(3):$ If $\varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!R}\ne\varepsilon_{\!Q}$, then $d(P,R) \in \mathbb{R}\;$ and $\;d(Q,R) \in \frac12 \pi i +\mathbb{R}$.\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$In this case, $(x,y) \in $ $\mathbb{R} (-i\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), -i\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = 1$,\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$and $(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}(\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)),\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = -i$.\\
$(4):$ If $\varepsilon_{\!P}\ne\varepsilon_{\!R}=\varepsilon_{\!Q}$, then $d(P,R) \in \frac12 \pi i +\mathbb{R}\;$ and $\;d(Q,R) \in \mathbb{R}$.\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$In this case, $(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}(\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)),\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = 1$,\\
$\hspace*{9mm}$and $(x,y) \in $ $\mathbb{R} (-i\varepsilon_{\!P}\sinh(d(Q,R)), -i\varepsilon_{\!Q}\sinh(d(P,R)))$ if $\varepsilon_{\!P} = -i. \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\Box\vspace*{0 mm}$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\subsubsection{Semi-midpoints.}
The points $R_\pm = P \pm Q$ $:=\Pi(P^\circ \pm Q^\circ)$ we call \textit{semi-midpoints} of $P$ and $Q$. These points were introduced and investigated by Wildberger and Alkhaldi \cite{W2} under the name \textit{smydpoints}.\\
Properties of semi-midpoints:\\
If $\varepsilon_{\!P}=\varepsilon_{\!Q}$, then $P + Q$ and $P - Q$ are (proper) midpoints: $d(P \pm Q, P) = d(P \pm Q, Q)$.\\
If $\varepsilon_{\!P}\ne\varepsilon_{\!Q}$, then $d(P \pm Q, P) \ne d(P \pm Q, Q)$. So, $P + Q$ and $P - Q$ are not proper midpoints of $P$ and $Q$. We will call them \textit{pseudo-midpoints}; in \cite{W2} they are called \textit{sydpoints}. If $P \ne \text{perp}(Q, P\vee Q)$, then $P + Q$ and $P - Q$ are anisotropic and
$d(P \pm Q, P)\varepsilon_{P \pm Q}\varepsilon_{\!P} = d(P \mp Q, Q)\varepsilon_{P \mp Q}\varepsilon_{\!Q}$. If $P = \text{perp}(Q, P\vee Q)$, then $P + Q$ and $P - Q$ are isotropic and $d(P\pm Q, P) = -\varepsilon_{\!P}^{2}\infty + \frac{\pi}{4} i\,,\;d(P\pm Q, Q) = -\varepsilon_{\!Q}^{2}\infty + \frac{\pi}{4} i$.\\
$P, Q, P{\,+\,}Q, P{\,-\,}Q$ always form a harmonic range.\newpage
\subsection{The use of barycentric coordinates.}\vspace*{-2 mm}
\subsubsection{Barycentric coordinates with respect to a re\-ference triple $\Delta$ of points.} We fix a re\-ference triple $\Delta = ABC$ of non-collinear, anisotropic points $A, B, C \in \mathcal{P}$. For every point $P$ we can find a triple $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ of real numbers such that $P = p_1A + p_2B + p_3C := \Pi(p_1A^\circ + p_2B^\circ + p_3C^\circ)$. Such a triple of real numbers will be called (triple of) \textit{barycentric coordinates} of $P$ with respect to $\Delta$. The triple $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ is not uniquely determined by $P$, but every other triple of barycentric coordinates is a real multiple of $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$. The point $P$ is determined by the homogenous triple $(p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3)$ and $\Delta$, and we write $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$. The triple can be calculated by $p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3 = P^\circ{\cdot}\,(B^\circ\,{\times}\,C^\circ):P^\circ{\cdot}\,(C^\circ{\times}\,A^\circ):\!P^\circ{\cdot}\,(A^\circ{\times}\,B^\circ)$.\\
\textit{Remark}: As barycentric coordinates we also accept a triple of complex numbers as long as it is a complex multiple of a real triple.
\subsubsection{Lines.}Let $P=[p_1\,{:}\,p_2\,{:}\,p_3]_\Delta$ and $Q=[p_1\,{:}\,p_2\,{:}\,p_3]_\Delta$ be two different points, then
\noindent\hspace*{0mm}the line $P\,{\vee}\,Q$ consists of all points $X=[x_1\,{:}\,x_2:x_3]_\Delta$ satisfying the equation \vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$((p_1,p_2,p_3) \times (p_1,p_2,p_3)) \cdot (x_1,x_2,x_3) = 0.$}\vspace*{2 mm}\\
If $R \vee S$ is a line through $R = [r_1\!:\!r_2\!:\!r_3]_\Delta$ and $S = [s_1\!:\!s_2\!:\!s_3]_\Delta$, different from $P \vee Q$, then both lines meet at a point
$T = [t_1\!:\!t_2\!:\!t_3]_\Delta$ with \vspace*{1 mm} \\
\centerline{$
(t_1,t_2,t_3) = ((p_1,p_2,p_3)\times ((q_1,q_2,q_3))\times((r_1,r_2,r_3)\times (s_1,s_2,s_3)).$
}
\subsubsection{Triangles.} The reference triple $\Delta = ABC$ determines four \textit{triangles} that share the same vertices $A, B, C$ and the same sidelines $a:= B \vee C$, $b:= C \vee A$, $c:= A \vee B$. These triangles are the closures in $\mathcal{P}$ of the four connected components of $\mathcal{P} - \{a,b,c\}$:\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\Delta_0 := \{[p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta |\, p_1,p_2,p_3 > 0\} \cup [B,C]_+ \cup [C,A]_+ \cup [A,B]_+$,\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\Delta_1 := \{[p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta |\,{-}p_1,p_2,p_3 > 0\} \cup [B,C]_+ \cup [C,A]_- \cup [A,B]_-$,\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\Delta_2 := \{[p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta |\, p_1,-p_2,p_3 > 0\} \cup [B,C]_- \cup [C,A]_+ \cup [A,B]_-$,\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}$\Delta_3 := \{[p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta |\, p_1,p_2,-p_3 > 0\} \cup [B,C]_- \cup [C,A]_- \cup [A,B]_+$.\vspace*{2 mm}\\
Remark: We do not consider the closures of the sets $\mathcal{P} - \Delta_k ,\, k = 0,1,2,3,\;$ as triangles.\vspace*{0.5 mm}
\subsubsection{Note:}\label{subsubsec:Note1}In the following, we always assume that not only the vertices but also the sidelines of $\Delta$ are anisotropic.\vspace*{0 mm}
\subsubsection{The characteristic matrix of $\Delta$.}\label{subsubsec:characteristic matrix} We introduce the symmetric matrix \vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$
\mathfrak{C} = (\mathfrak{c}_{ij})_{i,j=1,2,3}:= \begin{pmatrix} A^\circ{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} A^\circ &A^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} B^\circ &A^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} C^\circ\\B^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} A^\circ &B^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} B^\circ &B^\circ \!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} C^\circ \\C^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} A^\circ &C^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} B^\circ &C^\circ\!{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,} C^\circ \end{pmatrix}.\vspace*{1.5 mm}
$}
$\mathfrak{C}$ is a regular matrix with $\det\, \mathfrak{C} = \rho\, (A^\circ{\cdot}\,(B^\circ\times C^\circ))^2 \ne 0$ and inverse \vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle
\mathfrak{D} = (\mathfrak{d}_{ij})_{i,j=1,2,3} = \frac{1}{\det\, \mathfrak{C}} \begin{pmatrix} \mathfrak{c}_{22}\mathfrak{c}_{33}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}^2&\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{33}&\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{22}\\\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{33}&\mathfrak{c}_{33}\mathfrak{c}_{11}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}^2&\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{11}\\\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{22}&\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{11}&\mathfrak{c}_{11}\mathfrak{c}_{22}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}^2\end{pmatrix}.
$}\vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
$\mathfrak{C}$ is the Gram matrix of the basis $A^\circ,B^\circ,C^\circ$ of the vectorspace $V$ with the scalar product ${{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}$. We call $\mathfrak{C}$ the characteristic matrix of $\Delta$, since from this matrix, as we will see, one can read off the lengths of the sides and the measures of the angles of the triangles $\Delta_k, \, k = 0,1,2,3$.\\\vspace*{-2 mm}
Let us denote the lengths of the sides of $\Delta_0$ by\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\mathscr{a}{:=}\mu([B,C]_+),\; \mathscr{b}{:=}\mu([C,A]_+),\; \mathscr{c}{:=}\mu([A,B]_+)$,}\\
then\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle \cosh(\mathscr{a}) = \varepsilon_{\!B}\varepsilon_{\!C} B^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,C^\circ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{22}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{33}}}\mathfrak{c}_{23}$,\hspace*{12 mm}\;}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\cosh(\mathscr{b}) \,= \varepsilon_{\!C}\varepsilon_{\!A} C^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,A^\circ,\,\;\; \cosh(\mathscr{c}) = \varepsilon_{\!A}\varepsilon_{\!B} A^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}]}\,}}\,B^\circ.$}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
By knowing $\mathfrak{C}$, we also know $\varepsilon_{\!A}, \varepsilon_{\!B}, \varepsilon_{\!C}, \cosh(\mathscr{a}), \cosh(\mathscr{b}), \cosh(\mathscr{c})$. With the help of these numbers we can calculate the lengths of the sides of $\Delta_0$, but also the lengths of the sides of the triangles $\Delta_1, \Delta_2,\Delta_3$. For example, the sidelengths of $\Delta_1$ are $\mathscr{a}, \pi i - \mathscr{b}, \pi i - \mathscr{c}.$\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
Denote the measures of the (inner) angles of $\Delta_0$ by \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\alpha := \mu(\angle_{+} BAC),\, \beta := \mu(\angle_{+} CBA),\, \gamma := \mu(\angle_{+} ACB)$.}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
We can calculate $\cosh(\alpha), \cosh(\beta), \cosh(\gamma)$ from $\mathfrak{C}$ and get for example,\vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle
\cosh(\alpha) = - \frac{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\,\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}} = - \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{11}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{11}\mathfrak{c}_{22}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}^2}\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{33}\mathfrak{c}_{11}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}^2}}.
$}\vspace*{3 mm}
Of course, when we know $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$, we also know the measures of the angles of the other triangles $\Delta_k, k=1,2,3$.
\subsubsection{Some useful trigonometric formulae.\vspace*{0 mm}}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\!\cosh^2(\alpha)\; &= \frac{(\varepsilon_{\!\!A}^{\,2}\varepsilon_{\!B}^{\,}\varepsilon_{C}^{\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{11}))^2}{({\varepsilon_{\!\!A}^{\;2}\varepsilon_{\!B}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{c}_{11}^{\,}\mathfrak{c}_{22}^{\,})})\,({\varepsilon_{\!\!A}^{\;2}\varepsilon_{\!C}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{c}_{13}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{c}_{11}^{\,}\mathfrak{c}_{33}^{\,})})}
=\left(\frac{\cosh(\mathscr{b})\,\cosh(\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(\mathscr{b}) \sinh(\mathscr{c})}\right)^{\!2}\\
\cosh^2(\mathscr{a})\, &= \cosh^2(\pi i - \mathscr{a}) = \left(\frac{\cosh(\pi i - \beta)\,\cosh(\pi i - \gamma)-\cosh(\pi i - \alpha)}{\sinh(\pi i - \beta) \sinh(\pi i - \gamma)}\right)^2\\
&= \left(\frac{\cosh(\beta)\,\cosh(\gamma)+\cosh(\alpha)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)}\right)^{\!2}\\
\cosh^2(\mathscr{a})\, &= \left(1 + \frac{\cosh(\beta)\,\cosh(\gamma)+\cosh(\alpha)-\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)}\right)^{\!2}\\
&= \left(1 + \frac{\cosh(\alpha)+\cosh(\beta+\gamma)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)}\right)^{\!2}\\
&= \left(1 + \frac{2\cosh(\sigma)\cosh(\sigma{-}\alpha)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)}\right)^{\!2}\; \textrm{with }\sigma = \frac 12 (\alpha+\beta+\gamma)\\
\frac{\sinh^2(\alpha)}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{a})} \;&= \frac{\cosh^2(\alpha)-1}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{a})} = \frac{1}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{a})}\left(\left(\frac{\cosh(\mathscr{b})\,\cosh(\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(\mathscr{b}) \sinh(\mathscr{c})}\right)^2 - 1\right)\\
&=\frac{-2 \cosh(\mathscr{a})\cosh(\mathscr{b})\cosh(\mathscr{c})+\cosh^2(\mathscr{a})+\cosh^2(\mathscr{b})+\cosh^2(\mathscr{c})-1}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{a})\sinh^2(\mathscr{b})\sinh^2(\mathscr{c})} \\
&= \frac{\sinh^2(\beta)}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{b})} = \frac{\sinh^2(\gamma)}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{c})}\\
\sinh^2(\alpha)\;\; &= \left(\frac{\cosh(\mathscr{b})\,\cosh(\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(\mathscr{b}) \sinh(\mathscr{c})} -1\right)\left(\frac{\cosh(\mathscr{b})\,\cosh(\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(\mathscr{b}) \sinh(\mathscr{c})} +1\right)\\
&=\frac{(\cosh(\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a}))(\cosh(\mathscr{b}-\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a}))}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{b}) \sinh^2(\mathscr{c})}\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
=-\frac{4\sinh(s)\sinh(s-\mathscr{a})\sinh(s-\mathscr{b})\sinh(s-\mathscr{c})}{\sinh^2(\mathscr{b}) \sinh^2(\mathscr{c})}\;\, \textrm{with}\;s=\frac{1}{2}(\mathscr{a}+\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c})\\
\end{equation*}
\vspace*{0.2 mm}
\subsubsection{The distance between two points which are given by barycentric coordinates.} \label{subsubsec:The length of a segment in barycentric coordinates.}$\;\;\;\;\;\;$ A point $S = [s_1{:}s_2{:}s_3]_\Delta$ is isotropic precisely when $(s_1,s_2,s_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(s_1,s_2,s_3) = 0$.\\
Given two different anisotropic points $P=[p_1\,{:}\,p_2\,{:}\,p_3]_\Delta$ and $Q=[p_1\,{:}\,p_2\,{:}\,p_3]_\Delta$, then \vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\begin{equation*}
\cosh^2(d(P,Q)) = \frac{((p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(q_1,q_2,q_3))^2}{((p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(p_1,p_2,p_3))\,((q_1,q_2,q_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(q_1,q_2,q_3))}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2} = \frac{(p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(p_1,p_2,p_3)}{|(p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(p_1,p_2,p_3)|} \;,\; \varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2} = \frac{(q_1,q_2,q_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(q_1,q_2,q_3)}{|(q_1,q_2,q_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(q_1,q_2,q_3)|} .\vspace*{2 mm}
\end{equation*}
The three numbers $\cosh^2(d(P,Q)), \varepsilon_{\!P}^{\;2}, \varepsilon_{\!Q}^{\;2}$ determine $d(P,Q)$.\vspace*{2 mm}
\subsubsection{The dual of $\Delta$.}\label{subsubsec:The dual triple}
Put $A':= a^\delta, B':= b^\delta, C':= c^\delta$. The triple $\Delta' = A'B'C'$ is called the dual of $\Delta$. The representation of $A'$ by barycentric coordinates with respect to $\Delta$ is \\$[(B^\circ{\times}\,C^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(B^\circ{\times}\,C^\circ):(B^\circ{\times}\,C^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(C^\circ{\times}\,A^\circ):(B^\circ{\times}\,C^\circ){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{S}^{-1}]}\,}(A^\circ{\times}\,B^\circ)]_\Delta$, with $\mathfrak{S} = \text{diag}(\rho,1,1)$. It can be easily checked (see also \ref{subsubsec:conics}) that \\
\centerline{$A' = [\mathfrak{d}_{11}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{12}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{13}]_\Delta = [\mathfrak{c}_{22}\mathfrak{c}_{33}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}^2 :\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{33} :\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{22}]_\Delta\,.$}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
In the same way the barycentric coordinates of $B'$ and $C'$ can be calculated, getting\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$B' = [\mathfrak{d}_{21}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{23}]_\Delta,
C' = [\mathfrak{d}_{31}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{32}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{33}]_\Delta, $}\\
and we conclude:\vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$A = [\mathfrak{c}_{11}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{13}]_{\Delta'}\,,\; B = [\mathfrak{c}_{21}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{22}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{23}]_{\Delta'}\,,\; C = [\mathfrak{c}_{31}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{32}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{33}]_{\Delta'}$\,.}\vspace*{2 mm}
\subsubsection{The dual triangles.}\label{subsubsec:The dual triangles.}
Just like $\Delta$, the triple $\Delta'$ determines four triangles $\Delta'_{\,k}, k = 0,1,2,3$. But, in general, triangle $\Delta'_{\,k}$ is not the dual of $\Delta_k$. In fact, the dual of $\Delta_k$ is \centerline{$\Delta^{k} := \mathcal{P} - \bigcup_{P\, \text{inner point of}\, \Delta_k} P^\delta $.}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
We put $a':= B'{\vee}C',\, b':= C'{\vee}A',\, c':= A'{\vee}B'$ and denote by $\mathscr{a}', \mathscr{b}', \mathscr{c}'$ the lengths of the sides and by $\alpha', \beta', \gamma'$ the measures of the angles of triangle $\Delta^0$. Then (see \ref{subsubsec:The length of a segment and the measure of an angle.}),\vspace*{-3 mm}\\
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathscr{a}' &= \pi i - \alpha,\; \mathscr{b}' = \pi i - \beta,\, \mathscr{c}' = \pi i - \gamma\,,\\
\alpha' &= \pi i - \mathscr{a},\,\beta' = \pi i - \mathscr{b},\, \gamma' = \pi i - \mathscr{c}\,.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{Reflections.}
For each anisotropic point $M = [m_1{:}m_2{:}m_3]_\Delta$ we define a mapping $\sigma_M{:\,}\mathcal{P}-\mathcal{C}_{\!abs}\rightarrow\mathcal{P}$ as follows: The image of an anisotropic point $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ under $\sigma_M$ is the point $Q = [q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta$ with
\begin{equation*}
(q_1,q_2,q_3) = (p_1,p_2,p_3) - 2\frac{(m_1,m_2,m_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(p_1,p_2,p_3)}{(m_1,m_2,m_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(m_1,m_2,m_3)} (m_1,m_2,m_3).
\end{equation*}
The points $P, M, Q$ are obviously collinear, and it can be easily checked that $P$ and $Q$ have the same distance from $M$. In particular, $Q$ is also an anisotropic point, lying together with $P$ in the same connected component of $\mathcal{P}-\mathcal{C}_{\!abs}$. It can also be verified that $\sigma_M(Q) = P$, and that $P = Q$ only if either $P = M$ or $d(P,M) = \frac{\pi}{2} i.$ \\
We extend $\sigma_M$ to a mapping which is continuous on $\mathcal{P}$:
If $P$ is the only isotropic point on the (isotropic) line $P\vee M$, then $\sigma_M(P) = P$; if the line $P\vee M$ contains still another isotropic point $Q$ besides $P$, then $\sigma_M(P) = Q$.\\ This mapping $\sigma_M{:\,}\mathcal{P}\rightarrow\mathcal{P}$ is an involution.
We call it the reflection in the point $M$ and call $Q$ the mirror image of $P$ under $\sigma_M$.
It is not difficult to show that this reflection preserves the distance between points and the (angle) distance between lines.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent \textit{Remark:} A reflection $\sigma_M$ in an anisotropic point $M$ can also be interpreted as a reflection $\sigma_\ell$ in the line $\ell = M^\delta.$
\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
If a nonempty subset $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is invariant under the reflection in an anisotropic point $M$, then $M$ is called a \textit{symmetry point} of $\mathcal{S}$; the line $M^\delta$ is a \textit{symmetry axis} of $\mathcal{S}$. A special case: If $P$ and $Q$ are two different anisotropic points, the points $P{+\,}Q$ and $P{-\,}Q$ are symmetry points of $\{P,Q\}$ precisely when they are (proper) midpoints.
\subsubsection{The pedals and antipedals of a point.} We calculate the coordinates of the pedals of a point $P=[p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta$ on the sidelines of $\Delta$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&A_{[P]} := \text{ped}(P,a) = (P\vee C') \wedge a = [0:\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_1:\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_1]_\Delta,\\
&B_{[P]} = [\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_2:0:\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_2]_\Delta,\\
&C_{[P]} = [\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_3:\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_3:0]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The \textit{antipedal points} of $P$ are\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&A^{[P]} := \text{perp}(B\vee P,B)\wedge \text{perp}(C\vee P,C) = [-1:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_2}{\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_1}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_3}{\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_1}]_\Delta,\\
&B^{[P]} = [\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_1}{\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{12}p_2}:-1:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_3}{\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_2}]_\Delta,\\
&C^{[P]} = [\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{11}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_1}{\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_1-\mathfrak{d}_{31}p_3}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_3-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_2}{\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_2-\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_3}:-1]_\Delta,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{The cevian and the anticevian triple of a point.}
If $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ is a point different from $A,B,C$, then the lines $P\vee A,$ $P\vee B,$ $P\vee C$ are called the \textit{cevian lines} of $P$ with respect to $\Delta$. The cevian lines meet the sidelines $a, b, c$ at the points $A_{P} =[0{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta, B_{P} = [p_1{:}0{:}p_3]_\Delta, C_{P} = [p_1{:}p_2{:}0]_\Delta$, respectively. These points are called the \textit{cevian points} or the \textit{traces}, and the triple $A_{P}B_{P}C_{P}$ is called the \textit{cevian triple} of $P$ with respect to $\Delta$. The \textit{anticevian triple} $A^{P}B^{P}C^{P}$ consists of the \textit{harmonic associates} $A^{P} = [-p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$, $B^{P} = [p_1{:}-p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$, $C^{P} = [p_1{:}p_2{:}-p_3]_\Delta$ of $P$.
\subsubsection{Tripolar and tripole}
Given a point $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$, then the point $[0{:}-p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ is the harmonic conjugate of $A_P$ with respect to $\{B,C\}$. Correspondingly, the harmonic conjugates of the traces of $P$ on the other sidelines are $[-p_1{:}0{:}p_3]_\Delta$ and $[p_1{:}-p_2{:}0]_\Delta$. These three harmonic conjugates are collinear; the equation of the line $l$ is $p_2p_3 x_1 + p_3p_1 x_2 + p_1p_2x_3 = 0.$ This line is called the \textit{tripolar line} or the \textit{tripolar} of $P$ and we denote it by $P^\tau$. $P$ is the \textit{tripole} of $l$ and we write $P = l^\tau$.
\subsubsection{Isoconjugation} Let $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ be a point not on a sideline of $\Delta$ and let the point $Q = [q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta$ be not a vertex of $\Delta$, then the point $R =[p_1q_2q_3{:}p_2q_3q_1{:}p_3q_1q_2]_\Delta$ is called
the $P$-isoconjugate of $Q$ with respect to $\Delta$. \\
Special cases: If $P = G = [1{:}1{:}1]_\Delta$ (the centroid of $\Delta_0$), $P$-isoconjugation is called \textit{isotomic} conjugation, and for $P = K = [\mathfrak{d}_{11}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{33}]_\Delta$ (the
symmedian of $\Delta_0$) it is called \textit{isogonal} conjugation.
The isotomic (resp. isogonal) conjugate of a point $P$ with respect to $\Delta$ agrees with the isogonal (resp. isotomic) conjugate of $P$ with respect to $\Delta'$.
\subsubsection{The area of a triangle.} For a triangle $\mathcal{T}$ \footnote{$^)$ Implicitly it is always assumed that the vertices and the sidelines of a triangle are anisotropic.}$^)$ we define its \textit{area} (also called its \textit{excess}) by $\textrm{area}(\mathcal{T}) = \alpha + \beta + \gamma - \pi i$, where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are the measures of the inner angles of $\mathcal{T}$. This function is additive: If we dissect $\mathcal{T}$ in finitely many triangles, then the sum of the areas of these parts equals the area of $\mathcal{T}$. Adding up all the areas of the triangles $\Delta_k, k = 1,2,3,4$, we get $2\pi i$ for the area of the whole plane $\mathcal{P}$.
\subsubsection{Conics.}\label{subsubsec:conics} Let $\mathfrak{M} = (\mathfrak{m}_{ij})_{i,j=1,2,3}$ be a symmetric matrix, then we denote by $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ the quadratic form \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$q(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \mathfrak{m}_{11}x_1^2 + \mathfrak{m}_{22}x_2^2 + \mathfrak{m}_{33}x_3^2 + 2\mathfrak{m}_{23}x_2 x_3 + 2\mathfrak{m}_{31}x_3 x_1 + 2\mathfrak{m}_{12}x_1 x_2.$}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
If $\mathfrak{M}$ is indefinite, the set of points $[x_1{:}x_2{:}x_3]_\Delta$ which satisfy
the quadratic equation $q(x_1,x_2,x_3)=0$
is a \textit{real conic} which we denote by $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$. This conic is called \textit{nondegenerate} if det$(\mathfrak{M}) \ne 0$. \vspace*{-2 mm}\\
The polar of a point $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta $ with respect to $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ is the line with the equation $(p_1,p_2,p_3){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]\,}}(x_1,x_2,x_3) = 0$, and
the pole of the line $\ell\!\!: \ell_{\!1} x_1 + \ell_{\!2} x_2 + \ell_{\!3} x_3 = 0$ with respect to $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ is the point $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ with
$(p_1,p_2,p_3) = (\ell_{\!1},\ell_{\!2}, \ell_{\!3})\mathfrak{M}^{\#}$,
where\vspace*{0.5mm} \\
\centerline{$\mathfrak{M}^\# = \begin{pmatrix} \mathfrak{m}_{22}\mathfrak{m}_{33}-\mathfrak{m}_{23}^2&\mathfrak{m}_{23}\mathfrak{m}_{31}-\mathfrak{m}_{12}\mathfrak{m}_{33}&{\mathfrak{m}_{12}\mathfrak{m}_{23}-\mathfrak{m}_{31}\mathfrak{m}_{22}}\\
\mathfrak{m}_{23}\mathfrak{m}_{31}-\mathfrak{m}_{12}\mathfrak{m}_{33}&\mathfrak{m}_{33}\mathfrak{m}_{11}-\mathfrak{m}_{31}^2&\mathfrak{m}_{31}\mathfrak{m}_{12}-\mathfrak{m}_{23}\mathfrak{m}_{11} \\
\mathfrak{m}_{12} \mathfrak{m}_{23}-\mathfrak{m}_{31}\mathfrak{m}_{22}&\mathfrak{m}_{31}\mathfrak{m}_{12}-\mathfrak{m}_{23}\mathfrak{m}_{11}&\mathfrak{m}_{11}\mathfrak{m}_{22}-\mathfrak{m}_{12}^2 \end{pmatrix}$}\vspace*{1.5mm} \\
\noindent is the adjoint of $\mathfrak{M}.$ \vspace*{1.5 mm}
\noindent A special case: In the hyperbolic plane ($\rho<0$), the conic $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{C})$ is the \textit{absolute conic} which consists of all the isotropic points. In the elliptic plane, $\mathfrak{C}$ is definite and no real isotropic points exist.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
A point $P$ is a symmetry point of a nondegenerate real conic $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M}), \mathfrak{M}\ne\mathfrak{C}, $ precisely when the polar of $P$ equals $P^\delta$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent \textit{Proof}: Take any line through $P$ that meets $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ in two points $Q$ and $R$. This line meets the polar of $P$ at the harmonic conjugate $S$ of $P$ with respect to $Q$ and $R$. Precisely when $P$ is a proper midpoint of $\{Q, R\}$, the point $S$ is also a proper midpoint of $\{Q, R\}$ and lies on $P^\delta.\;\;\Box$ \\
If $\mathfrak{M}$ is a diagonal matrix, then the polar lines of $A, B, C$ with respect to $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ are the lines $B\vee C$, $C\vee A$, $A\vee B$, respectively. If $\mathfrak{M}$ is not diagonal,
then the poles of $B\vee C$, $C\vee A$, $A\vee B$ with respect to $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ form a triple, perspective to $\Delta$ at perspector \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[[\frac 1 {\mathfrak{m}_{11} \mathfrak{m}_{23}- \mathfrak{m}_{31} \mathfrak{m}_{12}}: \frac 1 {\mathfrak{m}_{22} \mathfrak{m}_{31}- \mathfrak{m}_{12} \mathfrak{m}_{23}}:\frac 1 {\mathfrak{m}_{33} \mathfrak{m}_{12}- \mathfrak{m}_{23} \mathfrak{m}_{31}}]_\Delta.\]
This perspector is called the \textit{perspector of} $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{M})$ with respect to $\Delta$ and, if $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ is a real conic, the \textit{perspector of} $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ with respect to $\Delta$.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
Let $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ be a nondegenerate real conic. The set $\{p^\delta |\, p\;\text{is a tangent of}\; \mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})\}$ is the conic $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{C M}^{\sharp}\mathfrak{C})$; we call it the \textit{dual} of $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$. Both conics, $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ and its dual, share the same symmetry points and symmetry axes. \vspace*{-2 mm}\\
There are other conics named "dual of $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$". One, for example, is $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M^\sharp})$. To avoid a name collision, we call this one the \textit{adjoint conic}.
\subsubsection{Circles} We assume that $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M}), \mathfrak{M}\ne\mathfrak{C},$ is a nondegenerate real conic. Then $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ is a \textit{circle} if there exists a line $\ell$ consisting of symmetry points. In this case, the point $\ell^\delta$ is also a symmetry point of $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ and is called the \textit{center} of the circle.\\
\textit{Remarks}:\\
$\bullet$ A circle may have (up to two) isotropic points.\\
$\bullet$ In the elliptic plane, the center of a circle always lies inside the circle. In the hyperbolic plane, the center of a circle lies inside the circle precisely when this center also lies inside the absolute conic.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
If $P$ and $Q$ are two distinct anisotropic points on a circle with center $M$, then $d(P,M) = d(Q,M)$, because:
Let $R$ be the intersection of the lines $P\vee Q$ and $M^\delta$, then the triple $PMQ$ is mapped onto the triple $QMP$ by the (distance preserving) reflection $\sigma_{R}$. \vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
So we can define the \textit{radius} of a circle as the common distance between its center and any of its anisotropic points. \vspace*{-2 mm}\\
Given two anisotropic points $M$ and $P$, then there exists a unique nondegenerate circle $\mathscr{C}(M,P)$ with center $M$ through the point $P$ precisely when $0 \prec d(M,P) \prec \frac{\pi}{2} i$. \\
Besides the nondegenerate circles, one can regard the following degenerate conics as circles: It is common to look at a double line $l$ (a line with multiplicity 2) as a circle with center $l^\delta$ and radius $\frac{\pi}{2} i$. A double point can be considered as a circle with radius $0$ around this point. And also a degenerate conic consisting of two different isotropic lines can be seen as a circle; its center is the meet of these lines and its radius is $0$.
\section{Special triangle centers, central lines, conics and cubics}\vspace*{2 mm}
\subsection{Triangle centers and central triangles based on orthogonality}
\subsubsection{The common orthocenter of $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$.} The perspector of $\mathcal{Q}(\mathfrak{C})$ is the common \textit{orthocenter} $H$ of $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$,\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$H=[\displaystyle\frac{1}{\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{11}}:\frac{1}{\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{22}}:\frac{1}{\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{33}}]_\Delta=[{\mathfrak{d}_{31}}{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}{\,:\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\,:\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\mathfrak{d}_{31}}]_\Delta$.}\\
Since $A{\vee}H$ is orthogonal to $B{\vee}C$, $B{\vee}H$ orthogonal to $C{\vee}A$ and $C{\vee}H$ orthogonal to $A{\vee}B$, the points $A, B, C, H$ together with the
lines $a, b, c, A{\vee}H,$ $B{\vee}H, C{\vee}H$ form an \textit{orthocentric system}; each of the points is the orthocenter of the other three. The same applies to $A', B', C', H$, together with the lines through any two of them. If we combine these two systems and add the points $a{\wedge}a', b{\wedge}b', c{\wedge}c'$ and the line $H^\delta$, we get a system which - if $\Delta_0$ has neither a right angle nor a right side - consists of 10 points and 10 lines such that the dual of each of its points is one of its lines and the dual of each of its lines is one of its points, and each point is incident with 3 lines and each line incident with 3 points.
\subsubsection{Another triple perspective to $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ at perspector $H$.}
Define $A_b := b\wedge a'$, $B_a := a\wedge b'$, and the points $A_c, B_c, C_a, C_b$ accordingly.
We calculate the coordinates of these points: $A_b = [\mathfrak{c}_{31}{\,:\,}0{\,:}-\mathfrak{c}_{11}]_\Delta, B_a = [0{\,:\,}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{\,:}-\mathfrak{c}_{22}]_\Delta$, etc.
The point-triple $\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}$, \vspace*{-3 mm}\\
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\tilde{A}&:= (A_b\vee B_a)\wedge(A_c\vee C_a) = [\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{\mathfrak{c}_{11}}\frac{\mathfrak{c}_{31} \mathfrak{c}_{12}}{\mathfrak{c}_{23}}:\mathfrak{d}_{12}:\mathfrak{d}_{13}]_\Delta,\\
\tilde{B}&:= (B_c\vee C_b)\wedge(B_a\vee A_b) = [\mathfrak{d}_{21}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{\mathfrak{c}_{22}}\frac{\mathfrak{c}_{12} \mathfrak{c}_{23}}{\mathfrak{c}_{31}}:\mathfrak{d}_{23}]_\Delta,\\
\tilde{C}&:= (C_a\vee A_c)\wedge(C_b\vee B_c) = [\mathfrak{d}_{31}:\mathfrak{d}_{32}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}{\mathfrak{c}_{33}}\frac{\mathfrak{c}_{23} \mathfrak{c}_{31}}{\mathfrak{c}_{12}}]_\Delta,\vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
is perspective to $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ at perspector $H$, cf. Vigara \cite{Vi} section 8.2. \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT1.eps}
\caption{The triples $\Delta, \Delta'$ and $\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}$. The light blue circle is the absolute conic in the hyperbolic plane.
\newline
All figures were created with the software program GeoGebra \cite{GG}.}
\end{figure}
The points $B_a, C_a, C_b, A_b, A_c, B_c$ lie on the conic\vspace*{-2 mm}
\begin{equation*}
\{[x_1{:}x_2{:} x_3]_\Delta\, |\, \sum\limits_{j=1}^3 \mathfrak{c}_{j,j}^{\;2}x_j^{\;2} +\,(\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+2} + \frac{\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+1} \mathfrak{c}_{j+2,j+2}}{\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+2}})x_{j+1}x_{j+2} = 0 \}\;\;\;(\text{indices mod}\,3)\vspace*{-2 mm}\end{equation*}
with perspector $[\mathfrak{c}_{23}(1+\mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2})(1+\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2})-2\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{31}(1+\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;2}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The three points $A_a := (\tilde{B}\vee\tilde{C})\wedge a, B_b := (\tilde{C}\vee\tilde{A})\wedge b, C_c := (\tilde{A}\vee\tilde{B})\wedge c$ lie on the line \vspace*{-1 mm}
\begin{equation*}
\{[x_1{:}x_2{:}x_3]_\Delta\, |\, \mathfrak{c}_{11} \mathfrak{c}_{23} x_1 + \mathfrak{c}_{22} \mathfrak{c}_{31} x_2 + \mathfrak{c}_{33} \mathfrak{c}_{12} x_3 =0.\}
\end{equation*}
By a routine calculation we can determine the coordinates of the orthocenter of the triple $\tilde{\Delta}=\tilde{A}\tilde{B}\tilde{C}$. The expression for it is rather complicated, so we do not present it here. But it might be worth mentioning that the euclidean limit ($\rho \rightarrow \pm \infty$) of this point is the {de{\,}Longchamps point} $X_{20}$ \footnote{$^)$ The designation of the triangle centers corresponds to ETC \cite{ETC}. }$^)$ of $\Delta$.\\ The dual $\tilde{\Delta}'$ of $\tilde{\Delta}$ is perspective to $\Delta$. The perspector is $O^+ =[\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{23}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{31}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{33}\mathfrak{d}_{12}]_\Delta. $\\The euclidean limit of $\tilde{\Delta}'$ is the mirror image of $\Delta$ in the circumcenter of $\Delta_0$.\vspace*{1 mm}
The six points $(B{\vee} A')\wedge(A{\vee} C')$, $(C{\vee} A')\wedge(A{\vee} B')$, $(C{\vee} B')\wedge(B{\vee} A')$, $(A{\vee} B')\wedge(B{\vee} A')$, $(A{\vee} C')\wedge(C{\vee} B')$, $(B{\vee} C')\wedge(C{\vee} A')$ lie on a conic. The perspector of this conic with respect to $\Delta$ is the point
$\displaystyle[\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\,}}{\mathfrak{d}_{11} \mathfrak{d}_{23} - \mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{\mathfrak{d}_{22} \mathfrak{d}_{31} - \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23_{{\,}^{\;}}}}:\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}{\mathfrak{d}_{33_{\,}^{\,}} \mathfrak{d}_{12} - \mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}} ]_{\Delta}$,
it is the isogonal
conjugate of the {de}$\!$ {Longchamps} point $L$, which will be introduced in the next subsection. The center of the euclidean limit of the conic is the circumcenter of $\Delta_0$.
\subsubsection{The double triangle.} We assume that the orthocenter $H$ of $\Delta$ is not a vertex. Wildberger \cite{W1} showed that the antipedals $A^{[H]}, B^{[H]}, C^{[H]}$ of $H$ are the harmonic associates of the point\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$G^+ ={[\mathfrak{c}_{23}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{:}\mathfrak{c}_{12}]_\Delta} = [\mathfrak{d}_{11} \mathfrak{d}_{23} - \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{31} : \mathfrak{d}_{22} \mathfrak{d}_{31} - \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23} : \mathfrak{d}_{33} \mathfrak{d}_{12} - \mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}]_\Delta$.}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
It can be easily checked that $G^+$ is the tripole of the dual line of $H$.
The points $A^{[H]}, B^{[H]}$, $C^{[H]}$ are the vertices of a triangle which contains $G^+$. In \cite{W1}, this triangle is called the \textit{double triangle} of $\Delta$, and $G^+$ is called the \textit{double point}.\\ Furthermore, Wildberger proved that the points $A,B,C$ are proper midpoints of $\{\!B^{[H]}{,}C^{[H]}\!\}$, $\{C^{[H]},A^{[H]}\}$, \;$\{A^{[H]},B^{[H]}\}$, respectively. Thus, the point $H$ is the center of a circle through the points $A^{[H]}, B^{[H]}, C^{[H]}$. The perspector of this circle with respect to $\Delta$ is $H$, the perspector with respect to the triple $A^{[H]}B^{[H]}C^{[H]}$ (the Lemoine point of the double triangle) is the point $[\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\; } \mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;2}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\; } \mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\; } \mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2}]_\Delta$.\vspace*{1 mm}\vspace*{1 mm} \\
The point $O^+$ is identical with a \textit{pseudo-circumcenter}, introduced in \cite{Vi} as the meet of \textit{perpendicular pseudo-bisectors} $A_{G^+}\!\vee A', B_{G^+}\!\vee B', C_{G^+}\!\vee C'$. And it is also identical with the \textit{basecenter} introduced in \cite{W1}.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The triple $\Delta^{[H]} = A^{[H]}B^{[H]}C^{[H]}$ is perspective to $\Delta'$ at perspector \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$L = [\mathfrak{d}_{11} \mathfrak{d}_{23}\! + \mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12} : \mathfrak{d}_{22} \mathfrak{d}_{31}\! + \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23} : \mathfrak{d}_{33} \mathfrak{d}_{12}\! + \mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}]_\Delta$.}\vspace*{1 mm}\\
This point $L$ we will call the \textit{de}$\!$ \textit{Longchamps} \textit{point} of $\Delta$.\\
\subsubsection{The orthic triangle.} We assume again that the orthocenter $H$ of $\Delta$ is not a vertex. The \textit{orthic triangle} has the vertices $A_{[H]}, B_{[H]}, C_{[H]}$, it contains $H$, and it is the dual of the double triangle of $\Delta'$. The point $H$ is the incenter and the points $A, B, C$ are the excenters of the orthic triangle. The pedals of $H$ on the sidelines of $\Delta_{[H]}$ are the traces with respect to $\Delta_{[H]}$ of the point \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[
[\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;} (\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}-2 \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;})(2\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}-4 \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta. \vspace*{0 mm}
\]
This point has euclidean limit $X_{52}$.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
\subsubsection{The antipedal triple of $O^+$} The points $A^{[O^+]} = [-\mathfrak{d}_{11}/\mathfrak{c}_{23}, \mathfrak{d}_{22}/\mathfrak{c}_{31}, \mathfrak{d}_{33}/\mathfrak{c}_{12}]_\Delta$, $B^{[O^+]}$, $C^{[O^+]}$ form a triple $\Delta^{[O^+]}$, which is perspective to $\Delta$ at the isogonal conjugate of $G^+$ and perspective to the orthic triple $\Delta_{[H]}$ at
\[[\frac{\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}-\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2})+\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}-2\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{23}}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.
\]
\subsubsection{The star of a point with respect to the triple $\Delta$.} Define the mapping \vspace*{-1 mm}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}&\star = \star_\Delta: \mathcal{P} - \{A, B, C\} \rightarrow \mathcal{P} \; \text{by}\\
&P^\star=\star([p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta)=[q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta\,,\; (q_1,q_2,q_3)=(p_2p_3,p_3p_1,p_1p_2)\mathfrak{D}.\vspace*{1 mm}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
$P^\star$ is the dual of the tripolar of $P$, so the preimage of a point $Q \in \mathcal{P} - \{A', B', C'\}$ under $\star$ is the point $Q^{\tau \delta}$.\vspace*{1 mm}
If $\Delta_0$ is not right-angled, then we get for the special case $P = H$:\vspace*{-3 mm}\\
\begin{equation*}
H^\star=[\mathfrak{d}_{11} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,+\,}2 \mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{\,:\,}\mathfrak{d}_{22} \mathfrak{d}_{31}{\,+\,}2 \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,:\,}\mathfrak{d}_{33} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{\,+\,}2 \mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}]_\Delta.\vspace*{1 mm}
\end{equation*}
The orthic axis and its dual are defined even if $\Delta_0$ has one or two right angles, so we extend $\star$ in this case. \\The point $H^\star$ is introduced in \cite{W1} under the name \textit{orthostar}; we adopt the name.\\
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT2.eps}
\caption{Triangle centers on the orthoaxis. The three conics are the absolute conic (light blue), the circumcircle of $\Delta^{[H]}$ with center $H$ (brown) and the bicevian conic of the points $H$ and $G^+$ (black).
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Centers on the orthoaxis.}\label{subsubsec:orthoaxis} Wildberger \cite{W1} showed that the line $H\vee H^\star$,
\[
\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}) x_1 + \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}) x_2 + \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}) x_3 =0,
\]
which he named \textit{orthoaxis}, is incident with the points $L, O^+, G^+$. Furthermore, he proved that $L,O^+\!,H,H^\star$ as well as $L,O^+\!,G^+\!,H$ form harmonic ranges. The euclidean limits of the points $L,O^+\!,$ $G^+\!,H,H^\star$ are $L=X_{20},O=X_3,G=X_2,H=X_4$, the Euler infinity point $X_{30}$, respectively.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
The orthoaxis is a symmetry axis of the bicevian conic through the traces of $H$ and $G^+$. The points $H + O^+$ and $H - O^+$ are, in addition to the dual point of the orthoaxis, symmetry points of this conic precisely when these two points are proper midpoints of $H$ and $O^+$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\textit{Proof} of the last two statements: For two points $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ and $Q = [q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta$, not on any of the lines of $\Delta_0$, the conic which passes through the traces of $P$ and $Q$ has the matrix (cf. \cite{Y})\vspace*{-2 mm}
\[\mathfrak{M} = (\mathfrak{m}_{ij})_{i,j=1,2,3}\; \text{with}\; \mathfrak{m}_{ii} = -\frac {2}{p_i q_i}, \mathfrak{m}_{ij} = \frac {1}{p_i q_i}+\frac {1}{p_j q_j}\;\text{for}\; i,j = 1,2,3, i\ne j.
\]
(\textit{Remark}: For $P = Q$, this is the matrix of an inconic with perspector $P$.)\\
\noindent It can now be checked that for the special case $P = H$ and $Q = G^+$, the pole of the orthoaxis with respect to the bicevian conic is the point \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[
[\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;} (\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2} \mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}), \mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;} (\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2} \mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;} - \mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}), \mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;} (\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2})]_\Delta.
\]
But this is also the dual point of the orthoaxis.\\
We show that $H\pm O^+$ is a point on the polar of $H\mp O^+$ with respect to the bicevian conic $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ of $H$ and $G^+$ by proving the correctness of the equation\\ $(H^\circ+O^{+\circ}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}}(H^\circ-O^{+\circ}) = 0$. We transform this equation equivalently:\vspace*{-3mm}\\
\[
\begin{split}
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(H^\circ + O^{+\circ}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}}(H^\circ - O^{+\circ}) =0\\
\Leftrightarrow\;\;&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;H^\circ{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}}\, H^\circ - O^{+\circ}{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}}\, O^{+\circ} =0\\
\Leftrightarrow\;\;&(\boldsymbol{h}\,{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}}\boldsymbol{h})(\boldsymbol{o^+_{\,}}{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}} \boldsymbol{o^+}) - (\boldsymbol{h}\,{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}}\,\boldsymbol{h})(\boldsymbol{o^+_{\,}}{{\;\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{M}]}\,}} \boldsymbol{o^+}) =0\;\;\\
&\;\text{with}\; \boldsymbol{h} = ({\mathfrak{d}_{31}}{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}{\,,\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\,,\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\mathfrak{d}_{31}}) \;\textrm{and}\;\boldsymbol{o^+} = ({\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}{\,,\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{\mathfrak{d}_{31}}{\,,\,}{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}) .
\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{split}
\]
The last equation holds, as can be checked with the help of a CAS.
Now it follows: Necessary and sufficient for $H + O^+$ and $H - O^+$ to be symmetry points of $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ is that their distance is $\frac{\pi}{2} i$. But this holds precisely when $H + O^+$ and $H - O^+$ are proper midpoints of $\{H, O^+\}$.
$\;\Box$\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The orthoaxes of the triples $ABC, AH\!B, BHC, {CH}\!A$ meet at the point \vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$N^+:=[\mathfrak{d}_{11} \mathfrak{d}_{23} - 2 \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{31}, \mathfrak{d}_{22} \mathfrak{d}_{31} - 2 \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}, \mathfrak{d}_{33} \mathfrak{d}_{12} - 2 \mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}]_\Delta.$}\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The coordinates of $H, N^+, O^+,H^\star$ indicate that these four points form (in this order) a harmonic range. The euclidean limit of $N^+$ is $N = X_5$. \\
The orthic triple of the orthic triple $\Delta_{[H]}$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at perspector \vspace*{-1mm}
\[ P = [\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}+2\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.
\]
This is a point on the orthoaxis with euclidean limit $X_{24}$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The de\! Longchamps point, the double point, the pseudo-circumcenter and the orthostar of $\Delta'$ are $O^+, H^\star, L$ and $G^+$, respectively.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
In case of $\varepsilon_{\!A}=\varepsilon_{\!B}=\varepsilon_{\!C}$ and $\varepsilon_{\!A'}=\varepsilon_{\!B'}=\varepsilon_{\!C'}$, the coordinates of the above given
points on the orthoaxis can be written
\[
\begin{split}
G^{+} &= [\sinh(\alpha)\big(\cosh(\alpha)+\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta\\
O^+ &= [\sinh(2\alpha):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
H \;\;& = [\tanh(\alpha):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
N^+ &= [\sinh(\alpha)\big(\cosh(\alpha)+2\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
H^{\star} &= [\sinh(\alpha)\big(\cosh(\alpha)-2\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
L \;\;\,& = [\sinh(\alpha)\big(\cosh(\alpha)-\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
P \;\;\,&=[\tanh(\alpha)
\big(\cosh^2(\alpha)-\cosh^2(\beta)-\cosh^2(\gamma)-2\cosh(\alpha)\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\]
\subsubsection{The Taylor conic.} By projecting the pedals $A_{[H]}, B_{[H]}, C_{[H]}$, lying on $a\,$ resp. $\!b\,$ resp. $c$, onto the other sidelines of $\Delta$, we get altogether six points \\$B_{[A_{[H]}]} = [\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}{:} 0{:} \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}{-}\,\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}]_\Delta$, $C_{[A_{[H]}]}= [\mathfrak{d}_{13}^{\;2}{:}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}{-}\,\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}{:}0]_\Delta$, $C_{[B_{[H]}]}$, $A_{[B_{[H]}]}$, $A_{[C_{[H]}]},B_{[C_{[H]}]}$ which all lie on a conic with the equation\vspace*{-1mm}
\[\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 \mathfrak{d}_{i+1,i+2}^{\;} x_i^{\;2} + \frac{(\mathfrak{d}_{i,i} \mathfrak{d}_{i+1,i+2}-\mathfrak{d}_{i+2,i} \mathfrak{d}_{i,i+1})^2 + \mathfrak{d}_{i+2,i} \mathfrak{d}_{i,i+1}}{\mathfrak{d}_{i,i} \mathfrak{d}_{i+1,i+2}-\mathfrak{d}_{i+2,i} \mathfrak{d}_{i,i+1}}x_{i+1} x_{i+2} = 0\;\;(\text{indices mod}\, 3).\vspace*{0mm}
\]
We like to call this conic \textit{Taylor conic}, since its euclidean limit is the Taylor circle. \vspace*{-2mm}\\
Let $H_A, H_B, H_C$ be the orthocenters of $AB_{[H]}C_{[H]}, BC_{[H]}A_{[H]}, CA_{[H]}B_{[H]}$, respectively. The triple $H_AH_BH_C$ is perspective to $A_{[H]}B_{[H]}C_{[H]}$; the perspector is \vspace*{-1mm}
\[[\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\;} (\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;}(\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;} \mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2})- \mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;}\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.\vspace*{0mm}
\]
The euclidean limit of this point is $X_{389}$, the center of the Taylor circle. But, in general, this point is not a symmetry point of the Taylor conic.
\vspace*{0.5mm}
\subsubsection{Orthotransversal and orthocorrespondent of a point}$\!$For any point $P =$ $[p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ which is not a vertex of $\Delta$, the three points $\text{perp}(A\vee P,P)\wedge a , \text{perp}(B\vee P,P)\wedge b$ and $\text{perp}(C\vee P,P)\wedge c$
are collinear on the line\vspace*{-1mm}
\[\sum\limits_{i=1,2,3} \,\frac{1}{p_i(\mathfrak{d}_{i+1,i+2}p_{i} - \mathfrak{d}_{i+2,i}p_{i+1}- \mathfrak{d}_{i,i+1}p_{i+2})+ \mathfrak{d}_{i,i}p_{i+1}p_{i+2}}\,x_i = 0\;\;\;\;\;\;(\text{indices mod}\, 3).\vspace*{0mm}
\]
The line is called the \textit{orthotransversal} (line) of $P$, and its tripole is called the \textit{orthocorrespondent} of $P$.
As a special case, the orthocorrespondent of $H$ is $G^+$.\vspace*{-2mm} \\
The points $\text{perp}(A\vee P,P)\wedge a' , \text{perp}(B\vee P,P)\wedge b'$ and $\text{perp}(C\vee P,P)\wedge c'$ are also collinear; they lie on the dual of $P$.\vspace*{1mm} \\
We dualize these statements:\vspace*{-2mm} \\
The three lines $\text{perp}(a\wedge P^\tau,P^\tau)\vee A , \text{perp}(b\wedge P^\tau,P^\tau)\vee B$ and $\text{perp}(c\wedge P^\tau,P^\tau)\vee C$ meet at the point $Q=[\displaystyle\frac{p_1}{p_1(\mathfrak{c}_{11} p_1 - \mathfrak{c}_{12} p_2 - \mathfrak{c}_{31} p_3)+\mathfrak{c}_{23} p_2 p_3}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
A special case: If $P = G^+$, then $Q = H$.\vspace*{-1mm} \\
If $P$ is not a vertex of $\Delta'$, then the points $\text{par}(a,P)\wedge a, \text{par}(b,P)\wedge b, \text{par}(c,P)\wedge c$ lie on the line $P^\delta$.
\subsection{Center functions / triangle centers and their mates}\hspace*{\fill}\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{3mm}$Given a triangle center $T$ of $\Delta_0$, then there exists a homogenous function ${f\!\!:}\; \mathbb{R}^{6}\to \mathbb{R}\,$ such that\\
$\bullet\; f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) = f(x_1,x_3,x_2,x_4,x_6,x_5)$ \hspace*{2 mm}and\\
$\bullet\; T\! = [f(\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23},\!\mathfrak{d}_{31},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12}){:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{31},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23}){:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23},\!\mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta$.\vspace*{1 mm}\\
A function satisfying these conditions is called a center function of $T$ with respect to the triangle $\Delta_0$ and the matrix $\mathfrak{D}$. \\
We give two examples: Center functions of $H$ and $L$ are $f_{\!H}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) = x_5 x_6$ and $f_{\!L}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6) = x_1 x_4 + x_5 x_6.$\\
Obviously, by knowing a center function of a triangle center of $\Delta_0$, one also knows the barycentric coordinates of that center.\\
The triangle center $T = T_0$ of $\Delta_0$ is accompanied by its three mates $T_1,T_2,T_3$; these are the corresponding triangle centers of $\Delta_1,\Delta_2,\Delta_3$, respectively. Their representation by barycentric coordinates are\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent $T_1 = [-f(\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23},\!-\mathfrak{d}_{31},-\mathfrak{d}_{12})$\\
$\hspace*{29mm}{:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},-\mathfrak{d}_{31},-\mathfrak{d}_{12},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23}){:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},-\mathfrak{d}_{12},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23},-\mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta$,\\
$T_2 = [f(\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},-\mathfrak{d}_{23},\!\mathfrak{d}_{31},-\mathfrak{d}_{12})$\\
$\hspace*{29mm}{:}-f(\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{31},-\mathfrak{d}_{12},-\mathfrak{d}_{23}){:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},-\mathfrak{d}_{12},\!\mathfrak{d}_{23},-\mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta$,\\
$T_3 = [f(\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},-\mathfrak{d}_{23},-\mathfrak{d}_{31},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12})$\\
$\hspace*{29mm}{:}f(\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},-\mathfrak{d}_{31},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12},-\mathfrak{d}_{23}){:}-f(\mathfrak{d}_{33},\!\mathfrak{d}_{11},\!\mathfrak{d}_{22},\!\mathfrak{d}_{12},-\mathfrak{d}_{23},-\mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta$.\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
All triangle centers in the last subsection are \textit{absolute triangle centers}, their mates do not differ from the main center.\vspace*{1mm}\\
\textit{Remark}: Without giving a formal introduction, we also use (and used already) center functions which depend on the matrix $\mathfrak{C}$, or on the sidelengths of $\Delta_0$, or on its inner angles.\\
\subsection{Circumcircles, incircles and related triangle centers}
\subsubsection{Twin circles, circumcircles and incircles}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT3.eps}
\caption{The four pairs of twin circumcircles (green, purple, brown, orange) of $ABC$, their centers and the dual lines of these centers. The blue circle is the absolute conic.}
\end{figure}
The points $G\;{=}\;G_0\;{=}\;[1,1,1]_\Delta,\, G_1\;{=}\;\hspace*{0.2mm}$ $[-1,1,1]_\Delta, G_2\,{=}\,[1,-1,1]_\Delta$, $G_3\,{=}\,[1,1,-1]_\Delta$ are the \textit{centroids} of triangle $\Delta_0,\Delta_1,\Delta_2,\Delta_3$, respectively. The point $O_{k}{\,=\,}G_{k}^{\star}$ is called \textit{circumcenter} of $\Delta_k\;\;(k = 0,{\cdots},3)$, cf. \cite{W2}. In the elliptic plane, there always exists a circle around $O_k$, passing through the vertices $A, B, C$. The situation is different in the hyperbolic plane. Unless $\varepsilon_{\!A}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!B}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!C}$, there does not exist any circle which passes through all three vertices $A, B, C$. If for example $\varepsilon_{\!A}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!B}{\,\ne\,}\varepsilon_{C}$, then a circle with center $O_k$ through $A$ will also pass through {B}, but it differs from a circle centered at $O_k$ passing through $C$. Wildberger and Alkhaldi discovered a special relation between these two circles: They form a couple of \textit{twin circles}. Wildberger and Alkhaldi \cite{W2} proved that, given any circle $\mathcal{C}$ with center $P$ and radius $r \in \mathbb{C}$ in the hyperbolic plane, there exists a uniquely determined twin circle of $\mathcal{C}$. This is a circle with center $P$ and radius $r'$, satisfying the equation $\cosh^2(r') = - \cosh^2(r)$. Thus, in the hyperbolic plane, one can always find exactly one pair of twin circles with center $O_k$ such that their union contains the vertices $A,B,C$.\\The coordinates of the circumcenters of $\Delta$ are \vspace*{0mm}
\[
\begin{split} &O{\,=\,}O_0{\,=\,}[\mathfrak{d}_{11}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{12}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{31}, \mathfrak{d}_{12}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{23}, \mathfrak{d}_{31}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{23}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{33}]_\Delta,\\
&O_1{\,=\,}[{-\,}\mathfrak{d}_{11}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{12}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{31}, {-\,}\mathfrak{d}_{12}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{23}, -\mathfrak{d}_{31}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{23}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{33}]_\Delta,\; \text{etc}.
\end{split}
\]
For the distances $d(O,A)$ and $d(O_1,A)$ we get:
\[
\begin{split}
&\cosh^2(d(O,A)) = {1}/{(\mathfrak{c}_{11}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{33}+2(\mathfrak{d}_{23}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{31}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{12})))},\\
&\cosh^2(d(O_1,A)) = {1}/{(\mathfrak{c}_{11}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{22}{+\,}\mathfrak{d}_{33}+2(\mathfrak{d}_{23}{-\,}\mathfrak{d}_{31}{-\,}\mathfrak{d}_{12})))}.\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{split}\]
The circumcenters of $\Delta'$ are the incenters of $\Delta$. To be more precise, the circumcenter of $\Delta^k$ is the incenter $I_k$ of $\Delta_k, k = 0,\cdots,3$.
We calculate the coordinates:
\[
I = I_0 = [\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{11}|} ,\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{22}|},\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{33}|}\,]_\Delta,\;\; I_1 = [-\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{11}|},\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{22}|},\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{33}|}\,]_\Delta, \cdots.
\]
In the elliptic plane, the incenters are the centers of incircles of $\Delta$, and this is also true in the hyperbolic plane if $\varepsilon_{\!A'}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!B'}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{C'}$. But in general, twin circles with center $I_k$ are needed to touch all sidelines $a, b, c$.
We calculate the distances $d(I,a) = d(I, \text{ped}(I,a)) = \pi i- d(I,A')$ and $d(I_1,a)\!:\vspace*{-2mm}$
\[
\begin{split}
&\cosh^2(d(I,a)) = \textrm{sgn}(\mathfrak{d}_{11})/\big(\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\,i=1,2,3}\!(\mathfrak{c}_{ii}|\mathfrak{d}_{ii}|+2 \mathfrak{c}_{i,i+1}\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{ii}\mathfrak{d}_{i+1,i+1}|}\,)\big) ,\\
&\cosh^2(d(I_1,a)) = \textrm{sgn}(\mathfrak{d}_{11})/\big(\!\!\!\sum\limits_{\,i=1,2,3}\!(\mathfrak{c}_{ii} |\mathfrak{d}_{ii}|) + 2 (\mathfrak{c}_{23}\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{33}|}{-}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}\!\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{33}\mathfrak{d}_{11}|}{-}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}\!\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{22}|})\big).
\end{split}
\]
The triple $O_1O_2O_3$ is perspective to $\Delta'$ at perspector $O_0$, the triple $I_1I_2I_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at perspector $I_0$.\vspace*{-1mm} \\
We now assume $\varepsilon_{\!A}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{\!B}{\,=\,}\varepsilon_{C}$ and put $\mathfrak{c}\!:=\!\mathfrak{c}_{11}{\,=\,}\mathfrak{c}_{22}{\,=\,}\mathfrak{c}_{33} \in \{-1, 1\}\,$, then :\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$ \mathfrak{c}\mathfrak{c}_{23} = \cosh(\mathscr{a}), \; \mathfrak{c}\mathfrak{c}_{23} + 1 = 2 \cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}), \; \mathfrak{c}\mathfrak{c}_{23} - 1 = 2 \sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}),\, \textrm{etc.}$\vspace*{-1mm}}
and\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{\;\;$O_0 = [(\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c})(\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}){\,:\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c})({-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}){\,:\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c})({-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c})]_\Delta\;\;$
}
\centerline{$ \;\;\,\, = [(\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}))({-}\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2})+\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2})+\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\vspace*{-2.5mm}$}\\
\centerline{$O_1 = [(\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c})(\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}){\,:\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}\mathfrak{c})({-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}){\,:\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c})({-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c})]_\Delta,$}\\
\centerline{$ \;\;= [(\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}))(\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}){+}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}){+}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})):(\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}))({-}\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}){-}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2})$}\\
\centerline{$\hspace*{31mm}{+}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})):(\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2}))({-}\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}){+}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}){-}\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2}))]_\Delta,
\cdots.$}\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
The four points $O_0,O_1,O_2,O_3$ form an orthocentric system.\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
The triple $O_1O_2O_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at the isogonal conjugate of $O = O_0$, and as a consequence of this, the triples ${O_0} {O_3} {O_2}$, ${O_3} {O_0} {O_1}$, ${O_2} {O_1} {O_0}$ are perspective to $\Delta$ at the isogonal conjugates of ${O}_1, {O}_2, {O}_3$, respectively.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
Let $\mathscr{C}_k$ denote the circumcircle with center $O_k, k = 0,\cdots,3$. All inner points of $\Delta_0$ lie inside $\mathscr{C}_0$, which is not true for any other circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_k, k\ne 0.$ Therefore, we call $\mathscr{C}_0$ the \textit{main circumcircle} of $\Delta_0$, while the others will be regarded as its \textit{mates}.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The perspector of $\mathscr{C}_k$ is called the \textit{Lemoine point} $\tilde{K}_k$ of $\Delta_k:\vspace*{1mm}$\\
\centerline{$\tilde{K}_0=[\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta = [\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}):\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2})\,:\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})]_\Delta$,\;\;\;\,\;\;\;\;\;}
\centerline{$\tilde{K}_1=[\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta = [-\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}):\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}):\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})]_\Delta,\;....$}\vspace*{1mm} \\
The isogonal conjugate of $\tilde{K}_k$ is $\tilde{G}_k$ :\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$\tilde{G}_0=[\mathfrak{c}_{23}+\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta = [\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}):\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}):\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})]_\Delta$\;,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}\\
\centerline{$\;\; \tilde{G}_1=[\mathfrak{c}_{23}+\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}:\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta =[-\cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}):\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}):\,\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})]_\Delta$\;,\;....\;\;\;}\vspace*{1mm}\\
The triple $\tilde{K_1} \tilde{K_2} \tilde{K_3}$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $\tilde{G}_0$ and, as a consequence,
the triple $\tilde{G_1} \tilde{G_2} \tilde{G_3}$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $\tilde{K}_0$. The triple $\tilde{G_2} \tilde{G_3} \tilde{G_0}$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $\tilde{K}_1$, etc. The four lines $\tilde{K}_j\vee \tilde{G}_j , 0\le j\le 3$, meet at the point $G = [1,1,1]_\Delta.$\vspace*{-0.5mm} \\
The euclidean limits of $\tilde{K}=\tilde{K}_0$ and $\tilde{G}=\tilde{G}_0$ are the symmedian $K = X_6$ and the centroid $G = X_2$ of $\Delta_0$, respectively. The euclidean limit of the circle $\mathscr{C}_1$ is the union of two lines, one is the sideline $a = B\vee C$, the other its parallel through $A$.\vspace*{3mm} \\
\textit{Remark:} In euclidean geometry, the perspector of the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ coincides with iso\-gonal conjugate of $G_0$. This is not the case in elliptic and in hyperbolic geometry; so we have to find different names for the two points. As proposed by Horv\'ath, the perspector of the circumcircle will be called \textit{Lemoine point}, the isogonal conjugate $K$ of $G$ \textit{symmedian}. In euclidean geometry, the centroid of the pedal triangle $\Delta_{[K],0}$ of $K$ agrees with $K$. Neither of the two points $K, \tilde{K}$ has this property in elliptic and in hyperbolic geometry.\vspace*{1mm}\\
The Lemoine point $\tilde{K}$ we can get by the following construction, cf. \cite{Gr} for the euclidean case: Let $l_A$ be the line that connects the point $A_G$ with the harmonic conjugate of $A'$ with respect to $A,A_H$, and define the lines $l_B,l_C$ accordingly. The lines $l_A,l_B,l_C$ meet at $\tilde{K}$.\vspace*{-0.5mm}\\
If $\mathcal{C}$ is any conic and $P$ a point on $\mathcal{C}$, then let $T_{\!P}\mathcal{C}$ denote the tangent of $\mathcal{C}$ at $P$. The points $A, T_B\mathscr{C}_2\wedge T_C\mathscr{C}_3, T_B\mathscr{C}_1\wedge T_C\mathscr{C}_1$ are collinear.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
Let $Q_{0j}$ be the non trivial intersection point of $\mathscr{C}_0$ and $\mathscr{C}_{\!j}, j{=}1,2,3.$ The triple $Q_{01}Q_{02}Q_{03}$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $G_0$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
If we assume $\varepsilon_{\!A'} = \varepsilon_{\!B'} = \varepsilon_{C'}$, we get:\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$\textrm{sgn}(\mathfrak{d}_{11})= \textrm{sgn}(\mathfrak{d}_{22})= \textrm{sgn}(\mathfrak{d}_{33})$}\vspace*{-1mm}\\
and\vspace*{0mm}\\
\centerline{$I\, = I_0 = [\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} :\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\,]_\Delta = [\sinh(\mathscr{a}):\sinh(\mathscr{b}):\sinh(\mathscr{c})]_\Delta,$\;\;}\\
\centerline{$\;\;\;I_1 \!= [-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\,]_\Delta = [-\sinh(\mathscr{a}):\sinh(\mathscr{b}):\sinh(\mathscr{c})]_\Delta,...$\;\;\;\;}\vspace*{-3mm}\\
$I_0,I_1,I_2,I_3$ form an orthocentric system.\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
Let $\mathscr{I}_k$ denote the incircle with center $I_k, k = 0,\cdots,3$. The center $I_k$ of $\mathscr{I}_k$ is always a point inside of $\Delta_k$. We call $\mathscr{I}_k$ the \textit{proper incircle} of $\Delta_k$, while the others will be called the \textit{excircles} of $\Delta_k$. Caution: The inner points of $\mathscr{I}_k$ can completely lie outside of $\Delta_k$, cf. Figure \ref{fig:de Sitter triangle}.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
The perspector of $\mathscr{I}_k$ is called the Gergonne point $Ge_k$ of $\Delta_k$:\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{4.5mm}{Ge_0}=[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} + \mathfrak{d}_{23}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{d}_{11}} + \mathfrak{d}_{31}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} + \mathfrak{d}_{12}]_\Delta$\vspace*{1.3mm}\\
$\hspace*{11mm}=[(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{d}_{11}} - \mathfrak{d}_{31})(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} - \mathfrak{d}_{12}):(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} - \mathfrak{d}_{12})(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} - \mathfrak{d}_{23})$\vspace*{1.3mm}\\
$\hspace*{14.5mm}:(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{d}_{11}} - \mathfrak{d}_{31}))(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} - \mathfrak{d}_{23})]_\Delta$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{11mm}=[\displaystyle\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{33}}\, \frac{\cosh(\alpha){-}1}{\sinh(\mathscr{a})}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{c}_{11}}\, \frac{\cosh(\beta){-}1}{\sinh(\mathscr{b})}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}_{22}}\, \frac{\cosh(\gamma){-}1}{\sinh(\mathscr{c})}]_\Delta,$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{4.5mm}{Ge_1}=[-(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} + \mathfrak{d}_{23}):\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{d}_{11}} - \mathfrak{d}_{31}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} - \mathfrak{d}_{12}]_\Delta$\vspace*{-2mm}\\
We introduce the Nagel point $N\!a_k$ of $\Delta_k, k=0,1,2,3$ , by \vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{4.5mm}{N\!a_0}=[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} - d_{23}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} - d_{31}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} - d_{12}]_\Delta$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{8.5mm}=[(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} + d_{31})(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} + d_{12}):(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} + d_{12})(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} + d_{23})$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{11mm} :(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} + d_{31}))(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} + d_{23})]_\Delta,\vspace*{1mm}$\\
$\hspace*{4.5mm}{N\!a_1}=[-(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} - \mathfrak{d}_{23}):\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\sqrt{ \mathfrak{d}_{11}} + \mathfrak{d}_{31}:\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} + \mathfrak{d}_{12}]_\Delta$.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
\noindent\vspace*{0.5mm}$N\!a_k$ and $Ge_k$ are isotomic conjugates for $ 0\le\! k\! \le 3$. The triples $Ge_{1}Ge_{2}Ge_{3}$ and $N\!a_{1}N\!a_{2}N\!a_{3}$ are perspective to $\Delta$ at $N\!a_0$ and $Ge_0$, respectively.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The lines $I_0 \vee Ge_0, I_1 \vee Ge_1,I_2 \vee Ge_2,I_3 \vee Ge_3$ concur at the de\! Longchamps point $L$, the lines $I_0 \vee N\!a_0, I_1 \vee N\!a_1,I_2 \vee N\!a_2,I_3 \vee N\!a_3$ at the point $G^+$, and the lines $Ge_0 \vee N\!a_0,$ $Ge_1 \vee N\!a_1,Ge_2 \vee N\!a_2,Ge_3 \vee N\!a_3$ meet at the isotomic conjugate of the orthocenter $H$.
\subsubsection{Note:} \underline{From now on, we always assume $\hspace*{0mm}\varepsilon_{\!A}=\varepsilon_{\!B}=\varepsilon_{C}$ and $\varepsilon_{\!A'}=\varepsilon_{\!B'}=\varepsilon_{C'}$.}\vspace*{1mm}\\ This is the "classical case". The points $A,B,C$ lie either in the elliptic plane or in a special part of the extended hyperbolic plane.\vspace*{3mm}
\centerline{The classical Cayley-Klein cases in the extended hyperbolic plane:}\vspace*{1mm}
\begin{center}
\noindent
\begin{tabular}{ c| c}\hline\hline
$\varepsilon_{\!A}=\varepsilon_{\!B}=\varepsilon_{C}=-i$ and $\varepsilon_{\!A'}=\varepsilon_{\!B'}=\varepsilon_{C'}=1$ & proper hyperbolic / Lobachevsky\\ \hline
$\varepsilon_{\!A}=\varepsilon_{\!B}=\varepsilon_{C}=1$ \;\,and $\varepsilon_{\!A'}=\varepsilon_{\!B'}=\varepsilon_{C'}=1$ & double-hyperbolic / de\! Sitter \\ \hline
$\varepsilon_{\!A}=\varepsilon_{\!B}=\varepsilon_{C}=1$ and $\varepsilon_{\!A'}=\varepsilon_{\!B'}=\varepsilon_{C'}=-i$ & dual-hyperbolic / anti-de\! Sitter\\\hline
\end{tabular}\noindent\\
\end{center}
\vspace*{3mm}
In this case, the following trigonometric formulae apply:\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
\noindent $\hspace*{4mm}\cosh(\alpha) \,= \displaystyle\frac{\cosh(\mathscr{b})\,\cosh(\mathscr{c})-\cosh(\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(\mathscr{b}) \sinh(\mathscr{c})}$\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent $\hspace*{4mm}\cosh(\mathscr{a}) = \displaystyle\frac{\cosh(\beta)\,\cosh(\gamma)+\cosh(\alpha)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)} = 1 + \frac{2\sinh(\epsilon)\cosh(\epsilon{-}\alpha)}{\sinh(\beta) \sinh(\gamma)},\;\ \epsilon = \frac12 \textrm{area}(\Delta_0) .$\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent $\hspace*{4mm}\displaystyle\frac{\sinh(\alpha)}{\sinh(\mathscr{a})} = \frac{\sinh(\beta)}{\sinh(\mathscr{b})} = \frac{\sinh(\gamma)}{\sinh(\mathscr{c})}.$\\
The coordinates of $I, Ge, N\!a, O, \tilde{G}, \tilde{K}$ can now be written as functions of the angles:\vspace*{-0.5mm}
\[
\begin{split}
I &= [\sinh(\alpha):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
Ge &= [\tanh(\displaystyle\frac{\alpha}{2}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\hspace*{0mm} N\!a = [\coth(\displaystyle\frac{\alpha}{2}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
O &= [\sinh(\alpha) \cosh(\alpha\textrm{-}\epsilon):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\\
\tilde{K} &= [\sinh(\alpha) \sinh(\alpha\textrm{-}\epsilon):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,\;\;\;\;\hspace*{0mm} \tilde{G} = [\sinh(\alpha)/\!\sinh(\alpha\textrm{-}\epsilon):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.\\
\end{split}
\]\hspace*{-1mm}
The isotomic conjugate of $I$ is a point on the line $Ge\vee N\!a$.
The isogonal conjugate of $O$ is the point $H^- = [\sinh(\alpha)/\!\cosh(\alpha\textrm{-}\epsilon):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$. The cevian line $A\vee H^-$ is perpendicular to the sideline $B_G \vee C_G$ of the medial triangle.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{GUT_Z1.eps}
\caption{An anti-$\!$ de$\!$ Sitter triangle together with its circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ (red), its incircle $\mathscr{I}_0$ (green) and excircles (light-green).}\label{fig:de Sitter triangle}
\end{figure} \vspace*{-0.5mm}
\subsubsection{Other triangle centers related to the circumcenters and the incenters}\label{subsubsec:Spieker}\hspace*{\fill}\vspace*{0.5mm} \\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The triple $I_1I_2I_3$ is perspective to $\Delta'$ at the \textit{Bevan point} \vspace*{1.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{7.5mm}Be = Be_0 = [\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\mathfrak{d}_{23}+
\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\mathfrak{d}_{12}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{22.5mm} = [\sinh(\alpha)(1+\cosh(\alpha)-\cosh(\beta)-\cosh(\gamma)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ \vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{22.5mm} = [\sinh(\alpha)(\sinh^2(\frac12\alpha)-\sinh^2(\frac12\beta)-\sinh^2(\frac12\gamma)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.$\vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
\noindent \hspace*{0mm}The euclidean limit of $Be$ is the point $X_{40}$. $Be$ is the incenter of the extangents triangle of $\Delta_0$ (see \ref{subsubsec:extangents triangle}). But, different from its euclidean limit, it is in general not the circumcenter of the excentral triangle $(I_1I_2I_3)_0$, neither a point on $I\vee O$.\\ The four lines $I_k\vee Be_k, 0\le k \le3$, meet at the point $O^+$.\vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
$\bullet\;\;$The four lines $O_k\vee I_k, k = 0,\cdots,3$, meet at the point\vspace*{-1mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{33}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}(\mathfrak{d}_{23}-\mathfrak{d}_{33}))+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{22}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}(\mathfrak{d}_{23}-\mathfrak{d}_{22}))) \\
& + \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\,\mathfrak{d}_{11}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}-\mathfrak{d}_{12}-\mathfrak{d}_{31}) + \mathfrak{d}_{11}(\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{33}-\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\]
This is a second point with euclidean limit $X_{40}$ and, in general, it also differs from all the circumcenters of excentral triangles of $\Delta$.\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The triples $\Delta_{[O]} = \Delta_G$ and $I_1 I_2 I_3$ are perspective at the \textit{Mittenpunkt} of $\Delta_0$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent $\hspace*{7.5mm}M\hspace*{-0.3mm}i = M\hspace*{-0.3mm}i_0 =
[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}({-}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{23.5mm}= [\sinh(\alpha)({-}\sinh(\alpha)+\sinh(\beta)+\sinh(\gamma)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
a point on the line $I\hspace*{-0.3mm}\vee K$. It has euclidean limit $X_9$.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$Define the points $P_a$ and $Q_a$ by {$P_a:=(I_0\vee M\!i_0)\wedge(I_1\vee M\!i_1)$} and
$Q_a:={(I_2\vee M\!i_2)}\wedge{(I_3\vee M\!i_3)}$ and the points $P_b, Q_b, P_c, Q_c$ accordingly. The points $B,P_a,C,Q_a$ form a harmonic range. The triple $P_aP_bP_c$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at the perspector $[\displaystyle\frac{\sinh(\alpha)}{ \sinh(\beta){-}\sinh(\gamma)}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$, a point with euclidean limit $X_{\!100}$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$Vigara \cite{Vi} proved that the triples $\Delta_{[O]}$ and $\Delta'_{\;\,[I]}$ are perspective; the perspector he named \textit{pseudo- Spieker center}. But this point is in fact a good candidate for the Spieker center in elliptic and in hyperbolic geometry, as it is one of four radical centers of the three incircles $\mathscr{I}_k, k = 1,2,3$; and it is the one that lies inside $\Delta^0$. Its coordinates are\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{1mm}$S\!p = S\!p_0 = [(s_1{+}s_2{+}s_3)(s_1 c_2 c_3{+}s_2 c_3 c_1{+}s_3 c_1 c_2{+}s_1 s_1 s_3){\,+\,}(s_2 c_3{+}s_3 c_2)(s_2{+}s_3{{-}}2s_1)$\\
$\hspace*{82mm}{\,+\,}s_1(2s_2{+}2s_3{{-}}s_1){:}\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,$\vspace*{0.5mm} \\
with $s_1\!:=\sinh(\mathscr{a}),\, c_1\!:=\cosh(\mathscr{a}),\, s_2:=\sinh(\mathscr{b}),....$\vspace*{-2mm}\\
\noindent\hspace*{5mm}More general, each triple $\Delta_{[O_j]}$
is perspective to each triple $\Delta'_{\;\,[I_k]},\; j,k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$. By this, we get altogether 16 perspective centers.
Let $P_{kj}$ be the perspector for $\Delta_{[0_k]}$ and $\Delta'_{\;\,[I_j]}$. GeoGebra-constructions indicate:\\
- The six points $P_{12}, P_{21}, P_{23}, P_{32}, P_{31}, P_{13}$ lie on a singular conic (union of two lines).\\
- Put $Q_1 = (P_{12}{\vee}P_{21}){\wedge}(P_{31}{\vee}P_{13}), Q_2 = (P_{23}{\vee}P_{32}){\wedge}(P_{12}{\vee}P_{21}), Q_3 = (P_{31}{\vee}P_{13}){\wedge}(P_{23}{\vee}P_{32});$\\
\noindent\hspace*{1.7mm}the triple $Q_1Q_2Q_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ and to $\Delta'$ at points which lie on the line $O\vee I$.\vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The points $H^-, M\!i, Be, S\!p$ are collinear.\vspace*{-1 mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$Define the point $S_1$ by $S_1 := (I_1\vee O^+)\wedge a$ and the points $S_2, S_3$ likewise. The triple $S_1S_2S_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at the point \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle [\frac{\sinh(\alpha)}{\cosh(\beta)+\cosh(\gamma)}:\frac{\sinh(\beta)}{\cosh(\gamma)+\cosh(\alpha)}:\frac{\sinh(\gamma)}{\cosh(\alpha)+\cosh(\beta)}]_\Delta.$}\vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
We call this point \textit{pseudo- Schiffler point}; the euclidean limit of this point is the Schiffler point $X_{21}$, cf. \cite{EE}.\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The antipedal triple $\Delta^{[O_0]}$ of $O_0$ is perspective to $O_1 O_2 O_3$ and to $\Delta'$ at $O_0$.\vspace*{-0.5mm}\\
Let $P$ be the point\vspace*{-1mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle[\frac 1{(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{12})-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta =
[\displaystyle\frac{\sinh(\displaystyle\frac\alpha 2)}{\sinh(\displaystyle\frac{\beta -\gamma} 2)}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta, \vspace*{0mm}$}\\
then:\hspace*{2mm} {$ (B^{[O_0]}\vee I_2) \wedge (C^{[O_0]}\vee I_3) = A_P,\; (C^{[O_0]}\vee I_3) \wedge (A^{[O_0]}\vee I_1)= B_P,$\;} \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\hspace*{52.3mm}and$\;\;\;(A^{[O_0]}\vee I_1) \wedge B^{[O_0]}\vee I_3) = C_P.$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$P$ is a point on the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$, its euclidean limit is $X_{100}$.\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The pedal triple $\Delta_{[I_0]}$ of $I_0$ is perspective to $I_1 I_2 I_3$ at\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent \hspace*{11.5mm}$[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}(-\,\mathfrak{d}_{23}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ \\ \vspace*{1mm}
\noindent \hspace*{6.5mm}$=\, [\displaystyle\sinh(\alpha)\big(-\cosh(\frac\alpha 2)+\cosh(\frac\beta 2)+\cosh(\frac\gamma 2)\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.\vspace*{1mm}$\\
This point is also the orthocorrespondent of $I$.
Its euclidean limit is $X_{57}.$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The tripole $[1/(\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}):1/(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}):1/(\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31})]$ of the line $\tilde{K}\vee G^+$ is a point on the circumcircle and has euclidean limit $X_{99}$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The circumcenters of the triangles $(O_0BC)_0, (O_0CA)_0, (O_0AB)_0$ form (in this order) a triple which is perspective to $\Delta$ at the \textit{Kosnita point} \vspace*{-1.5 mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&[1/\big((\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\mathfrak{d}_{22})(\mathfrak{d}_{31}+\mathfrak{d}_{33})- \mathfrak{d}_{23}(\mathfrak{d}_{11}+\mathfrak{d}_{23}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}-c\lambda)\big) :\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta\\
&\text{with\;\,} \lambda = \sqrt{|(1,1,1){\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}}(1,1,1)|}=\sqrt{|\mathfrak{d}_{11}+\mathfrak{d}_{22}+\mathfrak{d}_{33}+2(\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\mathfrak{d}_{23}+\mathfrak{d}_{31})|}.
\end{split}
\]\vspace*{-3 mm}
The euclidean limit of this point is $X_{54}$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$Put $P_1 := (O_2\vee C)\wedge (O_3\vee B), P_2 := (O_3\vee A)\wedge (O_1\vee C), P_3 := (O_1\vee B)\wedge (O_2\vee A)$. The triple $P_1P_2P_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $O$ and to $\Delta'$ at \vspace*{1 mm}\\
$[(\mathfrak{c}_{23} + \mathfrak{c})(\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{c}_{23}+\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c})-\mathfrak{c}_{23}(\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c})^2 - (\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}_{12})((\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12})^2+\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c}) \,-\, \mathfrak{c}){:}\cdots{:}\cdots]_\Delta.$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The euclidean limit of this point is the de{\!} Longchamps point $X_{20}$.\vspace*{-0.5mm}\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$The incenters of the triangles $(I_0BC)_0, (I_0CA)_0, (I_0AB)_0$ form (in this order) a triple perspective to $\Delta$. The perspector is the ${1}^{st}$ \textit{de\! Villiers point}\vspace*{2 mm}\\
$\displaystyle \hspace*{22mm}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}}(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}}-\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;})} + \mathfrak{c}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\;}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\;}}}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$\\
$\displaystyle \hspace*{20mm}=\;\, \frac{\sinh(\alpha)}{2\cosh(\frac {1}{2}\alpha)+1}:\frac{\sinh(\beta)}{2\cosh(\frac {1}{2}\beta)+1}:\frac{\sinh(\gamma)}{2\cosh(\frac {1}{2}\gamma)+1}]_\Delta .$ \vspace*{1 mm}\\
It has euclidean limit $X_{1127}$.\vspace*{0.5 mm}\\
Experimental constructions using GeoGebra indicate that there also exist elliptic and hyperbolic analogues of the $2^{nd}$ de\! Villiers point $X_{1128}$ and of the three Stevanovic points $X_{1130}$, $X_{1488}$ and $X_{1489}$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
\subsubsection{Kimberlings "Four-Triangle Problem"} Let $T, \tilde{T}$ be triangle centers of $\Delta_0$, and let $\tilde{T}_1,\tilde{T}_2,\tilde{T}_3$ be the $\tilde{T}$-centers of the triangulation triangles $(AT\!B)_0,(BTC)_0,(CT\!A)_0$, respectively. If the triple $\tilde{T}_1\tilde{T}_2\tilde{T}_3$ is perspective to $\Delta_0$, we will say that $T\# \tilde{T}$ is well-defined, and $T\# \tilde{T}$ will stand, in this case, for the perspector. There is a problem, which are the centers $T$ and $\tilde{T}$ such that $T\# \tilde{T}$ is well-defined. Kimberling posed this problem (the "Four-Triangle Problem") in \cite{Ki} for the special case $T = \tilde{T}$, and as far as I know, this problem is still open.\\
It was shown above that $O\# O$ is the Kosnita point and that $I\# I$ is the de\! Villiers point. Experiments with GeoGebra indicate that $T\# T$ is well-defined for the absolute centers $T = H, G^+, O^+, N^+,$ $L, H^{\star}$ and that $L\# L = H$, but for the absolute center $P$ on the orthoaxis (see \ref{subsubsec:orthoaxis}) it is not well-defined. If $T{\,\in\,}\{\tilde{K}, \tilde{G}\}$, then $T\# T$ is well-defined, whereas for $T{\,\in\,}\{Ge, N\!a\}$ it is not.\vspace*{1mm}\\ \newpage
\subsection{Circles, radical centers and centers of similitude}\hspace*{\fill} \\
\noindent The following two theorems together with their proofs were presented by Ungar \cite{U2} for the proper hyperbolic case.\hspace*{-2.5mm}
\subsubsection{The Inscribed Angle Theorem}
Let $\mu$ be the measure of the angle $\angle_+(BOC)$, then\vspace*{-1mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&\sinh(\alpha) = \frac{\sqrt{|(1,1,1){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}(1,1,1)|}}{\cosh(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2})\cosh(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})} \sinh(\mu/2) \;\;\textrm{and}\;\\
&\sinh(\alpha - \frac{1}{2} \textrm{area}(\Delta_0)) = \sinh(\frac{1}{2}(\mu - \textrm{area}((BOC)_0))).\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{split}
\]
A special case: If $B, C, O$ are collinear, then
$\alpha - \frac{1}{2} \textrm{area}(\Delta_0) = \frac{1}{2}\pi \; \textrm{and} \; \alpha = \beta + \gamma.$
\subsubsection{Tangent-Secant Theorem}The tangent at $A$ of the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ of $\Delta_0$ meets the line $a=B\vee C$ at the point $P = [0:\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{13}:\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta = [0:\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{b}}{2}):-\sinh^2(\frac{\mathscr{c}}{2})]_\Delta$, the harmonic conjugate of $A_{\tilde{K}}$ with respect to $\{B,C\}$, and \vspace*{-1mm}
\[\sinh^2(\mu([P,A]_+)) \cosh^2(\frac{\mathscr{a}}{2}) = \sinh(\mu([P,B]_+))\sinh(\mu([P,C]_+)).\]
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT4.eps}
\caption{
}\label{fig:eucl}
\end{figure}\vspace*{-0.5mm}
\subsubsection{}It is easy to dualize these two theorems. We present euclidean limit versions of these duali\-zations, see Figure \ref{fig:eucl}:\vspace*{2mm}\\
\centerline{$2\,\textrm{measure}(\angle_+(B I_i C)) = \textrm{measure}(\angle_+(B_{[I_i]} I_i C_{[I_i]})) ,\; i = 0, 1.$}\vspace*{-1mm}\\
Between the angles $\alpha_2, \alpha_3, \delta$ in Figure \ref{fig:eucl}, the following relationship applies:\vspace*{-0.5mm}
\[ \sin^2(\delta) = \frac {2\sin(\alpha_2)\sin(\alpha_3)}{1-\cos(\alpha_2{+}\alpha_3)} = \frac {\sin(\alpha_2)\sin(\alpha_3)}{\sin^2(\frac{1}{2}\alpha)} \vspace*{1.5mm}.\]
A spherical version of the following theorem together with a proof can be found in \cite{TL} ch. IX.
\subsubsection{A second Tangent-Secant Theorem} Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a nondegenerate circle with center $M$ and radius $r$, and let $P$ be an anisotropic point. We introduce two sets of lines:\vspace*{-0.5mm}\\
\hspace*{1.5mm} $\mathscr{S}_{\!P} := \{ l\,|\,l\,\textrm{is line through P\,},
\textrm{intersecting the circle\,} \mathcal{S}\, \textrm{at two distinct anisotropic points}\,\}$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{1.5mm}\,\mathscr{T}_{\!P} := \{ l\,|\,l\,\textrm{is line through P touching } \mathcal{S} \textrm{\,at an anisotropic point\,}\}.$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
Since there are at most two isotropic points on $\mathcal{S}$, there are infinitely many lines in $\mathscr{S}_{\!P}$, and if $P$ is a point on or outside the circle, then there is at least one line in $\mathscr{T}_{\!P}$.\\
For each line $l$ in $\mathscr{S}_{\!P}$ we define a number $\mathscr{p}(P,l)$ as follows: If $Q$ and $R$ are points of intersection of $l$ and $\mathcal{S}$, then\\
$\hspace*{35mm}\mathscr{p}(P,l) := \tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}\mu([P,Q]_+)\big)\tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}\mu([P,R]_+)\big)$\\
$\hspace*{48.2mm}= \tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}\mu([P,Q]_-)\big)\tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}\mu([P,R]_-)\big)$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
For a tangent $l \in \mathscr{T}_{\!P}$ with touchpoint $T$ we put\\
$\hspace*{35mm}\mathscr{p}(P,l) := \big(\tanh(\frac{1}{2}d(P,T))\big)^2.$\vspace*{0mm}\\
The second Tangent-Secant Theorem states that for lines $l_1, l_2 \in \mathscr{S}_{\!P}\cup \mathscr{T}_{\!P}$:\\
\centerline{$\mathscr{p}(P,l_1) = \mathscr{p}(P,l_2
).$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
Thus, there exists a number $\mathscr{p}(P,\mathcal{S})$ such that $\mathscr{p}(P,\mathcal{S}) = \mathscr{p}(P,l)$ for all $l\in \mathscr{S}_{\!P}\cup \mathscr{T}_{\!P}$. This number is called the \textit{power of the point} $P$ \textit{with respect to the circle} $\mathcal{S}$.\\
This power can be calculated by \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$\mathscr{p}(P,\mathcal{S}) =\tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}(d(P,M)+r)\big)\tanh\big(\frac{1}{2}(d(P,M)-r)\big)$}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\displaystyle\hspace*{35mm}=\frac{\cosh(d(P,M))-\cosh(r)}{\cosh(d(P,M))+\cosh(r)}$.\vspace*{0.5mm}
\subsubsection{Radical lines of two circles} Let $\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2$ be two nondegenerate circles with centers $M_1, M_2$, $d(M_1, M_2) \ne 0$, and radii $r_1, r_2$.
We want to find out which anisotropic points have the same power with respect to both circles.\\ First, we define a "modified power" of an anisotropic point $P$ with respect to a circle $\mathcal{S}$ having center $M$ and radius $r$ by $\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}) := \cosh(d(P,M))/\!\cosh(r)$. In comparison to ${\mathscr{p}}$, this modified power is easier to handle, on the other hand, an anisotropic point $P$ has the same power with respect to $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$ precisely when $\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_1) = \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_2)$.\\
We put $\mathscr{R} = \mathscr{R}(\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2):= \{P\,|\,P\, \textrm{is anisotropic and } \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_1) = \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_2)\}$. One recognizes immediately that the point $M':= (M_1{\vee}M_2)^\delta$ belongs $\mathscr{R}$, as well as all anisotropic points of intersection of the two circles.
Moreover, whenever $P$ is a point in $\mathscr{R}$, different from $M'$, then every other anisotropic point $Q$ on $M'{\vee}P$ is also a point in $\mathscr{R}$, because:\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(Q,\mathcal{S}_1){\,=\,}\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_1)\frac{\cosh(\frac{1}{2}\pi i{-}d(Q,M'))}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2}\pi i{-}d(P,M'))}{\,=\,}\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(P,\mathcal{S}_2)\frac{\cosh(\frac{1}{2}\pi i{-}d(Q,M'))}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2}\pi i{-}d(P,M'))}{\,=\,}\tilde{\mathscr{p}}(Q,\mathcal{S}_2)$.}\vspace*{0.5mm}\hspace*{\fill}\\ \newpage
There are exactly two points in $\mathscr{R}\cap (M_1{\,\vee\,}M_2)$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{11mm}P_1{\,=\,}\big(\!\cosh(d)\cosh(r_2){-}\cosh(r_1)\big)M_1 + \big(\!\cosh(d)\cosh(r_1){-}\cosh(r_2)\big)M_2$\\
\hspace*{5mm}and $P_2{\,=\,}\big(\!\cosh(d)\cosh(r_2){+}\cosh(r_1)\big)M_1 - \big(\!\cosh(d)\cosh(r_1){+}\cosh(r_2)\big)M_2$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\hspace*{5mm}with $d = d(M_1,M_2).$\vspace*{1mm}\\
Thus, $\mathscr{R}$ is the union of the lines $l_1 = P_1\vee M'$ and $l_2 = P_2\vee M'$. These lines are called \textit{radical lines} of the circles $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$. The lines $l_1^{\,}, M_1^{\,\delta}, l_2^{\,}, M_2^{\,\delta}$ form a harmonic pencil.
\subsubsection{Radical centers of three circles}\label{subsubsec:Radical centers} We draw a circle around each vertex of triangle $\Delta_0$, around $A$ a circle $\mathcal{S}_1$ with radius $r_1$, etc. Then there are exactly four \textit{radical centers}, points of equal powers with respect to the three circles. One of these points, $R_0$, is a point inside the triangle $\Delta^0$, with coordinates \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$R_0 = R_0(r_1,r_2,r_3) = [\cosh(r_1) \mathfrak{d}_{11}+\cosh(r_2) \mathfrak{d}_{12}+\cosh(r_3) \mathfrak{d}_{13}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$.}\vspace*{0.5mm}
The other three points $R_1, R_2, R_3$ form the anticevian triple of $R_0$ with respect to $\Delta'$. $R_1$ has coordinates:\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\;\;R_1 = [\cosh(r_1) \mathfrak{d}_{11}{-}\cosh(r_2) \mathfrak{d}_{12}{-}\cosh(r_3) \mathfrak{d}_{13}{\,:\,}\\
\hspace*{2.5mm}{-}\cosh(r_1)\mathfrak{d}_{21}{+}\cosh(r_2)\mathfrak{d}_{22}{-}\cosh(r_3)\mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,:\,}{-}\cosh(r_1)\mathfrak{d}_{31}{-}\cosh(r_2)\mathfrak{d}_{32}{+}\cosh(r_3)\mathfrak{d}_{33}]_\Delta$.\vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
A \textit{radical circle} $\tilde{\mathcal{S}}_k$ can be drawn around each point $R_k$; this circle meets the circles $\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2, \mathcal{S}_3$ orthogonally. The radius of $\tilde{\mathcal{S}}_k$ is $\tilde{r}_k = \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(R_k,\mathcal{S}_1) = \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(R_k,\mathcal{S}_2) = \tilde{\mathscr{p}}(R_k,\mathcal{S}_3)$.\vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
By taking special values for $r_1, r_2, r_3$, we can find triangle centers of $\Delta_0$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\ First, independently of the choice of the radii, we have $\lim\limits_{t \to 0} R_0(t\,r_1,t\,r_2,t\,r_3) = O_0.$ We also get the circumcenter $O_0$ as a result for $R_0$ when we take $r_1=r_2=r_3$.\\
If $r_1=\frac 12(-\mathscr{a}+\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c}), r_2=\frac 12(\mathscr{a}-\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c}), r_3=\frac 12(\mathscr{a}+\mathscr{b}-\mathscr{c})$, then $R_0 = I_0$.\\
When we choose $r_1=\mathscr{a}, r_2=\mathscr{b}, r_3=\mathscr{c}$, then $R_0$ = $L$ (de{\!} Longchamps point). \\
\textit{Remark}: In the euclidean plane, when taking radii $r_1=t\mathscr{a}, r_2=t\mathscr{b}, r_3=t\mathscr{c}, t\in \mathbb{R}^{\ge 0}$, one gets points
$R_0(t)=[ t^2(\mathscr{a}^2 (-2\mathscr{a}^2{+}\mathscr{b}^2{+}\mathscr{c}^2)+(\mathscr{b}^2 - \mathscr{c}^2)^2)+\mathscr{a}^2 (\mathscr{a}^2{-}\mathscr{b}^2{-}\mathscr{c}^2):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$, all lying on the Euler-line.
\subsubsection{Centers of similitude of two circles} Given two nondegenerate circles $\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2$ with centers $M_1, M_2$, $d(M_1, M_2) \ne 0$, and radii $r_1, r_2$, then there exist two points $L_1, L_2$ which are the duals of the two radical lines of the duals of $\mathcal{S}_1$ and $\mathcal{S}_2$. These points are called \textit{centers of similitude} of $\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2$, cf. \cite{TL}.\\
These two centers lie on the line $M_1\vee M_2$, and $M_1, L_1, M_2, L_2$ form a harmonic range. If the two circles have common tangents, then each of these tangents passes either through $L_1$ or through $L_2$.
\subsubsection{Dualizing \ref{subsubsec:Radical centers}}\label{subsubsec:similitude} Given circles $\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2,\mathcal{S}_3$ with centers $A,B,C$ and radii $r_1, r_2,r_3$ (respectively), then there exist six centers of similitude of these circles, taken in pairs. Three of these are the vertices of the cevian triangle of the point $\,T = T(r_1,r_2,r_3) = [1/\!\sinh(r_1):1/\!\sinh(r_2):1/\!\sinh(r_3)]_\Delta$, while the other three centers lie on the tripolar of $\,T$. \\For $r_1=r_2=r_3$, we have $\,T=G_0$. When we choose for the radii $r_1=\mathscr{a}, r_2=\mathscr{b}, r_3=\mathscr{c}$, then the point $\,T$ is the isotomic conjugate of the incenter $I_0$, and for $r_1=\frac 12({-}\mathscr{a}{+}\mathscr{b}{+}\mathscr{c}), r_2=\frac 12(\mathscr{a}{-}\mathscr{b}{+}\mathscr{c}), r_3=\frac 12(\mathscr{a}{+}\mathscr{b}{-}\mathscr{c})$ we get $\,T = Ge_0$.\hspace*{-1.5mm}
\begin{figure}[!thpb]
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{GUT_Tangenten.eps}
\caption{Illustration of \ref{subsubsec:similitude}.
\newline
This Figure and the following with the exception of Figure 12 show the situation in the elliptic plane. An indication is the grey dotted circle. Since the absolute conic $\mathcal{C}_{abs}$ has no real points, this circle $\tilde{\mathcal{C}} = \{(x_0{:}x_1{:}x_2) |\, \rho x_0^{\;2} = x_1^{\;2}+x_2^{\;2}\}$ serves as a substitute for constructions.}\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The excentral triangle and the extangents triangle}\label{subsubsec:extangents triangle} The triangle $(I_1I_2I_3)_0$ is called the excentral triangle of $\Delta_0$. The radical centers of the three excircles are the Spieker center (see \ref{subsubsec:Spieker}) together with its harmonic associates with respect to the dual $I_1'I_2'I_3'$ of the triple $I_1I_2I_3$.\\
The triple $I_1I_2I_3$ is perspective to the orthic triple $\Delta_{[H]}$ at the perspector\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{[$\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}(\mathfrak{d}_{23}-\mathfrak{d}_{31}-\mathfrak{d}_{12}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta=[\sinh(\alpha)(\cosh(\alpha)-\cosh(\beta)-\cosh(\gamma)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,$}\vspace*{0.5mm}
a point with euclidean limit $X_{46}.$
We introduce three points\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{0.5mm}E_1\!\! := [-\mathfrak{d}_{11} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}{+}\mathfrak{d}_{23}){:}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\mathfrak{d}_{12} ){:}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} \mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta,$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{0.5mm}\;\;\;\;\;\; = [-\sinh(\alpha)(1{+}\cosh(\alpha))\,{:}\sinh(\beta)(\cosh(\alpha){+}\cosh(\beta))\,{:}\sinh(\gamma)(\cosh(\alpha){+}\cosh(\gamma))]_\Delta,$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{0.5mm}E_2\! := [\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}){:}{-\mathfrak{d}_{22}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{+}\mathfrak{d}_{31} ){:}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} \mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta,$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{0.5mm}E_3\! := [\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}){:}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{+}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\mathfrak{d}_{12} ){:}-\mathfrak{d}_{33} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{+}\mathfrak{d}_{12})]_\Delta.$\vspace*{1mm}\\
These points are the vertices of the \textit{extangents triangle} of $\Delta_0$, a triangle with following properties:\\
$\bullet$ The sideline $E_j\vee E_k$ of this triangle is a tangent of the excircles $\mathscr{I}_{\!j}$ and $\mathscr{I}_k, 1\leq j < k\leq 3.$\\
$\bullet$ It has the Bevan point $Be$ (s.\ref{subsubsec:Spieker} ) as its incenter.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
The triple $E_1E_2E_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at perspector \vspace*{0.5mm}\\$[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} \mathfrak{d}_{12}){\,:\,}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23} ){\,:\,}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} (\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}} \mathfrak{d}_{23} + \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}} \mathfrak{d}_{31})]_\Delta$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$= [\sinh(\alpha)(\cosh(\beta)+\cosh(\gamma)):\sinh(\beta)(\cosh(\gamma)+\cosh(\alpha)):\sinh(\gamma)(\cosh(\alpha)+\cosh(\beta))]_\Delta.$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
This point is the isogonal conjugate of the pseudo- Schiffler point (see \ref{subsubsec:Spieker}) and has euclidean limit $X_{65}$, but in contrast to the euclidean case this perspector differs from the orthocenter of the intouch triangle.\\
The triple $E_1E_2E_3$ is also perspective to the orthic triple $\Delta_{[H]}$, the perspector is the \textit{Clawson point} \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$[\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}\mathfrak{d}_{12}(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}+\mathfrak{d}_{23})(\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\mathfrak{d}_{23}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\mathfrak{d}_{31}+\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}\mathfrak{d}_{12}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta = [\tanh(\alpha)\cosh^2(\frac {\alpha}{2})(\cosh^2(\frac {\alpha}{2})-\cosh^2(\frac {\beta}{2})-\cosh^2(\frac {\gamma}{2}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$\\ with euclidean limit $X_{19}$.
\subsection{Orthology, pedal-cevian points and cevian-pedal points}
\noindent\vspace*{-0.5mm}\subsubsection{Orthologic triples} A point-triple $PQR$, $P\ne A', Q\ne B',R\ne C'$, is \textit{orthologic} to the triple $\Delta=ABC$ if the lines $P\vee A', Q\vee B', R\vee C'$ concur at some point $S$, which is then called the \textit{center} of this orthology.\\
If $PQR$ is orthologic to $\Delta$, then $\Delta$ is orthologic to $PQR$; the lines $\textrm{perp}(Q\vee R,A)$, $\textrm{perp}(R\vee P,B)$, $\textrm{perp}(P\vee Q,C) $
meet at some point $\,T$.\\
\textit{Outline of a proof}: If $PQR$ is orthologic to $\Delta$ with center $S=[s_1{:}s_2{:}s_2]_\Delta$, then there exist real numbers $x,y,z$ such that
\[
\begin{split}
P &= [s_1+x\,d_{11}:s_2+x\,d_{12}:s_3+x\,d_{31}]_\Delta,\\
Q &= [s_1+y\,d_{12}:s_2+y\,d_{22}:s_3+y\,d_{23}]_\Delta,\\
R &= [s_1+z\,d_{31}:s_2+z\,d_{23}:s_3+z\,d_{33}]_\Delta.\\
\end{split}
\]
Define vectors $\boldsymbol{p},\boldsymbol{q},\boldsymbol{r}$ by $\boldsymbol{p}=(s_1{+}x\,d_{11},s_2{+}x\,d_{12},s_3{+}x\,d_{31}), \boldsymbol{q} = (s_1{+}x\,d_{12},s_2{+}x\,d_{22},$ $s_3{+}x\,d_{23})$, $\boldsymbol{r} = (s_1{+}z\,d_{31},s_2{+}z\,d_{23},s_3{+}z\,d_{33})$, then $((\boldsymbol{q}\times\boldsymbol{r})D)\times A$, $((\boldsymbol{r}\times\boldsymbol{p})D)\times B$, ${((\boldsymbol{p}{\times}\boldsymbol{q})D)\times C}$ form a linear dependent system (use CAS to check). The lines $\textrm{perp}(Q{\vee}R,A)$, $\textrm{perp}(R{\vee}P,B), \textrm{perp}(P{\vee}Q,C) $ meet at the point $T = [1/x,1/y,1/z]_\Delta.\;\;\;\;\Box$\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
\textit{Remark:} In euclidean geometry, the coordinates of $S$ with respect to the triple $PQR$ are the same as the coordinates of $\,T$ with respect to $\Delta$ (cf.\cite{DD}). This is not true in elliptic/hyperbolic geometry. On the other hand, still applies the\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
\noindent\textit{Addition}: If $P{\,=\,}A_{[S]},\, Q{\,=\,}B_{[S]},\,R{\,=\,}C_{[S]}$ form the pedal triple of $S$, then $T$ is the isogonal conjugate of $S$.\vspace*{-0.5mm}
\subsubsection{Pedal-cevian points and the Darboux cubic} A point $P$ is a \textit{pedal-cevian point} of $\Delta$ if its pedal triple $\Delta_{[P]}$ is perspective to $\Delta$; the perspector we call \textit{cevian companion} of $P$. A point $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ is a pedal-cevian point precisely when its coordinates satisfy the cubic equation\vspace*{2mm}\\
\centerline{$
\sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{d}_{jj} \mathfrak{d}_{j+1,i+2} + \mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1} \mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}) p_j (\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}^{\; } p_{j+2}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}^{\; } p_{i+1}^{\;2}) \;=\;0.$}\\
\noindent As in the euclidean case, this cubic is a self-isogonal cubic with pivot point $L$.
On this cubic - we call it \textit{Darboux cubic} as its euclidean limit - lie the points $O_k, I_k (k = 0,1,2,3), O^+\!, H$, $L$, $Be$ and their isogonal conjugates. The cevian companions of $O_k, I_k$, $O^+\!, H, Be, L$ are $G_k, Ge_k$, $G^+\!,$ $H$, $N\!a$ and the isotomic conjugate of $H$, respectively.
The points $A', B', C'$ are also lying on the Darboux cubic. Their cevian companions are ${[-\,\mathfrak{c}{\,:\,}1/\mathfrak{c}_{12}{\,:\,}1/\mathfrak{c}_{31}]_\Delta}$, $[\,1/\mathfrak{c}_{12}{\,:\,}-\,\mathfrak{c}{\,:\,}1/\mathfrak{c}_{32}]_\Delta,$ $[\,1/\mathfrak{c}_{31}{\,:\,}1/\mathfrak{c}_{23}{\,:\,}-\,\mathfrak{c}]_\Delta$, respectively.
These three points form a triple which is perspective to $\Delta$ at $G^+$. \vspace*{-1mm}
\subsubsection{Cevian-pedal points and the Lucas cubic}
A point $P$ is a \textit{cevian-pedal point} of $\Delta$ if its cevian triple $\Delta_Q$ is perspective to $\Delta'$; the perspector we call the \textit{pedal companion} of $Q$. The cevian-pedal points $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ form a cubic with the equation \vspace*{2mm}\\
\centerline{$
\sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} \mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2} p_j (p_{j+2}^{\;2}-p_{j+1}^{\;2}) \;=\;0.$
} \\
\noindent This cubic, we call it \textit{Lucas cubic}, is a self-isotomic pivotal cubic; the pivot is the isotomic conjugate of $H$.
On this cubic lie the points $G_k, Ge_k, N\!a_k (k = 0,1,2,3),G^+, H, L$ and their isotomic conjugates. The pedal companion of $L$ is \vspace*{1.5 mm}\\
\centerline{$[\mathfrak{d}_{11}(2\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{33}\mathfrak{d}_{31}\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\mathfrak{d}_{23}(-\mathfrak{d}_{11}^{\; }\mathfrak{d}_{23}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{22}^{\; }\mathfrak{d}_{31}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{33}^{\; }\mathfrak{d}_{12}^{\;2}+\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{33})):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$}\vspace*{1.5 mm}\\This is another point on the Darboux conic; it has euclidean limit $X_{1498}$. \vspace*{-0.5mm}
\subsubsection{The Darboux cubic and the Lucas conic of $\Delta'$} The pedal-cevian points of $\Delta$ are the cevian-pedal points of $\Delta'$ and vice versa. Therefore, the Darboux cubic and the Lucas cubic of $\Delta$ are the Lucas cubic and the Darboux cubic of $\Delta'$, respectively. \vspace*{-0.5mm}
\subsubsection{The Thomson cubic} In euclidean geometry, the \textit{Thomson cubic} is the locus of perspectors of circumconics such that the normals at the vertices $A, B, C$ meet at one point. An equation of the elliptic/hyperbolic analog is
\[
\sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{d}_{j,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}) p_j (\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}p_{j+1}^{\;2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}p_{j+2}^{\;2}) \;=\;0.\;\;\;\;\;\; (\star)
\]
This cubic is an isogonal cubic with pivot $G^+$. Besides the vertices of $\Delta$ and the point $G^+$, it passes through the points $H, O^+$ and $I_k, \tilde{K}_k,\tilde{G}_k, k=0,1,2,3$. \\In the above definition of the Thomson cubic, the word "perspectors" may be replaced by "centers" without changing the euclidean curve, see \cite{Gi}. But this is not the case in elliptic and hyperbolic geometry; here we get a different curve of higher degree. A center $[z_1{:}z_2{:}z_3]_\Delta$ of a circumconic belongs to this curve precisely when the coordinates of the corresponding perspector $[p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$, \vspace*{2mm} \\
\centerline{$p_j = \;
z_j\big(z_j^{\;2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}^{\;2}) - z_{j+1}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}\mathfrak{d}_{j,j}-\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}^{\;2})$}\\
$\hspace*{22mm} -z_{j+2}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}^{\;2})+2z_{j+1}z_{j+2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}\mathfrak{d}_{j,j}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}) \big)\,,$\vspace*{2.5mm}\\
satisfy the equation $(\star)$. Points on this curve are: $H$ and $I_k, O_k, k=0,\cdots,3$.
\subsection{Conway's circle, Kiepert perspectors, Hofstadter points, and related objects}
\subsubsection{}\label{subsubsec:lemma}
For all real numbers $x, y, z$ define the points $P_a(x), Q_a(x), P_b(y), Q_b(y)$, $P_c(z)$, $Q_c(z)$ by \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[
\begin{split}
P_a(x) = [0{:}x{:}1]_\Delta,\, &P_b(y) = [1{:}0{:}y]_\Delta,\, P_c(z) = [z{:}1{:}0]_\Delta,\\
Q_a(x) = [0{:}1{:}x]_\Delta,\, &Q_b(y) =[y{:}0{:}1]_\Delta,\, Q_c(z) = [1{:}z{:}0]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\]
These six points lie on the conic \vspace*{1 mm}\\
\centerline{ $\{[p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta |\;p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2 - (x+\dfrac{1}{x})p_2p_3 - (y+\dfrac{1}{y\,})p_3p_1 - (z+\dfrac{1}{z})p_1p_2 = 0 \}$.}\vspace*{1 mm}
The points $P_a, P_b, P_c$ are collinear precisely when $xyz = -1$.\\
Put
\[
\begin{split}
&X = X(x,y,z) = (Q_c(z)\vee P_a(x)) \wedge (Q_a(x)\vee P_b(y)), \\
&Y = (Q_a(x)\vee P_b(y)) \wedge (Q_b(y)\vee P_c(z)),\,Z = (Q_b(y)\vee P_c(z)) \wedge (Q_c(z)\vee P_a(x)).
\end{split}
\]
\begin{figure} [!thpb]
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{GUT5.eps}
\caption{Illustration of \ref{subsubsec:lemma}}
\end{figure}
The triple $XYZ$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at $R(x,y,z) = [\dfrac{1}{x+yz},\dfrac{1}{y+zx},\dfrac{1}{z+xy}]_\Delta.$\\
If $xyz\ne 0$, then $R(x,y,z) = R(1/x,1/y,1/z)$.\\
Put \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&X' = (Q_b(y)\vee P_c(z)) \wedge a, \\
&Y' = (Q_c(z)\vee P_a(x)) \wedge b,\,Z' = (Q_a(x)\vee P_b(y)) \wedge c.
\end{split}
\]
The points $X',Y',Z'$ are collinear on the tripolar line of $[x,y,z]_\Delta.$\\
Put \vspace*{-1mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&X'' = (Q_c(z)\vee P_b(y)) \wedge a, \\
&Y'' = (Q_a(x)\vee P_c(z)) \wedge b,\,Z'' = (Q_b(y)\vee P_a(x)) \wedge c.
\end{split}
\]
The points $X'',Y'',Z''$ are collinear on the tripolar line of $[yz,zx,xy]_\Delta.$\vspace*{-2mm}\\
Special cases:\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\bullet$ If $x = y = z$, then $R = G$ and $X',Y',Z',X'',Y'',Z''$ lie on the tripolar of $G$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\bullet$ Assume
\[
y = \frac{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}x+ \frac{ \mathfrak{d}_{23}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}} - \mathfrak{d}_{31}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}}{\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}( \mathfrak{d}_{12}-\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}}) } \, \text{and}\; z = \frac{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}x+ \frac{ \mathfrak{d}_{23}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}} - \mathfrak{d}_{12}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}{\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}( \mathfrak{d}_{31}-\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}) }.
\]
\hspace*{2mm}In this case, $d(P_a(x),B) = d(P_b(y),C) = d(P_c(z),A)$ and:\\
\hspace*{2mm}- The points $R(x,y,z), x \in \mathbb{R},$ lie on a circumconic of $\Delta$ through $I$, $Ge$ and $N\!a$. \\
\hspace*{2mm}- For all $x,$ the tripolar of $[yz, zx, xy]_\Delta$ passes through the point $(I\vee Ge)^\delta$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\bullet$ Assume
\[0<k<1 \;\text{and}\; x=\frac{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{a})}{\sinh(k\mathscr{a})}, y=\frac{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{b})}{\sinh(k\mathscr{b})},z=\frac{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{c})}{\sinh(k\mathscr{c})}.
\]
In this case, we get \;$\lim\limits_{k \to 0}R(x,y,z) = \lim\limits_{k \to 1}R(x,y,z) = [\dfrac{\sinh(\mathscr{a})}{\mathscr{a}}:\dfrac{\sinh(\mathscr{b})}{\mathscr{b}}:\dfrac{\sinh(\mathscr{c})}{\mathscr{c}}]_\Delta$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\subsubsection{The Conway circle}
Reflect $B$ in $I_1\vee C$ and reflect the mirror image in $B_G$ to get the point $[\mathfrak{d}_{23}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}}:0:\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}(\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}})]_\Delta$, denoted by $R_{23}$. Reflect $C$ in $I_1\vee B$ and this point in $C_G$ to get the point $R_{32}=[\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}(\mathfrak{d}_{31}+ \sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}):\mathfrak{d}_{23}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}\sqrt{{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}:0]_\Delta.$ Both, $R_{23}$ and $R_{32}$, have distance $\mathscr{a}$ from $A$.
Construct likewise the points $R_{31}, R_{13}$ with distance $\mathscr{b}$ from $B$, and $R_{12}, R_{21}$ with distance $\mathscr{c}$ from $C$.
The six points $R_{12}, R_{21}, R_{23}, R_{32}$, $R_{31}, R_{13}$ lie on a circle with center $I$. The radius $r_{Conway}$ of this circle can be calculated by\vspace*{-2mm}
\[
\begin{split}
\cosh(r_{Conway}) = \cosh(s)\cosh(r) \;\text{with}\; s &= \frac{1}{2}(\mathscr{a}+\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c}) =\; \text{semiperimeter of\;} \Delta_0\\
\text{and}\, r &= d(I,A_{[I]}) =\; \text{radius of the incircle}\; \mathscr{I}_0.
\end{split}
\]
\textit{Proof}: By reflecting $R_{23}$ in the line $I \vee A$ we get $R_{32}$, and therefore $d(I,R_{23}) = d(I,R_{32})$. Accordingly, we have $d(I,R_{31}) = d(I,R_{13})$ and $d(I,R_{12}) = d(I,R_{21})$.\\The distance between $A$ and $R_{31}$ is $\mathscr{b}+\mathscr{c}$ and agrees with the distance between $A$ and $R_{21}$. By reflecting $R_{31}$ in the line $I \vee A$ we get $R_{21}$, thus $d(I,R_{31}) = d(I,R_{21})$. In the same way, we get $d(I,R_{12}) = d(I,R_{32})$ and $d(I,R_{13}) = d(I,R_{23})$.\\
By reflecting $R_{13}$ in the line $I \vee A_{[I]}$ we get $R_{12}$. Therefore, $A_{[I]}$ is a midpoint of $\{R_{13},R_{12}\}$. The radius $r_{Conway}$ can be calculated by applying the elliptic resp. hyperbolic version of Pythagoras' theorem.\;\;$\Box$
The three points $(R_{23}\vee R_{32}) \wedge a, (R_{31}\vee R_{13}) \wedge b, (R_{12}\vee R_{21}) \wedge c$ are collinear on a line with the equation \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[\sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}} + \mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}})(\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}-\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}}) x_j = 0\;.\vspace*{0mm}
\]
The euclidean limit of this line is the tripolar of $X_{86}$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=8cm]{GUT6.eps}
\caption{
A description of the red circle is given in \ref{subsubsec:conwaydual}.}\label{fig:dual conway}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{A dual of Conway's circle theorem}\label{subsubsec:conwaydual} Let $Q_1, Q_2, Q_3$ be the apices of isosceles triangles, erected outwardly on the sides $a, b, c$ of $\Delta_0$ with base angles $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$, respectively. Then there exists a circle with center $O$ which touches the lines $A\vee Q_2, A\vee Q_3$, $B\vee Q_3, B\vee Q_1$, $C\vee Q_1, C\vee Q_2$, see Figure \ref{fig:dual conway}. The euclidean limit of this circle is the circumcircle of $\Delta_0$.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
Instead of base angles $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$, we can also take base angles $\pi i - \beta -\gamma, \pi i - \gamma -\alpha, \pi i - \alpha -\beta$ to get the same touching circle.\vspace*{-2 mm}\\
The triple $Q_1Q_2Q_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at a point with euclidean limit $X_{6}$.\vspace*{0.5 mm}
\subsubsection{}\textit{Dualizing} 2.6.1. Let $x, y, z$ be real numbers, and define the points $P_1, P_2, P_3$ by \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&P_1 = [yz \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{:}y\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{:}z\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta,\\ &P_2 = [x \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{:}zx\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{:}z\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta,\, P_3 = [x \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}{:}y\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}{:}xy\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\]
Then:\\
\hspace*{1 mm}$\mu(\angle_{+} BAP_3) = \mu(\angle_{+} CAP_2),\, \mu(\angle_{+} CBP_1) = \mu(\angle_{+} ABP_3),\, \mu(\angle_{+} BCP_1) = \mu(\angle_{+} ACP_2).$\\
\hspace*{1 mm}The triple $P_1P_2P_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at the point $R(x,y,z) = [x\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}},y\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}},z\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta$.\\
Put $Q_1 = (P_3\vee B)\wedge(P_2\vee C), Q_2 = (P_1\vee c)\wedge(P_3\vee A), Q_3 = (P_2\vee A)\wedge(P_1\vee B)$. The triple $Q_1Q_2Q_3$ is perspective to $\Delta$
at the isogonal conjugate of $R(x,y,z)$.\\
Special cases:\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\bullet\;$ If $x=y=z=1$, then $R = I$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\bullet\;$ Assume
\[
y = \frac{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}} + x ( \mathfrak{d}_{31} - \mathfrak{d}_{23})} \, \text{and}\; z = \frac{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}+x ( \mathfrak{d}_{12} - \mathfrak{d}_{23})}.\vspace*{-1mm}
\]
In this case, the points $P_1, P_2, P_3$ are the apices of isosceles triangles, erected on the sides
$a, b, c$ of $\Delta_0$ (either all inwardly or all outwardly) with base angles which have all the same measure.\vspace*{-3mm}\\
The points $R(x,y,z), x \in \mathbb{R},$ are called \textit{Kiepert perspectors}; they lie on the conic \vspace*{-1 mm}
\[\big\{[p_1,p_2,p_3]_\Delta \;|\; \sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j} - \mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1})p_{j+1}p_{j+2} = 0\big\},\vspace*{-1.5 mm}
\]
which is a circumconic of $\Delta$ through $G$ and $H$. The euclidean limit of this conic is the Kiepert hyperbola. \vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
The isogonal conjugates of the Kiepert perspectors lie on the line through $K$ (= iso\-gonal conjugate of $G$) and $O^+$ (= iso\-gonal conjugate of $H$). This line also passes through the triangle centers $O, \tilde{K},\tilde{K}^\star$. The tripole of $O \vee K$ is a point on the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ with euclidean limit $X_{110}$.\vspace*{1.5 mm} \\
$\bullet\;$ Let $k$ be a real number, different from $0$ and $1$, and assume \vspace*{-1mm}
\[x=\frac{\sinh(k\mathscr{\alpha})}{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{\alpha})},\; y=\frac{\sinh(k\mathscr{\beta})}{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{\beta})},\;z=\frac{\sinh(k\mathscr{\gamma})}{\sinh((1-k)\mathscr{\gamma})}.\vspace*{-1mm}
\]
In this case, we call the point $R(x,y,z)$ \textit{Hofstadter k-point}, according to the euclidean case. The isogonal conjugate of the Hofstadter k-point is the Hofstadter (1-k)-point. Here are some examples of Hofstadter points: The $\frac{1}{2}$-point is $I$, the (-1)-point $H$ and the 2-point is $O^+$. The limes of the k-point, as k approaches zero, is $[\alpha{:}\beta{:}\gamma]_\Delta$.
\subsection{The Lemoine conic, the Lemoine axis and Tucker circles} \vspace*{-1mm}
\subsubsection{Lemma}
Let $P = [p_1:p_2:p_3]_\Delta$ be a point not on a sideline of $\Delta$, and let $\ell = \{{[x_1:x_2:x_3]_\Delta} |\, q_1 x_1 +q_2 x_2 + q_3 x_3 = 0 \}$ be a line that does not contain any vertex of $\Delta$. Put $P_{11} := \ell \wedge a, P_{12} := (P_{11} \vee P) \wedge b , P_{13} := (P_{11} \vee P)\wedge c$, and define the points $P_{22}, P_{23}, P_{21}$, $P_{33}$, $P_{31}, P_{32}$ accordingly.\\
The points $P_{12}, P_{13}, P_{21}$, $P_{23}$, $P_{31}, P_{32}$ lie on the conic \vspace*{-1mm}
\[
\begin{split}
\big\{[x_1{:}x_2{:}x_3]_\Delta |& \sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} \big(\frac{q_j(p_{j+1}q_{j+1} + p_{j+2}q_{j+2})}{p_j}x_{j}^2\\
&- \frac{p_j q_j(p_j q_j+p_{j+1} q_{j+1}+p_{j+2} q_{j+2})+2p_{j+1} q_{j+1}p_{j+2} q_{j+2}}{p_{j+1} p_{j+2}}x_{j+1}x_{j+2}\big) = 0\big\}.\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{split}
\]
We call this conic the \textit{conic associated with} the pair $(P,\ell)$.
Its perspector is \vspace*{-1mm}
\[ [\frac{p_1}{(2 p_1 q_1 (p_2 q_2 + p_3 q_3) + p_2 p_3 q_2 q_3)}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.\vspace*{1mm}
\]
\textit{Examples:}\\
$\bullet\;\;$ The perspector of the conic associated with $(P,P^\tau)$ is the point $P$.\\
$\bullet\;\;$ The conic associated with $(\tilde{K},\tilde{K}^\delta)$ is the Lemoine conic which is described in \cite{Ev}; its euclidean limit is the First Lemoine circle. The line $O\vee K$ $(= {O\vee \tilde{K}})$ is a symmetry axis of this conic.\\
$\bullet\;\;$ The conic associated with $G$ and $H^\delta$ is a conic with perspector \\
\centerline{$[1/(\mathfrak{c}_{23} + 2\mathfrak{c}_{31}+2\mathfrak{c}_{12}):1/(2\mathfrak{c}_{23} + \mathfrak{c}_{31}+2\mathfrak{c}_{12}):1/(2\mathfrak{c}_{23} + 2\mathfrak{c}_{31}+\mathfrak{c}_{12})
]_\Delta$.}\\
$\bullet\;\;$ The conic associated with incenter $I$ and the orthotransversal of $I$ has $I$ as a symmetry point and a perspector with euclidean limit $X_{10390}$.\\
$\bullet\;\;$ In euclidean geometry, the conic associated with the Lemoine point $K$ and the line at infinity is the First Lemoine circle; the Second Lemoine circle is associated with $K$ and the tripolar of $X_{25}$.
\subsubsection{The Lemoine axis and the apollonian circles}
The tripolar of the Lemoine point $\tilde{K}$ is called \textit{Lemoine axis}. This axis is perpendicular to the line $O\vee K$ $(= {O^+\vee \tilde{K}})$. Let $L_1, L_2, L_3$ be the intersection points of the Lemoine axis with the sidelines $a, b, c$, respectively. The circle $\mathscr{C}(L_1,A)$ with center $L_1$ through vertex $A$ meets the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ perpendicularly.
Mutatis mutandis, this is also true for the circles $\mathscr{C}(L_2,B), \mathscr{C}(L_3,C)$. We will call these circles \textit{apollonian circles}, as they are called in the euclidean case. There are two points, $J_+$ and $J_+$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$J_\pm = [(\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c})(\,\mathfrak{c}+\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\;\pm\,\sqrt{\frac13|\det(\mathfrak{C})|\,}\,):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$,}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
on the line $O\vee K$ at which all three apollonian circles meet; their euclidean limits are the isodynamic points. The points $\tilde{K}^{\star}$ and $\tilde{K}^{\tau}\wedge(K\vee O)$ are the midpoints of $J_-$ and $J_+$, and $J_-, O, J_+, \tilde{K}$ form a harmonic range.\\
\textit{Remark}: An elliptic/hyperbolic version of Apollonius' Theorem (see \cite{TL} ch. VIII for the elliptic/spherical version together with its proof) states that\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$\displaystyle\mathscr{C}(L_1,A) = \big\{P\;|\;\frac{\sinh(\frac{1}{2} \mu([P,B]_+))}{\sinh(\frac{1}{2} \mu([P,C]_+)}= \frac{\sinh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})}{\sinh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})}\big\}$.}
\subsubsection{Tucker hexagons and Tucker circles}
Let $P_1Q_2P_3Q_1P_2$ $Q_3P_1$ be a closed poly\-gonal chain with vertices on the sidelines of $\Delta_0$, $P_1, Q_1$ on $a$, $P_2, Q_2$ on $b$, $P_3, Q_3$ on $c$, and assume that none of these points is a vertex of $\Delta$.
In euclidean geometry, the polygon $P_1Q_2P_3Q_1P_2Q_3$ is called a \textit{Tucker hexagon} of $\Delta_0$, if its line segments are alternately parallel\,/\,antiparallel to the sidelines of $\Delta$, $P_1Q_2$ parallel (or antiparallel) to $c$, $Q_2P_3$ antiparallel (parallel) to $a$, etc. The vertices of a Tucker hexagon are always concyclic and the corresponding circle is called a \textit{Tucker circle}.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
We will show that Tucker hexagons and Tucker circles also exist in the elliptic and in the hyperbolic plane.\\
The concept of \textit{antiparallelism of lines with respect to an angle} can be transferred from euclidean geometry to elliptic and to hyperbolic geometry. Let us explain this for the angle $\angle_+ BAC$ of the triangle $\Delta_0$. (See Akopyan \cite{Ak} for a more detailed description).\\
Given two lines $g, h$ such that $\#\{b,c,g,h\} = 4$, then $g$ is \textit{antiparallel} to $h$ with respect to $\angle_+ BAC$ $\,$ iff one of the following two conditions holds:\\
condition 1: $g\wedge h = A$ and $h$ is the mirror-image of $g$ in the angle-bisector $A \vee I_0$ of $\angle_+ BAC$.\\
condition 2: Define $P_1{:=\,}b\wedge g, P_2{:=\,}g\wedge c,P_3{:=\,}c\wedge h, P_4{:=\,}h\wedge b$. $\#\{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\} \ge 3$, and the segments $[P_1, P_2]_+,[P_2, P_3]_+, [P_3, P_4]_+, [P_4, P_1]_+$ are cords of a circle. (We recall that a cord of a circle is a closed segment whose boundary points lie on the circle and whose inner points lie inside the circle.)\\
It can be easily verified that, if $A$ is neither a point on $g$ nor on $h$, then $g$ is antiparallel to $h$ with respect to $\angle_+ BAC$ precisely when $\mu(\angle_+(P_1P_2A))-\mu(\angle_+(P_2P_1A)) = \mu(\angle_+(P_3P_4A))-\mu(\angle_+(P_4P_3A))$. \\
Now we define parallelism between lines with respect to the angle $\angle_+ BAC$:
Two lines $g, h$ are parallel with respect to $\angle_+ BAC$ precisely when the mirror image of $h$ in the angle bisector $A \vee I_0$ is antiparallel to $g$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT7.eps}
\caption{A Tucker hexagon and its circle.}\label{fig:T_hexagon}
\end{figure}
Choose a point $P_1$ on $a$, different from $B$ and $C$, and construct successively points $Q_2$ on $b$, $P_3$ on $c$, $Q_1$ on $a$, $P_2$ on $b$ and $Q_3$ on $c$ such that $P_1\vee Q_2$ is parallel to $c$, $Q_2\vee P_3$ antiparallel to $a$, $P_3\vee Q_1$ parallel to $b$, $Q_1\vee P_2$ antiparallel to $c$, $P_2\vee Q_3$ parallel to $a$. Then, $Q_3\vee P_1$ is antiparallel to $b$ and the points $P_1,\cdots, Q_3$ are concyclic.\\
\textit{Proof}: Since $P_1\vee Q_2$ is parallel to $c$, $Q_2\vee P_3$ antiparallel to $a$, and $P_3\vee Q_1$ parallel to $b$, we have the equations $\alpha - \beta = \varepsilon - \delta,\, \beta - \gamma = \zeta - \eta,\, \gamma - \alpha = \theta - \iota$, see Figure \ref{fig:T_hexagon}. We can prove that the four points $P_1, Q_2, P_3, Q_1$ are concyclic on a circle $\mathcal{C}$ by showing$\;\;\;\kappa - \lambda = \theta-\delta\;\;\;(\star)$.\vspace*{1mm}
\centerline{$\text{Proof of} \,\;(\star):\;\; \kappa -\lambda = (\pi i - \varepsilon -\zeta) - (\pi i - \eta - \iota)\,$}\\
$ \hspace*{59mm} = (\eta -\zeta) + \iota - \varepsilon$\\
$ \hspace*{59mm} = (\gamma - \beta) + (\theta + \alpha - \gamma) - (\delta + \alpha -\beta)$\\
$ \hspace*{59mm} = \theta - \delta$ \vspace*{1.5mm}
$Q_1\vee P_2$ is antiparallel to $P_1\vee Q_2$ and to c precisely when $P_2$ is a point on $\mathcal{C}$, concyclic with $P_1, Q_2, Q_1$. $P_2\vee Q_3$ is antiparallel to $Q_2\vee P_3$ and therefore parallel to $a$ precisely when $Q_3$ is a point on $\mathcal{C}$, concyclic with $P_1, Q_1, P_2$. The point $Q_3$ is a point on $\mathcal{C}$, together with $P_1, Q_1, P_3$. Therefore, $Q_3\vee P_1$ is antiparallel to $P_3\vee Q_1$ and to $b$. The polygon $P_1Q_2P_3Q_1P_2Q_3$ is a Tucker hexagon of $\Delta_0$; its vertices are concyclic.$\;\;\Box$\vspace*{-1mm}\\
Starting from $Q_3 = [q_{31}{:}1{:}0]_\Delta$, we calculate the coordinates of the other vertices of the Tucker hexagon. We get, for example,\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent$\displaystyle\hspace*{15 mm} P_1 = [0{:}1{:}p_{13}]_\Delta,\;\;\; p_{13} = \frac{q_{31}(s - \mathfrak{c}_{12})}{s -\mathfrak{c}_{23}} ,$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent$\hspace*{46.5 mm} s = \sqrt{\mathfrak{c}}\,\sqrt{(q_{31},1,0){\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{C}]}\,}(q_{31},1,0)}\; - \mathfrak{c} q_{31}$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
\noindent$\hspace*{49 mm} = \sqrt{\mathfrak{c}}\,\sqrt{\mathfrak{c}(q_{31}^{\;2}+1)+2\mathfrak{c}_{12}q_{31}}\;-\mathfrak{c}\,q_{31},$\\
\noindent$\displaystyle\hspace*{15 mm} P_2 = [p_{21}{:}0{:}1]_\Delta,\;\;\; p_{21} = \frac{(s-{\mathfrak{c}})(s\,(\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c})+\mathfrak{c}\,(2\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})-1)}{2\mathfrak{c}\,(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{12})(s-\mathfrak{c}_{12})}.$\vspace*{1 mm}\\
The center $T$ of the Tucker circle can be calculated by $T = ((P_1-Q_3) \vee (P_2-Q_3))^\delta$. By using CAS, it can be verified that $T$ lies on the line $ O \vee K \;(=O \vee \tilde{K})$. The coordinates of $T$ can then be expressed by\\
$T = [(\mathfrak{c}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+\,}t){:}(\mathfrak{c}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31})(\mathfrak{c}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+\,}t){:}(\mathfrak{c}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{12})(\mathfrak{c}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+\,}t)]_\Delta$\\
$ \; \textrm{with}$\\
\noindent$\hspace*{20 mm}\displaystyle t = \frac{(2\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-\mathfrak{c}\,(\mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;2}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2}{-1}))((p_{13}{+}1)\,r_{31}{\;-\;}(q_{31}{+}1)r_{13})}{r_{31}\,s_{13} + r_{13}\,s_{31}},$\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{17mm} r_{31} = \sqrt{\mathfrak{c}(q_{31}^{\;2}{+}1)+2\mathfrak{c}_{12}q_{31}} ,\;\;\;\; r_{13} = \sqrt{\mathfrak{c}(p_{13}^{\;2}+1)+2\mathfrak{c}_{23}p_{13}},$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{12.6mm} s_{31} = q_{31}(\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31})-2\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}1)+\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31})-2\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}1\;,$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{16.7mm} s_{13} = p_{13}(\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31})+2\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{-}1)-\mathfrak{c}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}\mathfrak{c}_{31})+2\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{-}1\;.$\vspace*{2mm}\\
Constructions with GeoGebra show that the perspector of the Tucker circle is, in general, not a point on the line $O\vee \tilde{K}$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
\begin{figure}[!b]
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{GUT8.eps}\label{fig:LC}
\caption{The $3^{rd}$ Lemoine circle (blue)\newline}\label{fig:Lemoine_circle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{GUT9.eps}
\caption{The Apollonius circle (light blue). The smaller blue circle is the Hart-Feuerbach circle which touches the (brown) excircles externally. The Spieker center is the radical center of the excircles.}\label{fig:Apollonius_circle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{DualTucker.eps}
\caption{A triangle in the euclidean plane with duals of a Tucker hexagon and a Tucker circle. }\label{fig:DualTucker}
\end{figure}
Define the points $R_1,R_2,R_3,T_1,T_2,T_3$ by \vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{$
R_1 = (P_1\vee Q_2) \wedge (Q_1\vee P_3) , R_2 = (P_2\vee Q_3) \wedge (Q_2\vee P_1) , R_3 = (P_3\vee Q_1) \wedge (Q_3\vee P_2) ,$}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$
\;\;T_1 = (P_1\vee Q_3) \wedge (Q_1\vee P_2) , \,T_2 = (P_2\vee Q_1) \wedge (Q_2\vee P_3) , \; T_3 = (P_3\vee Q_2) \wedge (Q_3\vee P_1).$
}\vspace*{2mm}\\
The triples $R_1R_2R_3$ and $T_1T_2T_3$ are both perspective to $\Delta$, the perspector being the Lemoine point $\tilde{K}$.
This can be shown by calculations with the help of CAS.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
Constructions indicate: The points $a\wedge(P_2 \vee Q_3), b\wedge(P_3 \vee Q_1), c\wedge(P_1 \vee Q_2)$ are collinear on a line which we name $g$, and the points
$a\wedge(Q_2 \vee P_3), b\wedge(Q_3 \vee P_1), c\wedge(Q_1 \vee P_2)$ are collinear on a line $r$. The lines $g$ and $r$ meet at a point on the dual of $T$.\\
Let $l_1, l_2, l_3$ be three lines passing through $\tilde{K}$ and parallel to $a,b,c$ with respect to $\angle_+ BAC$, $\angle_+ CBA$, $\angle_+ ACB$, respectively.
The six points $l_1\wedge b, l_1\wedge c, l_2\wedge c, l_2\wedge a, l_3\wedge a, l_3\wedge b$ lie on a circle, the \textit{$1^{st}$ Lemoine circle}. The point $Q_3 =
l_1 \wedge c$ has coordinates\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\displaystyle [q_{31}{:}1{:}0]_\Delta = [\frac{(\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}_{\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})+\sigma\sqrt{c}-1)+2(1-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{23})}{4(1-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})}{:}1{:}0]_\Delta,$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent$\hspace*{2mm}\sigma = \sqrt{\mathfrak{c}\,\big(\mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;2}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2}-2(\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31}\mathfrak{c}_{12})+5\big)+4\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31}-2(\mathfrak{c}_{12}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{23}{+}\mathfrak{c}_{31})}$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
Constructions indicate: The first Lemoine circle is the conic associated with $(\tilde{K}, g)$, where $g$ is the line described above.
\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
Let $l_1, l_2, l_3$ be three lines passing through $\tilde{K}$ and antiparallel to $a,b,c$, respectively.
The six points $l_1\wedge b, l_1\wedge c, l_2\wedge c, l_2\wedge a, l_3\wedge a, l_3\wedge b$ lie on a circle, the $2^{nd}$\textit{Lemoine circle}.The point $Q_3 =
l_2 \wedge c$ has coordinates\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\displaystyle [q_{31}{:}1{:}0]_\Delta = [\frac{(\mathfrak{c}_{12}-\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}_{\,}(\mathfrak{c}_{12}+\mathfrak{c}_{23}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})+\sigma\sqrt{c}-1)+2(1-\mathfrak{c}_{12}\mathfrak{c}_{23})(\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{31})}{\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2}(\mathfrak{c}+\mathfrak{c}_{12})-2(\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}\mathfrak{c}_{31})-\mathfrak{c}_{23}+\mathfrak{c}_{31})+\mathfrak{c}-\mathfrak{c}_{12}}{:}1{:}0]_\Delta,$\\
\noindent$\hspace*{2mm}\sigma$ as above.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
Constructions indicate: The second Lemoine circle is the conic associated with $(\tilde{K}, r)$.
\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
Let $Q_2$ and $P_3$ be the second intersections of the circumcircle of the triangle $(B\tilde{K}C)_0$ with the sidelines $b$ and $c$, respectively. Define the
points $Q_3,P_1$ and $Q_1,P_2$ likewise. The hexagon $P_1Q_2P_3Q_1P_2Q_3$ is a Tucker hexagon. The associated Tucker circle is the \textit{$3^{rd}$ Lemoine circle}. See Figure \ref{fig:Lemoine_circle}. We do not present the coordinates of $Q_3$, they are very complicated. \vspace*{-2mm}\\
In euclidean geometry, a circle which internally touches the three excircles of a triangle is called the \textit{Apollonius circle} of this triangle. Grinberg and Yiu \cite{GY} showed that this Apollonius circle is a Tucker circle. As constructions indicate, this seems to be true also in elliptic and in hyperbolic geometry, see Figure \ref{fig:Apollonius_circle}.\vspace*{-5.5mm}\\
\subsubsection{Dualizing Tucker hexagons and Tucker circles}
We can easily formulate a definition of parallelism and antiparallelism of points $P, Q$ with respect to a segment which is dual to the definition of parallelism and antiparallelism of lines with respect to an angle. (We use the names "parallelism/antiparallelism", even though they do not fit well.) \\
A dual version of a Tucker hexagon and a Tucker circle is shown in Figure \ref{fig:DualTucker}.\\
\subsection{Pseudoparallels of the sidelines and their duals}
\subsubsection{Lemma / part 1}
Let $Q = [q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta$ be a point not on a sideline of $\Delta$, and let $Q_1, Q_2,Q_3$ be the intersections of the tripolar $Q^\tau$ with the sidelines $a, b, c$, respectively. Let $R_1, R_2, R_3$ be any points in $\mathcal{P}$, with coordinates $R_k = [r_{k,1}{:}r_{k,2}, {:}r_{k,3}]_\Delta, k=1,2,3$. Define three lines $\ell_{\!1}, \ell_{\!2},\ell_{\!3}$ by $\ell_{\!k} = R_k\vee Q_k$.\\
Then: The points $\ell_{\!2}\wedge \ell_{\!3}, \ell_{\!3}\wedge \ell_{\!1},\ell_{\!1}\wedge \ell_{\!2}$ form a triple perspective to $\Delta$.
The perspector is the point\vspace*{-1mm}\\
$\hspace*{20mm}P =\displaystyle[\frac{r_{11}}{\tilde{r}_{1}}:\frac{r_{22}}{\tilde{r}_{2}}:\frac{r_{33}}{\tilde{r}_{3}}]_\Delta$, $\;\;\displaystyle\tilde{r}_{k} = \frac{r_{k1}}{q_1}+\frac{r_{k2}}{q_2}+\frac{r_{k3}}{q_3}, \;k=1,2,3$.\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
We look at special cases:\\
$\bullet$ If $R_1 R_2 R_3$ is the anticevian triple of $Q$, then $P=Q$.\\
$\bullet$ Let $R = [r_1{:}r_2{:}r_3]_\Delta$ be a point not on a sideline of $\Delta$ and $R_1 R_2 R_3$ its anticevian triple.\\
\noindent \hspace*{2mm}If $Q$ is a point on the circumconic of $\Delta$ with perspector $R$, then $P=Q$.\\
$\bullet$ If $\,R_1 R_2 R_3\,$ is the anticevian triple of $\,G^+$ and $\,Q = H\,$,$\;$then $P$ is a triangle center with\\
\noindent \hspace*{2mm}euclidean limit $X_{2996}$.
\subsubsection{A special case: pseudoparallels of the sidelines.} If in the previous lemma $Q = G$, we call the lines $\ell_{\!1}, \ell_{\!2},\ell_{\!3}$ pseudoparallels of the sidelines $a, b, c$. We look at different cases for the triple $R_1 R_2 R_3$.\vspace*{1mm} \\
$\bullet\,$ We put $P_1\! := \sinh(\mathscr{a})\,A' +\, \cosh(\mathscr{a})\,B, P_2\! := \sinh(\mathscr{b})\, B' +\, \cosh(\mathscr{b})\,C, P_3\! := \sinh(\mathscr{c})\, C' + \cosh(\mathscr{c})\,A$. In this case, $ d(\ell_{\!1},B) = d(\ell_{\!1},C) = \mathscr{a},\, d(\ell_{\!2},C) = d(\ell_{\!2},A) = \mathscr{b},\, d(\ell_{\!3},A) = d(\ell_{\!3},B) = \mathscr{c}$ and\vspace*{-0.5mm} \\
\centerline{\hspace*{10mm}$P = \displaystyle[\frac {\sinh^2(\mathscr{a})}{\cosh(\mathscr{a})\det(\mathfrak{D})+\mathfrak{d}_{11}+\mathfrak{d}_{12}+\mathfrak{d}_{31}}):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.$}\vspace*{1mm}\\
The euclidean limit of this point is $X_6$.\\
$\bullet\,$ We use the abbreviations $t_1{\,:=\,}1-\mathfrak{c} \mathfrak{c}_{23}, t_2{\,:=\,}1-\mathfrak{c} \mathfrak{c}_{31}, t_3{\,:=\,}1-\mathfrak{c} \mathfrak{c}_{12},$ $t_{123\!}:= t_1{-}t_2{-}t_3,$\\ \noindent$\,\hspace*{3mm} t_{231\!}:= t_2{-}t_3{-}t_1, t_{312\!}:= t_3{-}t_1{-}t_2$ and define the points $P_1,P_2,P_3$ by\\
\centerline{$P_1 = [t_1t_{123}:t_2t_{231}-t_2 t_3-k\sqrt{t_2}\sqrt{t_3}\,t_{123}:t_3t_{312}-t_2 t_3-k\sqrt{t_2}\sqrt{t_3}\,t_{123}]_\Delta$,}
\centerline{$P_2 = [t_1t_{123}-t_3 t_1-k\sqrt{t_3}\sqrt{t_1}\,t_{231}:t_2t_{231}:t_3t_{312}-t_3 t_1-k\sqrt{t_3}\sqrt{t_1}\,t_{231}]_\Delta$,}
\centerline{$P_3 = [t_1t_{123}-t_1 t_2-k\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2}\,t_{312}:t_2t_{231}-t_1 t_2-k\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2}\,t_{312}:t_3t_{312}]_\Delta$.}\vspace*{1mm} \\
$P_1, P_2, P_3$ are the vertices of the first circumcircle-midarc-triangle of $\Delta_0$ for $k{\,=\,}1$ and the vertices of the second circumcircle-midarc-triangle for $k{\,=\,}{-1}$. The perspector $P$ has euclidean limit $X_{56}$ {resp.\,}$X_{55}$ if $k{\,=\,}1$ {resp.\;}$k{\,=\,}{-1}$, but $P$ need not lie on the line $I\vee O$. \vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
\subsubsection{Lemma / part 2} Let $R = [r_1{:}r_2{:}r_3]_\Delta$ be a point not on a sideline of $\Delta$ and let
$R_1 = [r_1{+\,}t_1{:\,}r_2{\,:\,}r_3]_\Delta, R_2 = [r_1{:\,}r_2{+\,}t_2{\,:\,}r_3]_\Delta, R_3= [r_1{\,:\,}r_2{\,:\,}r_3{+\,}t_3]_\Delta$ be points on the lines $R\vee A, R\vee B, R\vee C$, respectively. Then the three points $(R_2\vee R_3)\wedge a$, $(R_3\vee R_1)\wedge b, (R_1\vee R_2)\wedge c$ are collinear on the tripolar of the point $P = [t_1:t_2:t_3]_\Delta$.\\
Examples:\\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$If Q is the perspector of a circumconic of $\Delta$ and $R_1, R_2, R_3$ are the second intersections of the lines $R\vee A, R\vee B, R\vee C$ with this circumconic, then $P$ is the Ceva point $\displaystyle[{1}/{(r_2 p_3{+}r_3 p_2)}:{1}/{(r_3 p_1{+}r_1 p_3)}:{1}/{(r_1 p_2{+}r_2 p_1})]_\Delta$ of $Q$ and $R$. \\
\noindent$\bullet\;\;$ A line $l$ is a pseudoparallel of the sideline $a'$ of the triangle $\Delta^0$ precisely when its dual $l^\delta$ is a point on the bisector of the inner angle $\angle_+CAB$ of $\Delta_0$. If we choose for $R_1, R_2, R_3$ the vertices of the first resp. second tangent-midarc-triangle, thus points on the angle bisectors,
then the coordinates of the point $P$ are\\\centerline{ $\displaystyle P=[\frac{1}{\sinh(d(I,A)-k r)}:\frac{1}{\sinh(d(I,B)-k r)}:\frac{1}{\sinh(d(I,C)-k r)}]_\Delta$},\vspace*{1mm}\\
with $r$ = radius of the incenter and $k=1$ in case of the first and $k=-1$ in case of the second tangent-midarc-triangle. The euclidean limits of these two centers are $X_{8091}$ and $X_{8092}$, but $R_1 R_2 R_3$ and $\Delta$ are, in general, not orthologic triples.\\
\subsection{Isoptics and isogonic points}
\subsubsection{Isoptics and thaloids} Given three noncollinear points $P, Q, R$, the \textit{isoptic} (\textit{curve}) of the segment $[P;Q]_+$ through $R$ is the point set \\
\centerline{$\text{isoptic}(P,Q;R) = \{ X \,| \;d(X\vee P, X\vee Q) = d(R\vee P,R\vee Q)\}$.}\\ In the euclidean plane, such an isoptic is, in general, the union of two circles. But these two circles merge into one single circle when $\angle PRQ$ is a right angle (Thales' theorem). The situation is similar in the elliptic and in the extended hyperbolic plane. An isoptic of a segment is an algebraic curve of degree 4: Let $\boldsymbol{p} = (p_1,p_2,p_3), \boldsymbol{q}, \boldsymbol{r}, \boldsymbol{x}$ be vectors with $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$, etc, then the equation of the isoptic is \vspace*{-2mm}
\[
\begin{split}
&\big( (\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{p}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{q})\big)^2 \big((\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{p}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{p})\big)\big((\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{q}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}} (\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{q})\big)\\
=\;& \big( (\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{p}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{r} \times \boldsymbol{q})\big)^2 \big((\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{p}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{p})\big)\big((\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{q}{{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{q})\big).\vspace*{-1mm}
\end{split}
\]
If the angle $\angle PRQ$ is right, this equation reduces to
$(\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{p}){{\,\scriptscriptstyle{[\mathfrak{D}]}\,}}(\boldsymbol{x} \times \boldsymbol{q}) = 0$, which is the equation of a conic but, in general, not the equation of a circle. This conic is called \textit{orthoptic} or \textit{Thales conic} or \textit{thaloid}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=7.5cm]{GUT10.eps}
\caption{The three apollonian thaloids of $\Delta_0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\includegraphics[height=9.7cm]{GUT11.eps}
\caption{Upper part: The isogonic points $F_1$ and $F_2$ are constructed with the help of isoptics.\;\,
Lower part: The dual lines of $F_1$ (green) and $F_2$ (blue).}\label{fig:Fermat}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The apollonian thaloids of a triangle} Let $P_1,P_2,P_3$ be the points where the tripolar of the incenter $I$ meets the sidelines $a, b, c$, respectively. The three curves $\text{isoptic}(A_I,P_1;A)$, $\text{isoptic}(B_I,P_2;B)$, $\text{isoptic}(C_I,P_3;C)$ are thaloids. If two of these thaloids meet at a point, then this point is also a point of the third, see \cite{W1}. The euclidean limits of these thaloids are the apollonian circles of $\Delta_0$, so these thaloids are called \textit{apollonian thaloids} of $\Delta_0$ in \cite{W1}.\vspace*{-0.5 mm}
\subsubsection{Isogonic points of a triangle} A point $P$ is called \textit{isogonic point} of $\Delta_0$ iff $d({P\vee A}$, ${P\vee B}) = d({P\vee B},{P\vee C}) = d(P\vee C,P\vee A) = \frac{1}{3}\pi i.$ Not every triangle has an isogonic point. But in the elliptic plane every triangle has two isogonic points, and the same is true for a proper hyperbolic triangle, i.e. a triangle lying inside the absolute conic. In the euclidean case, there is a well known procedure how to find the isogonic points of a triangle by a geometric construction: The $1^{st} (2^{nd})$ isogonic point is the intersection of the circumcircles of the equilateral triangles erected outwardly (inwardly) on the sides of $\Delta_0$. A similar construction can be used in the elliptic and in the hyperbolic plane, but now using isoptics (instead of circles) and isosceles triangles with angles of measure $\frac{1}{3}\pi i$ at the apex, see Figure \ref{fig:Fermat}.\vspace*{-2.5 mm}\\
Suppose that all the sides of $\Delta_0$ are smaller than $\frac12 \pi i$ and all the angles smaller than $\frac23 \pi i$ (with respect to $\prec$) and that isogonic points exist for $\Delta_0$. Then one isogonic point lies inside the triangle and is a \textit{Fermat point} of $\Delta_0$, a point which minimizes the function $X \rightarrow d(X,A) + d(X,B) + d(X,C)$. See \cite{GH} for a proof in the elliptic case.\vspace*{-2.5 mm}\\
The lower part of Figure 14 shows a dual version of the upper. The green and the blue line are the duals of the isogonic points $F_1$ and $F_2$. Each of these lines is cut by the sidelines $a', b', c'$ of $\Delta'$ into equidistant parts. Since $F_1$ is a Fermat point of $\Delta_0$, the green line, the dual of $F_1$, minimizes the sum of the angle distances to the sidelines of $\Delta{'}$.\\ \vspace*{-1.5mm}
\noindent\textit{Problems}:\\
1. Determine the coordinates of the isogonic points.
2. Experiments with GeoGebra suggest that, as in the euclidean case, a point $P$ is isogonic precisely when its orthocorrespondent is identical with $P$.
A proof is missing.
\subsection{Reflection triangles}\hspace*{\fill}\vspace*{1mm} \\
Euclidean analogues of the theorems presented in this section can be found in \cite{HY}.
\subsubsection{The reflection-triple of a point with respect to $\Delta$}
Given a point $P$ and a line $l$, the reflection of $P$ in $l$ will be denoted by $P^{(l)}\!$.\,\\
The reflections of $P$ in the sidelines of $\Delta$, the points $P^{(a)}, P^{(b)}, P^{(c)}$, are collinear precisely when $P$ is a point on the cubic\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{10mm} x_1x_2x_3\big(\mathfrak{d}_{11}\mathfrak{d}_{22}\mathfrak{d}_{33}-4\,\mathfrak{d}_{23}\mathfrak{d}_{31}\mathfrak{d}_{12} + \sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} \mathfrak{d}_{j,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}^{\;\,2}\big)\;\; \\
\hspace*{20mm}+
\;\; \sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} x_j^2\;\big(\;x_{j+1}\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j})\\
\hspace*{40mm} -x_{j+2}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}(\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1})\big)\;=\;0$\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
The euclidean limit of this cubic is the union of the circumcircle and the line at infinity.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The triple $P^{(a)}P^{(b)}P^{(c)}$ is called \textit{the reflection-triple of} $P$ \textit{with respect to} $\Delta$.\\
The circumcenter of the reflection-triangle $(P^{(a)}P^{(b)}P^{(c)})_0$ of $P$ is the isogonal conjugate of $P$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
The anticevian triple $\Delta^{\!P}$ and the reflection-triple of $P$ are perspective at the cevian quotient of $H$ and $P$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$[p_1(-\mathfrak{d}_{23} p_1 + \mathfrak{d}_{31} p_2 + \mathfrak{d}_{12} p_3):p_2(\mathfrak{d}_{23} p_1 - \mathfrak{d}_{31} p_2 + \mathfrak{d}_{12} p_3):p_3(\mathfrak{d}_{23} p_1 + \mathfrak{d}_{31} p_2 - \mathfrak{d}_{12} p_3)]_\Delta$.}\vspace*{0mm}\\
If $P$ is not a vertex of $\Delta$, the reflection triple of $P$ with respect to the cevian triple $\Delta_P$ is perspective to $\Delta$ at the point\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{Q = $[p_1\big(p_1^{\;2}(\mathfrak{d}_{33}p_2^{\;2} -2\mathfrak{d}_{23}p_2p_3 +\mathfrak{d}_{22}p_3^{\;2})- \mathfrak{d}_{11}p_2^{\;2}p_3^{\;2}\big):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.$}\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
For $P=H$ or $P=L$, the perspector Q is a point on the orthoaxis.
\subsection{The Neuberg cubic and two related cubics}
The reflection triple of a point $Q$ is perspective to $\Delta$ precisely when $Q$ lies on the \textit{Neuberg cubic} $\textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(K,H^{\star}),$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$\sum\limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{d}_{j,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2})+2\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j}\mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1})\,x_j\,(\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j+2}x_{\!j+1}^{\;\,2}-\mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+1}x_{\!j+2}^{\;\,2}) = 0$.}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
This is a self-isogonal cubic with pivot $H^{\star\!}$. On this cubic lie the incenter, the excenters, the triangle centers $H, O^+, H^\star, J_+, J_-$, the points\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_1 = [\sinh(\alpha)(1+2(\cosh(\alpha)-\cosh(\beta)-\cosh(\gamma))):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_2 = [\sinh(\alpha)(4\cosh(\alpha)(\cosh^2(\alpha)-\cosh^2(\beta)-\cosh^2(\gamma))-\cosh(\alpha)+4\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma))\\
\hspace*{12mm}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_3 = [\sinh(\alpha)(4(\cosh^2(\alpha)-\cosh^2(\beta)-\cosh^2(\gamma))+1)/(\cosh(\alpha)+2\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma))\\
\hspace*{12mm}:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$\\
and their isogonal conjugates.
$W_1$ is the \textit{Evans perspector}, the perspector of the two triples $I_1 I_2 I_3$ and $A^{(a)}B^{(b)}C^{(c)}$; its euclidean limit is $X_{484}$.
$W_2$ has euclidean limit $X_{399}$, and $W_3$ is a point on the line through $O^+$ and the isogonal conjugate of $N^+$ and has euclidean limit $X_{1157}$.\\
We introduce another cubic which consists of all points $R$ that satisfy one of the following three equivalent conditions:\\
(1) The reflection triple of $R$ and the cevian triple of $R$ are perspective.\\
(2) The reflection triple of $R$ and the triple $A^{(a)}B^{(b)}C^{(c)}$ are perspective.\\
(3) The cevian triple of $R$ and the triple $A^{(a)}B^{(b)}C^{(c)}$ are perspective.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
This cubic is $\textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(W_4,W_5)$, a $W_4$-isocubic with pivot $W_5$,\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_4 = [\sinh^2(\alpha)/(1-4\cosh^2(\alpha)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta,$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_5 = [\sinh(\alpha)\cosh(\alpha)/(1-4\cosh^2(\alpha)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta.$\\
The euclidean limits of $W_4, W_5$ are $X_{1989}, X_{265}$, respectively.\vspace*{0.5mm}
There is a bijective mapping $\textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(K,H^{\star}) \rightarrow \textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(W_4,W_5)$, given by $Q \mapsto R$, where $R$ is the perspector of the two triples $Q^{(a)}Q^{(b)}Q^{(c)}$, $\Delta$ and $Q $ is the perspector of the two triples $R^{(a)}R^{(b)}R^{(c)}, \Delta_R$.\vspace*{0mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular} [h] {|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{10pt}$Q$&$H$&$O^{+}$&$H^\star$&$I$&$W_{1_{\,}}$&$W_2$&$W_3$\\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{10pt}$R$&$H$&$N^+$&$W_5$&$W_6$&$W_{7_{\,}}$&$H^\star$&$W_8$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\vspace*{1mm}
$\hspace*{4mm}W_6 = [\sinh(\alpha)/(1+2\cosh(\alpha)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ with euclidean limit $X_{79},$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_7 = [\sinh(\alpha)/(1-2\cosh(\alpha)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ with euclidean limit $X_{80},$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_8 = [\sinh(\alpha)/((1-4\cosh^2(\alpha))(\cosh(\alpha)+2\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ \\
\hspace*{13mm}with euclidean limit $X_{1141},$\\\vspace*{-1mm}
The points $P$ whose anticevian triple $\Delta^{\!P}$ is perspective to the triple $A^{(a)}B^{(b)}C^{(c)}$ form the cubic $\textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(K,N^+)$, the isogonal cubic with pivot $N^+$. There is a bijective mapping $\textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(K,N^+) \rightarrow \textrm{p}\mathcal{K}(K,H^{\star})$,
$P \mapsto Q =$ perspector of $\Delta^{\!P}$ and $A^{(a)}B^{(b)}C^{(c)}$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular} [h] {|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{10pt}$P$&$H$&$O^{+}$&$W_{9_{\,}}$&$I$&$W_{10}$&$N^+$&$W_{11}$\\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{10pt}$Q$&$H$&$W_2$&$O^+$&$W_{1_{\,}}$&$I$&$H^\star$&$W_3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}\vspace*{1mm}
$\hspace*{4mm}W_9\;\, = [\sinh(\alpha)(4\cosh(\alpha)(\cosh^2(\alpha)-\cosh^2(\beta)-\cosh^2(\gamma))-\cosh(\alpha)-4\cosh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma))\\
\hspace*{12mm}\;\,:\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ with euclidean limit $X_{195},$\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_{10} = [\sinh(\alpha)(1+2(-\cosh(\alpha)+\cosh(\beta)+\cosh(\gamma))):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$ \\
$\hspace*{15mm}$with euclidean limit $X_{3336}$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{4mm}W_{11} = \;$ isogonal conjugate of $N^+$.\\
\subsection{Substitutes for the Euler line}
\subsubsection{The Euler line in euclidean geometry} In euclidean geometry, the centroid $G$ and the orthocenter $H$ of a triangle have a common cevian circle, the nine-point-circle (or Euler circle). $G, H$ and the center $N$ of this circle are collinear. They lie on the Euler line, together with the circumcenter of the triangle and several other interesting triangle centers.\\
In elliptic and in hyperbolic geometry, the points $G$ and $H$ do not have a common cevian circle, so there is no direct analog of an Euler line in these geometries,
but there are several central lines that can serve as a substitute. We list four of these.
\subsubsection{The orthoaxis}One of these lines, the orthoaxis, we treated already in subsection \ref{subsubsec:orthoaxis}. As was shown by N. Wildberger \cite{W1}, there are triangle centers with euclidean limits $X_i, i = 2,3,4,20,30$ lying on this line. So Vigara proposed to call it Euler-Wildberger line.
\subsubsection{The orthoaxis of the medial triangle}The orthoaxis of the medial triangle $\Delta_{G,0}$ is the line $G\vee O$. Besides $G$ and $O$, it passes through the isogonal conjugate of O, through the Lemoine-isoconjugate of O, through L and several other points of interest.
A more detailed description of this line is given in \cite{Ev}.\vspace*{-1.5mm}\\
The line $G\vee O$ can also be a substitute for an Euler line of the anticevian triangle $\Delta^G_{\;\,0}$ of $G$. $G$ can serve as a pseudo-centroid, $\mathscr{C}_0$ as a pseudo-Euler-circle and the lines $A^G\vee A', B^G\vee B', C^G\vee C'$ as pseudo-altitudes of $\Delta^G_{\;\,0}$. These pseudo-altitudes meet at a point on $G\vee O$ which is the circumcevian conjugate of $G$ with respect to $\Delta^{G}_{\;\,0}$.\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\textit{Problem}: Taking $\Delta^G$ as a reference triple, what are the coordinates of the point $G$?\vspace*{0mm}
\subsubsection{The line through $G$ and $H$}The line $G\vee H$ has the equation
\[
\begin{split}
\sum \limits_{j=1,2,3} (\mathfrak{c}_{j+2,j} \mathfrak{c}_{j,j+1} - \mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+2})(1 + \mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+2}) (\mathfrak{c}_{j,j+1} - \mathfrak{c}_{j+2,j}) x_j &= 0,\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\textrm{which is equivalent to} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\sum \limits_{j=1,2,3} \mathfrak{d}_{j+1,j+2}(\mathfrak{d}_{j+2,j} - \mathfrak{d}_{j,j+1}) x_j &= 0.
\end{split}
\]
It passes through the center of a circle which touches internally the incircle and externally the excircles of $\Delta_0$. This was shown for a triangle on a sphere in 1864 by G. Salmon \cite{Sa}, and Salmon also calculated the trilinear coordinates of this center, which we denote by $\hat{N}$. It has barycentric coordinates:\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{9.3mm} \hat{N} = [\mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}-{\det}(\mathfrak{D}), \mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}-{\det}(\mathfrak{D}) ,\mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31} - {\det}(\mathfrak{D})]_\Delta$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{18mm} = [(1 + \mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;}) (\, \mathfrak{c}\,(\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;2} - \mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;} \mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;} + \mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;2} + 1) + \mathfrak{c}_{23}^{\;} (\mathfrak{c}_{31}^{\;} \mathfrak{c}_{12}^{\;} - 1)):\cdots :\cdots]_\Delta$\vspace*{0.8mm}\\
$\hspace*{18mm} = [\sinh(\alpha)\cosh(\beta-\gamma):\sinh(\beta)\cosh(\gamma-\alpha):\sinh(\gamma)\cosh(\alpha-\beta)]_\Delta.$\\
An equation of the circle in trilinear coordinates was given for the elliptic (spherical) case in 1861 by A.S. Hart \cite{Ha}; Salmon therefore used the name \textit{Hart's circle}.\vspace*{1mm}\\
The Hart circle is a conic $\mathcal{C}(\mathfrak{M})$ with $\displaystyle \mathfrak{m}_{11} = \frac{\mathfrak{c} (\mathfrak{c}_{12} - 2 \mathfrak{c}_{23} + \mathfrak{c}_{31}) + \mathfrak{c}_{12} \mathfrak{c}_{31} - 1}{\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23} + 1}, \mathfrak{m}_{23} = 1- \mathfrak{c} \mathfrak{c}_{23}, \cdots.$\vspace*{1mm}\\
Salmon has shown the following relation between the radius $\rho_H$ of the Hart circle and the radius $R$ of the circumcircle: $\tanh(\rho_H) = \frac{1}{2} \tanh(R)$.\vspace*{-0.5mm}\\
The touchpoint of the incircle $\mathscr{I}_k$ with the Hart circle we denote by $F_{0,k}$; these \textit{Feuerbach points} of triangle $\Delta_0$ have coordinates\vspace*{1mm}\\
$F_{0,0} = [\mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,-}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}:\mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,-}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}:\mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,-}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta,\vspace*{0mm}$\\
$\displaystyle \hspace*{6.8mm}= [\sinh(\alpha)\sinh^2(\frac{\beta-\gamma}{2}):\sinh(\beta)\sinh^2(\frac{\gamma-\alpha}{2}):\sinh(\gamma)\sinh^2(\frac{\alpha-\beta}{2})]_\delta,\vspace*{0.5mm}$\\
$\hspace*{9.5mm}f = \sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{12}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{23}}\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{31}}\; {\det}^2(\mathfrak{D}),\vspace*{0.5mm}$\\
{$F_{0,1} = [\mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,-\,}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}:\mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,+\,}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}:\mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,+\,}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta,$}\vspace*{1mm}\\
$\hspace*{5.5mm}$etc.\vspace*{1mm}\\
\noindent The triple $F_{0,1}F_{0,2}F_{0,3}$ is perspective to $\Delta$; the perspector is the point\vspace*{1mm}\\
\centerline{\hspace*{5mm}$[\mathfrak{d}_{31} \mathfrak{d}_{12}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,+}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{11}}:\mathfrak{d}_{12} \mathfrak{d}_{23}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,+}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{22}}:\mathfrak{d}_{23} \mathfrak{d}_{31}{\,-\,}{\det}(\mathfrak{D}){\,+}f\sqrt{\mathfrak{d}_{33}}]_\Delta,\,$}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{0.7mm}\,=\,[\sinh(\alpha)\cosh^2(\frac{\beta-\gamma}{2}):\sinh(\beta)\cosh^2(\frac{\gamma-\alpha}{2}):\sinh(\gamma)\cosh^2(\frac{\alpha-\beta}{2})]_\Delta.$\\
It is the harmonic conjugate of $F_{0,0}$ with respect to $\{I_0 , \hat{N}\}$ and has euclidean limit $X_{\!12}$.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
The dual of the Hart circle is a circle with center $\hat{N}$ which internally touches the circumcircle $\mathscr{C}_0$ and externally the circumcircles $\mathscr{C}_k, k = 1,2,3$ , with touchpoints lying on the lines $\hat{N} \vee O_k, k = 0,\cdots,3$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{GUT12.eps}
\caption{The Akopyan line, the Hart circle (red) and incircle (brown)}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The Akopyan line}
The line $O\vee H^{\!\star}$ has the equation\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\centerline{$\sum \limits_{j=1,2,3} \big(\mathfrak{c}_{j+2,j} - \mathfrak{c}_{j,j+1}\big) \big((1-\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{j+2,j})(1-\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{j,j+1})-2(1-c\,\mathfrak{c}_{j+1,j+2})\big) x_j = 0.$}\\
There are several important triangle centers on this line. First of all, a point $\hat{G}$ whose cevian lines divide the triangle area in equal parts. The existence of such a point was already shown (for a spherical triangle) 1827 by J. Steiner \cite{St}.
The coordinates of this point are\vspace*{1.5mm}
$\hspace*{5mm}\displaystyle [\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}}\,\;:\;\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}}$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hspace*{4mm}:
\displaystyle\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}+ \sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}}]_\Delta$ \\
$\displaystyle \;=\; [\frac {\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})+\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})}$\\
$\hspace*{8mm}\displaystyle:\frac {\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})+\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})}
: \frac {\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})+\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})}]_\Delta.$\\\vspace*{1mm}
Another point on $O\vee H^{\!\star}$ is the center $\hat{N}$ of the Hart circle. Akopyan \cite{Ak} proved in 2011 that this Hart circle is a circumcircle of the traces of $\hat{G}$ and also a circumcircle of the traces of another point $\hat{H}$, which he called \textit{pseudo-orthocenter}. Moreover, he showed that the three points $\hat{G}, \hat{N}, \hat{H}$ are collinear on a line which passes also through the circumcenter $O$. It is easy to check by calculation that this line is $O\vee H^{\!\star}$.
Vigara proposed to call this line \textit{Akopyan-Euler-line}. Akopyan used the name \textit{Euler line}.\vspace*{-2mm}\\
We introduce the \textit{Akopyan-measure} of an inner angle of a triangle as the sum of the other two inner angles diminished by a half of the triangle area \footnote{$^)$ See \cite{Ma}.}$^)$. For example, the Akopyan-measure of the angle $\angle_+ ACB$ of triangle $\Delta_0$ is $\hat{\mu}(\angle_+ ACB) = \frac{1}{2} (\alpha{\,+\,}\beta{\,-\,}\gamma{\,+\,}\pi i).$ By adding up the Akopyan-measures of the three inner angles of triangle $\Delta_0$ we get $\,\frac {1}{2}\textrm{area}(\Delta_0) + 2\pi i$. \vspace*{-2mm}
\noindent With the help of the Akopyan-measure we can formulate the following version of the Inscribed Angle Theorem, cf. \cite{Ak}: \vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\hat{\mu}(\angle_+ ACB) = \frac {1}{2}\pi i \pm \mu(\angle_+ OAB)$, depending on whether the circumcenter $O$ lies outside the triangle $\Delta_0$ or not.
\vspace*{-2mm}\\
We like to shortly present Akopyan's explanation for $\hat{H}$ having properties similar to those of the orthocenter. For this we also make use of the Akopyan measure:\\
While the altitude $C{\vee}H$ meets the line $c$ at the point $C_{\!H}$ such that the angles $\angle_+ (AC_{\!H}C)$ and $\angle_+ (BC_{\!H}C)$ have both measures equal to $\frac{1}{2}\pi i$, the pseudo-altitude
$C{\vee}\hat{H}$ meets the line $c$ in $C_{\!\hat{H}}$ such that $\hat{\mu}(\angle_+ AC_{\!\hat{H}}C) = \hat{\mu}(\angle_+ BC_{\!\hat{H}}C) = \frac{1}{4} (\pi i{+}\alpha{+}\beta{+}\gamma).$ \vspace*{-1mm}\\
The coordinates of $\hat{H}$ are $\hspace*{5mm}\displaystyle[\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}-\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}}{:}\cdots{:}\cdots]_\Delta $\\
$\;\hspace*{40.5mm}\;= \;\displaystyle[\frac {\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})}{\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{a})-\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{b})\cosh(\frac{1}{2} \mathscr{c})}{:}\cdots{:}\cdots]_\Delta.$\vspace*{3.5mm}\\
The points $\hat{H},\hat{N},\hat{G}, O$ form a harmonic range.\\
\noindent\textit{Proof}: We use the following abbreviations: $c_1\!:=\cosh(\mathscr{a}/2),\,c_2\!:=\cosh(\mathscr{b}/2),\,c_3\!:=\cosh(\mathscr{c}/2),
\,s_1 :=\sinh(\mathscr{a}/2), s_2 :=\sinh(\mathscr{b}/2), s_3 :=\sinh(\mathscr{c}/2).$ Define vectors $\boldsymbol{g}, \boldsymbol{h}, \boldsymbol{n}, \boldsymbol{o}$
\noindent by\\
$\noindent\displaystyle\hspace*{8mm}\boldsymbol{g} = (g_1,g_2,g_3) ,\; g_j = \frac{c_j}{c_j+c_{j+1} c_{j+2}} ,\;\;\; \boldsymbol{h} = (h_1,h_2,h_3) ,\; h_j = \frac{c_j}{c_j-c_{j+1} c_{j+2}}$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
\noindent$\displaystyle\hspace*{8mm}\boldsymbol{n} = (n_1,n_2,n_3) ,\; n_j = c_j^{\;2}\big(c_j^{\;2}(2c_{j+1}^{\;2}c_{j+2}^{\;2}-c_{j+1}^{\;2}-c_{j+2}^{\;2})-c_{j+1}^{\;2}s_{j+1}^{\;2}-c_{j+2}^{\;2}s_{j+2}^{\;2}\big)$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\noindent\displaystyle\hspace*{8mm}\boldsymbol{o} = (o_1,o_2,o_3) ,\; o_j = -s_j^{\;2}(1+c_j^{\;2}-c_{j+1}^{\;2}-c_{j+2}^{\;2})$,\vspace*{1.5mm}\\
\noindent and define real numbers $r, s, t$ by\\
$\noindent\displaystyle\hspace*{8mm}r = c_1 c_2 c_3$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\noindent\displaystyle\hspace*{8mm}s = (c_1 + c_2 c_3)(c_2 + c_3 c_1)(c_3 + c_1 c_2)(1+2r - c_1^{\;2}-c_2^{\;2}-c_3^{\;2})$,\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
$\noindent\displaystyle\hspace*{8.5mm}t = (c_1 - c_2 c_3)(c_2 - c_3 c_1)(c_3 - c_1 c_2)(1-2r - c_1^{\;2}-c_2^{\;2}-c_3^{\;2})$.\vspace*{1mm}\\
Then $\hat{G} = [g_1{:}g_2{:}g_3]_\Delta, \hat{H} = [h_1{:}h_2{:}h_3]_\Delta, \hat{N} = [n_1{:}n_2{:}n_3]_\Delta, O = [o_1{:}o_2{:}o_3]_\Delta\vspace*{1mm}$\\
and $\hspace*{32.5mm}\;r\boldsymbol{o} + \boldsymbol{n} = s \boldsymbol{g}\;\;\;$,$\;\;\;r\boldsymbol{o} - \boldsymbol{n} = t \boldsymbol{h}.\hspace*{32mm}\Box$\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
The cevian line $C\vee \hat{G}$ meets the perpendicular bisector $C_G\vee C'$ at a point with coordinates
\[
\begin{split}
[&\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}}:\frac {\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}}{\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}}\\
:& \frac {(1-\mathfrak{c} \mathfrak{c}_{12})\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}}}{(\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{12}})(\sqrt{2}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}+\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{31}}\,\sqrt{1+\mathfrak{c}\,\mathfrak{c}_{23}})}]_\Delta.
\end{split}
\]\vspace*{1.5mm}
This point is the center of a circle through the points $A, B, A_{\!\hat{H}}, B_{\!\hat{H}}$. \vspace*{-1.5mm}Thus, the line $A_{\!\hat{H}}\vee B_{\!\hat{H}}$ is antiparallel to $A\vee B$ with respect to the angle $\angle_+ ACB$, and since $A_{\!\hat{H}}, B_{\!\hat{H}},A_{\!\hat{G}}, B_{\!\hat{G}}$ are points on the Hart circle, the line $A_{\!\hat{G}}\vee B_{\!\hat{G}}$ is parallel to $A\vee B\;$.\vspace*{-1mm}\\
We give a short hint of how to construct the cevians $\hat{G}\vee C$ and $\hat{H}\vee C$; see \cite{Ev} for a more detailed explanation.
Let $m$ be the sideline $A_G{\vee}B_G$ of the medial triangle. Define points $R_1 = \textrm{ped}(A,m)$, $R_2 = \textrm{ped}(B,m)$, $S_1 = m \wedge \textrm{perp}(c,A)$, $S_2 = m \wedge \textrm{perp}(c,B)$. The bisectors of the angles $\angle_- R_1 A S_1$ and $\angle_- R_2 B S_2$ meet at a point on $\hat{G}\vee C$, the bisectors of the angles $\angle_+ R_1 A S_1$ and $\angle_+ R_2 B S_2$ meet at a point on $\hat{H}\vee C$.\\
The Hart circle meets each cevian line of $\hat{G}$ and $\hat{H}$ twice. One intersection point is the corresponding cevian point, the other one is also a significant point. The description of this second point generalizes as follows:\\
If $P$ and $Q$ are two points not on the sidelines of $\Delta$, then for each vertex $R\in \{A, B, C\}$, the cevian line $R{\vee}R_P$ meets the bicevian conic of $P$ and $Q$ in a point which is the harmonic conjugate with respect to $\{R, P\}$ of the intersection point of $R\vee R_P$ with the tripolar of $Q$.\\
\noindent\textit{Proof}: Without loss of generality we take $R = C$. For the matrix of the bicevian conic of $P = [p_1{:}p_2{:}p_3]_\Delta$ and $Q=[q_1{:}q_2{:}q_3]_\Delta$, see \ref{subsubsec:orthoaxis}. The second intersection of the cevian line $C\vee C_P$ with this conic is the point $S = [p_1 q_1 q_2:p_2 q_1 q_2:p_1 q_2 q_3{+}q_1 p_2 q_3{+}2 q_1 q_2 p_3]$, the intersection of $C\vee C_P$ with $Q^\tau$ is the point $T = [p_1 q_1 q_2:p_2 q_1 q_2:- q_3 (p_1 q_2 + p_2 q_1)]$.
It can be easily checked that $P,S,C,T$ form a harmonic range. $\Box$\vspace*{-2.5mm}\\
\noindent\textit{Addition}: The pole of $Q^\tau$ with respect to the bicevian conic of $P$ and $Q$, $[q_1 (2 p_1 q_2 q_3 + q_1 (p_2 q_3 + p_3 q_2)):\cdots:\cdots]_\Delta$, is a point on the line $P\vee Q$. If $P$ is a perspector of an inconic of $\Delta$, then its polar with respect to this conic agrees with its tripolar.\vspace*{12mm}\\
|
\section{Introduction}
Knowledge graphs (KGs) such as WordNet~\cite{miller1995wordnet}, Freebase~\cite{bollacker2008freebase} and Wikidata~\cite{vrandevcic2014wikidata} have multiple applications in information retrieval, question answering and recommender systems. Such KGs consist of relation facts with triplet format $(e_h, r, e_t)$ representing a relation $r$ between entities $e_h$ and $e_t$.
Though existing KGs have acquired large amounts of facts, they still have huge growth space compared to real-world data.
To enrich KGs, relation extraction (RE) is investigated to extract relation facts from plain text.
One challenge of RE is that novel relations
emerge rapidly in KGs, yet most RE models cannot handle those new relations well since they rely on RE datasets with only
a limited number of predefined relations.
One of the largest RE dataset, FewRel \cite{han2018fewrel}, only has 100 relations, yet there were already 920 relations in Wikidata in 2014 \cite{vrandevcic2014wikidata}, let alone it contains nearly 6,000 relations now.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/4433ad2.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of how Neural Snowball utilizes three different kinds of data to learn new relations.}
\label{fig:ad}
\end{figure}
To extract relation facts of novel relations, many existing approaches have studied bootstrapping RE, which extracts triplets for a new relation with few seed relation facts.
\newcite{brin1998extracting} proposes to extract author-book facts with a small set of (author, book) pairs as input. It iteratively finds mentions of seed pairs from the web, and then extracts sentence patterns from those mentions and finds new pairs by pattern matching. \newcite{agichtein2000snowball} further improve this method and name it as Snowball, for that relation facts and their mentions accumulate like a snowball.
However, most existing bootstrapping models confine themselves to only utilize seed relation facts and fail to take advantage of available large-scale labeled datasets, which have been proved to be a valuable resource. Though data of existing relations might have a very different distribution with new relations, it still can be used to train a deep learning model that extracts abstract features at the higher levels of the representation, suiting both historical and unseen relations \cite{bengio2012deep}. This technique, named as transfer learning, has been widely adopted in image few-shot tasks. Previous work has investigated transferring metrics \cite{koch2015siamese} to measure similarities between objects and meta-information \cite{ravi2016optimization} to fast adapt to new tasks.
Based on bootstrapping and transfer learning, we present \textbf{Neural Snowball} for learning to classify new relations with insufficient training data.
Given seed instances with relation facts of a new relation, Neural Snowball finds reliable mentions of these facts.
Then they are used to train a relation classifier, which aims at discovering reliable instances with new relation facts. These instances then serve as the inputs of the new iteration.
We also apply Relational Siamese Networks (RSN) to select high-confidence new instances.
Siamese networks \cite{bromley1994signature} usually contain dual encoders and measure similarities between two objects
by learning a metric. \newcite{wu-etal-2019-open} designed RSN, utilizing neural siamese networks to determine whether two sentences express the same relation. In conventional bootstrapping systems, patterns are used to select new instances. Since neural networks bring better generalization than patterns, we use RSN to select high-confidence new instances by comparing candidates with existing ones.
Experiment results show that Neural Snowball achieves significant improvements on learning novel relations in few-shot scenarios. Further experiments demonstrate the efficiency of Relational Siamese Networks and the snowball process, proving that they have the ability to select high-quality instances and extract new relation facts.
To conclude, our main contributions are threefold:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{2pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{2pt}
\item We propose Neural Snowball, a novel approach to better train neural relation classifiers with only a handful of instances for new relations, by iteratively accumulating novel instances and facts from unlabeled data with prior knowledge of existing relations.
\item For better selecting new supporting instances for new relations, we investigate Relational Siamese Networks (RSN) to measure relational similarities between candidate instances and existing ones.
\item Experiment results and further analysis show the efficiency and robustness of our models.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Supervised RE} Early work for fully-supervised RE uses kernel methods \cite{zelenko2003kernel} and embedding methods \cite{gormley2015improved} to leverage syntactic information to predict relations. Recently, neural models like RNN and CNN have been proposed to extract better features from word sequences \cite{socher2012semantic,zeng2014relation}.
Besides, dependency parsing trees
have also been proved to be efficient in RE \cite{xu2015classifying,liu2015dependency}.
\paragraph{Distant Supervision} Supervised RE methods rely on hand-labeled corpora, which usually cover only a limited number of relations and instances.
\newcite{mintz2009distant} propose distant supervision to automatically generate relation labels by aligning entities between corpora and KGs. To alleviate wrong labeling, \newcite{riedel2010modeling} and \newcite{hoffmann2011knowledge} model distant supervision as a multi-instance multi-label task.
\paragraph{RE for New Relations} Bootstrapping RE can fast adapt to new relations with a small set of seed facts or sentences. \newcite{brin1998extracting} first proposes to extract relation facts by iterative pattern expansion from web. \newcite{agichtein2000snowball} propose Snowball to improve such iterative mechanism with better pattern extraction and evaluation methods.
Based on that, \newcite{zhu2009statsnowball} adopt statistical methods for better pattern selection. \newcite{batista2015semi} use word embeddings to further improve Snowball. Many similar bootstrapping ideas have been widely explored for RE \cite{pantel2006espresso,rozenfeld2008self,nakashole2011scalable}.
Compared to distant supervision, bootstrapping expands relation facts iteratively, leading to higher precision. Moreover, distant supervision is still limited to predefined relations, yet bootstrapping is scalable for open-ended relation growth. Many other semi-supervised methods can also be adopted for RE \cite{rosenberg2005semi,french2017self,lin2019learning}, yet they still require sufficient annotations and mainly aim at classifying predefined relations rather than discovering new ones. Thus, we do not further discuss these methods.
Inspired by the fact that people can grasp new knowledge with few samples, few-shot learning to solve data deficiency appeals to researchers. The key point of few-shot learning is to transfer task-agnostic information from existing data to new tasks \cite{bengio2012deep}. \newcite{vinyals2016matching}, \newcite{snell2017prototypical} and \newcite{zhang2018deep} explore learning a distance distribution to classify new classes in a nearest-neighbour-style strategy. \newcite{ravi2016optimization}, \newcite{munkhdalai2017meta} and \newcite{finn2017model} propose meta-learning to understand how to fast optimize models with few samples. \newcite{qiao2018few} propose learning to predict parameters for classifiers of new tasks. Existing few-shot learning models mainly focus on vision tasks. For exploiting it on text, \newcite{han2018fewrel} release FewRel, a large-scale few-shot RE dataset.
\paragraph{OpenRE} Both bootstrapping and few-shot learning handle new tasks with minimal human participation.
Open relation extraction (OpenRE), on the other hand, aims at extracting relations from text without predefined types.
One kind of OpenRE systems focuses on finding relation mentions
\cite{banko2007open}, while others exploit to form relation types automatically by clustering semantic patterns \cite{shinyama2006preemptive,yao2011structured,elsahar2017unsupervised}.
It is a different and challengeable view on RE compared to conventional methods and remains to be explored.
\paragraph{Siamese Networks} Siamese networks measure similarities between two objects with dual encoders and trainable distance functions \cite{bromley1994signature}.
They are exploited for one/few-shot learning \cite{koch2015siamese} and measuring text similarities \cite{mueller2016siamese}.
\newcite{wu-etal-2019-open} propose Relational Siamese Networks (RSN) to learn a relational metric between given instances. Here we use RSN to select high-confidence instances by comparing candidates with existing ones.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{fig/4433structure.pdf}
\caption{The framework of Neural Snowball with examples of the relation \emph{founder}. Candidate set 1 ($\mathcal{C}_1$) contains all instances that have the same entity pairs as extracted. Candidate set 2 ($\mathcal{C}_2$) consists of high-confidence instances selected by the relation classifier. Instances in both candidate sets are filtered by RSN and then added to the selected instance set $\mathcal{S}_r$ of the relation $r$.
}
\label{fig:structure}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology}
In this section, we will introduce Neural Snowball, starting with notations and definitions.
\subsection{Terminology and Problem Definition}
\label{term}
Given an instance $x$ containing a word sequence $\{w_1,w_2,...,w_l\}$ with tagged entities $e_h$ and $e_t$, RE aims at predicting the relation label $r$ between $e_h$ and $e_t$.
\textbf{Relation mentions} are instances expressing given relations.
\textbf{Entity pair mentions} are instances with given entity pairs.
\textbf{Relation facts} are triplets $(e_h,r,e_t)$ indicating there is a relation $r$ between $e_h$ and $e_t$.
$x^{r}$ indicates $x$ is a relation mention of the relation $r$.
Since we emphasize learning to extract a new relation in a real-world scenario, we adopt a different problem setting from existing supervised RE or few-shot RE. Given a large-scale labeled dataset for existing relations and a small set of instances for the new relation, our goal is to extract instances of the new relation from a query set containing instances of existing relations, the new relation and unseen relations.
Inputs of this task contain
a large-scale labeled corpus $\mathcal{S}_N=\{x_j^{r_i}|r_i\in \mathcal{R}_N\}$
where $\mathcal{R}_N$ is a predefined relation set,
an unlabeled corpus $\mathcal{T}$
and a seed set $\mathcal{S}_r$ with $k$ instances for the new relation $r$.
We firstly pre-train the neural modules on $\mathcal{S}_N$.
Then for the new relation $r$, we train a binary classifier $g$.
To be more specific, given an instance $x$, $g(x)$ outputs the probability that $x$ expresses the relation $r$.
During the test phase, the classifier $g$ performs classification on a query set $\mathcal{Q}$ containing instances expressing predefined relations in $\mathcal{R}_N$, instances with the new relation $r$ and some instances of other unseen relations, which is a simulation of the real-world scenario.
\subsection{Neural Snowball Process}
\label{sec:process}
Neural Snowball gathers reliable instances for a new relation $r$ iteratively with a small seed set $\mathcal{S}_r$ as the input.
In each iteration, $\mathcal{S}_r$ will be extended with selected unlabeled instances, and the new $\mathcal{S}_r$ becomes the input of the next iteration. Figure \ref{fig:structure} illustrates the framework of Neural Snowball. When a new relation arrives with its initial instances, Neural Snowball shall process as follows,
\paragraph{Input} The seed instance set $\mathcal{S}_r$ for the relation $r$.
\paragraph{Phase 1} Structure the entity pair set,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}=\{(e_h,e_t)|\texttt{Ent}(x)=(e_h,e_t), x\in \mathcal{S}_r\},
\end{equation}
where $\texttt{Ent}(x)$ means the entity pair of the instance $x$. Then, we get the candidate set $\mathcal{C}_1$ from the corpus $\mathcal{T}$ with
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_1=\{x|\texttt{Ent}(x)\in \mathcal{E},x\in \mathcal{T}\}.
\end{equation}
Since those instances in $\mathcal{C}_1$ share same entity pairs with those in $\mathcal{S}_r$, we believe that they are likely to express the relation $r$. Yet to further alleviate false positive instances, for each $x$ in $\mathcal{C}_1$, we pair it with all instances $x'\in \mathcal{S}_r$ that share the same entity pair with $x$, and use the Relational Siamese Network (RSN) to get similarity scores. Averaging those scores we will get a confidence score of $x$, noted as $\texttt{score}_1(x)$.
Then, we sort instances in $\mathcal{C}_1$ in decreasing order of confidence scores and pick the top-$K_1$ instances as new ones added to $\mathcal{S}_r$. Since there exists the circumstance that less than $K_1$ instances really belong to the relation, we add an external condition that instances with confidence scores less than a threshold $\alpha$ will be excluded.
After all these steps, we have acquired new instances for the relation $r$ with high confidence. With the expanded instance set $\mathcal{S}_r$, we can fine-tune the relation classifier $g$ as described later, for the classifier is needed in the next step.
\paragraph{Phase 2} In the last phase, we expand $\mathcal{S}_r$, yet the entity pair set remains the same. So in this phase,
our goal is to discover instances with new entity pairs for the relation $r$.
We construct the candidate set for this phase by using the relation classifier $g$,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_2=\{x|g(x)>\theta,x\in \mathcal{T} \},
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is a confidence threshold.
Then each candidate instance $x$ is paired with each $x'$ in $\mathcal{S}_r$ as input of RSN, and the confidence score $\texttt{score}_2(x)$ is the mean of all the similairy scores of those pairs.
Instances having top-$K_2$ scores and with $\texttt{score}_2$ larger than threshold $\beta$ are added to $\mathcal{S}_r$.
After one iteration of the process, we go back to phase 1, and another round starts. As the system runs, the instance set $\mathcal{S}_r$ grows bigger and the performance of the classifier increases until it reaches the peak. Best choices of the number of iterations and parameters mentioned above are discussed in the experiment section.
\subsection{Neural Modules}
\label{sec:modules}
Neural Snowball contains two key components:
(1) the \textbf{Relational Siamese Network (RSN)}, which aims at selecting high-quality instances from unlabeled data by measuring similarities between candidate instances and existing ones, and (2) the \textbf{Relation Classifier}, which classifies whether an instance belongs to the new relation.
\paragraph {Relational Siamese Network (RSN) $s(x,y)$} It takes two instances as input and outputs a value between 0 and 1 indicating the probability that those two instances share the same relation type. Figure \ref{fig:siamese} shows the structure of our proposed Relational Siamese Network, which consists of two encoders $f_s$ sharing parameters and a distant function. With instances as input, those encoders output the representation vectors for them. Then we compute the similarity score between the two instances with the following formula,
\begin{equation}
s(x,y)=\sigma\big (\mathbf{w}_s^T (f_s(x) - f_s(y))^2 +b_s \big),
\label{equ:siamese}
\end{equation}
where the square notation refers to squaring each dimension of the vector instead of the dot production of the vector, and $\sigma(\cdot)$ refers to sigmoid function.
This distance function can be considered as a weighted L2 distance with trainable weights $\mathbf{w}_s$ and bias $b_s$. A higher score indicates a higher possibility that the two sentences express the same relation ($\mathbf{w}_s$ will be negative to make this possible).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/4433siamese.pdf}
\caption{The architecture of Relational Siamese Network (RSN). The encoders produce the representations of instances, and then RSN measures the similarity between them with certain distance function.}
\label{fig:siamese}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Relation Classifier $g(x)$} The classifier is composed of a neural encoder $f$, which transfers the raw instance $x$ into a real-valued vector, and a linear layer with parameters $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$ to get the probability that the input instance belongs to a relation $r$. It can be described by the following expression,
\begin{equation}
g(x) = \sigma \big (\mathbf{w}^T f(x) + b\big ),
\end{equation}
where $g(x)$ is the output probability and $\sigma(\cdot)$ is sigmoid function to constrain the output between $0$ and $1$. Note that it is a binary classifier so $g(x)$ is just one real value, instead of a vector in the N-way classification scenario.
The reason to set it as a binary classifier instead of training an N-way classifier and utilizing softmax to constrain the outputs is that real-world relation extraction systems need to deal with negative samples, which express unknown relations and occupy a large proportion in corpora. These negative representations are not clusterable and considering them as ``one class'' is inappropriate. Another reason is that by using binary classifiers, we can handle the emergence of new relations by adding new classifiers, while the N-way classifier has to be retrained and data unbalance may lead to worse results for both new and existing relations.
With N binary classifiers, we can do N-way classification by comparing the output of each classifier, and the one with the highest probability wins. When no output exceeds a certain threshold, the sentence will be regarded as ``negative'', which means it does not express any of the existing relations.
\paragraph{Pre-training and Fine-tuning}
To measure instance similarities on a new relation and to fast adapt the classifier to a new task, we need to pre-train the two neural modules. With the existing labeled dataset $\mathcal{S}_N$, we can perform a supervised N-way classification to pre-train the hidden representations of the classifier. As for RSN, we randomly sample instance pairs with the same or different relations from $\mathcal{S}_N$ and train the model with a cross entropy loss.
When given a new relation $r$ with its $\mathcal{S}_r$, the parameters for the whole RSN and the encoder of the relation classifier are fixed, since they have already learned to extract generic features during pre-training.
Further fine-tuning those parts with a small number of data might bring noise and bias to the distribution of the parameters.
Then we optimize the linear layer parameters $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$ in the classifier by sampling minibatches from $\mathcal{S}_r$ as positive samples and from $\mathcal{S}_N$ as negative samples. Denoting the positive batch as $\mathcal{S}_b$ and the negative batch as $\mathcal{T}_b$, the loss is as follows,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{S}_b,\mathcal{T}_b}(g_{\mathbf{w},b})&= \sum \limits_{x\in \mathcal{S}_{b}}{\log g_{\mathbf{w},b}(x)}\\ &+\mu\sum \limits_{x\in \mathcal{T}_{b}}{\log (1-g_{\mathbf{w},b}(x))}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a coefficient of the negative sampling loss. Though for each batch we can sample positive and negative set with the same size, the actual numbers of positive instances and negative instances for the new relation differ a lot (a few versus thousands). So it is necessary to give the negative part of loss a smaller weight.
With the sampling strategy and loss function, we can do gradient-based optimization on parameters $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$. Here we choose Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} as our optimizer. The hyperparameters include the number of training epochs $e$, batch size $bs$, learning rate $\lambda$ and coefficient of negative sampling loss $\mu$. Algorithm \ref{algorithm} describes the process.
The fine-tuning process is used as one of our baselines. We also adopt this algorithm in each step of Neural Snowball after gathering new instances in $\mathcal{S}_r$. Though it is a simple way to acquire $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$, it is better than metric-based few-shot algorithms for that it is more adaptive to new relations while metric-based models usually fix all the parameters during few-shot, and it is more scalable to a large number of training instances. Negative sampling also enables the model to improve the precision of extracting new relation.
\subsection{Neural Encoders}
\label{encoders}
As mentioned above, encoders are parts of our RSN and classifiers and aim at extracting abstract and generic features from raw sentences and tagged entities.
In this paper, we adopt two encoders: CNN \cite{nguyen2015relation} and BERT \cite{devlin2018bert}.
\paragraph{CNN} We follow the model structure in \newcite{nguyen2015relation} for our CNN encoder. The model takes word embeddings and position embeddings \cite{zeng2014relation} as input. The embedding sequence is then fed into a one-dim convolutional neural network to extract features. Then those features are max-pooled to get one real-valued vector as the instance representation.
\paragraph{BERT} \newcite{devlin2018bert} propose a novel language model named BERT, which stands for Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers,
and has obtained new state-of-the-arts on several NLP tasks, far beyond existing CNN or RNN models. BERT takes tokens of the sentence as input and after several attention layers outputs hidden features for each token. To fit the RE task, we add special marks at the beginning of the sequence and before and after the entities. Note that marks at the beginning, around the head entities and tail entities are different. Then, we take the hidden features of the first token as the sentence representation.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\small
\caption{Fine-tuning the Classifier}
\label{algorithm}
\KwIn{New instance set $\mathcal{S}_r$, historical relation dataset $\mathcal{S}_N$}
\KwResult{Optimized $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$}
Randomly initialize $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$
\For{$i\gets1$ \KwTo $e$} {
// Get a sequence of minibatches from $\mathcal{S}_r$
$\mathcal{S}_{batch\_seq}\gets$batch\_seq($\mathcal{S}_r$,$bs$)
\For{$\mathcal{S}_{b}\in \mathcal{S}_{batch\_seq}$}{
// Sample the negative batch
$\mathcal{T}_{b}\gets$sample($\mathcal{S}_N$,$bs$)
Update $\mathbf{w}$ and $b$ w.r.t. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{S}_b,\mathcal{T}_b}(g_{\mathbf{w},b})$
~~~~with learning rate $\lambda$
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Model} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{5 Seed Instances} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{10 Seed Instances} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{15 Seed Instances}\\
& P & R & F1 & P & R & F1 & P & R & F1\\
\midrule
BREDS & $33.71$ & $11.89$ & $17.58$ & $28.29$ & $17.02$ &$21.25$ & $25.24$ &$17.96$ & $20.99$ \\
\midrule
Fine-tuning (CNN) & $46.90$ & $9.08$ & $15.22$ & $47.58$ & $38.36$ & $42.48$ & $74.70$ & $48.03$ & $58.46$ \\
Relational Siamese Network (CNN) & $45.00$ & $31.37$ & $36.96$ & $46.42$ & $30.68$ & $36.94$ & $49.32$ & $30.46$ & $37.66$\\
Distant Supervision (CNN) & $44.99$ & $31.06$ & $36.75$ & $42.48$ & $48.64$ & $45.35$ & $43.70$ & $54.76$ & $48.60$\\
\textbf{Neural Snowball (CNN)} & $48.07$ & $36.21$ & $41.30$ & $47.28$ & $51.49$ & $49.30$ & $68.25$ & $58.90$ & $63.23$\\
\midrule
Fine-tuning (BERT) & $50.85$ & $16.66$ & $25.10$ & $59.87$ & $55.19$ & $57.43$ & $\textbf{81.60}$ & $58.92$ & $68.43$\\
Relational Siamese Network (BERT) & $39.07$ & $\textbf{51.39}$ & $44.47$ & $42.42$ & $54.93$ & $47.87$ & $44.10$ & $52.73$ & $48.03$ \\
Distant Supervision (BERT) & $38.06$ & $51.18$ & $43.66$ & $38.45$ & $\textbf{76.12}$ & $51.09$ & $35.48$ & $\textbf{80.33}$ & $49.22$ \\
\textbf{Neural Snowball (BERT)} & $\textbf{56.87}$ & $40.43$ &$\textbf{47.26}$ &$\textbf{60.50}$ &$62.20$ &$\textbf{61.34}$ & $78.13$& $66.87$& $\textbf{72.06}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Experiment results on our few-shot relation learning settings with different size of seed sets. Here P refers to precision, R refers to recall and F1 refers to F1-measure score.}
\label{table:exp}
\end{table*}
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we will show that the relation classifiers trained with our Neural Snowball mechanism achieve significant improvements compared to baselines in our few-shot relation learning settings.
We also carry out two quantitative evaluations to further prove the effectiveness of Relational Siamese Networks and the snowball process.
\subsection{Datasets and Evaluation Settings}
Our experiment setting requires a dataset with precise human annotations, large amount of data and also it needs to be easy to perform distant supervision on. For now the only qualified dataset is FewRel \cite{han2018fewrel}. It contains 100 relations and 70,000 instances from Wikipedia. The dataset is divided into three subsets: training set (64 relations), validation set (16 relations) and test set (20 relations). We also dump an unlabeled corpus from Wikipedia with tagged entities, including 899,996 instances and 464,218 entity pairs, which is used for the snowball process.
Our main experiment follows the setting in previous sections. First we further split the training set into training set A and B. We use the training set A as $\mathcal{S}_N$, and for each step of evaluation, we sample one relation as the new relation $r$ and $k$ instances of it as $\mathcal{S}_r$ from val/test set, and sample a query set $\mathcal{Q}$ from both training set B and val/test set. Then the models classify all the query instances in a binary manner, judging whether each instance mentions the new relation $r$. Note that the sampled query set includes $N$ relations with sufficient training data, one relation $r$ with few instances and many other unseen relations. It is a very challengeable setting and closer to the real-world applications compared to N-way K-shot few-shot (sampling N classes and classifying inside the N classes), since corpora in the real world are not limited to certain relation numbers or types.
\subsection{Parameter Settings}
We tune our hyperparameters on the validation set. For parameters of the encoders, we follow \cite{han2018fewrel} for CNN and \cite{devlin2018bert} for BERT.
For the fine-tuning, after grid searching, we adopt training epochs $e=50$, batch size $bs=10$, learning rate $\lambda=0.05$ and negative loss coefficient $\mu=0.2$.
BERT fine-tuning shares the same parameters except for $\lambda=0.01$ and $\mu=0.5$.
For the Neural Snowball process, we also determine our parameters by grid searching. We set $K_1$ and $K_2$, the numbers of added instances for each stage, as $5$, and the thresholds of RSN for each stage, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, as $0.5$. We adopt $0.9$ for the classifier threshold $\theta$.
All the models evaluated in our experiments output a probability of being the mention of the new relation for each query instance, and to get the predicting results we need to set a confidence threshold. For fine-tuning and Neural Snowball we set the threshold as $0.5$, and $0.7$ for the Relational Siamese Network.
\subsection{Few-Shot Relation Learning}
Table \ref{table:exp} shows the experiment results on our few-shot relation learning tasks. We evaluate five model architectures: \textbf{BREDS} \cite{batista2015semi} is an advanced version of the original snowball \cite{agichtein2000snowball}, which uses word embeddings for pattern selection; \textbf{Fine-tuning} stands for directly using Algorithm \ref{algorithm} with few-shot instances to train the new classifier;
\textbf{Relational Siamese Network (RSN)} refers to computing similarity scores between the query instance and each instance in $\mathcal{S}_r$, and averaging them as the probability of the query one expressing the new relation; \textbf{Distant Supervision} refers to taking all instances sharing entity pairs with given seeds into the training set and using Algorithm \ref{algorithm}; \textbf{Neural Snowball} is our proposed method.
We do not evaluate other semi-supervised and few-shot RE models for the reason that they do not suit our few-shot new relation learning settings.
From Table \ref{table:exp} we can identify that (1) our Neural Snowball achieves the best results in both settings and with both encoders.
(2) While fine-tuning, distant supervision and Neural Snowball improve with the increase of seed numbers, BREDS and RSN have little promotion.
\begin{comment}
The reason behind it is that BREDS is a pattern-based bootstrapping method which suffers precision dropping when there are more seeds and more possible patterns; RSN is a metric-based method, which aggregates scores from multiple instances by simple averaging. So the increasing number of seeds won't bring big improvements to it.
On the contrary, fine-tuning and Neural Snowball are optimization-based methods, so more training instances certainly help.
\end{comment}
By further comparison between Neural Snowball and other baselines, we notice that our model largely promotes the recall values while maintaining the high precision values. It indicates that Neural Snowball not only gathers new training instances with high quality, but also successfully extracts new relation facts and patterns to widen the coverage of instances for the new relation.
\subsection{Analysis on Relational Siamese Network}
\begin{table}[!hbtp]
\centering
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
Relation Set & P@5 & P@10 & P@20 & P@50\\
\midrule
Train & 83.60 & 80.66 & 76.03 & 61.98\\
Test & 82.15 & 78.64 & 72.57 & 55.10\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Precisions at top-N instances scored by RSN (CNN) in the 5-seed setting. ``Train'' and ``Test'' represent results on relations in the training and test sets.}
\label{table:pn}
\end{table}
To examine the quality of instances selected by RSN, we randomly sample one relation and 5 instances of it and use the rest data as query instances. We use the method mentioned before to calculate a score for each query instance, then we calculate precisions at top-$N$ instances (P@$N$)
We can see that RSN achieves a precision of $82.15\%$ at top-5 instances on the test set. It is relative high considering RSN is only given a small number of instances and it even have not seen the relation before. Also note that though RSN is only trained with relations of the training set, the performance on relations in the test set has only a narrow gap, further proving the effectiveness of RSN.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/4433snowball_prec.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/4433snowball_rec.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Evaluation results on each iteration of Neural Snowball. Blue bars are numbers of instances added. Solid lines represent performance on the NS setting, and dotted lines represent the random setting.}
\label{fig:precrec}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis on Neural Snowball Process}
To further analyze the iterative process of Neural Snowball (NS), we present a quantitative evaluation on the numbers of newly-gathered instances as well as the classifier performance on relation \emph{chairperson} with the 5-seed-instance setting.
Note that it is a randomly-picked relation and other relations have shown similar trends. Due to the space limit, we only take the relation \emph{chairperson} as an example.
Figure \ref{fig:precrec} demonstrates the development of evaluation results as the iteration grows.
Here we adopt two settings: \textbf{NS setting} refers to fine-tuning the classifier with instances selected by Neural Snowball, and \textbf{random setting} refers to fine-tuning on randomly-picked instances of relation \emph{chairperson} with the same amount of NS, under the premise of knowing all the instances of the relation. Note that random setting is an ideal case since it reflects the real distribution of data for the new relation and the overall performance of the random setting serves as an upper bound.
From the results of random setting, we see that the binary classifier obtains higher recall and performs a little lower in precision when trained on larger randomly-distributed data.
This can be explained that more data brings more patterns in representations, improving the completeness of extracting while sacrificing a little in quality.
Then by comparing the results between the two settings, we get two observations:
(1) As the number of iterations and amount of instances grow, the classifier fine-tuned on NS setting maintains higher precision than the one fine-tuned on random setting, which proves that RSN succeeds in extracting high-confidence instances and brings in high-quality patterns.
(2) The recall rate of NS grows less than expected, indicating that RSN
might overfit existing patterns.
To maintain high precision of the model, Neural Snowball stucks in the ``comfort zone''of existing high-quality patterns and fails to jump out of the zone to discover patterns with more diversity.
We plan to further investigate it in future.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this paper, we propose Neural Snowball, a novel approach that learns to classify a new relation with only a small number of instances. We use Relational Siamese Networks (RSN), which are pre-trained on historical relations to iteratively select reliable instances for the new relation from unlabeled corpora.
Evaluations on a large-scale relation extraction dataset demonstrate that
Neural Snowball brings significant improvement in performance of extracting new relations with few instances.
Further analysis proves the effectiveness of RSN and the snowball process. In the future, we will further explore the following directions:
(1) The deficiency of our current model is that it mainly extracts patterns semantically close to the given instances, which limits the increase in recall. In the future, we will explore how to jump out of the ``comfort zone'' and discover instances with more diversity.
(2) For now, RSN is fixed during new relation learning and shares the same parameters across relations.
This can be ameliorated by an adaptive RSN that can be further optimized given new relations and new instances.
We will investigate into it and further improve the efficiency of RSN.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC No. 61572273, 61661146007, 61772302) and the research fund of Tsinghua University - Tencent Joint Laboratory for Internet Innovation Technology. Han and Gao are supported by 2018 and
2019 Tencent Rhino-Bird Elite Training Program
respectively. Gao is also supported by Tsinghua
University Initiative Scientific Research Program.
|
\section{Introduction}
Modern software systems are subject to a variety of changes that pose important challenges to software engineers. Change can manifest itself in different forms, ranging from dynamics in the market and technological improvements that demand for continuous evolution and updates of a software system, up to uncertainties in the operating conditions of a software system that are difficult to predict before deployment.
Examples of such uncertainties are sudden changes in the environment of the system, dynamic availability of resources required by the system, and user goals that change over time.
As it is often difficult, too costly, or inefficient to anticipate such uncertainties before deployment, and systems may need to be operational 24/7, the uncertainties necessarily need to be resolved at runtime when the missing knowledge becomes available. Our focus is on enhancing software systems with capabilities to handle uncertainties at runtime that are hard to anticipate before deployment. Such systems that can resolve uncertainties at runtime and adapt autonomously to changes are commonly referred to as \textit{self-adaptive systems}~\cite{Oreizy1998,Kephart2003,Garlan2004,Kramer2007,Cheng2009,Lemos2013,Weyns2019}.
The basic idea of self-adaptation is to enhance a software system with a feedback loop that monitors the system and its environment to resolve uncertainties, reasons about the changing conditions, and adapts the system in order to achieve or maintain particular quality requirements (i.e., adaptation goals), or degrades gracefully when necessary. A classic example of a self-adaptive system is a Cloud platform that monitors client applications and automatically adjusts capacity to maintain steady performance at the lowest possible cost.
In this research, we focus on \textit{architecture-based adaptation} that is widely considered as an effective approach to cope with uncertainties at runtime~\cite{Oreizy1998,Garlan2004,Kramer2007,Weyns2012-1}. Architecture-based adaptation offers a suitable level of abstraction and generality to handle system dynamics that involve adaptation of elements and their relations. Central in architecture-based adaptation is the separation between the domain concerns that are dealt with by the \textit{managed system} (that is subject to adaptation), and the adaptation concerns that are dealt with by the \textit{managing system}, i.e., a feedback loop system (by adapting the managed system). A well-known approach to structure the managing system is MAPE-K~\cite{Kephart2003} that comprises four basic elements: Monitor, Analyze, Plan, and Execute. These elements share common Knowledge that contains data about the managed system, the environment, the adaptation goals, and possibly other working data that is shared among the MAPE elements~\cite{Dobson2006,exp}. In this research, we follow the MAPE-K structure to realize feedback loops.
Given that the key driver of self-adaptation is resolving uncertainties at runtime, one of the main challenges in engineering self-adaptive systems is providing guarantees that the adaptation goals are met~\cite{Camara2013,Cheng2014,Lemos2017}. This is especially important for systems with strict goals. The basic problem is that due to uncertainties that can only be resolved during operation, it is hard
to deliver these guarantees before the system is deployed. Over the past decade, a variety of approaches have been proposed to provide such guarantees, ranging from formal proof to testing at runtime~\cite{Weyns2012-2,Tamura2014,Cheng2014,Weyns:2016}. Our focus here is on approaches that apply formal modeling and verification techniques at runtime to support self-adaptation, which is the most popular approach studied so far~\cite{Cheng2009,Lemos2013,Lemos2017}. A typical approach is presented in~\cite{Calinescu2011}, where a service-based system is represented as a parameterized runtime Markov model and quality goals are expressed as probabilistic logic formulae, enabling model checking to identify optimal system configurations.
The primary focus of state of the art approaches is on selecting system configurations that ensure the adaptation goals.
However, guarantees that the MAPE elements of the feedback loop behave correctly according to some required properties (e.g., when the planner has composed a plan to adapt the system, will the executor eventually execute this plan?) is often ignored.
Guaranteeing such properties is important to assure correct adaptation capabilities. Furthermore, existing approaches
typically rely on exhaustive verification for runtime analysis, which suffers from the state explosion problem~\cite{Clarke2008}. Although techniques have been developed to tackle this problem, exhaustive verification remains problematic in time- and resource-constrained settings, such as the IoT. Finally, although runtime changes of adaptation goals is considered a very important type of uncertainty, see for example~\cite{Kramer2007,Sawyer2010,Souza:2013}, so far the research community has not given sufficient attention to deal with changing adaptation goals on-the-fly.
To tackle these limitations, this paper contributes ActivFORMS (Active FORmal Models for Self-adaptation), a model-driven approach for engineering self-adaptive systems.
Compared to the state of the art, ActivFORMS offers the following concrete contributions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item It provides guarantees for the correct behavior of the feedback loop with respect to a set of correctness properties through model checking of the feedback loop models at design time and preserving these guarantees at runtime through direct execution of the verified models to realize adaptation;
\item It guides the adaptation of the system at runtime by analyzing and selecting adaptation options that realize the adaptation goals with a required level of accuracy and confidence in an efficient manner; to that end, ActivFORMS verifies the adaptation options using statistical model checking techniques at runtime; and
\item If offers basic support for changing adaptation goals and updating the verified models of the feedback loop on-the-fly to meet the new goals.
\end{enumerate}
In line with the state of the art, we focus in this paper on uncertainties related to parameters in the system or the environment\,\cite{Malek2011,Perez-Palacin:2014:UMS:2568088.2568095,MAHDAVIHEZAVEHI201745}.
It is important to note that the guarantees provided by ActivFORMS hold for the models of the feedback loop. Regarding the models that realize the MAPE functions: these models are verified before deployment and then directly executed at runtime to realize adaptation. Hence, the guarantees for the correct behavior of these models also hold during operation, under the assumption that the model execution engine that is used executes the models correctly according to the semantics of the modeling language.
Regarding the models used for runtime selection of configurations to adapt the managed system: these models are verified at runtime to estimate to what extent the different options for adaptation achieve the adaptation goals. Hence, the selection of adaptation options is only as good as the runtime models it uses to analyze the options, just as any verification approach that uses model-based techniques\,\cite{Baier:2008}. Hence, complementary \textit{validation} is needed, such as testing or simulation of the self-adaptive system, to validate the formal guarantees for achieving the adaptation goals
obtained through \textit{verification}.
To validate ActivFORMS, we present a tool-supported instance of the approach that we apply to a real world IoT application for monitoring buildings. We compare the results with a state of the art approach for self-adap- tation and a conservative approach based on current practice. The IoT application is deployed at the Computer Science campus of KU Leuven by VersaSense\footnote{www.versasense.com/} using state of the practice IoT technology. Applying ActivFORMS to this practical IoT application allows us to validate the formal guarantees provided by verification.
The research presented in this paper is based on a number of assumptions:
\begin{itemize}
\item In line with related research, see e.g.~\cite{Salehie:2009,Calinescu2011,Filieri:2016}, we assume that the managed system already exists and its adaptation goals are known; we focus on enhancing the managed system with self-adaptation capabilities through the addition of a MAPE-K feedback loop;
\item We assume that the managed system is equipped with basic facilities for consistent adaptation (probes to support monitoring, effectors for adding/removing elements, etc.), for which we can rely on existing solutions, e.g., LooCI\footnote{The Loosely-coupled Component Infrastructure; https://distrinet.cs.kuleuven.be/software/looci/} for IoT systems;
\item ActivFORMS targets systems for which dynamics in the environment are significantly slower than execution of adaptations and communication;
\item We also assume that the managed system has a limited, but potentially high number of possible configurations (adaptation options) that can dynamically change over time; this implies that it should be possible for the engineer to discretize system parameters with a continuous domain that can be used to adapt the system;
\item We assume that engineers of the feedback loop system have, or have access to, the necessary domain knowledge of the managed system and its environment to design the runtime models of the feedback loop; and
\item As ActivFORMS relies on statistical model checking to select configurations for adaptation, we assume that the behavior of the managed system is stochastic and that the distributions of the variables that represent uncertainties in the runtime models of the system and the environment are known or can be determined.
\end{itemize}
These assumptions determine the class of systems and the scope of problems that can be tackled by ActivFORMS. This includes systems in which software is coordinating or controlling entities that have an explicit possibly changing location, such as applications where users interact through mobile phones, applications deployed on mobile vehicles, and IoT applications. However, the listed assumptions only provide general guidelines. In practice, whether ActivFORMS can be used to solve an adaptation problem or not needs to be considered based on the characteristics and constraints of the application at hand.
%
Out of scope are real-time systems and systems with entities that pursue their own goals. These systems require dedicated solutions (e.g., real-time operating systems) or pose specific trust challenges (e.g., establishing trustworthiness among elements).
The research presented in this paper leverages on initial work. \cite{Iftikhar2014} focused on the correct behavior of feedback loop models using an initial set of model templates~\cite{Didac2015}. In \cite{7573167}, we explored the possibility to apply simulation at runtime to analyze and select configurations for adaptation, while in~\cite{Calinescu2017} we combined an initial version of direct model execution with runtime quantitative verification to select adaptation options that comply with the adaptation goals. Compared to these initial separate efforts, this paper presents an integrated end-to-end approach to engineer self-adaptive systems -- ActivFORMS, complemented by a tool-supported instance of the approach. The model templates to specify and verify MAPE-based feedback loops presented in this paper consolidate substantial experience with engineering self-adaptive systems, often in collaboration with industry partners, and significantly extend earlier versions. These templates are integrated in the tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS. The paper introduces a novel approach to provide guarantees for the selection of adaptation options that comply with the adaptation goals in an efficient manner. This novel approach is the first one that uses statistical model checking at runtime to select adaptation options during analysis. Further, the approach presented in this paper provides basic support for life updates of adaptation goals and feedback loop models. While this support is subject to a number of assumptions and limitations, its instantiation in the tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS is one of the first incarnations that supports life updates of adaptation goals and feedback loop models. Last but not least, in this paper we apply the tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS to a real-world IoT application to evaluate the approach and complement the guarantees obtained through verification with validation.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{section:preliminaries} we give background on timed automata, statistical model checking, and architecture-based adaptation. Section~\ref{section:overview} presents ActivFORMS that comprises four stages: model and verify feedback loop, deploy feedback loop model, runtime verification and decision making, and evolution of adaptation goals and feedback loop models. We use a simple service-based system to illustrate the different stages of ActivFORMS. Section~\ref{section:iot} introduces an IoT application that we use to illustrate a tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS presented in Section~\ref{section:instance}, and to evaluate the ActivFORMS approach in Section~\ref{section:evaluation}. Section~\ref{section:related-work} discusses related approaches to self-adaptation and positions ActivFORMS in this landscape. Finally, we draw conclusions and outline directions for future research in Section~\ref{section:conclusions}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{section:preliminaries}
This section provides some background on timed automata, statistical model checking, and architecture-based adaptation, introducing basic terminology and concepts used in the rest of the paper.
\subsection{Timed Automata}\label{section:timed_automata}
A timed automaton (or behaviour)~\cite{ALUR1994183} is a finite state machine extended with a set of real-valued clocks that progress synchronously.
Formally, a timed automaton can be defined as a tuple $\mathit {TA}$\,=\,$(L, l_{0}, C, A, E, I)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] $L$ is a finite set of locations or states;
\item[] $l_{0} \in L$ is the initial location of the automaton;
\item[] $C$ is a finite set of clocks that can be reset;
\item[] $A$ is a finite set of actions that include synchronization actions and internal actions;
\item[] $E$\,\,$\subseteq$\,\,$L$\,$\times$\,$A$\,$\times$\,$B(C)$\,$\times$\,$2^C$\,$\times$\,$L$ is a set of edges that connect locations with an action, a guard, a set of clocks. $B(C)$ represents clock constraints over edges and locations;
\item[] $I$\,:\,$L$$\rightarrow$$B(C)$ assigns invariants to locations.
\end{itemize}
Automata can be connected forming a network of timed automata. The state of the system is then defined by the state of all automata, the clock values, and the values of the ordinary variables. Only one state per automaton, called \emph{control} or \emph{active} state (or current location), is active at a time. Automata can synchronize through binary or broadcast channels. For a binary channel, a sender $x!$ can synchronize with a receiver $x?$ through a signal $x$. The sender will be blocked if there is no receiver. A broadcast channel sends a signal to all the receivers; if there is no receiver, the sender will continue. An edge of an automaton can be annotated with: a \textit{guard}, expressing a condition on the values of clocks and variables that must be satisfied for the edge to be taken (e.g., $y<5$); a \textit{synchronization} action (e.g., $\mathit{x!}$) which, when the edge is taken, forces a synchronization with other elements on a complementary action (e.g., $\mathit{x?}$); and an \textit{update} action to be taken when a transition is made (e.g., a function $reset()$ resets clock $y$ to 0). The absence of a guard is interpreted as the condition $true$.
Uppaal~\cite{tutorial04} offers a model checking suite that supports modeling of behaviors and verification of properties. Behavior specifications can be complemented with expressions specified in a C-like language to define data structures (\textit{struct} concept) and functions. Appendix A provides the grammar of the Uppaal modeling language. Goals can be expressed in Timed Computation Tree Logic (TCTL). TCTL expressions describe state and path formulae that can be verified, such as reachability (a system should/can/cannot/... reach particular states), liveness (something eventually will hold), etc. Uppaal defines two types of transitions between states: \emph{action transition} and \emph{delayed transition}. Action transitions can be further divided into \emph{synchronization transition} and \emph{internal transition}. In a synchronization transition automata synchronize via a channel as explained above. In an internal transition, an automata moves from its current state (say $\mathit{S}$) to a next state ($\mathit{T}$) via an edge ($e$) when the conditions hold to make the transition, e.g., the guard on the edge is satisfied, the invariant of $\mathit{T}$ holds, etc.
In a delayed transition only the clocks tick and no actual state transition is made (e.g., $\mathit{S}$ remains active while an invariant such as $y < $ \textit{MAX\_TIME} holds). Further progress in time might lead to an invariant violation ($y \geq$ \textit{MAX\_TIME}) triggering a transition ($\mathit{S}$$\rightarrow$$\mathit{T}$).
To enable modeling of atomicity of transition sequences (i.e., multiple transitions with no time delay) states may be marked as \emph{committed} (marked with a $C$ in the location). In particular, if in a state one of the behaviors is in a control state labeled as being committed, no delay is allowed to occur and any action transition (synchronization or not) must involve the particular behavior (the behavior is so to speak committed to continue)~\cite{Larsen97uppaalin}. The semantics of urgent states (marked with a $U$) is the same as: introducing a new clock; reset the new clock on all in-going transitions to the location; and add a conjunct to the location invariant requiring the new clock to be $\leq$ $\mathit{0}$. Intuitively, this forces the process to leave an urgent location without delay.\footnote{Uppaal help pages: http://www.uppaal.org/}
To support stochastic behaviours, a stochastic interpretation of the timed automata has been proposed~\cite{David2015}. For individual timed automata the stochastic interpretation replaces the non-deterministic choices between multiple enabled transitions by probabilistic choices (that may or may not be user-defined). Probabilistic branching is a way to include quantitative information about the likelihood of choice alternatives. Similarly, the non-deterministic choices of time delays are refined by probability distributions, which at the behavior level are given either uniform distributions in cases with time bounded delays or exponential distributions
(with user-defined rates) in cases of unbounded delays.
Uppaal-SMC~\cite{David2015} supports modelling and verification of networks of stochastic timed automata. The communication in these networks is restricted to broadcast synchronizations to keep a clean semantics of only non-blocked components which are racing against each other with their corresponding local distributions.
\subsection{Statistical Model Checking}\label{section:statistical_model_checking}
Statistical model checking (SMC) has been proposed as an efficient alternative to traditional model checking that exhaustively traverses all the states of the system, see for instance~\cite{Legay2010,Agha:2018}.
The central idea of SMC is to check the probability $p\in[0,1]$ that a hypothesized model $M$ of a stochastic system satisfies a property $\varphi$, i.e., to check $P_{M}(\varphi)\geq p$ by performing a series of simulations. SMC applies statistical techniques on the simulation results to decide whether the system satisfies the property with some degree of accuracy and confidence.
Two types of statistical inference are applied: (a) \textit{hypothesis testing} is used to determine the extent to which observations conform to a given specification; and (b) \textit{estimation} is used to determine likely values of parameters based on the assumption that the data is randomly drawn from a specified type of distribution. The results of an inference can be used to evaluate a property specified in a stochastic temporal logic~\cite{Agha:2018}.
Uppaal-SMC~\cite{David2015} is a tool for statistical model checking that supports different types of verification queries; here we focus on probability estimation (hypothesis testing) and simulation (estimation). The first type of query, probability estimation, computes an estimation of probability $p$ for an expression $\varphi$ with an approximation interval $[p-\epsilon, p+\epsilon]$ and confidence $1-\alpha$ in a given time $bound$.\footnote{To determine apriori the number of (simulation) runs that are required based on the values of $\epsilon$ and $\alpha$, Chernoff-Hoeffding inequality can be used \cite{Hoeffding}. Uppaal-SMC implements a more efficient sequential method where a probability confidence interval (for given $\alpha$) is derived with each new simulation measurement and the simulation generation is stopped when the confidence interval width is less than 2$\epsilon$. For further details, we refer the interested reader to \cite{David2015}.} The approximation interval provides a range of values which is likely to contain $p$ with a confidence level selected by the user; e.g., the approximation interval may provide estimations of the probability $p$ within an interval of $\pm$~1\% with a confidence level of 95~\%. A confidence stated as $1$\,$-$\,$\alpha$ can be thought of as the inverse of a significance level $\alpha$. A probability estimation query is formulated as $p$\,$=$\,$Pr[bound](\varphi)$. The second type of query, simulation, performs $N$ simulation runs of the system model in a time $bound$ to provide insight in the values of expected system behaviors.
A simulation query is formulated as $simulate~N [\leq bound]\{E1,...,Ek\}$, where $N$ is a natural number indicating the number of simulations to be performed, $bound$ is the time bound on the simulations, and $E1, ..., Ek$ are the (state-based) expressions that need to be monitored during the simulation.\footnote{Note that the modeler can use both $N$ and $bound$ as a means to determine how the simulation runs are executed.} E.g., a simulation query can be used to determine the expected value of a variable of a model for a series of simulation runs.
A benefit of SMC is that the parameters $\alpha$, $\epsilon$, $N$ and $bound$ allow designers to tradeoff the accuracy and confidence of the results with the resources and the time required for verification. For probability estimation, more accurate results (lower $\epsilon$) and higher confidence (lower $\alpha$) require more resources and verification time, and vice versa. Similarly, for a simulation query, more simulation runs (higher $N$) provide more accurate results. When determining the parameter settings of verification queries, the designer should take into account that in general the number of simulation runs is polynomial in 1/$\epsilon$ and log 1/$\alpha$ \cite{Herault2004}. It is important to note that in contrast to exhaustive verification approaches (such as runtime quantitative verification \cite{Calinescu2011}), a simulation-based approach does not provide 100\% guarantees, but an estimation that is bound to an accuracy interval and level of confidence \cite{Younes2004,Clarke2008,David2015}.
In this research, we do not consider rare events for which specific techniques such as importance sampling and importance splitting may be applied to statistical model checking \cite{Legay2016}.
\subsection{Architecture-Based Adaptation and MAPE-K Feedback Loop}\label{section:architecture-based-adaptation}
The key underlying motivation for self-adaptation is to enable the operating system to resolve uncertainties that are hard or impossible to anticipate before deployment, such as the work load of a system or availability of resources that are difficult to predict.
If not treated properly, such uncertainties can jeopardize the system's quality requirements (e.g., performance, reliability, etc.). The premise of self-adaptation is to let the system collect new data (that was missing before deployment) during operation when it becomes available to adapt the system such that it maintains its quality requirements, or degrade gracefully if necessary.
Despite two decades of active research~\cite{Oreizy1998,Kephart2003,Garlan2004,Kramer2007,Cheng2009,Lemos2013,Lemos2017,Weyns2019}, there is no commonly agreed definition of self-adaptation. However, there are two common ways to look at self-adaptation: (1) the ability of a system to adjust its behavior in response to the perception of the environment and the system itself~\cite{Cheng2009}; the “self” prefix indicates that the system adapts autonomously (i.e., without or with minimal interference of humans)~\cite{Brun:2009}, and (2) the mechanisms that are used to realize self-adaptation, typically by means of a closed feedback loop, i.e., there is an explicit separation between a part of the system that deals with the domain concerns (goals for which the system is built) and a part that deals with the adaptation concerns (the way the system realizes its goals under changing conditions)~\cite{Dobson2006,Salehie:2009}. Fig.~\ref{fig:SAS} shows the basic building blocks of a self-adaptive system that integrates these two views~\cite{Weyns2019}.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{SAS3.pdf}
\caption{Basic building blocks of a self-adaptive system with MAPKE-K feedback loop}
\label{fig:SAS}
\end{figure}
The \textit{Environment} refers to the part of the external world with which the self-adaptive system interacts and in which the effects of the system can be observed~\cite{1997Jackson}. The \textit{Managed System} comprises the application code that realizes the system's domain functionality. The \textit{Managing System} manages the managed system, that is, the managing system comprises the adaptation logic that deals with one or more adaptation goals. The managing system can \textit{sense} the managed system and its environment through a \textit{Probe}, and it can \textit{adapt} the managed system through an \textit{Effector}. The \textit{Adaptation Goals} are concerns about the managed system that are dealt with by the managing system; they usually relate to software qualities of the managed system. Adaptation goals themselves can be subject to change (which is not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SAS}).
A typical approach to structure the software of the managing system is by means of a MAPE-K feedback loop (Monitor-Analyzer-Planner-Executer elements that share Knowledge~\cite{Kephart2003}). The \textit{Monitor} collects runtime data from the managed system and the environment and uses this to update the \textit{Knowledge}. This runtime data typically helps resolving uncertainties. Based on the current Knowledge, the \textit{Analyzer} determines whether there is a need for adaptation of the managed system based on the current (or expected) conditions of the system and the adaptation goals. If adaptation is required, the \textit{Planner} composes a plan\footnote{We use ``Planner'' as the common name of the module that determines the steps that need to be performed to adapt a software system.} consisting of a set of adaptation actions that are then enacted by the \textit{Executor} that adapts the managed system as needed.
\section{The ActivFORMS Approach}\label{section:overview}
ActivFORMS offers a reusable approach to engineer self-adaptive software systems. The approach combines: (i) design-time correct-by-construction modeling of the feedback loop, (ii) deployment and direct execution of the verified feedback loop model to realize adaptation, (iii) runtime statistical model checking to infer approximate quality estimates of different configurations of the running system based on up to date information; the estimates are then used to guide the adaptation of the system to realize the adaptation goals, and (iv) basic support for on-the-fly updates of adaptation goals and the feedback loop model when needed.
ActivFORMS supports self-adaptive software systems based on MAPE feedback loops
~\cite{Kephart2003,Dobson2006,Calinescu2011,exp}. Other types of feedback loops, e.g., based on principles from control theory (see~\cite{Shevtsov17} for a survey), are not supported by ActivFORMS.
ActivFORMS relies on three basic principles:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Model-driven: models are the central artifacts in ActivFORMS to realize self-adaptation, from design time to operation and evolution, using model-based specification and formal verification, direct model execution, model-based analysis, and dynamic model updates.
\item Continuous verification: in ActivFORMS evidence for the correct behavior of the feedback loop behavior is generated at design time, before deployment of the feedback loop model or updates of the model, and evidence that adaptation options are selected that guide the adaptation of the managed system to realize the adaptation goals is continuously generated at runtime.
\item Reuse: application-independent templates for the design and verification of feedback loop models and a reusable model execution engine that enables direct execution of a verified feedback loop model at runtime reduces the effort to engineer self-adaptive systems with ActivFORMS.
\end{enumerate}
Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS} gives a high-level overview of ActivFORMS that spans four main stages of the software lifecycle of feedback loops. The first two stages (Design \& Deployment) cover the development and enactment of a feedback loop. The third stage (Runtime) realizes adaptation of the managed system at runtime to achieve the adaptation goals. This stage covers ``change management'' in the reference model for self-adaptive systems of Kramer and Magee~\cite{Kramer2007}. The fourth stage (Evolution) realizes evolution of feedback loops to deal with new or changing goals and updating runtime models, covering ``goal management'' in Kramer and Magee's reference model. Before we describe the four stages, we introduce a simple example that we use for illustration.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Overview-new3.pdf}
\caption{The four stages of ActivFORMS: I. Model \& Verify, II. Deploy, III. Verify \& Adapt, and IV. Evolve
\label{fig:activFORMS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\linewidth]{tas-workflow}
\caption{Workflow of service-based health assistance system}
\label{fig:tas}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textbf{Illustrative Example.} We consider a simple service-based health assistance system as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:tas}. A Medical Service receives messages from patients with values of vital parameters. The service analyses the data and either instructs a Drug Service to notify a local pharmacy to deliver new medication to the patient or change the dose of medication, or it instructs an Alarm Service in case of an emergency to visit the patient by medical staff. The Alarm Service can also directly be invoked by a user via a panic button. The numbers associated with arrows in the workflow represent probabilities that actions are invoked. These probabilities represent uncertainties that may change over time. Each service can be implemented by a number of providers that offer services with different reliability (service failures), performance (response time), and cost (to use a service). The different properties of services may change at runtime, for example due to the changing workloads at the provider side or unexpected network failures. Hence, these properties represent another type of uncertainty. At runtime, it is possible to pick any of the services offered by the providers. The aim of adaptation is select dynamically services such that the average failure rate remains below a given threshold, while the cost is minimized.
\subsection{Stage I: Design and Verify Feedback Loop Model}
In the first stage of ActivFORMS, a formally verified feedback loop model of the self-adaptive system is developed that includes a specification of \textit{Knowledge} and \textit{MAPE Models},\footnote{We use \textit{feedback loop model} to refer to the complete feedback loop model that includes the \textit{MAPE models} and the \textit{Knowledge}.} see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}.
\subsubsection{Design Feedback Loop Model}
The concrete specification of a feedback loop model depends on the adaptation problem at hand. ActivFORMS does not put constrains on the types of models that can be used, but requires that the feedback loop model is: (i) \textit{verifiable}, i.e., the model can be used together with a \textit{model verifier} to check the correctness of the feedback loop behavior with respect to a set of correctness properties, and (ii) is \textit{executable}, i.e., the model specifies the behavior of the MAPE workflow such that it can be executed by a \textit{model execution engine} to monitor and adapt the managed system, realizing self-adaptation.
Designing a feedback loop for a problem at hand requires \textit{domain knowledge}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}. Domain knowledge refers to domain-specific data provided by stakeholders about the environment and the system itself that is relevant to adaptation. Examples are the behavior of users, the expected load of the system, initial values of the uncertainty parameters, and elements of the system that can be used to adapt the configuration of the system. The designer also requires a specification of the \textit{adaptation goals} that refer to the quality requirements that need to be realized by the feedback loop. ActivFORMS is not prescriptive in the types of adaptation goals supported, nor in the representation that is used to specify them. For a problem at hand, the designer needs to specify the adaptation goals in a format that allows the feedback loop model to reason about the goals at runtime.
According to the reuse principle, ActivFORMS uses \textit{MAPE model templates} to devise concrete \textit{MAPE models}. These templates provide abstract designs of MAPE models. MAPE model templates consolidate reusable design knowledge that is obtained from designing multiple feedback loops for similar types of self-adaptive systems. The templates offer common elements of the MAPE models together with placeholders for application-specific elements of a feedback loop model. The templates need to be supported by guidelines that describe how the templates can be instantiated for a problem at hand. Note that the use of MAPE model templates is not strictly required by ActivFORMS, but, using templates can significantly reduce the effort to design feedback loop models and verify the correctness of their behavior.
The Knowledge contains domain-specific models that are shared by the MAPE models in order to realize their functions. This includes models of the managed system and its environment and parameterized models for relevant qualities. For the managed system and the environment models the designer uses domain knowledge to identify the characteristics that are relevant for adaptation, typically in the form of an architectural representation of the managed system and its interaction with the environment.
The designer uses domain-specific knowledge to specify parameterized quality models for each adaptation goal. The parameters represent uncertainties that need to be monitored and updated at runtime. The MAPE models use these models to estimate the quality properties of different system configurations (adaptation options) to select the best option if adaptation is needed.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.} To design a feedback loop model for the health assistance system, the designer requires different types of domain knowledge, such as the sample rate of vital parameters, usage patterns of the panic button, a list of initially available services with their characteristics. The designer needs also needs to understand the workflow of the service-based system and how this workflow can be monitored and adapted. This knowledge can be obtained in different ways, for instance by consulting with stakeholders, based on historical information, or through inspection of the code. One of the initial adaptation requirements defined by the stakeholders is to keep the average failure rate below a given value; the adaptation goal for this requirement can be specified as a threshold of a parameter that represents the failure rate of the system.
The domain knowledge, the model of the workflow and the specificaton of the adaptation goals enables the designer to specify a feedback loop. Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleMAPEmodels} shows a selection of models for the health assistance system that are specified as timed automata.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Monitor.pdf}
\caption{Monitor model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Analysis}
\caption{Analyzer model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Environment.pdf}
\caption{Environment model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ManagedSystem.pdf}
\caption{Managed system model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.6\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AssistanceServiceFailureRate.pdf}
\caption{Quality model for failure rates}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples models of the feedback loop for the health assistance system}
\label{fig:exampleMAPEmodels}
\end{figure}
The monitor and analyzer models shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleMAPEmodels}\,(a,b) are based on model templates described in\,\cite{Didac2015}. These templates have the same structure as the models shown in the figure, but the functions are abstractly defined and need to be instantiated for the problem at hand by the designer. For instance, the function \textit{updateKnowledge()} in the monitor updates relevant parameters of the knowledge. In the example, the designer needs to ensure that this function periodically updates the failure rate, among other variables, such as actual rate of panic button invocations. The designer needs to instantiate the \textit{checkGoals()} function of the analyzer model to check whether the current value of the failure rate exceeds the predefined threshold. In addition the \textit{analyzeGonfigs()} function needs to be instantiated, which uses the analysis results produced by an external verifier (\textit{SMCVerifier}) that uses runtime simulation to evaluate the service combinations (see Stage III).
Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleMAPEmodels}\,(c,d,e) shows examples of knowledge models. In the environment model, the designer specifies the relevant external behavior, i.e., either a sample of the vital parameters is taken with a probability of \textit{p\_ANALYSIS} or the user pushes the alarm with a probability \textit{p\_EMERGENCY}. In the managed system model the designer specifies the relevant behavior of the managed system, i.e., the workflow of the service system with an assignment of service instances. In the quality model, the designer specifies how failure rates are computed for a number of services invocations. Depending on the action, either the alarm service is directly invoked, or the vital parameters are analyzed, resulting in a change of the medication with probability \textit{p\_CHANGE\_MEDICATION} or an alarm is activated with probability \textit{p\_INDIRECT\_EMERGENCE}.
These probabilities are periodically updated based on information from the service providers. Combining the models of the environment, managed system, and failure rates allows the system to estimate the average failure rates of different service combinations.
\subsubsection{Verify Feedback Loop Model}
Besides generic models to design MAPE models, MAPE model templates can also offer a set of generic properties that represent correctness requirements that should be satisfied by any feedback loop model; an example is deadlock freeness. In addition, domain-specific correctness properties may be defined. The properties need to be specified in a language that allows a \textit{model verifier} to check that the MAPE models behave correctly with respect to the properties. Besides that, ActivFORMS is not prescriptive in how to obtain evidence for the correct behavior of the MAPE models.
In order to verify MAPE models, the designer requires a set of domain-specific \textit{stub models} that represent abstractions of the behavior of the external elements that the MAPE models interact with (see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}). These stubs need to be connected to the MAPE models during verification. Since stub models are domain-specific, ActivFORMS does not prescribe how to design these models and ensure compliance of their behavior with the behavior of the external elements they represent.
The designer can derive the stub models from a specification or the implementation of the managed system and other elements the feedback loop model interacts with.
Evidently, to ensure correct verification results, the behavior of the stub models should represent the behaviors of the corresponding external elements. To that end, the designer can use different techniques, e.g., model-based testing \cite{Tretmans:2008} that checks the equivalence between the runtime behavior of software under test and the outcome generated by a model. Furthermore, it is important that the design of the stub models provide the necessary input to verify the different behaviors of the MAPE models such that all the necessary paths though the models are exercised when verifying the respective properties. It is the task of the designer to apply these general guidelines when designing the stub models for a self-adaptation problem at hand.
An important property of a feedback loop is ensuring that failsafe operating modes are always satisfied. To that end, a concrete instance of ActivFORMS needs to define properties for failsafe operation that the designer needs to instantiate for the problem at hand. Ensuring these properties guarantees that the adaptive system can switch to a fall-back or degraded operating mode when needed during operation. Note that instead of falling back to a failsafe strategy in case the goals cannot be achieved, the designer may add domain-specific logic to the analyzer to handle situations where some of the goals can be satisfied but not all of them.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent\textbf{Example.} We illustrate the verification of a feedback loop model with an example for the health assistance system. To ensure that the analyzer of the feedback loop identifies the need for adaptation correctly when the adaptation goal for failure rate is violated, the following property can be used:
\begin{quote}
\textit{Monitor.MonitorCompleted\,$\,\,\&\&$\,\,Knowledge.failureRate $>$ Knowledge.fRateGoal\,\,$\rightarrow$\\
\mbox{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } Analyzer.CheckGoals\,\,$\&\&$\,\,Analyzer.adaptationNeeded}
\end{quote}
This property can be verified using a model checking tool, such as Uppaal\,\cite{David2015} or any other verification tool that supports the specification languages used for the models and the property.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleVE} shows two stub models that can be used to verify the property.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{TASstub1}
\caption{Integrated probe and effector stub}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{TASstub2}
\caption{Verifier stub}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Example of sub models to check the goal violation property of the health assistance system}
\label{fig:exampleVE}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
examples of runtime models that can be used to predict the failure rate of the health assistance system that are specified as timed automata. The environment model models the usage of the system, i.e. either a sample is taken periodically or the panic button is pushed by the user. These actions are processed by the managed system for a set of concretely assigned services. Depending on the concrete action the quality model will determine the failure rate of the service invocation.
\end{comment}
The designer of the integrated probe and effector stub made a distinction between two scenarios. First, a scenario is invoked that requires adaptation. To that end, the parameter of the failure rate of the current configuration is set to a value that violates the goal. The analyzer will then use the verifier stub to predict the quality properties of the adaptation options. Once the MAPE workflow is completed, control is returned to the probe and effector stub that checks whether the adaptation is applied correctly, i.e., ensure that the adaptation goals are not violated and that the option is selected with the optimal cost. The designer can use a domain-specific property to verify this: \textit{E~$<$$>$ !Probe.IncorrectAdaptation}. Then the stub invokes a second scenario where no adaptation is required. This way, the two main paths through the MAPE workflow are exercised.
\newpage
\subsubsection{Summary of guarantees offered by ActivFORMS in Stage I}
\vspace{4pt}
\begin{mdframed}
\textit{Guarantees}: by formally specifying and verifying MAPE models, possibly using MAPE model templates, stage I guarantees the correct behavior of the MAPE models with respect to a set of correctness properties;\vspace{2pt}\\
\textit{Scope}: the guarantees for the properties are confined to the behavior space of the MAPE models that is defined by the paths that are exercised by the stub models during verification of the different properties.
\end{mdframed}
\subsection{Stage II: Deploy and Enact Feedback Loop with Model Execution Engine}
In the second stage of ActivFORMS, the verified feedback loop model is deployed and enacted using a \textit{model execution engine}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}.
\subsubsection{Deploy Feedback Loop Model}
One of the distinct features of ActivFORMS is direct execution of the verified feedback loop model to realize adaptation of the managed system using a \textit{model execution engine}. If this engine executes the feedback loop model correctly, i.e., according to the semantics of the modeling language, it ensures that the guarantees for the correct behavior of the feedback loop model obtained in the first stage are preserved. Direct model execution avoids manual model to code translation, which can be an error-prone activity; it also paves the way to flexible updates of the running feedback loop model.
Guaranteeing that the model execution engine executes the feedback loop model correctly can be a labor intensive effort. However, this effort needs to be done only once. A concrete instance of ActivFORMS may use an off-the-shelf model execution engine that may come with guarantees or it may offer a dedicated execution engine for which the developer needs to provide the guarantees. Depending on the requirements at hand, the developer can use different techniques to provide such guarantees, ranging from testing to formal proof.
Preparing the feedback loop model for execution (see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}) involves three steps. First, the developer needs to deploy the model execution engine together with the feedback loop model (i.e., the MAPE models together with the Knowledge models). Deployment includes the instantiation, configuration, and installation of the software. Depending on the model execution engine that is used, this may require manual intervention or can be automated. The model engine may be able to directly execute the feedback loop model or it may translate the model to an internal format that is used for execution.
Second, the feedback loop model needs to be connected to the managed system, which is realized through probes and effectors. Recall that ActivFORMS assumes that the managed system is available and instrumented with probes and effectors. ActivFORMS does not prescribe how the connection between the feedback loop model and the managed system is realized. In general, a concrete instance of ActivFORMS may offer dedicated mechanisms to directly link the monitor model with probes and the executor model with effectors, or the designer needs to provide these links through specific classes.
%
Third, the \textit{statistical model verifier} needs to be deployed and connected with the feedback loop model allowing the
analyzer to estimate the qualities for the adaptation options to make decisions about how to adapt the system from its current configuration when needed.
ActivFORMS does not prescribe which model verifier should be used and how it is connected with the feedback loop. Similar to linking the probes and effectors, a concrete instance of ActivFORMS may offer dedicated mechanisms to realize the link between the analyzer model and a model verifier, or the developer needs to provide this link through a specific class.
Optionally, additional external elements may need to be connected with the feedback loop model; e.g., a plug-in module to support planning.
Regardless of the type of connection mechanisms that are used, it is important that the mechanisms ensure correct communication between the feedback loop model and the external elements. When the designer develops specific classes to realize the connections, such guarantees can be provided through extensive testing.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.} For the feedback loop model of the health assistance system, a model execution engine is required that can execute a network of timed automata. We present such an engine in Section \ref{section:instance}. The correctness of this engine relies on extensive testing. When the engine loads a feedback loop model, it transforms the automata models into a graph representation that the engine can execute. The engine comes with template classes that the developer can use to realize the connections with external elements. These include classes to connect the MAPE models with probes and effectors, and a class to connect the analyzer model with the Uppaal-SMC tool \cite{David2015} that can be used to for the analysis of the quality models. We explain this in detail in Section \ref{section:instance}.
\subsubsection{Enact the Model Execution Engine}
When the model execution engine and the feedback loop model are deployed and the connections are established (with the probe, effector, and verifier), the model execution can be started. Depending on the characteristics of the concrete model execution engine used, some configuration may be required before the execution can effectively start. E.g., for the concrete engine presented in Section \ref{section:instance} that executes timed automata models, the real time period of one logical time unit in the model needs to be set.
\subsubsection{Summary of guarantees offered by ActivFORMS in Stage II}
\begin{mdframed}
\textit{Guarantees}: by deploying and enacting the verified MAPE models using a model execution engine, stage II ensures that the guarantees for the behavior of the MAPE models obtained in stage I are preserved;\vspace{2pt}\\
\textit{Scope}: the guarantees hold under the assumption that the model execution engine executes the MAPE models correctly according to the semantics of the modeling language; furthermore, the connections between the feedback loop model and external elements needs to ensure correct communication.
\end{mdframed}
\subsection{Stage III: Runtime Verification of Adaptation Goals and Decision Making}\label{runtime}
The focus of the first and second stage of ActivFORMS is on the design and deployment of a feedback loop that behaves correctly with respect to a set of correctness properties. The third stage is a runtime stage where the executing feedback loop model dynamically adapts the managed system to realize the adaptation goals. To that end, the verified feedback loop model executed by the execution engine monitors the managed system and its environment, analyzes the changing conditions, and adapts the managed system to realize the adaptation goals.
In stage III, ActivFORMS complements the guarantees of stages I and II with evidence that the self-adaptive system selects adaptation options that guide the managed system to realize the adaptation goals. A distinct contribution of ActivFORMS is that it aims to perform this decision making process in an efficient way, i.e., with limited resources and within limited adaptation time. To that end, ActivFORMS relies on statistical verification at runtime. Statistical verification allows the feedback loop system to select adaptation options that comply to the adaptation goals with a required accuracy and level of confidence. We start the explanation with a high-level overview of the runtime architecture of ActivFORMS that shows the composition of the runtime elements. Then, we zoom in on runtime analysis and decision making using statistical verification at runtime.
\subsubsection{Runtime Architecture of ActivFORMS}
Fig. \ref{fig:activFORMS-RA} shows an overview of the ActivFORMS runtime architecture that aligns with the reference model for self-adaptive systems of Kramer and Magee\,\cite{Kramer2007}. The \textit{Managed System} is the software that is subject of adaptation. In ActivFORMS, the managed system, instrumented with probes and effectors is given. At a given point in time the managed system has a configuration that is determined by the arrangement and settings of the running elements of the system. Adapting the managed system boils down to changing the configuration. The adaptation options define the set of configurations that can be reached from the current configuration by adapting the managed system. This set is determined by combining the possible settings of different elements of the managed system that can be adapted.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.54\textwidth]{ActivFORMS-3.pdf}
\caption{ActivFORMS runtime architecture (runtime models are marked with $\mathit{M}$).}
\label{fig:activFORMS-RA}
\end{figure}
The \textit{Managing System} comprises two sub-layers: \textit{Change Management} and \textit{Goal Management}. Change management monitors and adapts the managed system at runtime to realize the adaptation goals. Goal management inspects change management and supports updating the adaptation goals and feedback loop model on-the-fly.
As explained in the design and deployment stages of ActivFORMS, the feedback loop of \textit{Change Management} is realized by means of a set of formally verified \textit{MAPE models} that are directly executed by a model execution engine. The MAPE models share knowledge that is maintained in the \textit{Knowledge Repository}, including models of the managed system, qualities, and adaptation goals.
The \textit{Monitor} updates the knowledge. Newly collected data can be pre-processed; e.g., a simple Bayesian learner can be used to update the probability of a model parameter that represents an uncertainty. The \textit{Analyzer} is supported by a \textit{Statistical Model Verifier} that runs simulations on the quality models during operation to estimate the quality properties for the relevant adaptation options. The \textit{Planner} uses the adaptation goals to select the adaptation option that complies best with the goals and create a plan to adapt the managed system accordingly. This plan is then executed by the \textit{Executor}.
\textit{Goal Management} offers an \textit{Online Update Manager} and an \textit{Update Interface}. The online update manager enables operators to update the feedback loop model during execution. Such updates are loaded by the update manager through the update interface. Changing the models of change management needs to be done safely, i.e., in quiescent states \cite{Kramer:1990}. We discuss goal management in detail in Stage IV.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.} In the health assistance system, the managed system is the service infrastructure with the workflow that offers a probe to obtain data about the behavior of users, the actual quality properties of the system, the characteristics of different service instances, etc., and an effector to select concrete instances for the different services that are used by the workflow. The available service combinations determine the set of adaptation options. Change management comprises the feedback loop model with the model execution engine and statistical model verifier as we illustrated in the first two stages. We illustrate goal management in Stage IV below.
\vspace{5pt} We now zoom in on the key activities of stage III: analysis of the adaptation options and decision making.
\subsubsection{Analysis of the Adaptation Options}\label{subsec:analysis}
The purpose of analysis is to provide estimates of the different quality properties for the adaptation options. In ActivFORMS, analysis is performed on first-class runtime models, one for each quality property of interest, using statistical model verification. To determine the qualities of an adaptation option the designer needs to define verification queries (see Section \ref{section:statistical_model_checking}). The quality models and associated queries are domain-specific. To perform analysis the designer has to model four steps that need to be performed by the analyzer model: (1) compose the adaptation options by assigning values to the variables that represent elements of the managed system that can be adapted,
(with each adaptation option placeholders are associated to store the estimates of the quality properties),
(2) assign values to the uncertainties as observed by the monitor and stored in the knowledge repository; uncertainties are typically represented as variables in the runtime models, (3) invoke the verification queries using the model verifier to verify the different quality models for each adaptation option (hypothesis testing and estimation), (4) use the verification results to update the placeholders for the quality estimates of the adaptation options. In case the verification process is not able to find a valid adaptation option, e.g., when the verification time exceeds a available time window, the designer should ensure that a failsafe configuration is selected to adapt the managed system. This completes analysis.
As explained in Section \ref{section:statistical_model_checking}, the time required to verify quality models is determined by the accuracy $\epsilon$ and confidence $\alpha$ of the verification queries (the time is polynomial in 1/$\epsilon$ and log 1/$\alpha$ \cite{Herault2004}). Compared to exhaustive verification, statistical model checking has the advantage that the accuracy and confidence parameters of verification queries can be set by the designer (and possibly be tuned during operation, manually or automatically). More accurate results with higher confidence result in better quality estimates, but increase the verification time. Hence, an important design decision is to balance between accuracy and confidence of the analysis results with the time window that is available for verification at runtime (see also Section \ref{section:statistical_model_checking}).
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.} We illustrate the four steps of analysis for the health assistance system. In step one, the adaptation options are composed by combining the different service instances for the workflow (the size of the adaptation space may be reduced by eliminating service instances that have shown poor qualities in the recent past). In step two, the values of the uncertainties are assigned based on recent data, i.e., the probabilities associated with different paths in the workflow. In step three, a statistical model checker verifies the quality models of the system, i.e., one model for failure rate and another for cost. Finally, in step four, the analyzer collects the estimates of the failure rate and cost of each adaptation option and updates the knowledge repository accordingly.
\subsubsection{Decision Making}
The goal of decision making is to select the best adaptation option using the analysis results and the adaptation goals. ActivFORMS does not prescribe which decision making mechanism should be used. Any approach that allows defining adaptation goals together with a mechanism to select the best adaptation option among the set of available options based on the verification results per adaptation option and the adaptation goals can be applied. Examples are utility functions and rules, see e.g.,\,\cite{2018Trollmann}.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.} The health assistance system has two adaptation goals: a threshold goal for failure rate and an optimization goal for cost. A simple decision making mechanism can apply the goals sequentially, i.e., first the adaptation options with a failure rate below the threshold are selected; next the adaptation option with the lowest cost of this subset is selected for adaptation. If none of the adaptation options complies with the failure rate goal, no adaptation may be applied, or alternatively a predefined set of services may be selected to adapt the system.
\subsubsection{Summary of guarantees offered by ActivFORMS in Stage III}
\begin{mdframed}
\textit{Guarantees}: by estimating the qualities of the adaptation options using statistical model checking at runtime and selecting options that realize the adaptation goals with a required accuracy and confidence level, stage III guides the adaptation of the system to realize its adaptation goals;\vspace{2pt}\\
\textit{Scope}: the guarantees hold for the runtime models and are confined to the extent that these models capture the actual state and behavior of the managed system and its environment; further the guarantees hold for the hypothesis that are tested, hence they are confined to the extent that these hypothesis are correct.
\end{mdframed}
\vspace{5pt}
\subsection{Stage IV: Evolution of Adaptation Goals and Feedback Loop Model}\label{subsection:stage-4}
The fourth stage of ActivFORMS offers basic support for on-the-fly changes of the adaptation goals and the feedback loop model through the goal management layer, see Fig. \ref{fig:activFORMS-RA}.
Support for changing the adaptation logic during operation is considered a key aspect of self-adaptation \cite{Cheng:2007,Lemos2013,Souza:2013,Weyns2019}, but, limited research exists in this area. On-the-fly changes of the feedback loop are important: (i) to update MAPE models and/or knowledge to resolve a problem or a bug (e.g., add or replace some functionality), and (ii) support changing adaptation goals, i.e., change or remove an existing goal, or add a new goal. The need for evolving the feedback loop model is triggered by stakeholders either based on feedback obtained from the executing system or because the adaptation goals need to be changed.
Since we assume that the managed system is given, ActivFORMS only supports updates of the adaptation logic that do not require updates of the managed system, including probes an effectors.
Co-evolution of the managing system and the managed system, which remains an open problem~\cite{Weyns2019}, is out of scope of
this paper. We focus here on adding a new adaptation goal and updating the feedback loop models accordingly.
\subsubsection{Specifying and Verifying New Adaptation Goals and Models}
When stakeholders define a new requirement for adaptation, the designer needs to translate the requirement to an adaptation goal that can be processed by the MAPE models. Further, a new quality model needs to be defined that allows predicting the quality property that corresponds with the adaptation goal for the different adaptation options. These domain-specific tasks are similar to the specification of adaptation goals and quality models in stage I. When adding a new adaptation goal, the designer also needs to update MAPE models. Usually, the monitor model needs to be extended with support to track data and uncertainties that relate to the adaptation goal. The analyzer needs to be extended with support to perform analysis of the new quality property. The planner needs to incorporate the new goal in the set of adaptation goals to select the best adaptation option. New types of plan steps may need to be incorporated in the planner, and, the executor may need to be extended to deal with new types of adaptation actions.
To verify the correctness of the behavior of the updated MAPE models, the initial stub models for the probes, effectors, and the verifier may need to be updated to ensure that they cover the required execution paths of the MAPE models to verify the different correctness properties.
For the verification, the initial correctness properties can be checked again, possibly complemented with the verification of new domain-specific properties.
\vspace{5pt}\noindent\textbf{Example.}
We add a new requirement to the health assistance system that keeps the average response time of service invocations under a required value. The corresponding adaptation goal can be specified as a threshold goal, similar to the failure rate goal. Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleNR}(a) shows how one of the functions of the Analyzer model is updated to deal with the new response time goal (\textit{rTimeGoal}). Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleNR}(b) show the quality model for service response time. This model, that works together with the model of the system and environment (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:exampleVE}), is used by the verifier during runtime analysis to predict the expected response time for the different adaptation options.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.43\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{analyzeConfigs3}
\caption{Update of a function in the Analyzer model}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.56\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{TAS-ResponseTime}
\caption{Quality model to predict response time}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Example of an updated and a new runtime model to deal with a new goal in the health assistance system}
\label{fig:exampleNR}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Enact New Models}
When the evolved feedback loop model is verified it needs to be enacted. Model enactment follows a semi-automatic process that is supported by the \textit{Goal Management} layer and the model execution engine, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:activFORMS-RA}. ActivFORMS uses the classic process to update the feedback loop model based on quiescence~\cite{Kramer:1990}. A quiescent state of a component or a model is a state where no activity is going on in the element so that it can be safely updated. The designer is responsible to identify quiescent states when specifying a concrete feedback loop model and ensure that the feedback loop model can reach these states. One approach a designer can use to realize quiescence is by means of using reactive MAPE models (we apply this approach in the concrete instance of ActivFORMS that we present in Section \ref{section:instance}). In this approach, each of the MAPE models has a dedicated state where the MAPE behavior waits to be triggered to start its adaptation function. When all MAPE models are in the waiting state, the feedback loop is in a quiescent state. In addition to support for quiescence, the goal management layer needs to be designed such that messages invoked to the feedback loop during a model update are buffered and handled after the update (e.g., messages with data from a probe), and that the state of the old model can be transferred to the new model. Handling messages that arrive during a life update of a model and transferring state from an old to the new model are difficult domain-specific problems that in general cannot be solved without human intervention\,\cite{Vandewoude2007}. In ActivFORMS, the designer is responsible to implement the message handing and state transfer functionalities. In Section \ref{section:instance}, we explain how these functionalities are realized for a concrete instance of ActivFORMS.
When a feedback loop model needs to be changed, an operator uses the \textit{Update Interface} to load the new model (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:activFORMS-RA}). This activates the \textit{Online Update Manager} to start tracking the executing model until it reaches a quiescent state. The online update manager then triggers the model execution engine to perform the model update. To that end, the model execution engine safes the state of the old model, replaces the old model with the new model, and starts the execution of the new feedback loop model. In order to preserve the guarantees that the behavior of the new MAPE model is correct with respect to a set of correctness properties, which were obtained during specification and verification, the online update manager and model execution engine need to be trusted. This means that the designer of the online update manager and model execution engine of a concrete instance of ActivFORMS needs to provide the required evidence that these components perform their functions correctly with respect to loading the feedback loop model, identifying quiescent states, replacing the model, transferring the state and initializing the model, handling buffered messages, and restarting the execution of the feedback loop model. The instance of ActivFORMS presented in Section \ref{section:instance} offers a trusted online update manager and model execution engine for which the evidence is provided using extensive testing.
\subsubsection{Summary of guarantees offered by ActivFORMS in Stage IV}
\begin{mdframed}
\textit{Guarantees}: by evolving and verifying the feedback loop model, possible using MAPE model templates, and updating the running model with the new model using goal management and the model execution engine, stage IV guarantees the correct behavior of the model with respect to a set of correctness properties;\vspace{2pt}\\
\textit{Scope}: the guarantees hold for the updated feedback loop model under the assumptions of stages I to III; in addition, goal management and the model execution engine should perform the model update correctly wrt. loading the new feedback loop model, identifying quiescent states, replacing the model, transferring the state, initializing the new model, handling buffered messages, and restarting model execution.
\end{mdframed}
\section{Self-Adaptive Internet-of-Things Application}\label{section:iot}
This section introduces an IoT application, called DeltaIoT, that we use to illustrate a tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS that we present in the Section\,\ref{section:instance} and for the evaluation of ActivFORMS in Section\,\ref{section:evaluation}.
DeltaIoT is a reference Internet-of-Things (IoT) application that enables evaluating new self-adaptation approaches and comparing their effectiveness with other solutions~\cite{Iftikhar2017}. The network offers both a physical setup for field experimentations and a simulator for offline experimentations. DeltaIoT is part of the smart campus initiative\footnote{https://people.cs.kuleuven.be/danny.weyns/software/DeltaIoT/} by imec-DistriNet, KU Leuven in collaboration with VersaSense, a provider of industrial IoT.\footnote{https://versasense.com/}
DeltaIoT consists of a collection of 15 battery-powered LoRa-based\footnote{https://www.lora-alliance.org/What-Is-LoRa/Technology} IoT motes deployed at the KU Leuven campus, see Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}. In each building, motes are strategically placed to provide access control to labs (RFID sensor), to monitor the occupancy status (passive infrared sensor) and to sense the temperature (heat sensor, an example is show top right of Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}). The sensor data from all the motes are relayed to the IoT gateway, which is deployed at a central monitoring facility. Campus security staff can monitor the status of buildings and labs from the monitoring facility and take appropriate action whenever unusual behavior is detected in the buildings.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{deltaiot-layout2.pdf
\caption{DeltaIoT system with network topology and example of a sensor}
\label{fig:DeltaIoT
\end{figure}
DeltaIoT uses multi-hop wireless communication. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}, each IoT mote in the network relays its sensor data to the gateway. However, some of the IoT motes, which are farther away from the gateway, have to relay their sensor data via intermediate IoT motes.\footnote{A sending mote is a child from the viewpoint of a receiving mote and a receiving mote is a parent from the viewpoint of a sending mote.} DeltaIoT uses time synchronized communication~\cite{Dujovne2014}. Concretely, the communication in the network is organized in cycles, each cycle comprising a fixed number of communication slots. Each slot defines a sender mote and a receiver mote that can communicate with one another. The communication slots are fairly divided among the motes. For example, the system can be configured with a cycle time of 570 second (9.5 minutes) with each cycle comprising 285 slots, each of 2 seconds. For each link, 40 slots are allocated for communication between the motes
Each mote is equipped with three queues: \textit{buffer} collects the packets produced by the mote, \textit{receive-queue} collects the packets from the mote's children, and \textit{send-queue} queues the packets to be sent to the parent(s) during the next cycle. The size of the \textit{send-queue} is equal to the number of slots that are allocated to the mote for communication during one cycle. Before communicating, the packets of the \textit{buffer} are first moved to the \textit{send-queue}; the remaining space is then filled with packets from the \textit{receive-queue}. Packets that arrive when the \textit{receive-queue} is full are lost (i.e., \textit{queue loss}).
IoT applications are expected to last a long time on a set of batteries (typically multiple years), while offering reliable communication with minimal latency. To guarantee these quality properties, the motes of the network should be optimally configured. Two key factors that determine the critical quality properties are the transmission power of the motes and the selection of paths to relay packets towards the gateway (i.e., the distribution of the packets sent via the links to the respective parents). Guaranteeing the required quality properties is complex as the system is subject to various types of uncertainties. Here, we consider two primary types of uncertainty:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Network interference and noise:} Due to external factors such as weather conditions and the presence of wireless signals such as WiFi in the neighborhood, the quality of the communication between motes may be affected, which in turn may lead to packet loss.
\item \textit{Fluctuating traffic load:} The packets produced by the motes may fluctuate in ways that are difficult to predict (e.g., packets produced by a passive infrared sensor are based on the detection of motion of humans).
\end{enumerate}
As an example, the graph on the left hand side of Fig. \ref{fig:uncertainty_profiles} shows the values of the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the communication link between two motes over time. Signal to Noise Ratio ($\mathit{SNR}$ in decibels $dB$) represents the ratio between the levels of desired signal and undesired signal, i.e., noise, which comes from the environment. The higher the interference, the lower the SNR, resulting in higher packet loss. The graph on the right hand side shows the frequency of the same data with a resolution of one digit, which has a normal distribution.\footnote{The data of the graphs in Fig. \ref{fig:uncertainty_profiles} are based on values that where measured during field observations for a period of one week. We use these graphs as profiles for the uncertainties in simulation mode. The Shapiro-Wilk test gave a p-value of 0.06; with a significance level 0.05.}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Mote13-11SNR-1st}
\caption{Profiles of uncertainties for one of the motes in Figure~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}.}
\label{fig:uncertainty_profiles}
\end{figure
The quality requirements for DeltaIoT that become adaptation goals for self-adaptation are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[] $R1$: The average packet loss per period of 12 hours should not exceed 10\%;
\item[] $R2$: The energy consumption should be minimized.
\end{enumerate}
In addition, the following adaptation goal should be dynamically added to the system during operation:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[] $R3$: The average latency of packets per 12 hours should be less than 5\% of the cycle time.
\end{enumerate}
DeltaIoT also requires the following failsafe operating mode when adaptation is applied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[] $R4$: If no valid adaptation option is available, apply the reference setting; i.e., set the transmission power of motes to maximum and duplicate all packets to all parents.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{+2pt}
\noindent
\textbf{Why Self-adaptation?} The key problem of DeltaIoT is how to ensure the quality requirements regardless of the uncertainties in network interference and fluctuating traffic load of packets. A typical approach used in practice to deal with the uncertainties in IoT applications such as DeltaIoT is to over-provision the network. In this approach, the transmission power of the links is set to maximum and all packets transmitted by a mote are copied to all its parents. Operators may fine-tune these settings manually based on observations of the network. While such a conservative approach may result in low packet loss, the cost is high energy consumption. Furthermore, manual intervention is a costly and error-prone activity. By enhancing DeltaIoT with self-adaptation capabilities, the system will automatically track the uncertainties at runtime and use up-to-date information to find and adapt the settings of the motes such that the system complies with the quality requirements.
\vspace{+8pt}
\noindent
\textbf{Interface Implementation.} DeltaIoT offers a client deployed at the gateway that includes a Java package with Probe and Effector classes. Listing~\ref{probe} shows the main methods of the probe to monitor the IoT network and the effector to adapt the mote settings, both can be used for the physical network setup and the simulator.
\lstset{caption={DeltaIoT probe and effector methods.},label=probe
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
ArrayList<Mote> getAllMotes();
ArrayList<QoS> getNetworkQoS(Period);
void setMoteSettings(MoteID, List<LinkSetting>);
void resetDefaultConfiguration();
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
$getAllMotes$ returns an array with a representation of each mote of the network for a cycle, including the traffic generated by a mote (number of messages sent from 0 to 10), the energy consumed (in Coulomb), the settings of the transmission power that a mote used to communicate with each of its parent (in a range from 0 to 15), the spreading factor used for each link (7 to 12),\footnote{Technically, the spreading factor is defined as the number of chirps used per symbol, where the chirp rate is equal to the bandwidth~\cite{Augustin2016}. A higher spreading factor results in longer range, at the cost of more energy consumption.} the SNR for each link (in dB, typically in the range of 10 to -40), and the distribution factor per link being the percentage of the packets sent by a source mote over the link to each of its parents (0 to 100\%).\footnote{The total sum of the distribution factors for a mote is normally 100, when packets are duplicated to more parents, the sum is above 100.} $getNetworkQoS$ returns statistical data about the quality of service (QoS) of the overall network for a given period. Currently this method returns data about packet loss (fraction of packets lost [0...1]), energy consumption (Coulomb), and latency of the network (fraction of the cycle time that packets remain in the network [0...1]; 0 means all packets are delivered in the cycle they are generated; 1 means packets all packets are delivered in the cycle after the cycle they are generated).
$setMoteSettings$ can be used to set the parameters for the parent links of a mote with a given ID. A $LinkSetting$ contains the source and destination node of the link, the transmission power to be used to communicate via the link (0 to 15), and the distribution factor for the link (0 to 100\% in steps of 20\%). Finally, $resetDefaultConfiguration$ resets the network settings to predefined values. This method can be used to bring the system to a well-known state, e.g., as failsafe state.
\section{ActivFORMSi: A Tool-Supported Instance of ActivFORMS}\label{section:instance}
We validate the principles of ActivFORMS and demonstrate its contributions by instantiating it and applying it to a real-world IoT system.
ActivFORMS can be instantiated using different modeling languages, model execution engines, verification tools, and update mechanisms, depending on the concrete types of adaptive systems targeted and the guarantees that are required. This makes ActivFORMS particularly flexible. However, the consequence is that instantiating the approach is an extensive task.
The instance we present in this section, called \textit{ActivFORMSi}, relies on multiple years of extensive experience with engineering self-adaptive systems and building the necessary artifacts, including a concrete set of \textit{MAPE model templates}, a \textit{trusted virtual machine} that directly executes verified MAPE feedback loop models, and a \textit{trusted online update manager} that can be used to update feedback models on-the-fly. With ``trusted'' we mean that evidence is available for stakeholders to be confident that the virtual machine and the online update manager will \mbox{perform their tasks in a reliable way. The trustworthiness of these artifacts is obtained through extensive testing.}
All the artifacts of ActivFORMSi, including the MAPE model templates, the virtual machine and the online update manager together with comprehensive test suites and complete test reports, as well as all the material and test results of the concrete application of ActivFORMS to DeltaIoT is available at the ActivFORMS website.\footnote{ActivFORMS website: https://people.cs.kuleuven.be/danny.weyns/software/ActivFORMS/}
We explain now the four stages of ActivFORMS for ActivFORMSi. We illustrate each stage with examples of DeltaIoT. We focus on the main parts and point to the ActivFORMS website for additional parts.
\subsection{Stage I: Design and Verify Feedback Loop Model}
The goal of the first stage is to develop formally verified models for the feedback loop of a self-adaptive system. In ActivFORMSi, these activities are supported by a set of MAPE model templates that support the modeling of MAPE behaviors, Knowledge, and basic stubs, together with a set of generic properties that can be used to verify the correct behavior of concrete MAPE models. The models are specified as a network of timed automata, while properties are specified in Timed Computational Tree Logic (TCTL). The Uppaal tool suite is used for the specification and verification of feedback loop models~\cite{tutorial04}.
The MAPE model templates are derived from extensive experience with modeling MAPE-based feedback loops for various applications, see for instance~\cite{Didac2013,Iftikhar2014,Shevtsov2015,Weyns2015c,7573167,Calinescu2017}.
The characteristics of these applications align with the system characteristics described in the introduction of this paper. Hence, the templates, and more in general ActivFORMSi, target self-adaptive systems with these characteristics.
Some elements of the templates apply to any self-adaptive system and require no instantiation, while other elements need to be instantiated for the adaptation problem at hand (e.g., a function, guard, or property).\footnote{As a convention, elements in \textit{square brackets} are abstractly defined and need to be implemented (e.g., a function or a guard) without changing the name of the element. For elements in \textit{angle brackets} the same applies, but, these elements can be given domain-specific names. Domain-specific names in model templates support readability, but require a corresponding instantiation in the verification properties. Some domain-specific elements are marked as $name\_I$; these optional elements can be instantiated an arbitrary number of times.} We explain the rules and process to instantiate the model templates of ActivFORMSi at the end of this section.
Note that the use of MAPE model templates is not mandatory in ActivFORMSi. However, the templates provide reusable skeleton specifications that have demonstrated their usefulness and as such support the design of feedback loop models with guarantees in an efficient way.\footnote{Note that the expressiveness to specify feedback loop models with the templates is determined by the Uppaal modeling language on the one hand, and the Uppaal tool on the other hand.
We refer to Appendix A for a specification of the Uppaal modeling language and to the Upppaal website for information about current restrictions of the tool (http://www.uppaal.org/).}
Beyond offering a reusable asset to design and verify feedback loops in general, the templates have also demonstrated their usefulness for teaching the principles of self-adaptation and support student projects.\footnote{See for instance: https://onderwijsaanbod.kuleuven.be/syllabi/v/e/H0A12AE.htm}
\subsubsection{Design Feedback Loop Model}\label{subsec:design}
In the first activity, the formal models of the MAPE loop and knowledge are specified (see Fig.~\ref{fig:activFORMS}). We start with the knowledge, then we zoom in on the MAPE models.
\paragraph{\textbf{Knowledge}} The knowledge consists of elements that are shared among the MAPE elements.
Listing~\ref{knowledge} shows an excerpt of the ActivFORMSi MAPE model template to specify knowledge.
\lstset{caption={Definition of Knowledge},label=knowledge}
\footnotesize
{
\begin{lstlisting}
//Knowledge =
// {Configuration, Adaptation Goals, Adaptation Options, Plan, Quality Models}
//A configuration defines the relevant elements of the managed system, a set of
//quality properties, and the relevant properties of the environment
<Configuration currentConfiguration>;
//Adaptation Goals
<int PROP;>
<bool optimizationGoal_I(Configuration gConf, Configuration tConf, int PROP) { }>
//Tests whether a test configuration (tConf) outperforms a given configuration
//(gConf) regarding a property (PROP)
<int PROP;>
<bool satisfactionGoal_I(Configuration conf, int PROP) { }>
//Tests whether a configuration (conf) satisfies a given property (PROP)
//Adaptation Options
type struct {
<ManagedSystem option>;
<Qualities verificationResults>;
} AdaptationOption
AdaptationOption adaptationOptions[MAX_OPTIONS];
//Plan
type struct {
<const stepType>;
<Element element>;
<Value newValue>;
} <Step>
type struct {
<Step steps[MAX_STEPS]>;
} Plan
//Quality Models
//A network of stochastic timed automata per quality model
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
$\mathit{Knowledge}$ comprises five elements: the current $\mathit{Configuration}$, a set of $\mathit{Adaptation Goals}$, a set of $\mathit{Adaptation Options}$, i.e., the possible configurations of the managed system, a $\mathit{Plan}$ consisting of adaptation steps that are composed by the \textit{Planner} (the MAPE models are explained below), and a set of $\mathit{Quality Models}$, one model for each quality that is subject of an adaptation goal.
The designer uses the current configuration to represent the relevant aspects of the current state of the managed system, the environment, and the quality properties that are subject to adaptation. Appendix B provides a definition of a configuration in the Uppaal language, and a concrete instantiation of it for the DeltaIoT system.
The adaptation goals define the quality objectives that need to be realized by the feedback loop. ActivFORMSi offers support to model adaptation goals as boolean functions. We distinguish between an $\mathit{optimizationGoal}$ that tests whether a configuration $\mathit{tConf}$ outperforms a given configuration $\mathit{gConf}$ regarding a property ($\textit{PROP}$), and a $\mathit{satisfactionGoal}$ that tests whether a configuration ($\mathit{conf}$) satisfies a given property ($\textit{PROP}$). However, ActivFORMSi is not limited to these types of goals, so other types of goals can be defined and applied.
An adaptation option consists of two parts: a particular setting of the managed system ($\mathit{option}$) and a placeholder for the verification results ($\mathit{verificationResults}$). The \textit{Analyzer} determines the adaptation options based on the range of settings of elements of the managed system that can be adapted (see Section \ref{subsec:analysis}). The verification results are added when the verifier has produced estimated values for the different qualities per adaptation option. The \textit{Planner} then picks the best option based on the verification results using the adaptation goals. In this paper, we assume that a limited but possibly large number of adaptation options are available when adaptation is required ($\textit{MAX\_OPTIONS}$). This implies that any system parameter that can be used for adapting the managed system with a value in a continuous domain needs to be discretized and limited in range. Heuristics can be applied to select the adaptation option from a very large set, but this is out of scope of this paper.
A plan consists of a series of steps ($\mathit{Step}$), each defined by a $\mathit{stepType}$, an $\mathit{element}$ (optionally refined by sub-elements) that refers to an element (a parameter, algorithm, component, etc.) of the managed system to which the step applies, and the $\mathit{newValue}$ (a setting, rate, status, etc.) that needs to be applied to the element.
Finally, each quality model, specified as a stochastic timed automaton (or a network of these), captures the characteristics of one of the qualities that is subject of adaptation. Quality models, which are domain-specific models, are in essence an abstraction of the managed system and its environment comprising behaviour and state related to particular quality properties. The verifier uses these models to estimate the required qualities for each of the adaptation options. Quality models have two types of parameters: (1) settings of the managed system that determine the adaptation options, and (2) uncertainties of the managed system and its environment.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 1.} We illustrate the knowledge specification for DeltaIoT; Listing~\ref{knowledgeDeltaIoT} shows an excerpt.
\lstset{caption={Knowledge definition for DeltaIoT feedback loop.},label=knowledgeDeltaIoT}
\footnotesize
{
\begin{lstlisting}
Configuration currentDeltaIoTConfiguration; //For details, see Appendix B
//Adaptation Goals
int MAX_PACKET_LOSS = 10; //max packet loss 10%
bool satisfactionGoalPacketLoss(Configuration gConf, int MAX_PACKET_LOSS) {
return gConf.qualities.packetLoss < MAX_PACKET_LOSS;
}
bool optimizationGoalEnergyConsumption(Configuration gConf, Configuration tConf) {
return tConf.qualities.energyConsumption < gConf.qualities.energyConsumption;
}
//Adaptation Options
ManagedSystem deltaIoT_1 {...};
Qualities verificResults_1 = {...}; ...
AdaptationOption adaptationOptions[MAX_OPTIONS] =
{{deltaIoT_1, verificResults_1}, {deltaIoT_2, verificResults_2}, ...};
//Plan with Step Types
const CHANGE_POWER;
const CHANGE_DISTRIBUTION;
//For the detailed definitions of motes and links, see Appendix B
Step step_1 = {CHANGE_POWER, mote7Id, link1Id, 5}; ...
Step step_4 = {CHANGE_DISTRIBUTION, mote7Id, link3Id, 60}; ...
Plan plan = {step_1, ... step_4, ... }
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
The current configuration of DeltaIoT can be specified as the network of motes with their actual settings (i.e., the transmission power of the motes, distributions of packets to parents), the current values of quality properties (power loss and energy consumption), and uncertainties (current traffic load of motes and $\textit{SNR}$ of links). For a detailed specification of a configuration, see Appendix B.
The designer can define the packet loss goal as a satisfaction goal and the energy goal as and optimization goal. The packet loss goal tests whether the packet loss of a configuration is not higher as a given threshold (here defined at\,10\%). The energy consumption goal tests whether the energy consumption of one configuration is lower as that of another configuration, allowing to find the configuration with the lowest energy consumption.
For DeltaIoT, the designer uses the parameters in the system that can be used to adapt the system to define the adaptation options, i.e., transmission power and distribution of packets of links. The verification results provide estimated values for packet loss and energy consumption for the different settings of the managed system.
The designer can use two types of steps to create adaptation plans: change the power settings of a mote to transmit packets over a link, e.g., $\textit{\{CHANGE\_POWER, mote7Id, link1Id, 5\}}$ says that the transmission power of mote~7 on link~1 is set to 5; and change the distribution of packets sent to parents, e.g., $\textit{\{CHANGE\_DISTR, mote7, link3, 60\}}$ says that mote~7 will send 60\,\% of its traffic via link~3 (i.e., to mote~3).
For the basic feedback loop model of DeltaIoT, the designer needs to specify two quality models, one for packet loss and one for energy consumption. While these models have to be designed and deployed with the MAPE models in Stage I, they are only active at runtime to support the analysis of the adaptation options. We discuss therefore the quality models in Stage III, see Section \ref{runtime}.
\paragraph{\textbf{MAPE Models}}
When designing MAPE models for a problem at hand, the designer can use MAPE model templates. Fig. \ref{MAPE_templates} shows MAPE model templates of ActivFORMSi.
The templates use event triggering, e.g., the monitor triggers the analyzer when analysis is required. ActivFORMSi also provide time triggered templates, where MAPE functions can be activated by an internal clock (see the ActivFORMS website).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Monitor_2}
\caption{Monitor}
\label{fig:templateMonitor}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Executor}
\caption{Executor}
\label{fig:templateExecutor}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.8\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Analyzer}
\caption{Analyzer}
\label{fig:templateAnalyzer}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Planner}
\caption{Planner}
\label{fig:templatePlanner}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Reusable templates for specifying MAPE models}
\label{MAPE_templates}
\end{figure}
When instantiating the MAPE models, the main tasks the designer needs to ensure are the following. When receiving new data, the \textit{Monitor} in Fig. \ref{MAPE_templates} needs to update the knowledge (in particular the parameters that represent uncertainties and quality properties of the system, see e.g.,\,\cite{7355393}), and check whether the conditions hold to trigger analysis. If so, the \textit{Analyzer} needs to check whether analysis is required, typically when adaptation goals are violated. If that is the case, the adaptation options need to be verified (i.e., quality estimates are computed using the quality models) and subsequently the planner is triggered. In case the verification exceeds the maximum verification time, a failsafe adaptation strategy needs to be applied. The \textit{Planner} needs to select the best configuration by applying the adaptation goals to the adaptation options based on their quality estimates. The planner then composes a plan, which is done step by step. To that end, the designer needs to identify the elements that can be adapted and possibly its sub-elements. When all the steps of all elements are added to the plan the \textit{Executor} needs to be triggered to execute the plan. For each element, the executor collects all the plan steps associated with the element (and possibly its sub-elements) and triggers the effector to apply the adaptation actions to the managed system. This completes the specification of the MAPE workflow.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 2.} Fig.~\ref{DeltaIoT_MAPE} shows instances of the templates for the analyzer and planner models of DeltaIoT. The instantiations for the other MAPE models are available at the ActivFORMS website.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.7\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{AnalyzerDeltaIoT}
\caption{Analyzer DeltaIoT}
\label{fig:templateAnalyzer}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{PlannerDeltaIoT}
\caption{Planner DeltaIoT}
\label{fig:templatePlanner}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Two template instances for the MAPE models of DeltaIoT}
\label{DeltaIoT_MAPE}
\end{figure}
The designer instantiates a set of abstract functions of the \textit{Analyzer} to determine the need for adapting the current setting of the managed system of DeltaIoT. The function $\mathit{analyzeSystemSettings()}$ checks whether the network settings (power and distribution per link) are different from the expected settings (as applied in the last adaptation step). A difference indicates that the last adaptation steps were not effected as expected or the settings changed for another reason. The functions $\mathit{analyzePacketLoss()}$ and $\mathit{analyzeEnergyConsumption()}$ check whether the packet loss and energy consumption have increased significantly. Similarly, $\mathit{analyzeLinksSNR()}$ and $\mathit{analyzeMotesTraffic()}$ check the changes of $\textit{SNR}$ of the links and the traffic load generated by the motes. If at least one of the analysis functions returns true, $\mathit{adaptationNeeded()}$ returns true.
If adaptation is needed, the designer specifies how the adaptation options are composed as follows. The analyzer determines the power setting that is required per mote for each link. These settings are selected ensuring that the \textit{SNR}~$\geq0$ based on (1) link-specific functions $\textit{SNR}$$~$=$~\alpha + \beta(power)$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are values that are determined per link before deployment based on a series of field experiments\footnote{The ActivFORMS website provides link-specific functions of the IoT network that we use in the evaluation.}, and (2) the expected interference based on the recent SNR measurements. Using these settings, the analyzer then determines all the possible combinations of packet distributions for all links (in a range of 0 to 100\% in steps of $20\%$) (for motes with one parent, all packets are sent to the parent). Each of these combinations determines an adaptation option. For a network with 15 motes as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DeltaIoT}, this results in 216 adaptation options. If the network structure does not change (i.e., motes and links remain stable), the number of adaptation options does not change.
\begin{comment}
The analyser determines the required power setting per mote and per link iteratively. The analyser starts with computing the \textit{SNR} for the current power setting using the function \textit{SNR}$\,$=$\,\alpha + \beta(power)$ for the link. Then the analyser compares the computed \textit{SNR} with the current \textit{SNR} measured by the probe; we denote the difference as \textit{SNR delta}. If the computed value minus the delta is lower than zero the power setting is incremented and the \textit{SNR delta} is computed again. This process is repeated until an \textit{SNR} of at least zero is found. If the computed value minus the delta is above zero the power setting is reduced and the process is repeated until a value of \textit{SNR}\,$\geq0$ is found. These power settings are then used for all adaptation options.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{graphs/snr-equation/PowerSNREquation.pdf}
\caption{SNR to Power for one of the links of the DeltaIoT network ($\alpha\,$=$\,-7.29$ and $\beta\,$=$\,0.83$)}
\label{power-to-snr}
\end{figure
In the second step, all the possible combinations of packet distributions for all links to all its parents are determined (in a range of $[0...100]$ in steps of $20\%$) (if there is only one parent, all packets are sent to that parent). Each of these combinations determine an adaptation option. Under the assumption that the network structure does not change, these combinations do not change.
\end{comment}
The designer needs to set $\textit{MAX\_VERIF\_TIME}$ for the DeltaIoT configuration at hand (e.g., for a deployment with a cycle time of $9.5$ minutes, the max verification time is set is to $8$ minutes). The function $\mathit{useVerificationResults()}$ is used to copy the estimated values for packet loss and energy consumption as determined by the verifier to the respective placeholders of all adaptation options.
In DeltaIoT, the designer can use the following failsafe strategy: if the partial verification results contain at least one adaptation option that satisfies the adaptation goals the best option is selected among these; if there is no such option, the settings of the reference approach are applied with maximum power settings for each mote and all motes send their packets to all parents.
For the \textit{Planner}, the designer can follow the standard procedure of the template to determine whether planning is required or not. To select the best adaptation option, the planner applies the adaptation goals to each of the adaptation options based on the quality estimates of the adaptation options. Consider for example two goals: the packet loss should be below a threshold and the energy consumption should be minimized. In this case, the $\mathit{selectBestAdaptationOption()}$ will first select all adaptation options for which the estimated packet loss is below the threshold. From this subset, the option with minimum energy consumption will be picked for adaptation. In case no such option is found, DeltaIoT will apply the fail safe strategy. When planning is required, DeltaIoT determines the adaptation steps per mote and for each mote per parent link. DeltaIoT has two types of plan steps: $\mathit{ChangePower}$ that adapts the transmission power of a $\mathit{link}$ with a $\mathit{newPower}$ value, and $\mathit{ChangeDistribution}$ that adapts the percentage of packets sent over a link to a parent with a value $\mathit{newDistr}$.
\subsubsection{Design Stub Models}
Recall that ActivFORMS requires the designer to specify stub models to verify the behavior of the MAPE models. These stubs should capture the essential behaviors of elements external to the feedback loop model, including the managed system with probes and effectors, and a stub that captures the essential behavior of the runtime verifier. The stubs have to exercise all the relevant paths through the MAPE models. This requires that the stubs take the input that is necessary to ensure that all properties are verified properly. The definition of stubs is domain-specific effort. However, ActivFORMSi support engineers with a set of generic templates to define these stubs for the adaptation problem at hand. We explain here briefly the template for the probe and effector stubs. For other templates, we refer the reader to the ActivFORMS website.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Probe}
\caption{Probe stub}
\label{fig:probestub}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.50\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Effector}
\caption{Effector stub}
\label{fig:effectorstub}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Templates for probe and effector stubs}
\label{Stub_templates
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Stub_templates}(a) shows the \textit{Probe stub}. After initialization, the probe collects sample data from the system, the relevant qualities, and the environment. The sample data is typically specified as a sequence of configurations (see Appendix B). The probe then triggers the monitor model of the feedback loop that starts an adaptation cycle. When the feedback loop cycle completes, the probe starts a new cycle as long as sample data is available.
Fig. \ref{Stub_templates}(b) shows the \textit{Effector stub}. When an adaptation action is invoked by the executor model, the effector determines the element of the managed system that needs to be adapted and the steps that need be be applied. Once the feedback loop workflow is completed, the effector receives a notification from the MAPE models; it can then check whether the configuration is correctly adapted or not.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/template/VerifierStub2.pdf}
\caption{Template for the verifier stub}
\label{Stub_verifier}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{Stub_verifier} shows the template for the \textit{Verifier stub}.
When the stub receives the \textit{invokeVerifier} signal it collects a sample with estimates of the qualities for a set of adaptation options (predefined by the engineer). This set contains either complete or partial verification results. In case the set is complete, control is returned (\textit{verificationCompleted!}) to the analyser that can use the verification results. In case the set is incomplete, the stub waits in \textit{PartiallyVerified} until the analyser times out (verification exceeds \textit{MAX\_VERIF\_TIME}). The analyser is then notified that the verification was interrupted (\textit{verificationInterrupted!}), after which the analyser uses the failsafe strategy.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 3.} Fig. \ref{effector_iot} illustrates how the effector stub is instantiated for DeltaIoT. The other stub instances are available at the project website.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.68\textwidth]{figures/DeltaIoT-MAPE/Effector.pdf}
\caption{Effector stub for DeltaIoT}
\label{effector_iot}\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure}
The effector stub distinguishes between two types of steps: \textit{changePower?} and \textit{changeDistribution?} The former one sets the transmission power for a given \textit{link} to \textit{newValue}; the latter sets the the distribution factor for a given \textit{link} to \textit{newValue}.
\end{comment}
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 3.} We show a number of excerpts of stubs that allow checking different scenarios for which the adaptation goals are achieved. For alternative scenarios, we refer to the ActivFORMS website. The excerpt of the probe stub in Listing\,\ref{stubsDeltaIoT} shows how the designer specifies the initial configuration together with the initial quality properties of the network. Then follows the sample data that applies a series of changes to the configuration and network properties; in sample 2 for example, the value of the packet loss is increased with 20\%. The verifier stub determines for each run the values for the quality properties of all the adaptation options. Each sample type covers a specific trajectory in the MAPE models. For instance, when the packet loss in the network is increased with 20\% the quality estimates produced by the verifier will require the planner to find a new best adaptation option and prepare a plan for this. On the other hand, when the SNR of link is reduced with 5 dB, the quality estimates produced by the verifier will not require adaptation (i.e., the current configuration is the best option). The different sample types cover scenarios with complete and partial verification. The excerpt of the effector stub shows how the correctness of the adaptation can be checked, i.e., the estimated qualities of the selected configuration comply with the adaptation goals and the best adaptation option has been applied.
\lstset{caption={Excerpts of stubs used for the verification of MAPE models for DeltaIoT},label=stubsDeltaIoT}
\footnotesize
{
\begin{lstlisting}
//EXCERPT PROBE STUB
DeltaIoT sample = {
//{ID, load, parents, {source, destination, power, SNR, distribution}
...
{7, 10, 2, {{7, 2, 15, 3, 100}, {7, 3, 15, -3, 100}},
...
}
//{packetLoss, energyConsumption, latency}
QoS qos = {5, 25, 0};
void getSampleData(){
if (sampleCount == 0){
deltaIoT = sample; }
...
else if (sampleCount == 2) {
qos.packetLoss +=20; }
...
else if (sampleCount == 5) {
deltaIoT.motes[3].links[0].SNR -=5; }
...
}
//EXCERPT VERIFIER STUB
void getSampleQualityEstimates(){
...
//Full verfication; some adaptation options satisfy goals
if (sampleType == 1){
for(i=0; i < Knowledge.adaptationOptions.size; i++) {
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.packetLoss = pLoss(sampleType, i);
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.energyConsumpt = eCons(sampleType, i);
}
}
...
//Partial verification, some adaptation options satisfy goals
else if (sampleType == 4){
for(i=0; i < Knowledge.adaptationOptions.size; i++) {
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.packetLoss = pLoss(sampleType, i);
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.energyConsumpt = eCons(sampleType, i);
}
}
...
}
//EXCERPT EFFECTOR STUB
bool result;
void verifyResults(){
...
result = estimatedQualitiesEnsureAdaptationGoals(Knowledge.bestAdaptationOption) &&
bestOptionApplied(Knowledge.currentConfiguration, Knowledge.bestAdaptationOption);
}
bool resultsCorrect(){
return result;
}
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
\begin{comment}
\footnotesize
\begin{verbatim}
//EXCERPT PROBE STUB
DeltaIoT sample = {
//{ID, load, parents, {source, destination, power, SNR, distribution}
...
{7, 10, 2, {{7, 2, 15, 3, 100}, {7, 3, 15, -3, 100}},
...
}
//{packetLoss, energyConsumption, latency}
QoS qos = {5, 25, 0};
void getSampleData(){
if (sampleCount == 0){
deltaIoT = sample;
}
...
else if (sampleCount == 2) {
qos.packetLoss +=20; }
...
else if (sampleCount == 5) {
deltaIoT.motes[3].links[0].SNR -=5; }
...
}
//EXCERPT VERIFIER STUB
void getSampleQualityEstimates(){
...
//Full verfication; some adaptation options satisfy goals
if (sampleType == 1){
for(i=0; i < Knowledge.adaptationOptions.size; i++) {
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.packetLoss = pLoss(sampleType, i);
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.energyConsumpt = 20 + eCons(sampleType, i);
}
}
...
//Partial verification, some adaptation options satisfy goals
else if (sampleType == 3){
for(i=0; i < Knowledge.adaptationOptions.size; i++) {
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.packetLoss = 11 + pLoss(sampleType, i);
adaptationOptions.options[i].verifResults.energyConsumpt = 20 + eCons(sampleType, i);
}
}
...
}
//EXCERPT EFFECTOR STUB
bool result;
void verifyResults(){
...
result = estimatedQualitiesEnsureAdaptationGoals(Knowledge.bestAdaptationOption) &&
bestOptionApplied(Knowledge.currentConfiguration, Knowledge.bestAdaptationOption);
}
bool resultsCorrect(){
return result;
}
\end{verbatim}
\normalsize
\end{comment}
\subsubsection{Specify and Verify Properties}\label{section:properties}
ActivFORMSi offers a set of generic properties that MAPE models specified with the model templates should comply to. These properties are specified in TCTL, using the Uppaal modeling language~\cite{tutorial04} (for a specification of the grammar, see Appendix A). As explained in Section \ref{section:preliminaries}, TCTL expressions allow verifying properties such as safety, liveness, etc. The Uppaal tool is used to verify the MAPE models. ActivFORMSi offers the following list of basic properties:
\footnotesize
\begin{verbatim}
P1. Probe.DataCollected --> Monitor.KnowledgeUpdated
P2. Monitor.AnalysisRequired --> Analyzer.CheckForAdaptationDone
P3. Analyzer.AdaptationNeeded --> Verifier.VerificationDone
P4. Analyzer.QualityEstimatesReady -->
Planner.ComposeAdaptationPlan || Planner.BestOptionInUse
P5. Analyzer.VerificationTimeExceeded --> Analyzer.UseFailSafeStrategy
P6. Planner.PlanCreated --> Executor.PlanExecuted
P7. Executor.PlanExecuted --> Effector.AdaptationCompleted
P8. Planner.<ElementPlanned> && <Planner.elemId == e> &&
Planner.<stepsContains(e, STEP_I, val)> -->
Executor.<AdaptElement> && <Executor.elemId == e> &&
Executor.<stepsAppliedContains(e, STEP_I, val)>
P9. Executor.<AdaptElement> && <Executor.elemId == e> &&
Executor.<stepsAppliedContains(e, STEP_I, val) -->
Effector.<ElementAdapted> && <Effector.elemId == e> &&
Effector.<stepsEnactedContains(e, STEP_I, val)>
P10. A[] !Effector.ResultsIncorrect
P11. E<> <Model.Location>
P12. A[] no deadlock
\end{verbatim}
\normalsize
Properties Pr1 to Pr7 have obvious semantics. While these properties seems trivial when observing the MAPE models, it is important to note that verifying these properties allows checking the correct instantiation of the underlying domain-specific logic of the model templates (functions, guards, etc.).
Properties $P8$ and $P9$ state that the steps to adapt an element generated by the planner are eventually applied by the executor and then enacted by the effector.
Property $P10$ states that location $\mathit{ResultsIncorrect}$ of the $\mathit{Effector}$ model is never reached (see the section above). This property allows checking that the MAPE models perform the adaptation of a feedback loop cycle correctly. Property $P11$ on the other hand states that there exists a path to a given $\mathit{Location}$ of a given $\mathit{Model}$. Both location and model are abstractly defined and can be instantiated for the domain at hand. Property $P12$, which is supported by Uppaal, allows verifying whether the system is deadlock free. Elements in angle brackets need to be instantiated according to the domain-specific MAPE models.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 3.} For DeltaIoT, the designer can apply properties $P1$ to $P7$ and $P10$ and $P12$ directly to the MAPE feedback loop model (for the analyzer and planner, see Fig.~\ref{DeltaIoT_MAPE}). Properties $P8$, $P9$ and $P11$ on the other hand need to be instantiated by the designer. We illustrate this instantiation with examples for $P8$ and $P11$:
\footnotesize
\begin{verbatim}
//Generic property
P8. Planner.<ElementPlanned> && <Planner.elemId == e> &&
Planner.<stepsContains(e, STEP_I, val)> -->
Executor.<AdaptElement> && <Executor.elemId == e> &&
Executor.<stepsAppliedContains(e, STEP_I, val)>
//Concrete instance for DeltaIoT
P8c. Planner.MotePlanned && Planner.moteId == mote2Id &&
Planner.stepsContains(mote2Id, link1Id, CHANGE_POW, 5) -->
Executor.AdaptMote && Executor.moteId == mote2Id &&
Executor.stepsAppliedContains(mote2Id, link1Id, CHANGE_POW, 5)
//Generic property
P11. E<> <Model.Location>
//Concrete instance for DeltaIoT (selected property)
P11c. E<> Planner.UseFailSafeStrategy
\end{verbatim}
\normalsize
Property $P8c$ checks that if the planner has planned the steps to adapt the settings of mote 2 (with identifier $\mathit{mote2Id}$) and these steps include a step to change the power setting ($\mathit{CHANGE\_POW}$) of link 1 (with identifier $\mathit{link1Id}$) to a setting $5$, eventually this step will be applied by the executor. Property $Pr11c$ checks whether a path exists to location $\mathit{UseFailSafeStrategy}$ of the $\mathit{Planner}$ model. Instantiating property $P11c$ allows checking whether the input used for verification is complete, i.e., all paths of the models are traversed.
When the domain-specific properties are specified, they can be verified.
For detailed results, see Section \ref{section:evaluation}.
\subsubsection{Rules for Instantiating the Model Templates}
The engineer who specified the MAPE model templates for ActivFORMSi has to define the rules that need to be respected when instantiating the templates for a concrete adaptation problem. These rules need to cover the obligations and constraints that need to be respected when instantiating the template models. For the templates shown in Fig.\,\ref{MAPE_templates} the rules are defines as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Abstractly defined elements of model templates marked with square brackets need to be implemented for the problem domain at hand; the names of these elements cannot be changed.
\item Abstractly defined elements of model templates marked with triangle brackets need to be implemented for the problem domain at hand; these elements can be given domain-specific names.
\item The names of abstractly defined elements of property templates marked with triangle brackets need to correspond with the domain-specific names used in the models.
\item Elements of model templates that are marked as $\mathit{name\_I}$ represent a facultative model construct; the designer can instantiate as many instances of these elements as required for the domain at hand.
\item The names of the elements of property templates that are marked as $\mathit{name\_I}$ need to correspond with the domain-specific names used in the models.
\end{enumerate}
Additionally, designers that use the templates to model MAPE models can refine transitions of particular model templates or extend models. However, to guarantee the correct behavior of these extensions the designer needs to specify and verify domain-specific properties. The designer can also remove parts of the model templates; the related template properties will then not apply.
\subsection{Stage II: Deploy and Enact Feedback Loop with Virtual Machine}
The goal of the second stage is to deploy and enact the verified feedback loop model.
To that end, ActivFORMSi offers a trusted virtual machine to execute the MAPE models specified as networks of timed automata. The trustworthiness of the virtual machine relies on extensive testing. A test suite with a test report is available at the ActivFORMS website.
\subsubsection{Deploy Feedback Loop Model} \label{sub:instantiateVM}
The deployed feedback loop model consists of the MAPE models together with the Knowledge models. The knowledge models include the quality models that are used to estimate the quality properties of the adaptation options and the adaptation goals that are used to select configurations for adaptation. When a feedback loop is loaded, the virtual machine transforms the models with their locations and edges to an internal graph representation. The labels on the edges and states, e.g., guards, invariants, etc. are converted to task graphs. A task graph consists of a list of tasks that need to be executed when activated, such as updating a variable, evaluating an expression, etc. Once the model is converted, the virtual machine initializes all the signals and assigns a unique identifier to each signal. The model is then prepared for execution. For details about the internals of the virtual machine, we refer the interested reader to \cite{Iftikhar2016}.
The feedback loop model can be connected with external elements through signals that connect with the channels of the MAPE models. ActivFORMSi provides a set of template classes to connect probes, effectors, and a statistical model checker with a feedback loop model. These template classes support engineers with implementing the connections for a problem at hand. To ensure that the communication between the external elements and the MAPE models is implemented correctly, the designer needs to test the instantiated classes.
Realizing a connection to transfer data from the external element to the model boils down to: (1) connect the model with the external element via the relevant channels, (2) implement the logic to receive data from the element, (3) translate the received data to a format that the model understands, (4) send the data to the model. Realizing a connection to transfer data from the model to the external element consists of: (1) connect the model with the external element via the relevant channels, (2) implement the logic to receive data from the model, (3) translate the received data to a format that the element understands, (4) send the data to external element.
In addition to the template classes, ActivFORMSi offers a generic plug-in mechanism to attach external elements with the virtual machine. A concrete plug-in is the live update manager that enables runtime updates of a feedback loop model. We elaborate on this plug-in in Stage IV.
\vspace{5pt}
\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 4.} We illustrate how the executor model of the DeltaIoT feedback loop is connected with the effector of the network. Listing~\ref{effector-connector} shows how the template class is used to realize the connection.
\lstset{caption={Connecting the executor model with the DeltaIoT effector.},label=effector-connector}
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
public EffectorConnector(ActivFORMSEngine engine, Effector effector) {
// Get channel identifiers from engine
adaptMote = engine.getChannel(''adaptMote'');
ack = engine.getChannel(''ack'');
// Connect executor model with effector via channels
engine.register(adaptMote, ''mote'', ''linkSettings'');
}
@Override
public synchronized void receive(int channelId, HashMap data) {
if (channelID == adaptMote){
// effect mote settings through effector
}
}
//Acknowledge actions
engine.send(ack);
}
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
The connector gets the channel identifiers that are used to connect the model with the effector via the corresponding channels. The $\mathit{receive}$ method accepts adaptation actions and effect them on the managed system through the effector. The $\mathit{ack}$ signal acknowledges the actions to the executor model. For the connection of the feedback loop model with the probe and the statistical model checker, we refer to the ActivFORMS website.
\subsubsection{Enact Feedback Loop Model} \label{sub:instantiateVM}
Once all external connections are established and the models are initialized, the last task is to define the real time that corresponds to one logical time unit in the model. Once this is done the virtual machine can be started, enacting self-adaptation.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 5.}
Listing~\ref{start-VM} shows the steps to start the virtual machine for DeltaIoT.
\lstset{caption={Start the virtual machine for the DeltaIoT network.},label=start-VM}
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
public void startAdaptation()){
ActivFORMSEngine engine = new ActivFORMSEngine("/models/DeltaIoT-MAPE.xml");
// Set model time unit to real time unit in milliseconds
engine.setRealTimeUnit(1000);
// Initialize connections
...
// Start the virtual machine
engine.start();
}
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
The virtual machine starts with loading the feedback loop model of DeltaIoT. Then, the real time that corresponds with one time tick on the model is set to $\mathit{1000}$\,ms. Finally, when the external connections with the probe, effector, and the verifier are set, the engine is started.
\subsection{Stage III: Runtime Verification of Adaptation Goals and Decision Making}\label{runtime}
The goal of the third stage is to ensure that the self-adaptive system achieves the adaptation goals.
To that end, ActivFORMSi applies statistical model checking at runtime, relying on the Uppaal-SMC tool~\cite{David2015}. We now explain \textit{analysis of the adaptation options} and \textit{decision making}
\subsubsection{Analysis of Adaptation Options}\label{subsubsection_analysis_options}
We explained how the analyzer composes the adaptation options in Stage I. The analysis of the adaptation options uses the quality models that are specified as networks of stochastic timed automata, one for each quality that is subject of adaptation. The uncertainties in these models are represented as parameters that are initially assigned values based on domain expertise and updated during operation based on observations of the monitor.
Analysis provides estimates for the different quality properties of the adaptation options using statistical verification. To that end, ActivFORMSi uses two types of verification queries supported by the Uppaal-SMC tool: probability estimation ($p = Pr[bound](\varphi)$) and simulation ($simulate~N [\leq bound]\{E1,...,Ek\}$), see Section \ref{section:preliminaries}. In our current research, we use the relative standard error of the mean (RSEM) as a measure to determine the accuracy of the simulation queries. The standard error of the mean (SEM) quantifies how precisely a simulation result represents the true mean of the population expressed in units of the data, taking into account the standard deviation and sample size. RSEM is the SEM divided by the sample mean and is expressed as a percentage. E.g., a RSEM of $1\%$ represents an accuracy with a SEM of plus/minus $0.1$ for a mean value of $10$. Thus, better estimates require smaller RSEM values and thus more simulation runs. RSEM provides a simple, but precise measure for estimating quality properties (and when the probability distribution is known, it allows calculating an exact confidence interval); however, ActivFORMS does not exclude using other measures.
We determine the number of simulations required for a particular accuracy using off-line experiments. Concretely, we run simulations on a relevant set of samples for the domain at hand (e.g., a randomly selected set of 20\% of system configurations with randomly assigned values for uncertainty parameters) and empirically determine the number of runs that are required to obtain the required accuracy. If necessary, additional experiments can be run as a background process to deal with significant changes of models. In our current research, we rely on off-line experiments only.\footnote{The ActivFORMS website provides reports of the empirical experiments for DeltaIoT used in the evaluation section.}
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 6.} We illustrate how the designer realized the analysis of adaptation options for packet loss in DeltaIoT. Recall that for a network with 15 motes as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:DeltaIoT}, there are 216 adaptation options (see Example 2). For the analysis of energy consumption, we refer to the ActivFORMS website.
The quality model for packet loss consists of two interacting automata: $Topology$ and $Network$, shown in Fig. \ref{packet_loss}. The model is used to estimate the packet loss for a given adaptation option, using the following query:
\vspace{10pt}
\lstset{caption={Verification query for packet loss model},label=q-pl}
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
Pr [<=1](<>Network.PacketLoss)
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.94\textwidth]{PacketlossModels.pdf
\caption{Quality model to estimate packet loss}
\label{packet_loss}
\end{figure}
We consider two types of uncertainties: the traffic load generated by the different motes and the signal to noise ratio per link (SNR). For these uncertainties we need to assign values in the model before the verification starts. A number of motes generate a steady traffic load (i.e., motes 3, 8, 9, and 15; these mote periodically sample the temperature, see Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}). The load generated by these motes is represented by constants. Other motes generate a fluctuating traffic load (i.e., based on the presence of humans, e.g., motes 4, 8, and 10, see Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}). The load generated by these motes is represented probabilistically in the model; e.g., $\mathit{pTraffic(13)}$ is the probability that mote 13 will generate traffic. The values for $\mathit{pTraffic}$ are periodically updated by the gateway and collected by the probe. The SNR per link depends on external factors such as network interference and noise in the environment. For each link, the values for SNR are periodically updated by the gateway and also collected by the probe. These values are used to determine the transmission power settings of the motes per link as explained in Example 2. The values for traffic load and transmission power are assigned before verification starts.
The \textit{Topology} automaton consists of 14 motes ($\mathit{Two}$ to $\mathit{Fifteen}$) that send data to the $\mathit{Gateway}$ via their parents (see also Fig. \ref{fig:DeltaIoT}).
$\mathit{StartVerification}$ (or any of the connected locations $\mathit{VF1}$, $\mathit{VF2}$ or $\mathit{VF3}$) can trigger any mote in the network to start a communication. As such, when the motes communicate, the packet loss along all the possible paths in the network are checked.
If a mote with one parent communicates (e.g., mote $\mathit{Thirteen}$ communicates with mote $\mathit{Eleven}$), it signals the network automaton ($\mathit{data[moteId]!}$), where $\mathit{moteId}$ is the ID of the sending mote. The network automaton then determines the packet loss (see below). For motes with multiple parents, the distribution of data communicated to the parents is determined probabilistically based on the values assigned for the adaptation option that is verified. For example, the probability that mote $\mathit{Twelve}$ sends data to mote $\mathit{Seven}$ is $\mathit{pDist(12,7)}$, while the probability that it sends data to mote $\mathit{Three}$ is $\mathit{pDist(12,3)}$.
We now look at the \textit{Network} automaton of the model. When a mote (with identifier $\mathit{mId}$) communicates with a parent, the network automaton receives the $\mathit{data[mId]?}$ signal with the mote that sends data ($\mathit{setMote(mId)}$).
The probability for packet loss is then calculated with $\mathit{calcPacketLoss()}$. The probability that packets get lost during communication depends on the Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR) for the link. The values for the SNR along the different links are periodically updated by the gateway and collected by the monitor via a probe.
Depending on the value of the packet loss either the transition $\mathit{PacketLossCalculated}$ to $\mathit{PacketLoss}$ is taken (communication failed) or the transition $\mathit{PacketLossCalculated}$ to $\mathit{MessageReceived}$ is taken (communication was successful). After a successful communication, the network automaton moves back to the $\mathit{Start}$ location setting the value $\mathit{recv}$$=$$\mathit{true}$. The $\mathit{Topology}$ automaton will then continue with the next hop of the communication along the path that is currently checked, until the $\mathit{Gateway}$ is reached. If a packet gets lost ($\mathit{recv}$$=$$\mathit{false}$), the communication along the path that is currently checked ends. The verification process repeats until results with the required accuracy and confidence are obtained.
\subsubsection{Decision Making}
The goal of decision making is to pick the best adaptation option based on the analysis results and the adaptation goals. ActivFORMSi implements the two predefined types of adaptation goals: optimization goal (returns the most optimal configuration of two given configurations for a given property), and a
and satisfaction goal (tests whether a given configuration satisfies a given property). The designer can set the order in which the goals are applied according to the adaptation problem at hand.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 7.} We illustrate decision making in DeltaIoT for a setting with 15 motes and two adaptation goals. Packet loss is defined as a satisfaction goal (packet loss $<10\%$) and energy consumption as a optimization goal (minimize energy consumption) For the definitions of the functions of the goals, we refer to Listing~\ref{knowledgeDeltaIoT}. First packet loss is applied, then energy consumption.
Fig.~\ref{fig:decision_making} shows an overview of the adaptation options at a particular point in time. Each dot on the left graph represents an adaptation option with its estimated average values of the two quality properties. The diamond dot (marked in blue) represents the configuration of the managed system in use at the time the analyse is performed. The shaded dots (marked in green) on the right graph represent adaptation options that comply with the adaptation goal for packet loss. Finally, the dot marked with a star (in red) on this graph represents the best adaptation option, i.e., the option with minimum energy consumption. This option is selected for adaptation and a plan is composed by the planner that adapts the current configuration to this new configuration. The selected adaptation option at this particular point in time is expected to reduce packet loss to $9.5\%$ and energy consumption to $12.75$~C compared to respectively $11.3\%$ and $12.88$~C of the current configuration.\footnote{Energy consumption is expressed in Coulomb or C in short.}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.74\textwidth]{Configurations.pdf}
\caption{Decision making at a particular point in time with two adaptation goals}
\label{fig:decision_making}
\end{figure}
\begin{comment}
\subsubsection{Inspect the Feedback Loop in Execution}
The third and last activity of Stage 3 is inspection of the executing feedback loop model. The GUI plugin that comes with ActivFORMS allows operators to view the MAPE loop models in operation. In addition, operators can define properties that are checked at runtime. The ActivFORMS runtime environment supports four types of properties: (1) $A[]$~$!Mx.Ly$, i.e., location $Ly$ of model $Mx$ is never reached; (2) $A[]$~$bexpr1$~$op$~$bexpr2$, i.e., the operation on two boolean expressions $bexpr1$ and $bexpr2$ should hold always, with $op$ being a logical operator ($\&$, $\|$, etc.) or a relational operator ($<$, $>$, etc.); (3) $Mx.Ly$\,--$>$$Mu.Lv$, i.e., if location $Ly$ of model $Mx$ is reached then location $Lv$ of model $Mu$ should be reached without time delay (the runtime environment verifies this property by checking execution traces); and (4) $Mx.Ly$\,--$>$$(t)$\,$Mu.Lv$ which is similar to property (3) but with a time constraint defined by time $t$.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 12.} We illustrate the inspection of the executing feedback loop model for DeltaIoT. Figure~\ref{GUI_ActivFORMS} shows the GUI of ActivFORMS with a model of DeltaIoT in execution and a set of properties that are verified at runtime.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/tool/UserInterface.pdf}
\caption{GUI of ActivFORMS in action for DeltaIoT}
\label{GUI_ActivFORMS}
\end{figure}
The main user interface window shows properties of the second, the third, and the fourth type (the first type does not apply to the DeltaIoT MAPE models). The coloured circle on the left side to each property indicates the status of the property: green indicates that the property holds, red indicates a violation. The status of the properties over time can also be inspected via a log file. The model visualisation window shows the analyser model in execution. The snapshot is taken at the time when the verifier is performing a verification (state \textit{RuntimeVerfication}).
\end{comment}
\subsection{Stage IV: Evolution of Feedback Loop and Adaptation Goals}\label{subsection:stage-4}
The goal of the fourth stage is to support on-the-fly changes of the adaptation goals and MAPE models, which is provided through the goal management layer, see Fig. \ref{fig:activFORMS-RA}. ActivFORMSi provides a trusted online update manager that offers basic support for such online updates. The trustworthiness of the online update manager is based on extensive testing; the test suite with a test report is available at the ActivFORMS website.
\subsubsection{Specifying and Verifying a New Adaptation Goal and Quality Model}
When a new (or updated) requirement is formulated, the designer needs to specify a new adaptation goal, update the MAPE models, and design new quality models and integrate these with the other feedback loop models. Translating a new requirement to an adaptation goal and specifying new models to deal with this new goal are domain-specific activities (similar to the activities in Stage I). Next, the designer needs to verify the updated MAPE models to ensure that the feedback loop complies with the correctness properties (applying the activities of Stage I). This verification typically requires an update of the stub models. The generic properties that require an instantiation for the domain at hand ($Pr8$, $Pr9$, and $Pr11$) may also need to be extended. In ActivFORMSi, the Uppaal tool \cite{tutorial04} is used to specify and verify the evolved feedback loop model.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Example 8.} We show how the designer can dynamically add the latency requirement as an additional adaptation goal to DeltaIoT. Recall from Section \ref{section:iot} that DeltaIoT has a third additional requirement that needs to be activated at runtime: \textit{R3. The average latency of packets should be less than 5\% of the cycle time.} This new requirement can be translated to an adaptation goal as follows:
\lstset{caption={Definition of adaptation goal for latency},label=q-l}
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
type struct {
...
int latency;
} Qualities
int MAX_LATENCY = 5;
bool satisfactionGoalLatency(Configuration gConf, int MAX_LATENCY) {
return gConf.qualities.latency <= MAX_LATENCY;
}
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
Fig.~\ref{fig:latency_model} shows the quality model to estimate latency for DeltaIoT.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.62\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Mote.pdf}
\caption{Mote}
\label{fig:latency_mote}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Gateway.pdf}
\caption{Gateway}
\label{fig:latency_gateway}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{System.pdf}
\caption{System}
\label{fig:latency_system}
\end{subfigure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Latency model for DeltaIoT}
\label{fig:latency_model}
\end{figure}
The model has a similar structure as the quality model to estimate energy consumption (available at the ActivFORMS website). For the verification of the model, the designer specified the following query:
\lstset{caption={Verification query for latency model},label=q-l}
\footnotesize
{\ttfamily
\begin{lstlisting}
simulate 1[<=30](Gateway.latency)
\end{lstlisting}
}
\normalsize
The query calculates per adaptation option the estimated latency for 30 simulation runs (for an RSEM of $0.5$\,\% determined based on offline experiments).
The $\mathit{System}$ automaton activates the motes one by one ($\mathit{moteId\,=\,nextTurn()}$). Each $\mathit{Mote}$ can then send packets to its parents in its time slots ($\mathit{sendPackets(packets)}$). When the $\mathit{Gateway}$ gets its turn, it computes the latency based on the proportion of packets that did not arrive (i.e., remained in queues) compared to the total number of packets (i.e., packets arrived and in queues). For each simulation run the verifier assigns the uncertainty value for $\mathit{pTraffic(moteId)}$ per mote. The analyzer uses the $30$ results to compute and estimated average latency with the required accuracy.
Incorporating the new latency goal requires updating the MAPE models. Fig.~\ref{MAPEupdate} shows the updated analyser model. For the other updated models and stubs, we refer to the ActvFORMS website.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Analyzer_2.pdf}
\caption{Updated analyzer model for DeltaIoT to deal with latency}
\label{MAPEupdate}
\end{figure}
The \textit{Analyzer} model is extended with two functions: $\mathit{analyzeLatency()}$ checks whether the latency of the network is above the threshold of maximum latency, and $\mathit{analyzeQueuesPerMote()}$ checks whether the queues for each mote are saturated or not. This data is taken into account when evaluating $\mathit{adaptationNeeded()}$. Furthermore, when the analyser invokes the verifier it will perform analysis of the latency model in addition to packet loss and energy consumption.
For the verification of the updated MAPE models, we could reuse the initial set of properties (see Example 3). As the changes of the models were limited, the extra time required for verification time was limited.
We discuss the verification results in the next section.
\subsubsection{Enact New Models}
Once the new feedback model is verified, an operator can use the online update manager to load the new verified model via the update interface.\footnote{ActivFORMSi enables an operator to load a new model from a file via a command line interface or via a graphical user interface. We refer the interested reader to the ActivFORMS website for details.} When the new model is loaded, the update manager observes the executing feedback loop model to determine when it reaches a quiescent state~\cite{Kramer:1990}. In ActivFORMSi, the $\mathit{Waiting}$ states of the MAPE models (where the MAPE behaviors wait to be triggered to start their respective adaptation functions) define the quiescent state of the feedback loop model (if one of the MAPE models is not in the waiting state, some adaptation activity going on). Once the quiescent state is reached the manager notifies the virtual machine to update the running feedback loop with the new model. The trusted update manager and virtual machine guarantee that model updates are performed consistently.
The concrete procedure to update a running model in ActivFORMSi is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The new model update is loaded via the update interface;
\item The online update manager tracks when the MAPE models enter quiescence states;
\item Once the models are in quiescence states the online update manager notifies the virtual machine to start updating the running feedback loop model;
\item The virtual machine halts the execution of the running feedback loop model and saves the state of the model;
\item The virtual machine adds incoming signals into a waiting queue;\footnote{These are in principle only signals from a probe that indicate the availability of new data for the monitor.}
\item The virtual machine loads the new models;
\item The state of corresponding variables are copied from old to new models. New variables are initialized;
\item The virtual machine starts executing the new model;
\item Pending signals waiting in the queue are processed (first-in-first-out).
\item Normal execution continues.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
\textbf{Example 9.} We illustrates the effects of incorporating the latency goal in DeltaIoT, see Fig. \ref{3-qualities}.
\begin{comment}
Figure~\ref{Update_in_GUI} (left) shows the ActivFORMS user interface to perform on the fly updates of the feedback loop model and adaptation goals. The window shows how the \textit{DeltaIoT-MAPE-Evolution} model is selected for update. The window on the right shows that updated models of the \textit{Monitor} and \textit{Analyser} that are ready to start execution taking into account the latency goal.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/tool/Model-Update.pdf}
\caption{Live updates of the MAPE models for DeltaIoT (user interface to perform on the fly updates left hand side; the updated models ready for execution after the update right hand side).}
\label{Update_in_GUI}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{3-qualities} shows the selection of the best adaptation option with three adaptation goals.
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{ConfigurationLatency.pdf}
\caption{Selection of the best adaptation option with three adaptation goals.}
\label{3-qualities
\end{figure}
The diagram on the left shows the adaptation options at a particular point in time. The shaded dots (marked in green plus one in red) represent adaptation options that comply with the adaptation goals for packet loss ($<10\%$) and latency ($<5\%$). The shades dots in the diagram on the right show the same adaptation options; the dot marked with a star (in red) is selected for adaptation as the expected energy consumption for this option is minimum. The selected adaptation option has an expected packet loss of $7.5\%$, a latency of $4.8\%$, and an energy consumption of $13.03$~C.
The diamond dot (in blue) in both figures shows the option that would have been selected if the latency goal would not have been taken into account (latency $14.9\%$). The figures illustrate that ensuring the latency goal may introduce a small tradeoff against the other two adaptation goals.
\section{Evaluation of ActivFORMSi}\label{section:evaluation}
We evaluated ActivFORMS and its tool-supported instance using the DeltaIoT network deployed at KU Leuven, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT}. The default setup consists of 15 motes, each mote comprising: (1) a Raspberry Pi that is responsible for sensing, local processing, and network management operations, and (2) a RN2483 LoRa module\footnote{http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/50002346C.pdf} that is in charge of radio communication. The current consumed by the LoRa module at $3.3\,$V is $20.2\,$mA for power setting $0$ and $38.9\,$mA for power setting $15$. The gateway runs on a regular server machine that is responsible for processing network data and storing the network statistics in a database. The server offers an API to a probe and effector to monitor and adapt the network. For the simulation tests we used a Macbook with 2.5 GHz Core i7 processor, and 16 GB 1600MHz DD3 RAM. All the data of the evaluation is available at the ActivFORMS website, incl. a link to the DeltaIoT artifact that can be used to replicate the experiments
Unless mentioned differently, we run the default setup of the DeltaIoT network with 15 motes for a period of $12$ hours. The cycle time is set to $9.5$ minutes, corresponding to $76$ cycles in $12$ hours. A cycle consists of two phases: the first $8$ minutes are allocated to the motes to communicate date downstream to the gateway; the remaining $1.5$ minutes are allocated for the communication of adaptation messages from the gateway upstream to the motes. The maximum verification time is set to $8$ minutes. Each mote can generate $10$ packets per cycle, subject to its traffic load profile, see the description in Section \ref{section:iot}. In each cycle, each mote gets $40$ slots of $2$ seconds for communication. The size of the \textit{send-queue} is $60$, which implies that packets in the queue are sent within two cycles. Packets from children that arrive when the \textit{receive-queue} is full are discarded. The values for SNR are based on the actual conditions of the wireless communication.\footnote{All other network settings are fixed during the experiment, e.g., the spreading factor of all motes is set to $8$ in all experiments. For details, we refer to the ActivFORMS website}
The evaluation aims at answering the following research questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] \textbf{RQ1:} What is the required time to verify the correctness properties of the MAPE models at design time for the default setup of DeltaIoT and is this time acceptable in practice?
\item[] \textbf{RQ2:} What is the tradeoff between the verification settings and the time for verification when applying runtime statistical model checking for a typical configuration of the default setup of DeltaIoT in simulation?
\item[] \textbf{RQ3.1:} How does ActivFORMSi with statistical model checking compare with a reference approach for achieving the quality goals of the default setup of the deployed DeltaIoT network?
\item[] \textbf{RQ3.2:} How does ActivFORMSi with statistical model checking compare with the runtime quantitative verification for achieving the quality goals of the default setup of the deployed DeltaIoT network?
\item[] \textbf{RQ4:} How does the adaptation time and memory usage for ActivFORMSi with statistical model checking compare with the runtime quantitative verification for setups of DeltaIoT in simulation with increasing scale?
\item[] \textbf{RQ5:} What is the impact on the quality goals and adaptation time for ActivFORMSi when a new adaptation goal is dynamically added to the default setup of the running DeltaIoT network?
\end{itemize}
The research questions are answered in five parts. In part one we answer RQ1 that focuses on Stage I of ActivFORMS. We evaluate the performance to verify the correct behavior of the MAPE models with respect to the correctness properties provided by the model templates of ActivFORMSi. In parts two to four, we focus on Stage III. Part two answers RQ2 by evaluating the tradeoff between the accuracy of the verification results with the time required for verification at runtime. In part three we answer RQ3.1 and RQ3.2 by comparing ActivFORMSi with two other approaches: an over-provisioning approach that is commonly used in practice (referred as the reference approach) and a state-of-the-art approach that uses runtime quantitative verification to estimate the qualities of the adaptation options (RQV~\cite{Calinescu2011}). In the fourth part we answer RQ4 by comparing the scalability of ActivFORMSi with RQV. In particular, we measure the adaptation time and memory usage for network configurations with an increasing number of motes. Finally, in fifth part that focuses on Stage IV, we answer RQ5. We dynamically incorporate the latency goal in the network with ActivFORMSi and test the impact of it. The test in parts one, two and four are performed in simulation and hence apply to the models and their verification. The tests in parts three and five are performed on the physical network and provide validation results obtained after adaptation (effective quality properties and adaptation time).
\subsection{Performance of the Verification of Feedback Loop Model}
To evaluate the performance of the offline verification of a feedback loop model; we performed experiments with the default setup of DeltaIoT as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:DeltaIoT} and two adaptation requirements (R1. Packet loss should be less than 10\% and R2. Energy consumption should be minimized). The detailed models and stub data that we used for the verification with the Uppaal model checker are available at the ActivFORMS website.
\paragraph{Results}
Fig.~\ref{design_time_verification_results} shows the time taken to verify the MAPE feedback loop properties (average results of 50 runs). The number of states explored for the different properties varied between 731 and 3158, with an average of 2630. When incorporating the latency goal (Stage IV), the verification time increased with $55.1\%$ to an average of $2.12$\,sec. A detailed report of these verification results is available at the ActivFORMS website.
\paragraph{Conclusions}
In answer to RQ1, we can conclude that the results show that the overhead for design-time verification of the properties that check the correct behavior of the MAPE feedback loop with respect to the correctness properties provided by the templates is totally acceptable for a default setup of DeltaIoT, which is a realistic IoT application setting (average $1.55$\,sec).
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{VerificationResults.pdf}
\caption{Verification times for properties that check the correctness of the MAPE feedback loop}
\label{design_time_verification_results
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tradeoff Between Accuracy and Adaptation Time}
To evaluate the tradeoff between the accuracy of the verification results and adaptation time (which is primarily determined by the verification time), we used a network with 15 motes and two adaptation goals: energy consumption and packet loss. First, we evaluated the tradeoff between accuracy and confidence of the verification results and verification time. Second, we evaluated the quality of adaptation decisions for different settings.
\paragraph{Results}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.69\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphs/properties/PacketLoss.pdf}
\caption{Packet loss}
\label{fig:tradeoff_packetLoss}
\end{subfigure}
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.29\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{graphs/properties/EnergyConsumption.pdf}
\caption{Energy consumption}
\label{fig:tradeoff_energy}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Tradeoff between accuracy and adaptation time with ActivFORMSi}
\label{fig:tradeoff-1}\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
In the first experiment, we picked a random adaptation option and applied verification for both qualities.\footnote{We repeated the experiment for a randomly selected sample of 10\% of the adaptation options with randomly assigned values for the uncertainties. These experiments provided similar results. A report with the results is available at the ActivFORMS website.} The graphs in Fig.\,\ref{fig:tradeoff-1} plot the results of 10K runs. The results for packet loss (graphs on the left hand side) show the effect of accuracy $E$ (that defines the approximation interval [$p\pm\epsilon$]) and confidence $E$ (defining $1$\,-\,$\alpha$) of the verification results. The results show that higher accuracy and confidence settings provide better verification results. E.g., the quartiles of the box plot for a setting with $95\%$ confidence and $95\%$ accuracy are $1.64$/+$1.41\%$ compared to $-0.35$/+$0.36\%$ for a setting with the same confidence and $99\%$ accuracy. If we increase the confidence from $95\%$ to $99\%$ with the same accuracy of $95\%$ the quartiles of the boxplot are $-1.24$/+$1.21\%$.
The tradeoff is an increase in verification time. In particular, increasing the accuracy from $95\%$ to $99\%$ with the same confidence of $95\%$ increases the verification time from $8.37$ms to $204.22$ms (mean values). On the other hand,
increasing the confidence from $95\%$ to $99\%$ with the same accuracy of $95\%$ increases the verification time from $8.37$ms to $14.50$ms (mean values). These results show that increasing the accuracy has a larger effect on the quality of the verification results compared to increasing the confidence. However, it has also requires more verification time. These results confirm the impact of accuracy and confidence on the verification time for SMC, as we explained in Section \ref{section:preliminaries}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Properties}
\caption{Tradeoff between accuracy and adaptation time with ActivFORMS}
\label{fig:tradeoff-1}
\end{figure
The results for energy consumption (graphs on the right) are similar; more accurate verification results (i.e., lower values for RSEM) require more verification time (i.e., more simulation runs). E.g., the quartiles of the boxplots for $RSEM$\,=\,$2\%$ are -$0.16$/+$0.07$~C compared to -$0.02$/+$0.04$~C for $\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$0.5\%$. The cost is an increase of average verification time from $2.51\,ms$ for $\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$2\%$ to $17.83\,ms$ for $\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$0.5\%$. The results for other adaptation options are similar, we refer the interested reader to the ActivFORMS website for the results.
In the second experiment, we evaluated the quality of adaptation decisions and verification time for a simulation run of $12$ hours for the different settings of accuracy $E$, confidence $A$, and RSEM. Fig.\,\ref{fig:tradeoff} shows the results. The boxplots show that settings with higher accuracy, confidence, and RSEM produce more accurate verification results and hence better adaptation decisions. For example, for a setting with $A$\,=\,$90\%$ and $E$\,=\,$95\%$ ($\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$1\%$), the quartiles for packet loss are -$1.69$/+$4.27\%$, compared to -$1.34$/+$1.77\%$ with both $E$ and $A$ set to $99\%$. The cost is an increase of adaptation time from $8\,s$ to $55\,s$ (mean values). For energy consumption, the quartiles for a setting with $\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$2\%$ ($A$\,=\,$90\%$, $E$\,=\,$99\%$) are -$0.08$/+$0.14$~C, compared to -$0.08$/+$0.11$~C for a setting with $\mathit{RSEM}$\,=\,$0.5\%$. The cost is an increase of adaptation time from $24\,s$ to $30\,s$ (mean values).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{AdaptationResults.pdf}
\caption{Impact of verification settings on quality properties (E: accuracy; A: confidence; R: RSEM)}
\label{fig:tradeoff}
\end{figure
\paragraph{Conclusions}
In answer to RQ2, we can conclude that applying runtime statistical model checking to the default DeltaIoT setting with settings that produce smaller approximation intervals and higher confidence result in better adaptation decisions, but the cost is an increase of adaptation time. The effect of the approximation intervals on the verification time is higher as the effect of confidence, confirming the basic principles of SMC. Dealing with this tradeoff is a domain-specific problem and depends on the requirements at hand.
\subsection{Comparison ActivFORMSi with Reference Approach and RQV}
The experiments in this part are done on the real deployment of the IoT network. We consider two adaptation goals: R1. Average packet loss should be below 10\% and R2. Energy consumption should be minimized. For R1, we used an approximation interval with $\varepsilon$\,=\,$0.01$, i.e., $E$\,=\,$99\%$ accuracy, and confidence $\alpha$\,=\,$0.10$, i.e., $A$\,=\,$90\%$. For R2, we used an RSEM of $0.5\%$, which requires 30 simulation runs (see Section~\ref{subsubsection_analysis_options}). We compare ActivFORMSi with a reference approach where all motes communicate at maximum power and send all packets to all their parents. This over-provisioning approach is commonly used in practice to assure high packet delivery performance at the cost of reduced lifetime of the network. We also compare ActivFORMSi with a state of the art analysis approach that uses RQV. For RQV, we translated the automata models for the quality properties to a Discrete Time Markov Chain model for packet loss and a Markov Decision Process model for energy consumption. For the verification at runtime we enabled the analyzer model to use the PRISM model checker \cite{KNP11} with the default settings. The definition of the RQV models is attached in Appendix\,C. For the verification with runtime SMC and RQV we verify the adaptation options sequentially.
In every step, an adaptation option is randomly selected and the quality properties of the option are verified one by one, first packet loss and then energy consumption. The option is then removed from the list and the process is repeated until all the adaptation options are verified or the maximum verification time is reached.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{Result-Review1.pdf}
\caption{Results for a DeltaIoT setting with 15 motes and two adaptation goals.}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Results}
Fig.~\ref{fig:results} shows the results for runs of $12$ hours with adaptation applied every cycle of $9.5$ minutes. For the verification of quality models with ActivFORMS the maximum number of explored states was 41.8K and with RQV 17.1K.
The reference approach realizes $R1$ with a better result for packet loss as ActivFORMSi (mean $2.6\%$ versus $4.9\%$ for ActivFORMSi).
However, ActivFOMRSi significant reduces energy consumption with about 27\% ($12.5$~C compared to $17.2$ for the reference approach). RQV on the other hand realises a slightly worst result as ActivFORMSi on packet loss (mean $6.1\%$) and energy consumption (mean $13.3$~C). Although RQV applies exhaustive verification, due to time constraints ($\leq8$\,min verification time), the approach was able to verify only a fraction of the possible adaptation options and hence was not able to find the best solution. Concretely, for the IoT setting with 15 motes and 2 requirements, on average, RQV was able to complete the verification of only $8\pm1$ of the adaptation options on a total of $216$ options within the verification time period.
The diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:results} on the right shows the adaptation times, which are primarily used for verification. On average, ActivFORMSi used $37$\,sec to compute the verification results and realize adaptation. RQV used the complete available time slot for verification, resulting in an average adaptation time of $480$\,sec, i.e., $8$\,min.\footnote{Analysis was interrupted when the verification of the last option that was started within 8 min completed.}
\paragraph{Conclusions}
In answer to RQ3.1, compared to the reference approach, ActivFORMSi with statistical model checking realizes with sufficient accuracy and confidence the packet loss requirement, while it significantly improves energy consumption with about $27\%$ for a default setup of DeltaIoT. ActivFORMSi realizes self-adaptation in a time window that is only a fraction of the cycle time of $9.5$ minutes. In answer to RQ3.2, RQV could verify only a fraction of the adaptation options of the default setup of DeltaIoT within the given time, it realizes slightly worst results for both requirements compared to ActivFORMSi with statistical model checking.
\subsection{Scalability of ActivFORMSi Compared with RQV}
To evaluate the scalability of ActivFORMSi and compare it with RQV, we measured the adaptation time and the memory usage for network settings with increasing complexity. Concretely we increased the number of motes of the IoT network from 5 to 25 in steps of 5.\footnote{To ensure a fair comparison between ActivFORMSi and RQV, the randomly selected adaptation options and uncertainty settings were recorded from the tests with ActivFORMSi and the same settings were used for the tests with RQV.} The number of adaptation options in the network is defined by $6^{\frac{m}{5}}$ with $m$ the number of motes; e.g., a setting with 10 motes has 36 options, while a setting with 25 mote has has $7776$ options. We applied adaptation for packet loss (accuracy $E$\,=\,$99\%$ and confidence $A$\,=\,$90\%$) and energy consumption (RSEM $0.5\%$). All the models of the experiments are available at the ActivFORMS website.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ScalabilityResults-OneRow.pdf
\caption{Time and memory results of the scalability tests for ActivFORMS and RQV (based on 100 runs for one randomly selected adaptation option per network configuration with 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 motes respectively)}
\label{fig:latency_results}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:latency_results} shows the results for ActivFORMSi on the left hand side and RQV on the right hand side. The graphs show the results of 100 runs, each based on a randomly selected adaptation option for IoT networks with 5 to 25 motes. The results show that ActivFORMSi scales well for networks up to 20 motes, both for verification time and memory usage. If we multiply the mean verification time of $168$\,ms for a setting with 20 motes that has $1296$ adaptation options, the total verification time would be $3.63$\,min, which is less than half of the available 8 minutes. For the configuration with 25 motes with $7776$ adaptation options, the total verification time would be $26.44$\,min. However, if we relax the verification settings slightly to accuracy $E$\,=\,$95\%$, confidence $A$\,=\,$90\%$, and RSEM\,=\,$1\%$, the verification time with ActivFORMSi decreases to $6.48$\,min and the solution would scale well, although with slightly less accurate verification results. ActivFORMSi requires between $75$ and $100\,$MB memory for verification. RQV does not scale for more complex networks. Multiplying the mean verification time of $17.45\,s$ for 15 motes with $216$ adaptation options, would require around $62.82$\,min, which is $8$ times more as the available time of $8$\,min. In addition, RQV requires $500$ to $1800\,$MB memory for verification.
\paragraph{Conclusions}
In answer to RQ4, the test results show that ActivFORMSi scales well for IoT network settings with $25$ motes and up to $10\,$K adaptation options. With RQV complete verification is limited to settings with $10$ motes. Furthermore, RQV requires up to $20$ times more memory as ActivFORMSi.
\subsection{Dynamically Incorporating Latency Goal}
In the last part of the evaluation, we dynamically add a latency goal to the running system and evaluate the impact of it on the quality properties and the adaptation time (Stage IV). We used the same physical setup as in part three with $15$ motes and accuracy $E$\,=\,$99\%$ (i.e., an approximation interval $\varepsilon$\,=\,$0.01$) and confidence $A$\,=\,$90\%$ ($\alpha$\,=\,$0.10$). The test started with the packet loss and energy consumption goals only. After 12 hours, the latency goal was dynamically added for another 12 hours. The latency model and the approach to add the goal dynamically is explained in Examples 8 and 9.
\paragraph{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:latency_results} shows the test results. As we can see, adding the latency goal drastically reduces the latency to mean $0.00\,\%$ of the cycle time with quartiles $\pm0.00$ (i.e., no latency could be measured) compared to $18.6\,\%$ and -$7.5$/+$7.0$ for the ActivFORMSi setup without latency goal. This improvement has only a small effect on packet loss (mean increased from $5.78\,\%$ to $7.10\,\%$) and energy consumption (mean increased from $12.47$ to $12.72$~C). On the other hand, the verification of the latency model increased the overall verification time from with $24.29\,$sec to $46.22\,$sec.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\hspace{-12pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{ResultsLatency.pdf}
\caption{Impact of dynamically adding a latency goal}
\label{fig:latency}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Conclusions}
ActivFORMSi provides first-class, but basic support for dynamic updates of adaptation goals en feedback loop models. In answer to RQ5, the test results show that adding a latency goal drastically reduces latency of packet delivery at the cost of a small increase in packet loss and energy consumption. However, about two times more adaptation time is required for the verification of the quality models with the newly added goal.
\subsection{Threats to Validity and Limitations}
We conclude this section with a discussion of validity threats of the evaluation of the ActivFORMS instance. Then we summarize the limitations of ActivFORMS and its concrete instance.
\subsubsection{Threats to Validity}
\textit{Internal validity} is about the extent to
which a causal conclusion based on our study is warranted. A part of the experiments with DeltaIoT where done in a real world setting, hence the system may have been exposed to various external influences. Consequently, variables other than the independent variables may have act on the system at the same time. To avoid this threat, we have performed extensive trial tests before performing the experiments to ensure proper experimental conditions, including determining proper locations of the motes and defining the setting of fixes network parameters. For the experiments in simulation, we emulated the network environment based on experimental data obtained from extensive field tests.
\textit{External validity} is about generalizing our findings to other instances of ActivFORMS and application domains. We have evaluated one concrete tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS and applied it in this paper to one application domain. Consequently, the claims we make about the usability and efficiency to engineer self-adaptive systems with ActivFORMS is only based on this instantiation. However, as we have applied several of the underlying principles of ActivFORMS to other domains, there is ground to believe that the outcomes of this paper may be generalizable. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that more research and experimentation is required to further generalize the findings obtained from the research presented in this paper.
\textit{Reliability} is about ensuring that our results are the same if our study would be conducted again. Lack of clarity about the research setting and the material used for performing the experiments may cause a treat to reliability. We anticipated this treat by making all the study material, data of the experimental setting, and study results publicly available. The IoT network and its simulator that we used for the evaluation are publicly available, so the results can be reproduced. Another important aspect of reliability concerns how adequate the stochastic semantics of the language used to specify timed automata in this paper are to capture the environmental uncertainty. This may need a more in depth analysis, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
\textit{Construct validity} is about the degree to which our tests measure what they claim to measure. From the test results reported in this paper, we derive conclusions about the ActivFORMS instance for the IoT application, including conclusions about its correctness, efficiency, and scalability compared to other approaches. To determine these properties, we relied on well-established metrics. To compare ActivFORMSi with RQV, we had to translate automata models into Markovian models. To ensure that these models are appropriate, the models were crosschecked by an expert in Markovian models and the PRISM tool.
\subsubsection{Assumptions and Limitations}
ActivFORMS offers a novel methodological approach to engineer self-adaptive software systems, contributing to solving a number of open challenges in the field. However, the approach is not generally applicable. We list the main assumptions and limitations of ActivFORMS in general and its concrete instance ActivFORMSi in particular.
ActivFORMS has the following limitations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$-$] ActivFORMS targets self-adaptive systems for which the managed system is available and instrumented with probes and effectors;
\item ActivFORMS assumes that the manages system provides support to realize consistent adaptations (changing parameter settings, adding/replacing/removing elements, etc.);
item ActivFORMS assumes that engineers have access to domain knowledge to devise a feedback loop model for the problem at hand;
\item ActivFORMS assumes that the necessary stub models can be devised from the managed system and the environment in which the system operates in order to enable verification of the behavior of the feedback loop model with respect to a set of correctness properties;
\item[$-$] ActivFORMS is only applicable to adaptive systems for which feedback loop models can be devised that are verifiable and executable;
\item[$-$] ActivFORMS is limited to system in which the dynamics are such that the feedback loop system has sufficient time to make adaptation decision at runtime;
\item[$-$] ActivFORMS is only applicable to adaptive systems for which quality properties that are subject to adaptation can be verified using using statistical model checking (which implies that distributions of variables that represent uncertainties are known and that bounds on accuracy and confidence for the adaptation goals can be defined);
\item[$-$] ActivFORMS is only applicable to adaptive systems for which a failsafe strategy can be specified and the feedback loop model can obtain the required knowledge about when and how to apply the strategy;
\end{itemize}
\noindent The current implementation of ActivFORMSi has the following limitations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$-$] ActivFORMSi assumes that the set of adaptation actions is bounded and limited (possibly by discretization of the settings of actuators with continuous domains);
\item[$-$] ActivFORMSi assumes that distinct adaptation goals can be defined that can be applied to select the best adaptation option;
\item[$-$] ActivFORMSi assumes that the number of runs that are required to obtain a required accuracy for a simulation query can be obtained offline;
\item[$-$] The modeling environment used in ActivFORMSi (i.e., Upppaal) puts restrictions on the expressiveness of template, model, and property specifications, and the way non-determinism and untimed choice of actions is stochastically treated by the sampling procedure;
\item[$-$] ActivFORMSi does not support adaptive systems with properties that involve rare events;
\item[$-$] Dynamic updates of the feedback loop model with ActivFORMSi is only applicable if the feedback loop model can reach quiescent states and if the model can be consistently updated (including transferring state and handling buffered messages);
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}\label{section:related-work}
A vast body of work exists on techniques for guarantees in self-adaptive systems, for recent overviews see~\cite{Camara2013,Cheng2014,Lemos2017,Weyns:2016}.
Aligned with the presented research, we focus on approaches that use formal techniques to provide guarantees. We have structured related work in three groups: approaches that provide guarantees at design time, runtime approaches, and hybrid approaches. For each group, we discuss a selection of representative approaches, based on classic work and more recent work.
We conclude with a summary that positions ActivFORMS in the current landscape of research.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Design time approaches.}
\cite{Zhang2006} use Petri Nets to model adaptive systems; the models are automatically translated to executable programs. Properties specified in linear temporal logic (LTL) allow verifying invariants and constraints about the system and its goals, e.g., ``if adaptation is triggered, eventually it will be applied,'' or ``the adaptive program should tolerate 2-packet loss throughout its execution.'' Conformance between the models and programs is guaranteed using model-based testing.
\cite{Autili2015} deals with partial knowledge by automatically producing service-oriented systems in two phases. The first phase (elicit) applies a technique called StrawBerry that takes service descriptions to derive behaviour automata of the service interactions. The second phase (integrate) takes the automata to automatically synthesise a service choreography that satisfies the system goal. The approach relies on tools to guarantee functional correctness-by-construction.
\cite{Camara2017} proposes an approach for evaluating the resilience of self-adaptive systems by applying robustness testing techniques on the controller to uncover failures that can affect system resilience. The approach, that is based on probabilistic model checking, quantifies the probability of satisfaction of system properties when the target system is subject to controller failures. The responses to malformed input between controller and target \mbox{system are used to classify robustness. Table \ref{dt-summary} summarizes the selection of related work in the first group.}
The related approaches in this group provide in essence guarantees based on the principle of correctness-by-construction. Consequently, the guarantees are based on the knowledge available at design time. With ActivFORMS, correctness-by-construction is applied at design time to provide guarantees for the correctness of the behavior of the feedback loop model with respect to a set of properties. These guarantees are complemented with guarantees for quality goals obtained during operation based on data of uncertainties collected at runtime.
\begin{table}[h!]\caption{Summary of selection of related work - design time approaches}\label{dt-summary}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\begin{tabular}{p{4.2cm}p{11.0cm}
\Xhline{0.6pt}
\textbf{Related method}
& \textbf{Facets of the method providing assurance for adaptive systems}
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
Model-based development of dynamically adaptive software~\cite{Zhang2006}
& - Language: Petri Nets to specify the adaptive system and LTL for the required properties \newline
- Properties: local and global invariants expressed as liveness and safety properties that should be satisfied by adaptive programs \newline
- Guarantees: correctness of an adaptive program by model checking Petri Net model against the properties; model-based testing to ensure conformance between the model and the code \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Automated Integration of Service-Oriented Software Systems~\cite{Autili2015}
& - Language: Labeled Transition System (LTS) to model a choreography of services and concrete instances \newline
- Properties: LTS models define the choreography and the required behavior of the services \newline
- Guarantees: Correct-by-construction of service choreography w.r.t the required behavior of the services using simulation \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Robustness-Driven Resilience Evaluation of Self-Adaptive Software Systems~\cite{Camara2017}
& - Language: Discrete Time Markov Chain models to specify controller failure conditions and Probabilistic Computation Tree Logic (PCTL) for required properties \newline
- Properties: resilience requirements expressed as probabilistic properties that quantify the failure and recovery time of a controller \newline
- Guarantees: probability of satisfaction of resilience requirements when the target system is subject to controller failures using probabilistic model checking
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Runtime approaches.}
\cite{Calinescu2011} uses a probabilistic model of an adaptive system and applies runtime quantitative verification (RQV) to identify and enforce optimal system configurations under changing conditions. Performance and reliability goals are expressed as probabilistic temporal logic formulae. The MAPE components exploit different tools to assure the quality goals. Techniques, such as caching and lookahead, can be used to improve the efficiency of RQV.
\cite{Malek2011} presents POISED, a quantitative approach for making adaptation decisions under uncertainty. POISED builds on possibility theory (that is grounded in fuzzy mathematics) to assess both the positive and negative consequences of uncertainty. At runtime, POISED makes adaptation decisions, i.e., runtime reconfigurations of its customisable software components, that result in the best range of potential behaviour, improving the system's quality of service.
\cite{Filieri:2014} proposes an approach that relies on the mathematical foundation of control theory. The approach automatically learns a system model and synthesises a PI controller at runtime, providing control-theoretic guarantees for stability, overshoot, setting time and robustness of system operating under disturbances, and this for one setpoint goal. A Kalman filter and a change point detection mechanism enable updating the system model on-the-fly.
\cite{Moreno:2015} applies proactive adaptation under uncertainty. The approach uses a probabilistic model of the adaptive system in which the adaptation decision is left underspecified through nondeterminism. At runtime, a probabilistic model checker resolves the nondeterministic choices so that the accumulated utility over a horizon is maximised. The adaptation decision is optimal over the horizon and takes into account the inherent uncertainty of the environment predictions.
\cite{Su2016} proposes Iterative Decision-Making Scheme (IDMS) that infers point and interval estimates of transition probabilities in a Markov Decision Process (MDP) using runtime data. IDMS iteratively computes a confidently optimal scheduler that minimizes the cumulative cost for a given reachability problem. The most important feature of IDMS is the flexibility for adjusting the criterion of confident optimality and the sample size within the iteration, leading to a tradeoff between accuracy, data usage and computational overhead.
\cite{Camara2016} describes an approach that applies stochastic games between two players: the adaptive system and the environment. By considering minimum and maximum rewards of the system player, independently of the strategy followed by the environment, the approach is able to identify the best and worst case adaptation scenarios with and without latency, using probabilistic model checking. The approach also contributes a latency-aware proactive adaptation algorithm that is evaluated using the Znn.com exemplar.
\cite{Su2017} presents ProEva, short for Proactive performance Evaluation, that relies on Continuous-time Markov chains (CTMCs) to analyze time-bounded performance metrics (e.g., likelihood of a performance degradation in some future period). The approach addresses the problem of providing accurate
model parameters of CTMCs at runtime. ProEva extends the conventional technique of time-bounded CTMC model checking by admitting imprecise, interval-valued estimates for transition rates. ProEva computes asymptotic expressions and bounds for the imprecise model checking output. Table \ref{rt-summary} summarizes the selection of related work in the second group.
The related approaches in this group primarily focus on guarantees for adaptive systems based on additional knowledge obtained during execution. Existing work primarily relies on exhaustive verification, which is time and resources demanding. A number of related approaches relax the conditions, for example by focusing on specific cases or by admitting imprecision in the models and verification. ActivFORMS on the other hand relies on statistical model checking to provides guarantees for quality goals at runtime, which is more efficient, but with inherent bounds on accuracy and confidence. In addition, ActivFORMS also provides guarantees for the functional correctness of the feedback loop and supports on-the-fly updates of adaptation goals.
\begin{table}[h!]\caption{Summary of selection of related work - runtime approaches}\label{rt-summary}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\begin{tabular}{p{3.8cm}p{11.4cm}
\Xhline{0.6pt}
\textbf{Related method}
& \textbf{Facets of the method providing assurance for adaptive systems}
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
Dynamic QoS Management and Optimization in Service-Based Systems~\cite{Calinescu2011}
& - Language: Markov models of the service-based system and PCTL/CTL for properties \newline
- Properties: performance and reliability requirements expressed as probabilistic properties that quantify the response time and failure rate of services respectively \newline
- Guarantees: QoS guarantees in service-based systems using probabilistic model checking to select optimal service configurations and resource allocation \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Taming Uncertainty in Self-Adaptive Software~\cite{Malek2011}
& - Language: Possibilistic models of configuration space where each configuration corresponds to a possibility distribution; utility functions express user’s preferences of quality attributes \newline
- Properties: utility boundaries of the quality attributes that quantify positive and negative consequences of uncertainties \newline
- Guarantees: maximize overall utility by selecting configurations with the best utility range that satisfy the system constraints using an interpreter engine and linear
programming solver \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Automated Design of Self-Adaptive Software with Control-Theoretical Formal Guarantees~\cite{Filieri:2014}
& - Language: mathematical equations of PI controller and system model grounded in control theory; the system model is automatically at runtime \newline
- Properties: stability, settling time, and robustness of the system in the face of perturbations \newline
- Guarantees: control-theoretical guarantees for setpoint goal and properties for the system using formal reasoning, empirical evidence for guarantees using simulation
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Proactive Self-Adaptation under Uncertainty: a Probabilistic Model Checking Approach~\cite{Moreno:2015}
& - Language: queuing model of the system and its adaptation tactics, and Markov Decision Process (MDP) to model the environment, PRISM properties to specify utility \newline
- Properties: accumulated utility over the look-ahead horizon \newline
- Guarantees: maximizing accumulated utility of adaptation decisions over a required horizon using probabilistic model checking
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
An Iterative Decision-Making Scheme for Markov Decision Processes
and Its Application to Self-adaptive Systems~\cite{Su2016}
& - Language: interval-valued MDP, where some of the transition probabilities are specified as real intervals
\newline
- Properties: accuracy is the probability that a confidently schedule is optimal, data usage is the average size of sampled data used in the iteration, and computational overhead is the average iteration time \newline
- Guarantees: guaranteed tradeoff among three properties in for runtime decision-making problem using simulation
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
Analyzing Latency-aware Self-adaptation using Stochastic Games and Simulations~\cite{Camara2016}
& - Language: modeling both the self-adaptive system and its environment as two players of a SMG; properties expresses in CTL-style branching-time temporal logic (rPATL) \newline
- Properties: maximum and minimum rewards that a system player can achieve, independently of the strategy followed by the environment \newline
- Guarantees: best and worst case adaptation scenarios with and without latency using probabilistic model checking of stochastic multi-player games
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
ProEva: Runtime proactive performance evaluation based on continuous-time Markov chains~\cite{Su2017}
& - Language: Continuous-Time Markov Chain (CTMC) models enhanced with interval-valued estimates of transition rates to model and analyze the runtime performance of the system \newline
- Properties: performance metrics of the adaptive system \newline
- Guarantees: asymptotic bounds on the evaluation output using time-bounded CTMC probabilistic model checking
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Hybrid approaches.}
FLAGS \cite{Baresi:2010} proposes a goal-driven approach for self-adaptation that spans design and runtime. The approach supports modelling both crisp goals specified in linear temporal logic and fuzzy goals specified in fuzzy temporal language. These models can then used at runtime to monitor goal violations that trigger a modification of the goal model to enforce adaptation on the running system. Related approaches are RELAX \cite{Whittle2009} that offers a textual language for specifying requirements with first-class support for uncertainty, and \cite{Souza:2013} that distinguishes between ``awareness requirements'' that describe the situations that require adaptation and ``evolution requirements'' that prescribe what to do in these situations.
EUREMA \cite{Vogel:2014} offers a domain-specific language to model feedback loops and their interactions. At design time feedback loop models are specified by means of operations, runtime models, and interactions. An additional layer diagram specifies the interactions between the feedback loops and the managed system. At runtime, EUREMA offers an interpreter that directly interprets the models to realise adaptation. Additionally, the models can be dynamically adjusted, supporting evolution.
\cite{Nahabedian:2016} presents a general approach to specify correctness criteria for the dynamic update of a system and a technique to automatically compute a controller that handles the transition from the old to a new specification. The approach syntheses a controller that guarantees progress towards the update and performs a safe update, i.e., by guiding the system to a safe state in which the update can start, ensuring that the update will eventually occur and satisfy the new specification.
\cite{Filieri:2016} offers a mathematical framework for efficient run-time decision making in two steps. At design time a pre-computation is applied taking a model of the system and desired goals to generate a partially evaluated set of symbolic expressions that represent verification conditions to be satisfied to meet the requirements. At runtime, the actual values are bound to the variables enabling the expressions to be evaluated efficiently. The focus of the work is on quality requirements, such as reliability or energy consumption.
\cite{Cailliau:2017} applies obstacle analysis, i.e., a goal-oriented form of risk analysis whereby obstacles to system goals are identified, assessed, and resolved through countermeasures. During requirements engineering, obstacle/goal trees are specified together with predicates that determine the satisfaction rates of probabilistic goals. At runtime, the system is monitored and the satisfaction rate of high-level goals is determined. When goals are not satisfied, alternative countermeasures are selected and the goal model is updated. The running system is then adapted according to the selected countermeasures. Table \ref{h-summary} summarizes the selection of related work in the third group.
The related approaches in this group combine assurance techniques at design time and runtime to provide guarantees for the adaptive system. In addition to specific differences, such as the efficiency of decision making at runtime, ActivFORMS integrates design time and runtime guarantees with first-class support for dealing with changing adaptation goals and updating feedback loop models. The most closely related approach is EUREMA \cite{Vogel:2014}. However, this approach has no formal basis and consequently cannot provide the guarantees that ActivFORMS can give.
\begin{table}[h!]\caption{Summary of selection of related work - hybrid approaches}\label{h-summary}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\begin{tabular}{p{3.8cm}p{11.4cm}
\Xhline{0.6pt}
\textbf{Related method}
& \textbf{Facets of the method providing assurance for adaptive systems}
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
Fuzzy Goals for Requirements-driven Adaptation~\cite{Baresi:2010}
& - Language: KAOS based goal models expressed in LTL extended with fuzzy constraints
\newline
- Properties: conditions specifying properties of the system and the environment; countermeasures define conditions, execution points, and sequence of actions to fulfill a goal
\newline
- Guarantees: countermeasure activations ensure satisfaction of goals \\\Xhline{0.4pt}
Model-Driven Engineering of Self-Adaptive Software with EUREMA~\cite{Vogel:2014}
& - Language: domain-specific UML-like models of feedback loops and the architecture with the integration of the managed system; trigger conditions specified as triple $<$events, period, state$>$ \newline
- Properties: trigger conditions determine when a feedback loop should be executed \newline
- Guarantees: execution of specified feedback loop behavior by matching events at runtime with condition specifications using a model execution engine
\\\Xhline{0.4pt}
Assured and Correct Dynamic Update of Controllers $∗$~\cite{Nahabedian:2016}
& - Language: Labelled Transition Kripke Structures to specify old and new controllers and LTL for the properties \newline
- Properties: liveness and safety requirements for controller updates \newline
- Guarantees: safe transition of a controller by checking traces of controller update against the properties to guide the controller update; safe updates of the controller at runtime with new goals
\\\Xhline{0.4pt}
Supporting Self-adaptation via Quantitative Verification and Sensitivity Analysis at Run Time~\cite{Filieri:2016}
& - Language: Discrete Time Markov Chains to specify systems and PCTL to specify properties \newline
- Properties: requirements, such reliability, performance, and costs \newline
- Guarantees: efficient model checking to detect/predict/analyze a (potential) requirement violation and produce insights into the originating causes
\\\Xhline{0.4pt}
Runtime Monitoring and Resolution of Probabilistic Obstacles to System Goals~\cite{Cailliau:2017}
& - Language: goal model with probabilistic specification of goals and obstacles \newline
- Properties: satisfaction rate of obstacles and goals of the adaptive system \newline
- Guarantees: appropriate countermeasures applied to ensure automatic update of the system when required goals and obstacles are not satisfied
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Position of ActivFORMS in the current landscape.}
The use of formal techniques in self-adaptive systems has gained increasing attention in recent years~\cite{Tamura2014,Lemos2017,Weyns:2016}. We contrast ActivFORMS with existing work. First, existing work offers guarantees for adaptive systems based on the principle of correctness-by-construction. The focus is primarily on a correct transition of the managed system. ActivFORMS provides fine-grained guarantees for the correct behavior of the feedback loop with respect to a set of correctness properties by: (i) formal modeling and verification exploiting reusable design knowledge in the form of formal templates, and (ii) direct execution of the verified model using a trustworthy model execution engine. Second, existing work claims to offer guarantees for the adaptation goals of the adaptive system using resources intensive exhaustive verification techniques. ActivFORMS provides guarantees that adaptation options are selected that guide the system towards its adaptation goals and this selection is done in an efficient way by using runtime statistical verification. There is a tradeoff between accuracy and confidence on the one hand and the time required for verification on the other hand, but the approach allows to set this tradeoff as required. In our work, we complement the guarantees provided by verification at runtime to select adaptation options with evidence through validation to demonstrate that the system complies with its requirements. Third, while multiple researchers argue for the importance of uncertainty with respect to changing adaptation goals, little work exist in this area. ActivFORMS provides first-class basic support for changing the adaptation goals and the feedback loop on-the-fly relying on a trustworthy update infrastructure. Last but not least, existing work typically focuses on particular stages for providing guarantees of adaptive systems. ActivFORMS on the other hand, offers a methodological approach that spans the four main stages of adaptive systems, providing guarantees for the different aspects of these systems.
\vspace{5pt}\\
\noindent
\textbf{Summary of initial work on which ActivFORMS leverages.}
To conclude, we summarize our initial related work and contrast it with the main contributions of ActivFORMS and its concrete instance ActivFORMSi presented in this paper, see Table \ref{iw-summary}.
\begin{table}[h!]\caption{Summary of our initial work and comparison with ActivFORMS and ActivFORMSi contributions}\label{iw-summary}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\begin{tabular}{p{2.4cm}p{2.4cm}p{2.4cm}p{2.4cm}p{2.4cm}p{2.4cm}}
\Xhline{0.6pt}
\textbf{Initial work}
& \textbf{Model templates}
& \textbf{Executable models}
& \textbf{Decision making}
& \textbf{Changing goals}
& \textbf{Validation}
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
SEAMS 2014 \cite{Iftikhar2014}
&
& Initial realization of virtual machine for executable models
&
& Initial support for online updates of adaptation goals
& Simple robotic case \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
TAAS 2015~\cite{Didac2015}
& Initial set of templates used for design-time model checking
&
&
& & Illustrated with simulated mobile learning case and robotic case \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
M\@\,RT 2016~\cite{7573167}
&
&
& Study of the use of runtime simulation
& & Simulated service-based system
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
TSE 2017~\cite{Calinescu2017}
& Application of initial set of templates~\cite{Didac2015}
& Application of initial realization of executable models~\cite{Iftikhar2014}
&
& & Simulated trading system and simulated unmanned underwater vehicle system
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
ActivFORMS \& \newline ActivFORMSi
& Advanced set of MAPE model templates with set of instantiation rules
& Trusted virtual machine for executing networks of timed automata
& Statistical model checking at runtime to verify qualities and threshold and optimization goals for decision making
& Trusted live update manager with basic support for online updates of adaptation goals and feedback loop model
& Real world IoT network deployment complemented with simulation for scalability tests
\\ \Xhline{0.6pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
\begin{table}[h!]\caption{Summary of selection of related work and comparison with ActivFORMS}\label{rw-summary}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4em}
\begin{tabular}{p{1.3cm}p{3.5cm} p{2.8cm}p{2.8cm}p{2.7cm}}
\Xhline{0.4pt}
\textbf{Class} & \textbf{Summary approach} & \textbf{Functional correctness} & \textbf{Guarantees for QoS} & \textbf{Runtime changes of goals}
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
\textbf{Design time} & Petri Net models of adaptive system that are automatically translated to a program~\cite{Zhang2006} & Verification of invariants and constraints of adaptive program specified in LTL & & \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Automata of services are automatically translated to a service choreography \cite{Autili2015} & Service choreography functionally correct-by-construction & & \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Automatic synthesis of a controller that guides a system to a safe state and performs an update \cite{Nahabedian:2016}
& Correctness criteria to progress towards a safe state and perform the update & & Synthesised controller performs updates of the system with potentially new goals \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Robustness testing with malformed input to uncover controller failures that can affect system resilience \cite{Camara2017} & Probabilistic model checking of system properties when system is subject to controller failures
& &
\\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
\textbf{Runtime} & Probabilistic runtime\,model of adaptive system analyzed using RQV~\cite{Calinescu2011} & & Runtime verification of quality goals expressed in probabilistic temporal logic &
\\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Builds on possibility theory to make adaptation decisions under uncertainty \cite{Malek2011} & & Assesses the consequences of uncertainty to reconfigure system improving its OoS &
\\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Automatically learns/maintains a system model and synthesises a controller at runtime \cite{Filieri:2014} & & Control-theoretic guarantees for setpoint goal of system that operates under disturbances & \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Proactive adaptation using a probabilistic model that captures adaptation decisions through nondeterminism \cite{Moreno:2015} & & Model checker resolves adaptation decisions maximising accumulated utility over a horizon & \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
\textbf{Hybrid} & Goal model with crisp and fuzzy goals kept alive at runtime to enforce adaptations \cite{Baresi:2010} & Reasoning over goals specified in LTL and fuzzy temporal logic & Goal violations monitored at runtime trigger countermeasures to adapt system & \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Domain-specific language to model feedback loops that are directly interpreted \cite{Vogel:2014} & Syntactic correctness of models based on supporting tools & & Feedback loop models can be dynamically updated \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Partially evaluated set symbolic expressions are completed at runtime to satisfy the requirements \cite{Filieri:2016} & & Variables of symbolic expressions are bound to values to realise quality goals at runtime & \\ \Xcline{2-5}{0.4pt}
& Obstacle analysis to identify, assess, and resolve goal obstacles through countermeasures \cite{Cailliau:2017} & Predicates allow determining the satisfaction rates of probabilistic goals & Not satisfied goals change the goal model, which in turn adapts the running system & \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
\textbf{ActivFORMS} & Verified feedback loop model that is directly executed exploits statistical model checking to make efficient adaptation decisions & Design time verification of TCTL properties to guarantee the correctness of feedback loop model & Runtime statistical model checking to guarantee the adaptation goals with required confidence
& Goal management enables on the fly updates of adaptation goals and feedback loop model \\ \Xhline{0.4pt}
\end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\end{table}
\end{comment}
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}\label{section:conclusions}
Guaranteeing that a self-adaptive system behaves correctly and ensures the adaptation goals is challenging since these systems need to handle uncertainties at runtime with time and resource constraints. To tackle this challenge, we presented ActivFORMS (Active FORmal Models for Self-adaptation), a model-driven approach for engineering self-adaptive systems. ActivFORMS contributes to the state of the art an approach that provides: 1) correctness of the feedback loop behavior with respect to a set of correctness properties by direct execution of formally verified models of the feedback loop using a reusable virtual machine, 2) efficient guarantees that adaptation options are selected that guide the system to realize its adaptation goals with a required level of accuracy and confidence using statistical model checking at runtime, and 3) basic support for changing adaptation goals on-the-fly and updating of verified feedback loop models that meet the new goals. We presented a concrete tool-supported instance of ActivFORMS, called ActivFORMSi. ActivFORMSi comes with a set of reusable templates to specify and verify MAPE-based feedback loops, and it offers a trusted virtual machine to execute the models at runtime to realize adaptation, it applies runtime statistical model checking to make adaptation decisions with a required level of accuracy and confidence, and it offers basic support for on-the-fly updates of adaptation goals and feedback loop models using a trusted online update manager. We complement the guarantees provided at the level of the feedback loop model with validation of the system to demonstrate that the system requirements are effectively realized. To that end, we evaluated the ActivFORMS instance for a real world IoT application deployed at KU Leuven. The test results demonstrate that ActivFORMSi realizes the stakeholder goals for a realistic IoT setup with 15 motes that is subject to different types of uncertainties. Scalability tests show that ActivFORMSi scales well to setups of a realistic IoT system with up to 25 motes, which cannot be handled by a state of the art exhaustive runtime quantitative verification approach.
Our future work goes in different directions. We plan to study how we can apply online learning techniques to deal with large spaces of adaptation options, for initial results we refer to\,\cite{QuinWBBM19}. A key challenge will be to define the impact on the guarantees that can be obtained. We also plan to study how ActivFORMS can be applied to adaptation problems with more complex types of uncertainties, such as uncertainties of the structure of models. Finally, we plan to study how ActivFORMS can be applied in systems that require multiple feedback loops that need to work together to solve an adaptation problem.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We are grateful to VeraSense, and also Gowri Sankar Ramachandran and Ritesh Kumar Singh, for setting up the DeltaIoT environment and supporting the initial experiments. We also like to express our appreciation to Prof. Danny Hughes and the NES task force of DistriNet labs, KU Leuven for their continuous support in our research. Last but not least, we appreciate the feedback and input we received from Axel Legay.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format-Journals}
|
\section{Introduction}
Compressive sensing (CS) \cite{Donoho2006,Cands2006} aims to recover an unknown sparse signal $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^N$ from $m$ noisy measurements $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^m$:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{y}=A\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \label{CS}
\end{align}
where $A\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$ is a measurement matrix with $m\ll N$, and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\in\mathbb{R}^m$ is additive noise such that $\lVert\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2\le \zeta$ for some $\zeta\ge0$. It has been proven that if $A$ satisfies the (stable/robust) null space property (NSP) or restricted isometry property (RIP), (stable/robust) recovery can be achieved \cite[Chapter 4 and 6]{Foucart2013}. However, it is computationally hard to verify NSP and compute the restricted isometry constant (RIC) for an arbitrarily chosen $A$ \cite{bdms,tp}. To overcome the drawback, a new class of measures for the measurement matrix has been developed during the last decade. To be specific, \cite{tn1} introduced a new measure called $\ell_1$-constrained minimal singular value (CMSV): $\rho_s(A)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq 0, \lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_1^2/\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_2^2\leq s}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_2}$ and obtained the $\ell_2$ recovery error bounds in terms of the proposed measure for the Basis Pursuit (BP) \cite{cds}, the Dantzig selector (DS) \cite{ct}, and the Lasso estimator \cite{t}. Afterwards, \cite{tn3} brought in a variant of the CMSV: $\omega_{\lozenge}(A,s)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq 0,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_1/\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_\infty\leq s}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_{\lozenge}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_\infty}$ with $\lVert\cdot\rVert_{\lozenge}$ denoting a general norm, and expressed the $\ell_{\infty}$ recovery error bounds using this quantity. The latest progress concerning the CMSV can be found in \cite{ZHOU2019,Zhou2019OnQC}. \cite{ZHOU2019} generalized these two measures to a new measure called $q$-ratio CMSV: $\rho_{q,s}(A)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq 0, (\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_1/\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_q)^{q/(q-1)}\leq s}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_q}$ with $q\in(1,\infty]$ and established both $\ell_q$ and $\ell_1$ bounds of recovery errors. \cite{Zhou2019OnQC} investigated geometrical property of the $q$-ratio CMSV, which can be used to derive sufficient conditions and error bounds of signal recovery.
In addition to the simple sparsity, a signal $\mathbf{x}$ can also possess a structure called block sparsity where the non-zero elements occur in clusters. It has been shown that using block information in CS can lead to a better signal recovery \cite{Baraniuk2010,Eldar2009,Zamani2016}.
Analogue to the simple sparsity, there are block NSP and block RIP to characterize the measurement matrix in order to guarantee a successful recovery through (\ref{CS}) \cite{Gao2017}. Nevertheless, they are still computationally hard to be verified for a given $A$. Thus it is desirable to develop a computable measure like the CMSV for recovery of simple (non-block) sparse signals. \cite{tang2016} proposed a new measure of the measurement matrix based on the CMSV for block sparse signal recovery and derived the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_\infty$ and $\ell_2$ bounds of recovery errors. In this paper, we extend the $q$-ratio CMSV in \cite{ZHOU2019} to $q$-ratio block CMSV (BCMSV) and generalize the error bounds from the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_\infty$ and $\ell_2$ norms in \cite{tang2016} to mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ with $q\in (1,\infty]$ and mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norms.
This work includes four main contributions to block sparse signal recovery in compressive sensing: (i) we establish a sufficient condition based on the $q$-ratio block sparsity for the exact recovery from the noise free block BP (BBP), and develop a convex-concave procedure to solve the corresponding non-convex problem in the condition; (ii) we introduce the $q$-ratio BCMSV and derive both the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norms of the reconstruction errors for stable and robust recovery using the BBP, the block DS (BDS) and the group lasso in terms of the $q$-ratio BCMSV; (iii) we prove that for sub-gaussian random matrices, the $q$-ratio BCMSV is bounded away from zero with high probability when the number of measurements is reasonably large; (iv) we present an algorithm to compute the $q$-ratio BCMSV for an arbitrary measurement matrix and investigate its properties.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the definitions for the $q$-ratio block sparsity and the $q$-ratio BCMSV, and present the sufficient condition for the noise free BBP recovery based on the $q$-ratio block sparsity and an inequality for the $q$-ratio BCMSV. The mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ reconstruction errors for the BBP, the BDS and the group lasso in terms of the $q$-ratio BCMSV are derived in Section 3. In Section 4, the probabilistic results of the $q$-ratio BCMSVs for sub-gaussian random matrices are demonstrated. Section 5 is reserved for algorithms to solve the optimization problem in the sufficient condition for the noise free BBP recovery and compute the $q$-ratio BCMSV. The $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds and the block RIC based bounds for the BBP are also compared therein. Section 6 is devoted to the conclusion. All proofs are left in the Appendix.
\section{\texorpdfstring{$q$-} rratio block sparsity and \texorpdfstring{$q$-} rratio BCMSV - definition and property}
In this section, we introduce the definitions of the $q$-ratio block sparsity and the $q$-ratio BCMSV, and present their fundamental properties. A sufficient condition for block sparse signal recovery via the noise free BBP using the $q$-ratio block sparsity and an inequality for the q-ratio BCMSV are established.
Throughout the paper, we denote vectors by bold lower case letters or bold numbers, and matrices by upper case letters. $\mathbf{x}^T$ denotes the transpose of a column vector $\mathbf{x}$. For any vector $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N$, we partition it into $p$ blocks, each of length $n$, so we have $\mathbf{x}=[\mathbf{x}_1^T, \mathbf{x}_2^T, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_p^T]^T$ and $\mathbf{x}_i\in\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the $i$-th block of $\mathbf{x}$. We define the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_0$ norm $\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,0}=\sum_{i=1}^p 1\{\mathbf{x}_i\neq \mathbf{0}\}$, the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_{\infty}$ norm $\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,\infty}=\max_{1\leq i\leq p}\lVert\mathbf{x}_i\rVert_2$ and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm $\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}=(\sum_{i=1}^p \lVert\mathbf{x}_i\rVert_2^q)^{1/q}$ for $0<q<\infty$. A signal $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse if $\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,0}\leq k$. $[p]$ denotes the set $\{1,2,\cdots,p\}$ and $|S|$ denotes the cardinality of a set $S$. Furthermore, we use $S^c$ for the complement $[p]\setminus S$ of a set $S$ in $[p]$. The block support is defined by $\mathrm{bsupp}(\mathbf{x}):=\{i\in[p]: \lVert\mathbf{x}_i\rVert_{2}\neq 0\}$. If $S\subset [p]$, then $\mathbf{x}_S$ is the vector coincides with $\mathbf{x}$ on the block indices in $S$ and is extended to zero outside $S$. For any matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$, $\mathrm{ker} A:=\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N: A\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}\}$, $A^T$ is the transpose. $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is the inner product function.
We first introduce the definition of the $q$-ratio block sparsity and its properties.
\begin{definition}[\cite{zy1}]
For any non-zero $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and non-negative $q\notin\{0,1,\infty\}$, the $q$-ratio block sparsity of $\mathbf{x}$ is defined as \begin{align}
k_{q}(\mathbf{x})=\left(\frac{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}.
\end{align}
The cases of $q\in\{0,1,\infty\}$ are evaluated by limits:
\begin{align}
k_0(\mathbf{x})&=\lim\limits_{q\rightarrow 0} k_q(\mathbf{x})=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,0} \\
k_1(\mathbf{x})&=\lim\limits_{q\rightarrow 1} k_q(\mathbf{x})=\exp(H_1(\pi(\mathbf{x}))) \\
k_\infty(\mathbf{x})&=\lim\limits_{q\rightarrow \infty} k_q(\mathbf{x})=\frac{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{x} \rVert_{2,\infty}}.
\end{align}
Here $\pi(\mathbf{x})\in\mathbb{R}^p$ with entries $\pi_i(\mathbf{x})=\lVert \mathbf{x}_i\rVert_2/\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}$ and $H_1$ is the ordinary Shannon entropy $H_1(\pi(\mathbf{x}))=-\sum_{i=1}^p \pi_i(\mathbf{x})\log \pi_i(\mathbf{x})$.
\end{definition}
\noindent\\
This is an extension of the sparsity measures proposed in \cite{l1,l2}, where estimation and statistical inference via $\alpha$-stable random projection method were investigated. In fact, this kind of sparsity measure is based on entropy, which measures energy of blocks of $\mathbf{x}$ via $\pi_i(\mathbf{x})$. Formally, we can express the $q$-ratio block sparsity by \begin{align}
k_{q}(\mathbf{x})=\begin{cases}
\exp(H_q(\pi(\mathbf{x}))) &\text{if $\mathbf{x}\neq \mathbf{0}$}\\
0 &\text{if $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}$},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $H_q$ is the R\'{e}nyi entropy of order $q\in[0,\infty]$ \cite{pv,v}. When $q \notin \{0,1,\infty\}$, the R\'{e}nyi entropy is given by $H_q(\pi(\mathbf{x}))=\frac{1}{1-q}\log (\sum_{i=1}^p \pi_i(\mathbf{x})^q)$, and for the cases of $q\in\{0,1,\infty\}$, the R\'{e}nyi entropy is evaluated by limits and results in (3), (4) and (5), respectively. The sparsity measure $k_{q}(\mathbf{x})$ has the following basic properties (see also \cite{l1,l2,zy1}):
\begin{itemize}
\item Continuity: unlike traditional block sparsity measure using the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_0$ norm, $k_{q}(\mathbf{x})$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$ for all $q>0$. Thus, it is stable with respect to small perturbations of a signal.
\item Scale-invariance: for any $c\neq 0$, it holds that $k_{q}(c\mathbf{x})=k_{q}(\mathbf{x})$. This property is in line with the common sense that the measure should not depend on absolute magnitude of a signal.
\item Non-increasing with respect to $q$: For any $q'\geq q \geq 0$, we have $$
\frac{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,\infty}}=k_\infty(\mathbf{x})\leq k_{q'}(\mathbf{x})\leq k_{q}(\mathbf{x})\leq k_{0}(\mathbf{x})=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,0},
$$
which follows from the non-increasing property of the R\'{e}nyi entropy $H_q$ with respect to $q$.
\item Range equals to $[1,p]$: for all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$ with $p$ blocks and all $q\in [0,\infty]$, we have $1\leq \frac{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,\infty}}=k_\infty(\mathbf{x})\leq k_{q}(\mathbf{x})\leq k_{0}(\mathbf{x})=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,0}\leq p$.
\end{itemize}
Next, we present a sufficient condition for the exact recovery via the noise free BBP in terms of the $q$-ratio block sparsity. Recall that when the true signal $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse, the sufficient and necessary condition for the exact recovery via the noise free BBP:\begin{align}
\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\,\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\,\,A\mathbf{z}=A\mathbf{x} \label{nobp}
\end{align}
in terms of the block NSP of order $k$ was given by \cite{Gao2017,Stojnic2009OnTR}
\begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,1}<\lVert \mathbf{z}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}, \forall \mathbf{z}\in\mathrm{ker} A\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}, S\subset [p]\,\text{and}\,|S|\leq k.
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
If $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse and there exists at least one $q\in (1,\infty]$ such that $k$ is strictly less than \begin{align}
\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathrm{ker} A\setminus\{\mathbf{0}\}}\,\,2^{\frac{q}{1-q}}k_q(\mathbf{z}), \label{sufficient}
\end{align}
then the unique solution to problem (\ref{nobp}) is the true signal $\mathbf{x}$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent\emph{Remark 1.} This proposition is an extension of Proposition 1 in \cite{ZHOU2019} from simple sparse signals to block sparse signals. In Section 5, we adopt a convex-concave procedure algorithm to solve (\ref{sufficient}) approximately. \bigskip
Now we are ready to present the definition of the $q$-ratio BCMSV, which is developed based on the $q$-ratio block sparsity.
\begin{definition}
For any real number $s\in[1,p]$, $q\in (1, \infty]$ and matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$, the $q$-ratio block constrained minimal singular value (BCMSV) of $A$ is defined as \begin{align}
\beta_{q,s}(A)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0},k_q(\mathbf{z})\leq s}\,\,\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}}. \label{bcmsv}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\noindent\\
\emph{Remark 2.} For measurement matrix $A$ with unit norm columns, it is obvious that $\beta_{q,s}(A)\leq 1$ since $\lVert A\mathbf{e}_i\rVert_2=1$, $\lVert \mathbf{e}_i\rVert_{2,q}=1$ and $k_q(\mathbf{e}_i)=1$, where $\mathbf{e}_i$ is the $i$-th canonical basis for $\mathbb{R}^N$. Moreover, when $q$ and $A$ are fixed, $\beta_{q,s}(A)$ is non-increasing with respect to $s$. Besides, it is worth noticing that the $q$-ratio BCMSV depends also on the block size $n$, we choose to not show this parameter for the sake of simplicity. Another interesting finding is that for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, we have $\beta_{q,s}(\alpha A)=|\alpha|\beta_{q,s}(A)$. This fact together with Theorem 1 in Section 3 implies that in the case of adopting a measurement matrix $\alpha A$, increasing the measurement energy through $|\alpha|$ will proportionally reduce the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm of reconstruction errors. Comparing to the block RIP \cite{Gao2017}, there are three main advantages by using the $q$-ratio BCMSV:
\begin{itemize}
\item It is computable (see the algorithm in Section 5).
\item The proof procedures and results of recovery error bounds are more concise (details in next section).
\item The $q$-ratio BCMSV based recovery bounds are smaller (better) than the block RIC based bounds (shown in Section 5) \cite[see also][for another two specific examples]{tang2016,ZHOU2019}
\end{itemize}
As for different $q$, we have the following important inequality, which plays a crucial role in deriving the probabilistic behavior of $\beta_{q,s}(A)$ via the existing results established in \cite{tang2016}.
\begin{proposition}
If $1<q_2\leq q_1\leq\infty$, then for any real number $1\leq s\leq p^{1/\tilde{q}}$ with $\tilde{q}=\frac{q_2(q_1-1)}{q_1(q_2-1)}$, we have \begin{align}
\beta_{q_1,s}(A)\geq \beta_{q_2,s^{\tilde{q}}}(A)\geq s^{-\tilde{q}} \beta_{q_1, s^{\tilde{q}}}(A). \label{betaineq}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\noindent\\
\emph{Remark 3.} Let $q_1=\infty$ and $q_2=2$ (thus $\tilde{q}=2$), we have $\beta_{\infty,s}(A)\geq \beta_{2,s^2}(A)\geq \frac{1}{s^2}\beta_{\infty,s^2}(A)$. If $q_1\geq q_2>1$, then $\tilde{q}=\frac{q_2(q_1-1)}{q_1(q_2-1)}=1+\frac{q_1-q_2}{q_1(q_2-1)}\geq1$, so $\beta_{q_2,s^{\tilde{q}}}(A)\leq \beta_{q_2,s}(A)$. Similarly, we have for any $t\in[1,p]$ $\beta_{q_2,t}(A)\geq \frac{1}{t}\beta_{q_1,t}(A)$ by letting $t=s^{\tilde{q}}$ in (10). Based on these facts, we can not obtain the monotonicity with respect to $q$ when $s$ and $A$ are fixed. However, since for any $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ with $p$ blocks, $k_q(\mathbf{z})\leq p$, it holds trivially that $\beta_{q,p}(A)$ is increasing with respect to $q$ by using the decreasing property of the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm.
\section{Recovery error bounds}
In this section, we derive the recovery error bounds in terms of the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norm via the $q$-ratio BCMSV of the measurement matrix. We focus on three renowned convex relaxation algorithms for block sparse signal recovery from (\ref{CS}): the BBP, the BDS and the group lasso. \bigskip
BBP: $\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\,\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\,\,\lVert \mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2\leq \zeta$. \bigskip
BDS: $\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\,\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\,\,\lVert A^{T}(\mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{z})\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \mu$.\bigskip
Group lasso: $\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{1}{2}\lVert \mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2^2+\mu\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}$.\bigskip
Here $\zeta$ and $\mu$ are parameters used in the constraints to control the noise level. We first present the following main results of recovery error bounds for the case when the true signal $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse.
\begin{theorem}\label{theo1}
Suppose $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse. For any $q\in (1, \infty]$, we have \\
1) If $\lVert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2\leq \zeta$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the BBP obeys \begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}&\leq \frac{2\zeta}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}, \label{noisebp} \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{4k^{1-1/q}\zeta}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}.\label{noisebp1}
\end{align}
2) If the noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ in the BDS satisfies $\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \mu$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the BDS obeys
\begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu, \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{8k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu.
\end{align}
3) If the noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ in the group lasso satisfies $\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \kappa \mu$ for some $\kappa\in(0,1)$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the group lasso obeys \begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}&\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\cdot\frac{2k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{2}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu, \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{(1-\kappa)^2}\cdot\frac{4k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{2}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu.\label{sparselassol1}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\noindent\emph{Remark 4.} Obviously, if $\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)\neq 0$ in (\ref{noisebp}) and (\ref{noisebp1}), then the noise free BBP (\ref{nobp}) can uniquely recover any block $k$-sparse signal by letting $\zeta=0$. \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Remark 5.} The mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm error bounds are generalized from the existing results in \cite{tang2016} ($q=2$ and $\infty$) to any $1<q\leq \infty$ and from \cite{ZHOU2019} (simple sparse signal recovery) to block sparse signal recovery. The mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm error bounds depend on the $q$-ratio BCMSV of the measurement matrix $A$, which is bounded away from zero for sub-gaussian random matrix and can be computed approximately by using a specific algorithm, which are discussed in the later sections.\bigskip
\noindent\emph{Remark 6.} As shown in literature, the block RIC based recovery error bounds for the BBP \cite{Gao2017}, the BDS \cite{Liu2010} and the group lasso \cite{Garg2011} are complicated. In contrast, as presented in this theorem, the $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds are much more concise and corresponding derivations are much less complicated, which are given in the Appendix.\bigskip
Next, we extend Theorem 1 to the case when the signal is block compressible, in the sense that it can be approximated by a block $k$-sparse signal. Given a block compressible signal $\mathbf{x}$, let the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ error of the best block $k$-sparse approximation of $\mathbf{x}$ be $\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})=\underset{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,0}=k}{\inf} \lVert \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}$, which measures how close $\mathbf{x}$ is to the block $k$-sparse signal.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that $\mathbf{x}$ is block compressible. For any $1<q\leq \infty$, we have \\
1) If $\lVert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2\leq \zeta$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the BBP obeys \begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}&\leq \frac{2\zeta}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}+k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})\label{robust1}, \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{4k^{1-1/q}\zeta}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}+4\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}). \label{robust1l1}
\end{align}
2) If the noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ in the BDS satisfies $\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \mu$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the BDS obeys \begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}&\leq \frac{8k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu+k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}) \label{robust2}, \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{16k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu+4\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}). \label{robust2l1}
\end{align}
3) If the noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ in the group lasso satisfies $\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \kappa \mu$ for some $\kappa\in(0,1)$, then the solution $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ to the group lasso obeys \begin{align}
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,q}&\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\cdot\frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu+k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}) \label{robust3}, \\
\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{(1-\kappa)^2}\cdot\frac{8k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu+\frac{4}{1-\kappa}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}). \label{robust3l1}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\noindent\emph{Remark 7.} All the error bounds consist of two components, one is caused by the measurement error, and another one is due to the sparsity defect. \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Remark 8.} Comparing to Theorem \ref{theo1}, we need stronger conditions to achieve the valid error bounds. Concisely, we require $\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$, $\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$ and $\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$ for the BBP, BDS and group lasso in the block compressible case, while $\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$, $\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$ and $\beta_{q,(\frac{2}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)>0$ in the block sparse case, respectively.
\section{Random matrices}
In this section, we study the properties of the $q$-ratio BCMSV of sub-gaussian random matrix. A random vector $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ is called isotropic and sub-gaussian with constant $L$ if it holds for all $\mathbf{u}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ that $E|\langle \mathbf{x},\mathbf{u}\rangle|^2=\lVert \mathbf{u}\rVert_2^2$ and $P(|\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{u}\rangle|\geq t)\leq 2\exp(-\frac{t^2}{L\lVert \mathbf{u}\rVert_2})$. Then as shown in Theorem 2 of \cite{tang2016}, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{tang2016}]
Suppose the rows of the scaled measurement matrix $\sqrt{m}A$ to be i.i.d isotropic and sub-gaussian random vectors with constant $L$. Then there exists constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for any $\eta>0$ and $m\geq 1$ satisfying $$
m\geq c_1\frac{L^2(sn+s\log p)}{\eta^2}
$$
we have $$
\mathbb{E}|1-\beta_{2,s}(A)|\leq \eta
$$
and $$
\mathbb{P}(\beta_{2,s}(A)\geq 1-\eta)\geq 1-\exp(-c_2\eta^2\frac{m}{L^4}).$$
\end{lemma}
\bigskip\noindent
\bigskip\indent
Then as a direct consequence of Proposition 2 (i.e. if $1<q<2$, $\beta_{q,s}(A)\geq s^{-1}\beta_{2,s}(A)$; if $2\leq q\leq \infty$, $\beta_{q,s}(A)\geq\beta_{2,s^{\frac{2(q-1)}{q}}}(A)$.) and Lemma 1, we have the following probabilistic statements for $\beta_{q,s}(A)$. \bigskip
\begin{theorem}
Under the assumptions and notations of Lemma 1, it holds that
\noindent
1) When $1<q< 2$, there exist constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for any $\eta>0$ and $m\geq 1$ satisfying $$
m\geq c_1\frac{L^2 (sn+s\log p)}{\eta^2}
$$
we have \begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\beta_{q,s}(A)]&\geq s^{-1}(1-\eta), \\
\mathbb{P}\big(\beta_{q,s}(A)&\geq s^{-1}(1-\eta)\big)\geq 1-\exp(-c_2\eta^2 \frac{m}{L^4}).
\end{align}
\noindent
2) When $2\leq q\leq \infty$, there exist constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for any $\eta>0$ and $m\geq 1$ satisfying $$
m\geq c_1\frac{L^2 s^{\frac{2(q-1)}{q}}(n+\log p)}{\eta^2}
$$
we have \begin{align}
\mathbb{E}[\beta_{q,s}(A)]&\geq 1-\eta, \\
\mathbb{P}\big(\beta_{q,s}(A)&\geq 1-\eta\big)\geq 1-\exp(-c_2\eta^2 \frac{m}{L^4}).
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\noindent\emph{Remark 9.} Theorem 3 shows that for sub-gaussian random matrix, the $q$-ratio BCMSV is bounded away from zero as long as the number of measurements is large enough. Sub-gaussian random matrices include Gaussian and Bernoulli ensembles. \bigskip
\section{Numerical experiments}
In this section, we introduce a convex-concave method to solve the sufficient condition (\ref{sufficient}) so as to achieve the maximal block sparsity $k$ and present an algorithm to compute the $q$-ratio BCMSV. We also conduct comparisons between the $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds and block RIC based bounds through the BBP.
\subsection{Solving the optimization problem (\ref{sufficient})}
According to Proposition \ref{prop1}, given a $q\in(1,\infty]$ we need to solve the optimization problem (\ref{sufficient}) to obtain the maximal block sparsity $k$ which guaranties that all block $k$-sparse signals can be uniquely recovered by (\ref{nobp}).
Solving (\ref{sufficient}) is equivalent to solve the problem:
\begin{align}
\max\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}\,\,\,\text{s.t. $A\mathbf{z}=0$ and $\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 1$}. \label{maxq}
\end{align}
However, maximizing mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm over a polyhedron is non-convex. Here we adopt the convex-concave procedure (CCP) (see \cite{lb} for details) to solve the problem (\ref{maxq}) for any $q\in(1,\infty]$. The algorithm is presented as follows: \bigskip
\fbox{%
\parbox{0.95\textwidth}{%
{\emph{Algorithm:}} CCP to solve (\ref{maxq}).\\
Give an initial point to $\mathbf{z}_l$ with $l=0$.\\
Iterate\\
1. Linearity. Approximate $\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}$ using the first order Taylor expansion
\begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}&=\lVert \mathbf{z}_l\rVert_{2,q}+\nabla (\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q})_{\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{z}_l}^T(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{z}_l)\\
&=\lVert \mathbf{z}_l\rVert_{2,q}+[\lVert \mathbf{z}_l\rVert_{2,q}^{1-q}\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_b}\rVert_2^{q-2}\mathbf{z}_l]^T(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{z}_l),
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{z}_{l_b}=[\underbrace{\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_1}\rVert_2,\cdots,\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_1}\rVert_2}_n,\underbrace{\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_2}\rVert_2,\cdots,\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_2}\rVert_2}_n,\cdots,\underbrace{\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_p}\rVert_2,\cdots,\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_p}\rVert_2}_n]$ with $\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_i}\rVert_2$ denoting the $\ell_2$ norm of the $i$-th block of $\mathbf{z}_l$ for $i$ in $[p]$.
2. Maximization. Set $\mathbf{z}_{l+1}$ to be the result of \begin{align}
&\max\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\lVert \mathbf{z}_l\rVert_{2,q}+[\lVert \mathbf{z}_l\rVert_{2,q}^{1-q}\lVert\mathbf{z}_{l_b}\rVert_2^{q-2}\mathbf{z}_l]^T(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{z}_l) \nonumber \\
&\quad\text{s.t.}\,\,A\mathbf{z}=0, \lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 1. \label{ccp}
\end{align}
3. Updating iteration. Let $l=l+1$.\\
until stopping criterion is satisfied and $k$ is the largest integer smaller than $\mathbf{z}_l$.
}%
} \bigskip
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\toprule[2pt]
\multirow{2}{*}{$n$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$m$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Bernoulli random matrix} & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Gaussian random matrix} \\ \cline{3-6} \cline{8-11}
& & $q=2$ & $q=4$ & $q=16$ & $q=128$ & & $q=2$ & $q=4$ & $q=16$ & $q=128$ \\ \midrule[1.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{1} & 64 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 2 & & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 \\
& 128 & 12 & 9 & 6 & 5 & & 13 & 12 & 7 & 6 \\
& 192 & 23 & 22 & 12 & 10 & & 23 & 20 & 11 & 10 \\ \midrule[0.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{2} & 64 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 \\
& 128 & 9 & 7 & 5 & 4 & & 9 & 7 & 5 & 4 \\
& 192 & 16 & 16 & 10 & 8 & & 14 & 14 & 9 & 8 \\ \midrule[0.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{4} & 64 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
& 128 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 3 & & 5 & 5 & 3 & 3 \\
& 192 & 9 & 10 & 6 & 5 & & 9 & 10 & 7 & 6 \\ \midrule[0.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{8} & 64 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
& 128 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & & 2 & 3 & 3 & 2 \\
& 192 & 5 & 6 & 4 & 4 & & 5 & 6 & 4 & 4 \\ \bottomrule[2pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{Maximal sparsity levels from the CCP algorithm for both Bernoulli and Gaussian random matrices with $N=256$ and different combinations of $n, m$ and $q$. }
\label{tablebsuffi}
\end{table}
We implement the algorithm to solve (\ref{maxq}) under the following settings. Let $A$ be either Bernoulli or Gaussian random matrix with $N=256$, varying $m$, block size $n$ and $q$. Specifically, $m=64, 128, 192$, $n=1,2,4,8$ and $q=2,4,16,128,$ respectively. The results are summarized in Table \ref{tablebsuffi}. Note that when $n=1$, the algorithm (\ref{ccp}) is identical to the one in \cite{ZHOU2019}. The main findings are as follows: (i) by comparing the results between Bernoulli and Gaussian random matrices under the same settings, there is no substantial difference. Thus we can now merely focus on the left part of the table, i.e. Bernoulli random matrix part; (ii) it can be seen that the results are not monotone with respect to $q$ (see the row with $n=4, m=192$), which verifies the conclusion in \emph{Remark 3}; (iii) when $m$ is the only variable, it is easy to notice that the maximal block sparsity increases as $m$ increases; (iv) conversely, when $n$ is the only variable, the maximal block sparsity decreases as $n$ increases, which is in line with the main result in \cite[][Theorem 3.1]{Rao2012}.
\subsection{Computing the \texorpdfstring{$q$-}ratio BCMSVs}
Computing the $q$-ratio BCMSV (\ref{bcmsv}) is equivalent to solve
\begin{align}
\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N}\,\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2\,\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\,\,\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\leq s^{\frac{q-1}{q}}, \lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}=1. \label{computing}
\end{align}
Since the constraint set is not convex, this is a non-convex optimization problem. In order to solve (\ref{computing}), we use Matlab function \emph{fmincon} as in \cite{ZHOU2019} and define $\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{z}^{+}-\mathbf{z}^{-}$ with $\mathbf{z}^{+}=\max(\mathbf{z},0)$ and $\mathbf{z}^{-}=\max(-\mathbf{z},0)$. Consequently, (\ref{computing}) can be reformulated to:
\begin{align}
\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}^{+},\mathbf{z}^{-}\in\mathbb{R}^N}&\,(\mathbf{z}^{+}-\mathbf{z}^{-})^T A^T A(\mathbf{z}^{+}-\mathbf{z}^{-}) \nonumber \\
&\text{s.t.}\,\,\,\lVert \mathbf{z}^{+}-\mathbf{z}^{-}\rVert_{2,1}-s^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\leq 0, \nonumber \\
&\lVert \mathbf{z}^{+}-\mathbf{z}^{-}\rVert_{2,q}=1, \nonumber\\
&\mathbf{z}^{+}\geq 0, \mathbf{z}^{-}\geq 0. \label{IP}
\end{align}
Due to the existence of local minima, we perform an experiment to decide a reasonable number of iterations needed to achieve the 'global' minima shown in Figure \ref{numberexp}. In the experiment, we calculate the $q$-ratio BCMSV of a fixed unit norm columns Bernoulli random matrix of size $40\times64$, $n=s=4$ and varying $q=2,4,8$, respectively. 50 iterations are carried out for each $q$. The figure shows that after about 30 experiments, the estimate of $\beta_{q,s}$, $\hat{\beta}_{q,s}$, becomes convergent, so in the following experiments we repeat the algorithm 40 times and choose the smallest value $\hat{\beta}_{q,s}$ as the 'global' minima. We test indeed to vary $m, s,n,$ respectively, all indicate 40 is a reasonable number to be chosen (not shown).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{numberexp.pdf}
\caption{$q$-ratio BCMSVs calculated for a Bernoulli random matrix of size $40\times 64$ with $n=4, s=4$ and $q=2,4,8$ as a function of number of experiments.}\label{numberexp}
\end{figure}
Next, we illustrate the properties of ${\beta}_{q,s}$, which have been pointed out in Remarks 2 and 3, through experiments. We set $N=64$ with three different block sizes $n=1,4,8$ (i.e. number of blocks $p=64,16,8$), three different $m=40,50,60$, three different $q=2,4,8$ and three different $s=2,4,8$. Unit norm columns Bernoulli random matrices are used. Results are listed in Table \ref{tablebcmsv}. They are inline with the theoretical results:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item ${\beta}_{q,s}$ increases as $m$ increases for all cases given that other parameters are fixed.
\item ${\beta}_{q,s}$ decreases as $s$ increases for most of cases given that other parameters are fixed. There are exceptions when $m=40, n=8$ with $s=4$ and $s=8$ under $q=4,8$, respectively. However, the difference is about $0.0002$, which is possibly caused by numerical approximation.
\item Monotonicity of ${\beta}_{q,s}$ does not hold with respect to $q$ even given that other parameters are fixed.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Comparing error bounds}
Here we compare the $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds against the block RIC based bounds from the BBP under different settings. The block RIC based bound is
\begin{align}
\lVert \hat{x}-x\rVert_{2}\leq \frac{4\sqrt{1+\delta_{2k}(A)}}{1-(1+\sqrt{2})\delta_{2k}(A)}\zeta,
\end{align}
if $A$ satisfies the block RIP of order $2k$, i.e. the block RIC $\delta_{2k}(A)<\sqrt{2}-1$ \cite{Eldar2009,tang2016}. By using the H\"{o}lder's inequality, one can obtain the mixed $\ell2/\ell_q$ norm \begin{align}
\lVert \hat{x}-x\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{4\sqrt{1+\delta_{2k}(A)}}{1-(1+\sqrt{2})\delta_{2k}(A)}k^{1/q-1/2}\zeta,\label{boundric}
\end{align}
for $0< q\leq 2$.
We compare the two bounds (\ref{boundric}) and (\ref{noisebp1}). Without loss of generality, let $\zeta=1$. $\delta_{2k}(A)$ is approximated using Monte Carlo simulations. Specifically, we randomly choose 1000 sub-matrices of $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times N}$ of size $m\times 2nk$ to compute $\delta_{2k}(A)$ using the maximum of $\max(\sigma_{max}^2-1,1-\sigma_{min}^2)$ among all sampled sub-matrices. It turns out that this approximated block RIC is always smaller than or equal to the exact block RIC, thus the error bounds based on the exact block RIC are always larger than those based on the approximated block RIC. Therefore, it would be enough to show that the $q$-ratio BCMSV gives a sharper error bound than the approximated block RIC
We use unit norm columns sub-matrices of a row-randomly-permuted Hadamard matrix (an orthogonal Bernoulli matrix) with $N=64$, $k=1,2,4$, $n=1,2$, $q=1.8$ and a variety of $m\le 64$ to approximate the $q$-ratio BCMSV and the block RIC. Besides the Hadamard matrix, we also test Bernoulli random matrices and Gaussian random matrices with different configurations, which only return very fewer qualified block RICs. In the simulation results of \cite{tang2016}, the authors showed that under all considered cases for Gaussian random matrices, $\delta_{2k}(A)>\sqrt{2}-1,$ which is coincident with our finding. Figure \ref{fig:2} shows that the $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds are smaller than those based on the approximated block RIC. Note that when $m$ approaches $N$, ${\beta}_{q,s}(A)\to 1$ and $\delta_{2k}(A) \to 0,$ as a result, the $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds are smaller than $2.2$, while the block RIC based bounds are larger than or equal to $4$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth,keepaspectratio]{bound.pdf}
\caption{The $q$-ratio BCMSV based bounds and the block RIC based bounds for Hadamard sub-matrices with $N=64$, $k=1,2,4$, $n=1,2$ and $q=1.8$.}\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccc}
\toprule[2pt]
\multirow{2}{*}{$m$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$n$} & \multirow{2}{*}{$p$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$q=2$} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$q=4$} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$q=8$} \\ \cline{4-6} \cline{8-10} \cline{12-14}
& & & $s=2$ & $s=4$ & $s=8$ & & $s=2$ & $s=4$ & $s=8$ & & $s=2$ & $s=4$ & $s=8$ \\ \midrule[1.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{40} & 1 & 64 & 0.7025 & 0.5058 & 0.2732 & & 0.7579 & 0.5495 & 0.1863 & & 0.7223 & 0.3954 & 0.0726 \\
& 4 & 16 & 0.4953 & 0.2614 & 3.5e-04 & & 0.5084 & 0.1741 & 5.1e-04 & & 0.4592 & 0.0662 & 5.2e-04 \\
& 8 & 8 & 0.3240 & 0.0256 & 5.1e-04 & & 0.2987 & 4.1e-04 & 6.1e-04 & & 0.2492 & 3.9e-04 & 6.6e-04 \\ \midrule[0.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{50} & 1 & 64 & 0.7199 & 0.5169 & 0.3547 & & 0.7753 & 0.5766 & 0.2676 & & 0.7366 & 0.5250 & 0.1573 \\
& 4 & 16 & 0.5389 & 0.3137 & 0.0767 & & 0.5235 & 0.2975 & 0.0015 & & 0.4870 & 0.1816 & 9.5e-04 \\
& 8 & 8 & 0.4324 & 0.1274 & 9.9e-04 & & 0.3783 & 0.0398 & 0.0010 & & 0.3190 & 8.5e-04 & 9.3e-04 \\ \midrule[0.5pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{60} & 1 & 64 & 0.7345 & 0.5835 & 0.4316 & & 0.7948 & 0.6256 & 0.3797 & & 0.7620 & 0.5757 & 0.2877 \\
& 4 & 16 & 0.5626 & 0.3675 & 0.1502 & & 0.5275 & 0.3249 & 0.1126 & & 0.4926 & 0.2753 & 0.0361 \\
& 8 & 8 & 0.4554 & 0.2147 & 0.0023 & & 0.4046 & 0.1809 & 0.0021 & & 0.3695 & 0.1063 & 0.0017 \\ \bottomrule[2pt]
\end{tabular}
\caption{The $q$-ratio BCMSVs with varying $m,n,p,q$ and $s$}
\label{tablebcmsv}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this study, we introduce the $q$-ratio block sparsity measure and the $q$-ratio BCMSV. Theoretically, through the $q$-ratio block sparsity measure and the $q$-ratio BCMSV, we (i) establish the sufficient condition for the unique noise free BBP recovery; (ii) derive both the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norm bounds of recovery errors for the BBP, the BDS and the group lasso estimator; (iii) prove the $q$-ratio BCMSV is bounded away from zero if the number of measurements is relatively large for sub-gaussian random matrix. Afterwards, we use numerical experiments via two algorithms to illustrate theoretical results. In addition, we demonstrate that the $q$-ratio BCMSV based error bounds are much tighter than those based on block RIP through simulations.
There are still some issues left for future work. For example, analogue to the case for the $q$-ratio CMSV, the geometrical property of the $q$-ratio BCMSV can be investigated to derive sufficient conditions and error bounds for block sparse signal recovery.
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{0}
\section{Appendix - Proofs}
\noindent
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition 1]
Suppose there exists $\mathbf{z}\in\mathrm{ker} A\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$ and $|S|\leq k$ such that $\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,1}\geq \lVert \mathbf{z}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}$, then we have
\begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{z}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 2\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,1}
\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,q} \leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q}, ~\forall q\in (1, \infty],
\end{align*}
which is identical to $k\geq 2^{\frac{q}{1-q}} k_q(\mathbf{z}),\quad\forall q\in (1, \infty]$.
In contrast, suppose $\exists~ q\in (1, \infty]$ such that $k<\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\in\mathrm{ker} A\setminus\{\mathbf{0}\}}\,\,2^{\frac{q}{1-q}}k_q(\mathbf{z})$, then $\lVert \mathbf{z}_S\rVert_{2,1}<\lVert \mathbf{z}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}$ holds for all $\mathbf{z}\in\mathrm{ker} A\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$ and $|S|\leq k$, which implies that the block null space property of order $k$ is fulfilled, thus any block $k$-sparse signal $\mathbf{x}$ can be obtained via (\ref{nobp}).
$ $\newline
\end{proof}
\noindent
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition 2.]
$ $\newline\bigskip
(i) Prove the left hand side of (\ref{betaineq}):
For any $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\{\mathbf{0}\}$ and $1<q_2\leq q_1\leq \infty$, suppose $k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s$, then we can get $\left(\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{{2,q_1}}}\right)^{\frac{q_1}{q_1-1}}\leq s\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}\leq s^{\frac{q_1-1}{q_1}}\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}\leq s^{\frac{q_1-1}{q_1}}\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}$. Since $\tilde{q}=\frac{q_2(q_1-1)}{q_1(q_2-1)}$ and $
\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}\leq s^{\frac{q_1-1}{q_1}}$, we have $$k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})=\left(\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}\right)^{\frac{q_2}{q_2-1}}\leq s^{\frac{q_2(q_1-1)}{q_1(q_2-1)}}=s^{\tilde{q}},
$$
from which we can infer$$
\{\mathbf{z}: k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s\}\subseteq \{\mathbf{z}: k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}\}.
$$
Therefore, we can get the left hand side of (\ref{betaineq}) through \begin{align*}
\beta_{q_1,s}(A)&=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0},k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}}\geq \min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}} \\
&= \min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}} \frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}\cdot\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}} \\
&\geq \min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}} \frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}=\beta_{q_2,s^{\tilde{q}}}(A).
\end{align*}
(ii) Verify the right hand side of (\ref{betaineq}):
Suppose $k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}$, for any $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\{\mathbf{0}\}$, by using the non-increasing property of the $q$-ratio block sparsity with respect to $q$ and $q_2\leq q_1 \le \infty$, we have the following two inequalities: $\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,\infty}}=k_\infty(\mathbf{z})\leq k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}$ and $k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}$. Since $1<q_2\leq q_1\leq \infty$. The former inequality implies that $\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}}\leq \frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,\infty}}\leq s^{\tilde{q}}\Rightarrow \frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}\ge s^{\tilde{-q}}$. The latter inequality implies that
$$
\{\mathbf{z}: k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}\}\subseteq \{\mathbf{z}: k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}} \}.
$$
Therefore, we can obtain the right hand side of (\ref{betaineq}) through \begin{align*}
\beta_{q_2,s^{\tilde{q}}}(A)&=\min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0},k_{q_2}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}} \\
&\geq \min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}} \frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}} \\
&= \min\limits_{\mathbf{z}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_{q_1}(\mathbf{z})\leq s^{\tilde{q}}} \frac{\lVert A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}}\cdot\frac{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_1}}{\lVert \mathbf{z}\rVert_{2,q_2}}\\
&\geq \beta_{q_1, s^{\tilde{q}}}(A)\cdot s^{-\tilde{q}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\noindent
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 1.]
The proof procedure follows from the similar arguments in \cite{tn1,tn3}, and the procedure can be divided into two main steps \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Step 1}: We first derive upper bounds of the $q$-ratio block sparsity of residual $\mathbf{h}=\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}$ for all algorithms. As $\mathbf{x}$ is block $k$-sparse, we assume that $\mathrm{bsupp}(\mathbf{x})=S$ and $|S|\leq k$. \bigskip
For the BBP and the BDS, since $\lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}$ is the minimum among all $\mathbf{z}$ satisfying the constraints of BBP and BDS (including the true signal $\mathbf{x}$), we have \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\geq \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{x}_S+\mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\geq \lVert \mathbf{x}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1},
\end{align*}
which can be simplified to $\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \lVert \mathbf{h}_{S}\rVert_{2,1}$. Thereby, we can obtain the following inequality: \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \leq 2\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,q}\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}, \quad \forall q\in (1,\infty],
\end{align*}
which is equivalent to $$k_{q}(\mathbf{h})=\left(\frac{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}\leq 2^{\frac{q}{q-1}} k.$$
For the group lasso, since the noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ satisfies $\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \kappa \mu$ for $\kappa\in (0,1)$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ is a solution of the group lasso, we have $$
\frac{1}{2}\lVert A\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{y}\rVert_2^2+\mu\lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{1}{2}\lVert A\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\rVert_2^2+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}.
$$
Substituting $\mathbf{y}$ by $A\mathbf{x}+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ leads to \begin{align*}
\mu\lVert\hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \frac{1}{2}\lVert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2^2-\frac{1}{2}\lVert A(\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x})-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2^2+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\lVert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2^2-\frac{1}{2}\lVert A(\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x})\rVert_2^2+\langle A(\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}),\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rangle-\frac{1}{2}\lVert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_2^2+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\leq \langle A(\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}),\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rangle+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&=\langle \hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}, A^T\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rangle+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\leq \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\lVert A^T \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\leq \kappa \mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}+\mu\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}.
\end{align*}
The last second inequality follows by applying Cauchy-Swcharz inequality block wise and the last inequality can be written as \begin{align}
\lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}. \label{lasso}
\end{align}
Therefore, it holds that \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}&\geq \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&=\lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}+\mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}+\mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\geq \lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa(\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S}\rVert_{2,1})\\
&=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}+(1-\kappa)\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-(1+\kappa)\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1},
\end{align*}
which can be simplified to$$
\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}.
$$
Thus we can obtain \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}&=\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,q} \\
&\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q},
\end{align*}
which can be reformulated by$$
k_q(\mathbf{h})=\left(\frac{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}\leq \left(\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k.
$$\bigskip
\noindent\emph{Step 2}{:} Obtain upper bound of $\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2$ and then construct the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norm of the recovery error vector $\mathbf{h}$ via the $q$-ratio BCMSV for each algorithm. \bigskip
(i) For the BBP, since both $\mathbf{x}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ satisfy the constraint $\lVert \mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{z}\rVert_2\leq \zeta$, by using the triangle inequality we can get \begin{align}
\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2=\lVert A(\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x})\rVert_2&\leq \lVert A\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{y}\rVert_2+\lVert \mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{x}\rVert_2\leq 2\zeta. \label{ahbp}
\end{align}
Following from the definition of the $q$-ratio BCMSV and $k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq 2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k$, we have $$
\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2\leq 2\zeta\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{2\zeta}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}.
$$
Furthermore, we can obtain $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{4k^{1-1/q}\zeta}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}$ by using the property $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$. \bigskip
(ii) Similarly for the BDS, since both $\mathbf{x}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ satisfy the constraint $\lVert A^T\mathbf{(y-Az)}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \mu,$ we have \begin{align*}
\lVert A^T A\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\rVert_{2,\infty}+\lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{x})\rVert_{2,\infty} \leq 2\mu.
\end{align*}
By applying the Cauchy-Swcharz inequality again as in Step 1, we obtain \begin{align}
\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2=\langle A\mathbf{h},A\mathbf{h}\rangle=\langle \mathbf{h},A^TA\mathbf{h}\rangle\leq \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\lVert A^TA\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq 2\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}. \label{ahds}
\end{align}
At last, with the definition of the $q$-ratio BCMSV, $k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq 2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k$ and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$, we get the upper bounds of the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_q$ norm and the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norm for $\mathbf{h}:$ \begin{align*}
&\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2\leq \lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2\leq 2\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 4\mu k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q} \\
&\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu
\end{align*}
and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{8k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,2^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu$. \bigskip
(iii) For the group lasso, with $\lVert A^T\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \kappa \mu$, we have
\begin{align*}
\lVert A^TA\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,\infty}&\leq \lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\mathbf{x})\rVert_{2,\infty}+\lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\rVert_{2,\infty} \\
&\leq \lVert A^T\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\rVert_{2,\infty} +\lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\rVert_{2,\infty} \\
&\leq \kappa\mu+\lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\rVert_{2,\infty}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, since $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ is the solution of the group lasso, the optimality condition yields that $$
A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\in\mu\partial \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1},
$$
where the sub-gradients in $\partial \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}$ for the $i$-th block are $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_i/\lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}_i\rVert_{2}$ if $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_i\neq 0$, and is some vector $\mathbf{g}$ satisfying $\lVert \mathbf{g}\rVert_{2}\le 1$ if $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_i= 0$ (which follows from the definition of sub-gradient). Thus, we have $\lVert A^T(\mathbf{y}-A\hat{\mathbf{x}})\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq \mu$, which leads to $$
\lVert A^TA\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,\infty}\leq (\kappa+1)\mu.
$$
Following the inequality (\ref{ahds}), we get \begin{align}
\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2\leq (\kappa+1)\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}. \label{ahlasso}
\end{align}
As a result, since $k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq \left(\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k$ and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$, we can obtain
\begin{align}
\beta_{q,(\frac{2}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2&\leq \lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2\leq (\kappa+1)\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1} \nonumber \\
&\leq \mu\frac{2(\kappa+1)}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q},
\end{align}
which is equivalent to $$
\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}\leq \frac{k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,\left(\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\right)^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\cdot \frac{2(\kappa+1)}{1-\kappa}\mu
$$
and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{(1-\kappa)^2}\cdot\frac{4k^{2-2/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{2}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu$.
$ $\newline
\end{proof}
\noindent
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 2.]
Since the infimum of $\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})$ is achieved by an block $k$-sparse signal $\mathbf{z}$ whose non-zero blocks equal to the largest $k$ blocks, indexed by $S$, of $\mathbf{x}$, so $\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})=\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}$ and let $\mathbf{h}=\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{x}$. Similar as the proof procedure for Theorem 1, the derivations also have two steps. \bigskip
\noindent\emph{Step 1}: For all algorithms, bound $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}$ via $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$ and $\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})$. \bigskip
First for the BBP and the BDS, since $\lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}$ is the minimum among all $\mathbf{z}$ satisfying the constraints of the BBP and the BDS, we have \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{x}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}&=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\geq \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{x}+\mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&=\lVert \mathbf{x}_S+\mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\geq \lVert \mathbf{x}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}, \label{error}
\end{align*}
which is equivalent to \begin{align}
\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+2\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}=\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+2\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}).
\end{align}
In consequence, we can get \begin{align}
\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}&=\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\leq 2\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+2\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}) \nonumber \\
&\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,q}+2\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}) \nonumber \\
&\leq 2k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}+2\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}). \label{errorbp}
\end{align}
As for the group lasso, by using (\ref{lasso}), we can obtain \begin{align*}
\lVert \mathbf{x}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}&=\lVert \mathbf{x}\rVert_{2,1}\\
&\geq \lVert \hat{\mathbf{x}}\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\geq \lVert \mathbf{x}_S+\mathbf{x}_{S^c}+\mathbf{h}_S+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}_S+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&\geq \lVert \mathbf{x}_S+\mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}-\kappa\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \\
&=\lVert \mathbf{x}_S\rVert_{2,1}+(1-\kappa)\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}-(1+\kappa)\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1},
\end{align*}
which points to that \begin{align}
\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}\leq \frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1}.
\end{align}
Therefore, we have \begin{align}
\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}&\leq \lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\lVert \mathbf{h}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{h}_S\rVert_{2,1}+\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\lVert \mathbf{x}_{S^c}\rVert_{2,1} \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{2}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}+\frac{2}{1-\kappa}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x}). \label{errorlasso}
\end{align}
\noindent
\emph{Step 2}: Verify that the $q$-ratio block sparsity of $\mathbf{h}$ has lower bound in the form of $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$ for each algorithm, when $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}$ is larger than the part of recovery bounds caused by the measurement error.\bigskip
(i) For the BBP, we assume that $\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}$ and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{2\zeta}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}$, otherwise (\ref{robust1}) holds trivially. Since $\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2\leq 2\zeta$ (see (\ref{ahbp})), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}$. Then it holds that
$$\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}}<{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}(A)}=\min\limits_{\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq 4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}} \nonumber, $$
which implies that
\begin{align} k_q(\mathbf{h})>4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}>4k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}.
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{errorbp}), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}<k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})$, which completes the proof for (\ref{robust1}). The error bound of the mixed $\ell_2/\ell_1$ norm (\ref{robust1l1}) follows immediately from (\ref{robust1}) and (\ref{errorbp}).\bigskip
(ii) As for the BDS, similarly we assume $\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}$ and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{8k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu$, otherwise (\ref{robust2}) holds trivially. As $\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2\leq 2\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}$ (see (\ref{ahds})), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\cdot \frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}}$. Then we can get
$$\beta_{q,4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)=\min\limits_{\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq 4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2} >\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2}\left(\frac{4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}{k_q(\mathbf{h})}\right)^{1-1/q} \nonumber,$$
which implies that
\begin{align} k_q(\mathbf{h})>4^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}>4k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}.
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{errorbp}), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}<k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})$, which completes the proof for (\ref{robust2}). (\ref{robust2l1}) holds as a result of (\ref{robust2}) and (\ref{errorbp}).\bigskip
(iii) For the group lasso, we assume that $\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}$ and $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{1+\kappa}{1-\kappa}\cdot\frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\mu$, otherwise (\ref{robust3}) holds trivially. Since in this case $\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2\leq (1+\kappa)\mu\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}$ (see (\ref{ahlasso})), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}>\frac{4k^{1-1/q}}{(1-\kappa)\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)}\cdot\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}}$, which leads to \begin{align}
\beta_{q,(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}^2(A)&=\min\limits_{\mathbf{h}\neq \mathbf{0}, k_q(\mathbf{h})\leq (\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2} \nonumber \\
&>\frac{\lVert A\mathbf{h}\rVert_2^2}{\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}^2}\left(\frac{(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k}{k_q(\mathbf{h})}\right)^{1-\frac{1}{q}} \nonumber \\
&\Rightarrow k_q(\mathbf{h})>(\frac{4}{1-\kappa})^{\frac{q}{q-1}}k \nonumber \\
&\Rightarrow \lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,1}>\frac{4}{1-\kappa}k^{1-1/q}\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}.
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{errorlasso}), we have $\lVert \mathbf{h}\rVert_{2,q}<k^{1/q-1}\phi_{k}(\mathbf{x})$, which completes the proof for (\ref{robust3}). Consequently, (\ref{robust3l1}) is obtained via (\ref{robust3}) and (\ref{errorlasso}).
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the Swedish Research Council grant (Reg.No. 340-2013-5342).
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section*{Abstract}
We consider a multiscale approach based on immersed methods for the
efficient computational modeling of tissues composed of an elastic
matrix (in two or three-dimensions) and a thin vascular structure
(treated as a co-dimension two manifold) at a given pressure. We
derive different variational formulations of the coupled problem, in
which the effect of the vasculature can be surrogated in the
elasticity equations via singular or hyper-singular forcing
terms. These terms only depend on information defined on
co-dimension two manifolds (such as vessel center line, cross
sectional area, and mean pressure over cross section), thus
drastically reducing the complexity of the computational model. We
perform several numerical tests, ranging from simple cases with
known exact solutions to the modeling of materials with random
distributions of vessels. In the latter case, we use our immersed
method to perform an in silico characterization of the mechanical
properties of the effective biphasic material tissue via statistical
simulations.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
This paper is motivated by mathematical and computational modeling in
the context of tissue imaging, such as Magnetic Resonance Elastography
(MRE), a quantitative imaging technique sensitive to the mechanical
properties of living tissues.
In MRE, the tissue undergoes external harmonic excitations, such as
shear or compression waves, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging is used to
recover the mechanical response of the tissue in terms of the internal
displacement. These data, combined with a mathematical model of the
underlying tissue dynamics, are then employed to characterize the
tissue -- in vivo and non invasively
The \textit{inversion process},
i.e., the recovery of mechanical property from displacement data, is mainly based
on simplified models, assuming that tissues behaves as homogeneous and isotropic linear elastic or viscoelastic
materials. Such models have been already used to demonstrate the potential of MRE in characterizing
pathological tissues (e.g., cancer of fibrosis) \cite{muthupillai-96,sack-2008,sack-book,wuerfel-10}.
However, in several clinical applications, the complex multiphysics and multiscale nature of living tissues cannot be
neglected. The characterization of vascularized tissues is one of these examples.
Recent experimental studies have been dedicated to understanding
the potential of
MRE to characterize intrinsic properties of biphasic tissues (e.g.,
brain and liver), aiming at the non invasive diagnosis of pressure
related diseases (see, e.g.,
\cite{hirsch-etal-2013-compmre,hirsch-etal-2014-liver}).
Experiments comparing parameter estimation in vivo and ex vivo
confirmed that inversion methods deliver very different results
if the vascular component is inactive (see, e.g. \cite{chatelin-2011}) and/or if
the vasculature pressure varies \cite{hirsch-etal-2013-compmre}, thus requiring the
development of more detailed models,
able to describe both phases (solid matrix and fluid
vasculature) are necessary.
On the other hand, in order to obtain results in a clinically relevant time,
mathematical and computational shall be able to efficiently deal with
the multiscale structure of the system.
From the computational point of view, fully resolved biphasic models,
i.e., accounting for the coupling between the tissue and fluid
vasculature at the microscale, are practically unfeasible. On the one
hand, the high geometrical complexity would lead to excessive
computational cost and, on the other hand, image resolution used in
MRE (of the order of millimeters) does not allow to reconstruct in
full detail the vasculature.
The goal of this work is to propose and test a novel mathematical
multiscale model for vascularized tissues (composed of an elastic
matrix and a thin -- pressurized -- fluid vasculature) with the purpose
of providing an efficient effective material model to be used for tissue characterization.
In the presented approach,
the vasculature
(microscale) is not explicitly discretized, but it is immersed in the
elasticity problem describing the matrix dynamics at the macroscale.
To this aim, we use an approach based on the
Immersed Boundary Method (IBM), in order to account for complex (one-dimensional) structures
within two- and three-dimensional elastic materials.
The Immersed Boundary Method was introduced by Peskin
in~\cite{Peskin1972}, to study the blood flow around heart valves (see
also~\cite{Peskin2002}, or the review~\cite{Mittal2005b}), and evolved
into a large variety of methods and algorithms. The main idea behind
this technique is to address complex fluid-structure interaction
problems by formulating them on a fixed background fluid problem, with
the addition of singular source terms that take into account the
presence of the solid equations, removing the requirement that the
position of the interfaces between the fluid and solid domains should
be aligned with the computational mesh.
In the original Immersed Boundary Method~\cite{Peskin1972} the
singular source terms are formally written in terms of the Dirac delta
distribution, and their discretization follows two possible routes: i)
the Dirac delta distribution is approximated through a smooth
function, or ii) the variational definition of the Dirac distribution
is used directly in the Finite Element formulation of the problem. For
finite difference schemes, the first solution is the only viable
option, even though the use of smooth kernels may excessively smear
the singularities, leading to large errors in the
approximation~\cite{Hosseini2014}. In the context of finite elements,
both solutions are possible. The methods derived from the
Immersed Finite Element Method (IFEM) still use approximations of the
Dirac delta distribution through the Reproducing Kernel Particle
Method (RKPM)~\cite{ZhangGerstenberger-2004-Immersed-finite-0}.
Variational formulations of the IBM were introduced
in~\cite{BoffiGastaldi-2003-a,
BoffiGastaldi-2007-Numerical-stability-0,
BoffiGastaldiHeltaiPeskin-2008-a, Heltai-2008-a}, and later
generalised in~\cite{Heltai2012b} and~\cite{RoyHeltaiCostanzo-2015-a},
where the need to approximate Dirac delta distributions is removed by
exploiting directly the weak formulation. Such formulations allow the
solution of PDEs with jumps in the gradients without enriching the
finite element space, and without introducing approximations of the
Dirac delta distribution.
In the context of 3D-1D multiscale models, an approach using
techniques similar to the IBM has been described in
\cite{dAngelo-08,dAngelo-12} for the case of diffusion equations. In
this case, a diffusion problem was solved on both the 3D and on the 1D
domains, considering, additionally, the 1D vasculature as a source of
nutrients for the 3D tissue. This approach has been recently extended
to the case of a 3D porous media (Darcy) coupled to an immersed
vasculature, resolving the flow in the vascular network via a (0D)
lumped parameter model~\cite{cattaneo-14}.
In this paper, we consider the case of a 3D (or 2D)
elastic matrix with an immersed 1D (resp. 0D) vasculature with a given fluid
pressure, i.e., under the assumption that the diameter of the fluid vessel
is much smaller than the size of the characteristic domain.
In the variational formulation, the effect of the fluid is then
included in the elasticity equations by means of a singular source
term on a lower dimensional manifold. We begin by analyzing a
singular formulation in which the source term is concentrated on the
vessel boundary. Next, we discuss a \textit{hyper-singular}
alternative, in which the immersed source term is applied only at the
vessel centerline (a co-dimension two manifold), thus reducing
drastically the computational effort.
The multiscale model will be derived starting from a 2D-0D
axis-symmetric case and subsequently extended to the general 3D-1D
situation. We perform different numerical tests, validating the model
in a simple setting in which an analytical solution is available, and
investigating the statistical effective behavior of a biphasic
material with random vessel distribution as a function of elastic and
geometrical parameters. We focus on the effective tissue dynamics
assuming a steady known fluid pressure in the vasculature.
An extension of this model including a two-way coupling with an active
one-dimensional vasculature (e.g., using the approach described in
\cite{mueller-etal-16}) is currently under investigation and will be
subject of a future work.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:2d}
we discuss the two-dimensional case, starting from a model problem
with known exact solution.
The approach is extended in Section
\ref{sec:3d} to three dimensions.
In Section \ref{ssec:tissue-homo}
we discuss a homogenized model for a pressurized tissue based on the singular formulation, and its implication
concerning the in silico characterization of mechanical properties.
The discretized model is described
in Section \ref{ssec:discrete}, while numerical results are
presented in Section \ref{sec:numerics}.Finally, Section
\ref{sec:conclusions} draws conclusions and future directions of our work.
\section{The two-dimensional model}\label{sec:2d}
\subsection{A simple problem setting}\label{ssec:2d-setting}
We consider the situation of a biphasic tissue composed of an
elastic matrix and thin blood vessels, under the assumption that the
vessel diameters are much smaller of the typical size of the
surrounding matrix.
To fix the ideas, we start with the derivation for a two-dimensional
model problem, considering a single vessel. Assuming that the vessels
are small compared to the elastic matrix, and that long term
interaction can be neglected, the arguments can be extended also to
general domains and multiple vessels.
Let $a >0$, and let us introduce the set
\[
\Ve{a} = \left\{ \bx \mid \| \bx \| \leq a \right\}
\]
describing a circle of radius $a$ (which will be also referred to as
\textit{vessel}). Next, let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^2$ and let us
introduce the \textit{tissue} domain
$\Omega^a = \Omega \backslash \Ve{a}$. We assume that the boundary of
$\Omega$ is decomposed as
\[
\partial \Omega = \Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N\,,
\]
we define $\Gamma := \partial \Ve{a}$ to be the vessel boundary,
and we denote with $\mathbf n$ the normal vector to $\Gamma$ pointing
outwards the tissue domain (see, e.g., the sketches in Figure
\ref{fig:2d-domain}).
This setting represents the case of a tissue that extends indefinitely
along the $z$-direction with an embedded cylindrical vessel with
cross-section equal to $\Ve{a}$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics{./figures/domain.pdf}
\caption{An example of a domain $\Omega$ with a single vessel of radius $a$.}
\label{fig:2d-domain}
\end{figure}
We assume that the presence of a flow inside the vessel can be modeled
as a constant \emph{excess pressure} $\bar p$, that represents the
difference in pressure between the interior part of the vessel, and
the surrounding elastic matrix. The excess pressure represents the
force per unit area that the vessel exerts on the elastic matrix, and
we assume that this force is directed along the normal to the vessel.
We now consider the following problem:
\begin{problem}[2D on $\Omega^a$] \label{pb:two-dimensional}
Given the excess pressure $\overline{p} > 0 $, find the displacement
$\bue: \Omega^a \to \mathbb R^2$ solution to:
\begin{equation}
\label{elasto-omeps}
\begin{aligned}
& -\nabla \cdot \tens{\sigma}(\bue) = \boldsymbol 0,\;\text{ in }\;\Omega^a\\
& \bue = \boldsymbol 0,\; \text{ on }\; \Gamma_D \\
& \tens{\sigma}(\bue) \cdot \bn = \boldsymbol 0,\; \text{ on }\; \Gamma_N\\
& \tens{\sigma}(\bue) \cdot \bn =
-\overline{p} \, \bn \; \text{ on }\; \Gamma
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The above system of equations describes the dynamics of
a compressible, linear elastic material, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma-u}
\tens{\sigma}(\bu) := 2 \mu \tens{e}(\bu) + \lambda I \ldiv\bu,
\end{equation}
stands for the Cauchy
stress tensor,
$\tens{e}(\bu) =\frac12\( \nabla \bu + \nabla \bu^T\)$
denotes the symmetric
part of the infinitesimal strain tensor, $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are the so
called Lam\'e constants, and $I$ is the identity matrix.
\end{problem}
\begin{remark}
Notice that, using \eqref{eq:sigma-u}, the normal component of the
solid stress $\tens{\sigma}(\bu) \cdot \bn$ can be also written as
$\tens{\sigma}(\bu) \cdot \bn = (2\mu + \lambda) (\ldiv\bu) \bn$
\end{remark}
Let us now introduce the functional spaces
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-V}
V^a := \{ \vv \in (H^1(\Omega^a))^2, \text{ such that }
\vv|_{\Gamma_D} = \bs{0} \},
\end{equation}
Multiplying \eqref{elasto-omeps} with $\vv \in V^a$ and integrating by
parts yields a standard variational formulation of
Problem~\ref{pb:two-dimensional}:
\begin{problem}[2D on $\Omega^a$, variational]
\label{pb:two-dimensional-variational}
Given the excess pressure $\overline{p} > 0 $, find the displacement
$\bue \in V^a$ solution to:
\begin{equation}
\label{elasto-omeps-variational}
\begin{aligned}
& 2\mu(\tens{e}(\bue), \tens{e}(\vv))_{\Omega^a} + \lambda(\ldiv\bue, \ldiv
\vv)_{\Omega^a} = \int_{\Gamma} \bar p \bn\cdot\vv \d \Gamma &&
\forall \vv \in V^a,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\Omega^a}$ denotes the inner product in
$(L^2(\Omega^a))^2$.
\end{problem}
\subsection{Exact solution in the axis-symmetric
case}\label{ssec:2d-exact}
In the special case where $\Omega$ is a circle of radius $R > a$
(see Figure~\ref{fig:2d-domain-axi-symmetric}), problem \ref{elasto-omeps}
can be solved analytically.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics{./figures/domain_axisymmetric.pdf}
\caption{An example of an axi-symmetric domain $\Omega$ with a single vessel of radius $a$.}
\label{fig:2d-domain-axi-symmetric}
\end{figure}
In this case, due to the radial symmetry of the domain,
the angular component of the
solution vanishes, while the radial component depends only on the
distance from the vessel, i.e.,
$\bue (\bx) = u_\rho \frac{\bx}{|\bx|}$. The elasticity problem
reduces therefore to an ODE for $u_\rho$, yielding the displacement
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2d-exact}
\bue (\bx) =
\frac{\overline{p} a^{2} \left(R^{2} -
|\bx|^2\right)}{2 \left(R^{2} \mu + \lambda a^{2} +
\mu a^{2}\right)} \frac{\bx}{|\bx|^2}.
\end{equation}
Figure~\ref{fig:exact-2d}(left) shows the behaviour of the radial displacement given by
\eqref{eq:2d-exact}, varying the size $a$ of the vessel.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{./figures/exact_2d.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{./figures/exact_2d_distributional.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: Central sections of the radial component of the exact
solution $\bu_a$, for different values of the vessel radius
$a \in [0.02,0.55]$ (with $\lambda=\mu=1$, $R=1$, $p=1$).
Right: Central sections of the radial component of the exact
solution $|u_\rho|$ to
Problem~\ref{pb:two-dimensional-distributional}, for different
values of the vessel size $a=.1, .2, .3, .4$ ($\lambda=\mu=1$, $R=1$,
$p=1$).} \label{fig:exact-2d}
\end{figure}
We are interested in the situation where the radius of the vessel is
small compared to the size of the tissue domain. Under the assumption
$a \ll R$, we obtain the approximation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2d-exact-bd}
\bue |_{\Gamma} = \frac{\overline{p} a \left(R^{2} -
a^{2}\right)}{2 R^{2} \mu + 2 \lambda a^{2} + 2
\mu a^{2}} \frac{\bx}{|\bx|} = -\frac {\overline{p} a}{2\mu} \bn + O\left( \left(\frac{a}{R}\right)^2 \right)\,
\end{equation}
where we also used the fact that, on $\Gamma$, it holds $\dfrac{\bx}{|\bx|} = - \bn$.
From \eqref{eq:2d-exact}-\eqref{eq:2d-exact-bd}, we conclude that the
excess pressure $\overline{p}$ induces a radial deformation of the surrounding elastic matrix
(normal to the vessel boundary) which is of the order of $\frac {\overline{p} a}{2\mu}$ on the vessel boundary
and decays as $ \frac{1}{|\bx|}$.
\subsection{A singular problem on the whole domain}\label{ssec:2d-sing}
Next, we aim at formulating an extension of the axi-symmetric problem on the whole
domain $\Omega$, and at introducing a forcing term so that the solution of the extended problems
coincides with the solution $\bue$, defined in \eqref{eq:2d-exact}, only outside of $\Ve{a}$.
In practice, we first extend the solution $\bue$ inside $\Ve{a}$ as a uniform deformation, i.e., linearly
in the distance from the origin (see Figure \ref{fig:exact-2d}, right):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2d-extended}
\bu^{\Omega}(\bx) = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{\overline{p} \left(R^{2} -
|\bx|^2\right)}{2 \left(R^{2} \mu + \lambda a^{2} +
\mu a^{2}\right)}\, \dfrac{a^2 \bx}{|\bx|^2} & |\bx| \geq a \\[2em]
\dfrac{\overline{p} \left(R^{2} -
a^{2}\right)}{2 R^{2} \mu + 2 \lambda a^{2} + 2
\mu a^{2}} \,{\bx} & |\bx| < a
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The function $\bu^{\Omega}$ defined in \eqref{eq:2d-extended}
is continuous across the vessel boundary $\Gamma$.
However, the normal stress has a jump given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2d-sigma-jump}
g_a \bn := \llbracket \tens{\sigma}(\bu^{\Omega}) \bn\rrbracket_{\Gamma} := \frac{R^{2} \overline{p}
\left(\lambda + 2 \mu\right)}{R^{2} \mu + \lambda a^{2}
+ \mu a^{2}} \bn \,.
\end{equation}
Hence, in order to define an elasticity problem on $\Omega$,
whose solution is given by $\bu^{\Omega}$, we will consider
a fictitious elastic material defined on the whole domain, with the same properties as the original one
(defined in $\Omega^a$), but subjected to
a singular source term that imposes the jump $g_a \bn$ in the normal stress.
Namely, we consider the following problem:
\begin{problem}[2D, singular] \label{pb:two-dimensional-distributional}
Given an excess pressure $\overline{p}>0$, find the distributional solution $\bu$ to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:two-d-distributional}
\begin{aligned}
& -\nabla \cdot \tens{\sigma}(\bu) = \bF^S_a,\;& &\text{ in }\;\Omega\\
& \bu = \boldsymbol 0,\; &&\text{ on }\; \Gamma_D \\
& \tens{\sigma}(\bu) \cdot \bn = \boldsymbol 0,\; &&\text{ on }\; \Gamma_N
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{F2D-sing}
\bF^S_a(\bx) := \int_{\Gamma} \delta(\bx-\by) g_a \bn(\by)
\d \Gamma_{\by},\; \qquad \forall \bx \in \Omega
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ denotes the two-dimensional Dirac delta distribution
and $\mathbf y$ stands for a local coordinate on the interface $\Gamma$.
\end{problem}
In order to understand the definition of
Problem~\ref{pb:two-dimensional-distributional}, let us introduce the
Sobolev space
\[
V := \{ \vv \in (H^1(\Omega))^2, \text{ such that }
\vv|_{\Gamma_D} = \bs{0} \}\,,
\]
denoting with
$(\cdot,\cdot)$ the scalar product in $L^2(\Omega)$, and with $<\cdot, \cdot>$
the duality product between $H_0^1(\Omega)$ and its dual space
$H^{-1}(\Omega)$. Multiplying \eqref{eq:two-d-distributional} with a
function $\vv \in V$ and integrating by parts over $\Omega^a$ we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{elasto-omeps-weak}
\begin{aligned}
2 \mu \( \tens{e}(\bu),\tens{e}(\vv)\)_{\Omega^a} + \lambda \(\ldiv\bu,\ldiv\vv\)_{\Omega^a}
- \( \tens{\sigma}(\bu) \cdot \bn,\vv\)_{\Gamma} = 0\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Proceeding similarly, but considering a fictitious elasticity problem
inside $\Ve{a}$ with the same characteristics of the surrounding
elastic matrix, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{elasto-Ve-weak}
2\mu \( \tens{e}(\bu), \tens{e}( \vv ) \)_{\Ve{a}} +
\lambda \(\ldiv\bu,\ldiv\vv\)_{\Ve{a}} +
\( \tens{\sigma}(\bu) \cdot \bn, \vv \)_{\Gamma} = 0
\end{equation}
where the signs of the last terms in \eqref{elasto-omeps-weak} and \eqref{elasto-Ve-weak}
depend on the chosen
orientation of the normal vector $\bn$ (from the tissue towards the vessel).
%
Summing \eqref{elasto-omeps-weak} and \eqref{elasto-Ve-weak},
imposing continuity on the displacement and the given jump of the normal stress
\eqref{eq:2d-sigma-jump}, we obtain the weak formulation:
\begin{problem}[2D, singular, variational]
\label{pb:two-dimensional-singular-variational}
Given an excess pressure $\bar p$, find the solution $\bu \in V$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{elasto-Omega-weak}
(2\mu \tens{e}(\bu), \tens{e}(\vv))_{\Omega} + (\lambda \ldiv\bu, \ldiv
\vv)_{\Omega} =
\int_{\Gamma} g_a \bn \cdot \vv \, \qquad \forall \vv \in V.
\end{equation}
\end{problem}
Now, let us introduce the distributional definition of the two dimensional Dirac delta
distribution, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Dirac-definition}
\int_\Omega \vv(\bx) \delta(\bx-\by) \d x = \vv(\by) \quad \forall \vv\in V
\cap C^0(\Omega), \forall \by \in \Omega\,.
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:Dirac-definition}, switching the order of integration,
and interpreting the integral on $\Gamma$ of functions in $V$ in
the sense of traces, it is possible to rewrite formally the term
$\int_\Gamma g_a \bn \cdot \vv$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\int_{\Gamma} g_a(\by) \bn(\by) \cdot \phantom{\int_\Omega} \vv(\by)
\phantom{\delta(\bx-\by) \d x} \d \Gamma_{\mathbf y} &
= \\
\int_{\Gamma} g_a(\by) \bn(\by) \cdot \int_\Omega \vv(\bx) \delta(\bx-\by) \d x \d \Gamma_{\mathbf y} &= \\
\int_{\Omega} ~\int_\Gamma g_a \bn(\mathbf y)
\delta(\bx-\mathbf y) \d \Gamma_{\mathbf y} ~\cdot~\vv(\bx) \d \bx & =:
<\bF_a^S,\vv>,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bF_a^S$ is the singular forcing term introduced in \eqref{F2D-sing}.
For a detailed discussion on the behaviour of this distributional
forcing term, see~\cite{HeltaiRotundo-2016-a}. The term $\bF_a^S$ is a
distribution in $H^{-1}(\Omega)$, and was introduced originally
in~\cite{BoffiGastaldi-2003-b} and later generalized
in~\cite{Heltai-2008-a, BoffiGastaldiHeltaiPeskin-2008-a,
HeltaiCostanzo-2012-a} as a variational formulation of the Immersed
Boundary Method~\cite{Peskin-2002-The-immersed-boundary-0}, to
approximate fluid structure interaction problems using non-matching
grids between the immersed structure and the surrounding fluid.
\subsection{The hypersingular problem}\label{ssec:hyper-2d}
The variational formulation introduced in \eqref{elasto-Omega-weak}
allows to reformulate the coupled problem as an elasticity problem on the whole domain $\Omega$
without explicitly taking into account the boundary condition on the
vessel boundary, so that, in the axi-symmetric case, the solution
coincides with the exact one outside the vessel $\Ve{a}$.
%
From the practical point of view, this approach might be used to employ a spatial discretization (mesh) that
does not explicitly resolve in full detail the vessel boundary, hence considerably reducing
the overall complexity, especially in the case of thin vessels.
On the other hand, a discretization of the formulation described in
Problem~\ref{pb:two-dimensional-distributional} still requires a
characteristic mesh size that resolves the vessels boundary, in order
to compute accurately enough the integral on $\Gamma_a$. For small
to very small vessels sizes, this constrain might still yield an excessive computational
cost.
To tackle this issue, we generalize our approach one step
further. Namely, let us consider an additional parameter
$\varepsilon>0$, representing the \emph{fictitious area of influence
of the vessels}, and the corresponding circle $\Ve{\varepsilon}$ of
radius $\varepsilon$. We now look for a fictitious elasticity problem
inside both $\Ve{a}$ and $\Ve{\varepsilon}$, so that the solution
coincides with the one defined in \eqref{eq:2d-exact} only outside of
the ball of radius $\max\{ a,\varepsilon\}$ (see
Figure~\ref{fig:approx-vessels}). Moreover, we impose a jump of the normal
stress on the (non-physical) boundary $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ instead of
on the vessel boundary $\Gamma_a$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{exact_2d_with_both_a_and_eps.pdf}
\caption{Example of vessel distribution with different radii $a_i$,
and same fictitious area of influence $\varepsilon$.}\label{fig:approx-vessels}
\end{figure}
This fictitious problem can be constructed analogously to the one defined in Section \ref{ssec:2d-sing}.
Namely, defining a continuous extension of the solution over the whole domain $\Omega$, computing the
jump of the normal stress across the boundary of $\Ve{\varepsilon}$ and imposing
this jump via a singular term in the elasticity equation.
In this case, the jump to be imposed reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:jump-epsilon}
g_{\varepsilon} := \frac{a^2}{\varepsilon^{2}} \frac{R^{2} \overline{p}
\left(\lambda + 2 \mu\right)}{\left(R^{2} \mu + \lambda
a^{2} + \mu a^{2}\right)} =
\frac{a^2}{\varepsilon^{2}} g_a.
\end{equation}
It is worth noticing that \eqref{eq:jump-epsilon} generalizes the formula previously derived in
\eqref{eq:2d-sigma-jump}. In particular, the solution
outside $\Ve{a}$ reduces to \eqref{eq:2d-extended} only if
$\varepsilon \leq a$. When $\varepsilon > a$, the solution coincides
with the exact one only outside of $\varepsilon$, and there is a
region, corresponding to the area between $\varepsilon$ and $a$, where
the solution is unphysical.
The advantage of using \eqref{eq:jump-epsilon}, is that we can define arbitrarily the
scale $\varepsilon$, that represents the \emph{resolution} of interest, i.e., the
relevant scale at which we want to approximate our singular forcing term.
At a distance at least $\varepsilon$ from the
vessels, the solution coincides with the expected one, while inside
the vessels, or inside a ball of radius $\varepsilon$ from the vessel
(whichever is bigger), the solution we obtain is unphysical.
The resolution at which we need to integrate over
$\Gamma_\varepsilon$ is now independent on the vessels size $a$, and,
in particular, it can be fixed \emph{a posteriori}, after a
discretization strategy (and a mesh size) is defined for the domain
$\Omega$.
This allows to define a forcing term in the limit for
$\varepsilon \to 0$, independently on the vessel's size. In this case,
the forcing term for a single vessel centered at the origin in the
variational formulation would reduce to
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hs-derivation}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \int_{\Gamma_\varepsilon} g_{\varepsilon} \bn \cdot \vv \d \Gamma& =\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}
\int_{\Ve{\varepsilon}} \frac{a^2}{\varepsilon^{2}} g_a \ldiv\vv \d \bx
\\
& = \pi a^2 g_a \ldiv\vv
(\boldsymbol{0}), \quad \forall \vv \in C^1(\Omega).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:hs-derivation} defines the hyper-singular forcing
term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hyper-singular-definition-delta}
\bF^H(\bx) := -\pi a^2 g_a \grad \delta(\bx),
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hyper-singular-definition}
< \bF^H, \vv> := \pi a^2 g_a \ldiv\vv (\boldsymbol{0}) \qquad \forall
\vv \in C^1(\Omega).
\end{equation}
We remark here that $\bF^H$ cannot be used \emph{as-is} as a source
term for our elasticity problem, since it does not belong to the space
$H^{-1}(\Omega)$.
It is however possible to \emph{mollify} the hyper singular
formulation \eqref{eq:hyper-singular-definition-delta}, by employing a
smooth approximation of the Dirac delta distribution
$\delta^{\varepsilon'}$, according to a small parameter
$\varepsilon'$, that again represents the resolution at which we
resolve our singular forcing terms.
Although this new parameter is technically
different from the one introduced in Equation~\eqref{eq:jump-epsilon},
in the rest of the paper we will set $\varepsilon' = \varepsilon$, i.e.,
identifying the scale of interest with the radius of approximation of the Dirac
delta distribution.
In particular, we consider approximations $\delta^\varepsilon$ of the
Dirac delta distribution such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) = \delta^\varepsilon(\by-\bx)$
\item $\int_{\Re^2} \delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) \d \by =
\int_{B_\varepsilon(\bx)} \delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) \d \by = 1$
\item $\delta^\varepsilon \in C^1(\Re^2)$
\item $\int_{\Re^2} \nabla_\by \delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) \d \by =
\int_{B_\varepsilon(\bx)} \nabla_\by \delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) \d \by = \bs{0}$.
\end{itemize}
and we defined the \emph{mollified} forcing term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hyper-singular-mollified-definition}
< \bF_\varepsilon^H, \vv> := \int_\Omega \delta^\varepsilon(\by)\pi
a^2 g_a \ldiv\vv (\by) \d \by \qquad \forall
\vv \in H^1(\Omega).
\end{equation}
For a discussion on the properties of possible Dirac delta
approximations to use, we refer the reader to the excellent review
paper~\cite{Hosseini2014}.
The above formula can be straightforwardly generalized to the case of $N$ vessels, of radii
$a_i$, $i=1,\hdots,N$ and centered in $\bx_i$, $i=1,\hdots,N$.
Introducing also the approximation
$a \ll R$ for the definition of the stress jump, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2d-sigma-jump-approx}
g_a \bn = \frac{R^{2} \overline{p}
\left(\lambda + 2 \mu\right)}{R^{2} \mu + \lambda a^{2}
+ \mu a^{2}} \bn = \frac{2\mu + \lambda}{\mu} \overline{p} + O\left( \left( \frac{a}{R} \right)^2\right)\,,
\end{equation}
we obtain the hyper-singular forcing term
\[
\bF^H(\bx) =
-\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{2 \mu + \lambda}{\mu} \pi a_i^2 \overline{p}_i \, \grad \delta (\bx - \bx_i)\,.
\]
and its mollified version:
\[
\bF_\varepsilon^H(\bx) =
-\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{2 \mu + \lambda}{\mu} \pi a_i^2 \overline{p}_i \, \grad \delta^\varepsilon (\bx - \bx_i)\,.
\]
In the two dimensional model, one can use either
$\bF^S_a, \bF^S_\varepsilon$, or $\bF^H_\varepsilon$ as forcing terms
and obtain a solution that approximates the exact solution outside
of the vessels up to higher order terms with respect to both the
ratio $a/R$ and $\varepsilon$.
When considering finite dimensional approximations, the first two
choices require the full discretization of the vessel boundary
$\Gamma$ or of the fictitious boundary
$\partial B_\varepsilon$, while employing $\bF^H_\varepsilon$
only requires evaluation of the integrals expressed in
Equation~\eqref{eq:hyper-singular-mollified-definition}.
\section{Three-dimensional case}
\label{sec:3d}
In three dimensions, we consider the vasculature as a network of
vessels, where each vessel is approximated as a thin
cylindrical domain, described via a one-dimensional manifold, denoted
as the \textit{centerline}, and a radius varying along the centerline.
In order to obtain the singular source terms, we will then integrate
over the centerline the equivalent of the two-dimensional formulation
discussed in Section \ref{sec:2d} considered on a plane that is
locally orthogonal to the centerline.
In what follows, we will also assume that curvature of each vessels, within a single segment,
varies slowly w.r.t. to its arclength, so that its effect, as well as
elastic effects of the vessels, may be neglected. For a possible way
to include the elastic behaviour of the vessels we refer
to~\cite{alzettaheltai-2018-a}. In each cross sectional plane of the
vessel, we approximate the local behaviour of the problem as in the
two-dimensional axi-symmetric case.
\subsection{Geometrical setting}
In order to introduce the geometrical model of vascular network, we decompose the network in a set of
non-intersecting vessel segments. For each segment, let us introduce a one-dimensional arc-length curve
\[
\bgamma (s): [0,L] \to \Omega \subset R^3,
\]
describing the vessel centerline, and a positive function
\[
a(s): [0,L] \to \Omega \subset R,
\]
standing for the radius of the cross-section at each $s \in [0,L]$.
Moreover, let us denote with $A(s)$ the cross-section, i.e.,
the disk of radius $a(s)$ orthogonal to $\bgamma(s)$, and with $|A(s)| = \pi a^2(s)$
the cross-sectional area, for all $s \in [0,L]$
(a sketch depicting these quantities is provided in Figure \ref{fig:vessel-3d}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{./figures/vessel-3d.pdf}
\caption{Sketch of a 3D vessel, identified via its cross-sectional radius and its centerline.}
\label{fig:vessel-3d}
\end{figure}
In order to formally derive the multiscale model, we introduce at each $s \in [0,L]$ also the
\textit{Frenet} frame $\boldsymbol{\tau}_s = \gamma'(s)$ (tangential vector in $s$),
$\mathbf n_s=\boldsymbol{\tau}_s'/|\boldsymbol{\tau}_s'|, \mathbf b_s= \boldsymbol{\tau}_s\times \mathbf n_s$
(basis of the normal plane in $s$).
Finally, we assume that the fluid pressure within the vessel is constant over each cross section, thus
introducing a function
\[
p_{\bgamma}(s) : [0,L] \to \Omega \subset R,
\]
denoting the excess pressure along the centerline.
Let us consider a three-dimensional domain $\Omega$, the set
\begin{equation}\label{Va-def}
\vessel_a(\bgamma) = \{ \bx \in \Omega \text{ s.t. } \text{dist}(\bx,
\bgamma) < a \},
\end{equation}
(denoting the vessel domain) and the tissue domain
$\Omega_a = \Omega \backslash \vessel_a$.
Moreover, let $\Gamma = \partial \vessel_a(\bgamma)$.
Assuming that the domain $\vessel_a(\bgamma)$ describes a non-intersecting vessel segment, the coordinate transformation mapping
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coordinate-transformation}
\bphi(r, \theta, s) := \bgamma(s) + r\cos(\theta) \mathbf n_s +
r\sin(\theta) \mathbf b_s,
\end{equation}
is one-to-one from a cylindrical domain in polar coordinates
$(r,\theta,s) \in (0,a(s)] \times [0,2\pi] \times [0,L]$ onto
$\vessel_a(\bgamma)$.
We denote with $\gamma^{-1}: \vessel_a(\bgamma) \mapsto [0,L]$ the
function that identifies, for each point $\bx$ in
$\vessel_a(\bgamma)$, the arc-length coordinate $s \in [0,L]$ such that
$\bgamma(s)$ has minimum distance from $\bx$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-bgamma-inverse}
\gamma^{-1}(\bphi(r,\theta,s)) := s, \qquad \forall r \in [0,a(s)],
\quad \forall
\theta \in [0,2\pi].
\end{equation}
Assuming that the pressure is constant over cross-sections, we define
an extension $p$ (defined in the three dimensional vessel) of the
one-dimensional excess pressure $p_{\bgamma}$ via
\[
p(\bx) = p_{\bgamma}\left(\gamma^{-1}(\bx)\right)\,, \forall \bx \in \vessel_a\,.
\]
\subsection{The singular formulation}
As in the previous case, we aim to solve an elasticity problem on the domain $\Omega_a$
by constructing variational
formulation on the whole three-dimensional domain $\Omega$, in which the elasticity
problem in $\Omega_a$ is extended by a fictitious problem in $\vessel_a$.
Proceeding analogously as in Section \ref{ssec:2d-sing}, we seek for the solution of
a problem of the form
\begin{problem}[3D, variational]
\label{pb:three-dimensional-variational}
Given the excess pressure field $p_{\bgamma}$, the vessel
configuration $\bgamma$, and the radius function $a$, find
$\bu \in V$ such that
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:force-3d}
(2\mu \tens{e}(\bu), \tens{e}(\vv) )_{\Omega} + (\lambda \ldiv\bu, \ldiv\vv)_{\Omega} =
<\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma}, a)},\vv> \quad
\forall \vv \in V.
\end{equation*}
\end{problem}
The source term $\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}$ shall be defined in such a way to enforce, for
each $s \in [0,L]$, a given jump of the normal stresses across
$\Gamma \cap A(s)$.
Ideally, we would like to use
the same reasoning that lead to the definition of the two-dimensional model
problem, that is, defining
$\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma}, a)}$ such that the solution $\bu$ coincides
with the one that would be obtained by solving the true problem in the
elastic matrix alone, with non-homogemous Neumann boundary conditions
on the vessel boundary $\Gamma$ depending on the pressure $p_{\bgamma}$.
However, in three dimensions, an explicit solution is only available
for trivial vessel geometries and boundary conditions, unless we
assume that all quantities that change along the vessel coordinate
direction varies slowly w.r.t. to $s$. In this case we could still use
the same principle used in the two dimensional approximation by
integrating the derivation of the two-dimensional model problem along
the arclength $s$.
We start by constructing a force distribution $\bF^S(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma}, a)$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
<\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma}, a)},\vv> & := \int_{\Gamma} \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p(\by) \, \bn(\by)\cdot \vv(\by) \d \Gamma_{\by}
\\ & = \int_{\Gamma} \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p(\by) \, \bn(\by)\cdot \int_{\Omega} \vv(\bx) \delta(\bx-\by) \d \bx
\d \Gamma_{\by} \\
& = \int_{\Omega} \vv(\bx) \cdot \left(
\int_{\Gamma} \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p(\by) \, \bn(\by) \delta(\bx-\by)
\d \Gamma_{\by}\right) \d \bx\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In 3D, it is therefore possible to define the singular
source term as an integral over the vessel boundary of the
form
\begin{equation*}
\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}(\bx) := \int_{\Gamma}
\frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p(\by)\, \bn(\mathbf y) \delta(\bx-\mathbf y) \d
\Gamma_{\mathbf y},\; \forall \bx \in \Omega\,.
\end{equation*}
The next step is to generalize the singular formulation in order to impose a given jump of the normal stresses
across the boundary of a vessel defined by the centerline $\bgamma([0,L])$ and an
arbitrary, constant, radius $\varepsilon > 0$.
Let $\vessel_{\varepsilon}(\bgamma)$ denote the generalized vessel of
radius $\varepsilon$, defined analogously to $\vessel_a(\bgamma)$ in
\eqref{Va-def}, and let
$\Gamma^\varepsilon = \partial V_{\varepsilon}(\bgamma)$ represent the
boundary of such generalized vessel.
Proceeding as in the two-dimensional case, we introduce
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-of-ga}
\hat g_a(s) := \pi a^2(s) p_{\bgamma}(s) \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}.
\end{equation}
which is based on the approximation of the jump across the vessel
boundary in the two-dimensional case (see
\eqref{eq:2d-sigma-jump-approx}), and the forcing term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fepsv3d}
\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},\varepsilon)} (\bx) := \int_{\Gamma^\varepsilon}
\frac{\hat g_a(\gamma^{-1}(\by))}{\pi\varepsilon^2}\, \bn(\mathbf y) \delta(\bx-\mathbf y) \d
\Gamma_{\mathbf y},\; \forall \bx \in \Omega\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The hyper-singular formulation}
We introduce the gradient operator in the plane orthogonal to $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grad-tau}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \bu := \left( \tens{1} - \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} \right) \nabla \bu
\end{equation}
and the planar divergences as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:div-tau}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \cdot \bu := \text{tr} \left( \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \bu \right)=
\nabla \cdot \bu - \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \left( \nabla \bu \, \boldsymbol{\tau}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
Notice that, in the case $\boldsymbol{\tau}= (0,0,1)$ (vessel directed orthogonal to the
$(x,y)$-plane), the above definition
reduces to the gradient and divergence operators considered for the
two-dimensional case.
\end{remark}
For easiness of notation, let us denote
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:extension-ga}
\hat g := \hat g_a \circ \gamma^{-1},
\end{equation}
i.e., the extension of $\hat g_a$ on $\vessel_\varepsilon(\bgamma)$.
For any function $\vv \in (C^1(\Omega))^3$ the singular force can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Feps3d-0-0}
\begin{aligned}
<\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},\varepsilon)},\vv> & =
\int_{\Gamma^\varepsilon} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \bn \d \Gamma_{\bx} =
\int_{\partial\vessel_\varepsilon(\bgamma)} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \bn \d \Gamma_{\bx} - \int_{A_{\varepsilon}(0)} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \bn - \int_{A_{\varepsilon}(1)} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \bn
\\
& = \int_{\vessel_\varepsilon(\bgamma)}
\frac{1}{\pi \varepsilon^2} \nabla \cdot \(\hat g \vv\) \d
\bx + \int_{A_{\varepsilon}(0)} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}_0 - \int_{A_{\varepsilon}(1)} \frac{\hat g}{\pi
\varepsilon^2} \vv\cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}_1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
denoting with $A_{\varepsilon}(0)$ and $A_{\varepsilon}(L)$ the bottom
and the top face of the vessel, respectively, and noticing that
$\boldsymbol{\tau}_0 = - \bn$ on the bottom face (as $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ is directed along the
vessel, while $\bn$ is directed outwards).
We now consider the limit of $\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},\varepsilon)}$ for
$\varepsilon\to 0$, approximating $\vv$ within the vessel with $\vv \circ \gamma^{-1}$, i.e., with its
value on the vessel centerline. In view of \eqref{eq:Feps3d-0-0} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Feps3d-0-1}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} <\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},\varepsilon)},\vv> & =
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_0^L\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^\varepsilon
\frac{1}{\pi \varepsilon^2} \nabla \cdot \(\hat g \vv\) \d r \, r\d\theta
\d s + \underbrace{ \hat g \vv \boldsymbol{\tau}_0 - \hat g \vv \boldsymbol{\tau}_L}_{=- \int_0^L \frac{\partial}{\partial s} \hat g \vv \boldsymbol{\tau}} \\
& = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_0^L \nabla \cdot \(\hat g \vv\) \d s -
\int_0^L \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \nabla ( \hat g \vv \circ \bgamma ) \boldsymbol{\tau} \d s\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, using the definition \eqref{eq:div-tau} and observing that
\[
\int_0^L \frac{\partial}{\partial s} \hat g \vv \boldsymbol{\tau} = \int_0^L \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \nabla ( \hat g \vv \circ \bgamma ) \boldsymbol{\tau} \d s
\]
yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Feps3d-0}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} <\bF^S_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},\varepsilon)},\vv> & =
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \int_{\vessel_\varepsilon(\bgamma)} \frac{1}{\pi \varepsilon^2} \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\(\hat g \vv\) \d \bx
+ \int_0^L \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \nabla ( \hat g \vv \circ \bgamma ) \boldsymbol{\tau} \d s
- \int_0^L \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \nabla ( \hat g \vv \circ \bgamma ) \boldsymbol{\tau} \d s \\
& = \int_0^L \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\(\hat g \vv\) \d s
= \int_{\Omega} \left[\int_0^L \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\(\hat g \vv \,\delta(\bx - \bgamma(s)\) \d s\right]\d \bx,
\qquad \forall \vv \in (C^1(\Omega))^3.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In view of \eqref{eq:Feps3d-0}, we consider the variational formulation
\begin{equation*}
(2\mu \tens{e}(\bu), \tens{e}(\vv))_{\Omega} + (\lambda \ldiv\bu, \ldiv\vv)_{\Omega} =
<\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}^{H} + \bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}} ,\vv>
\quad
\forall \vv \in C^1(\Omega)
\end{equation*}
where the right hand side can be defined through the hyper-singular term
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3d-hyper}
\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}^{H}(\bx) := \int_0^L \hat g_a(s)
\grad_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \delta(\bx-\bgamma(s)) \d s,\; \qquad \forall \bx \in \Omega\,
\end{equation}
and the singular source
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3d-tgt}
\bF_{(\bgamma, p_{\bgamma},a)}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}(\bx)=
\int_0^L \hat g_a'(s) \, \delta(\bx-\bgamma(s)) \boldsymbol{\tau} \d s
,\; \qquad \forall \bx \in \Omega\,.
\end{equation}
which has support on the centerline and it is directed tangential to it.
In particular, if vessel radius and pressure are constant along $\gamma$, the
singular term \eqref{eq:3d-tgt} vanishes, and the immerser method reduces to a
hypersingular force equal to the tangential derivative of a Dirac delta function.
%
\begin{remark}
Notice that the forces introduced in \eqref{eq:3d-hyper}--\eqref{eq:3d-tgt}
depend only on one-dimensional information, such as
centerline, the excess pressure $p(s)$, the radius, and the cross-sectional area, and it allows therefore to
represent the vessel uniquely through a one-dimensional manifold.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Similarly to what happens in the two-dimensional case, the
forcing terms are
not in $V^*$, and we should replace $\bF_{\bgamma}^H$ and $\bF_{\bgamma}^{\boldsymbol{\tau}}$
with a mollified version, where the
Dirac delta distribution $\delta$ is replaced by a regularized
version of it, depending on a (small) regularization parameter (see Section \ref{ssec:discrete}).
\end{remark}
\section{Homogenized behavior of pressurized tissues}\label{ssec:tissue-homo}
Let us consider a tissue domain $\Omega$, with a given one-dimensional characterization
of the vasculature (centerlines, radii, and pressures), so that
the immersed method based on the singular forces \eqref{eq:3d-hyper}-\eqref{eq:3d-tgt} can be defined.
In pactice, this information can be either (fully or partially) recovered from medical imaging
(e.g., diffusion MRI) or generated artificially using statistical methods (as it will be shown later
in Section \ref{ssec:3dreal}). Let $\beta$ represents the volume fraction of $\Omega$ that is covered by
vessels (e.g., for soft tissues, $\beta$ is typically below 5\%).
Using the structure of the immersed finite element method,
we can additively decompose the solution, isolating the effect of the
pressurized vessels on the right hand side. In other words,
we can seek the solution $\bu^p_h$ in $V_h$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:homogenous-vascularized}
(\tens{\sigma}(\bu^h_p), \tens{e}(\vv_h)) = (\bv{F}(p, a, \beta), \vv_h)_\Omega \qquad
\forall \vv_h \in V_h.
\end{equation}
Starting from Equation \eqref{eq:homogenous-vascularized},
the goal of this section is to derived a homogenized characterization of the effective mechanical
properties of a pressurized tissue, depending on the properties (geometry, density, pressure)
of the underlying vasculature.
\subsection{Derivation in the two-dimensional case}\label{ssec:derivation}
To begin with, let us consider the two-dimensional problem,
which can be seen as a cross section of
a three-dimensional domain, in the case that all vessels are directed along the $z$-direction.
We assume an
uniform random spatial distribution of $n$ random vessels located in
$\{\bx_i\}_{i=1}^n$, with radius $a_i$ and with excess
pressure $p_i$, for $i = 1,\hdots,n$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/voronoi}
\caption{Voronoi diagram of the vessel centers for the
two-dimensional case.}
\label{fig:voronoi}
\end{figure}
Let us now consider the Voronoi diagram covering the domain
$\Omega$ with generators in $\{\bx_i\}_{i=1}^n$ (as in
Figure~\ref{fig:voronoi}). Indicating with $V_i$ the $i$-th Voronoi
cell, and with $|V_i|$ its volume, we can define the local vessel
density $\beta_i = \pi^2a_i/|V_i|$, and we can interpret the forcing
term in equation \eqref{eq:homogenous-vascularized} as the
approximation through the Voronoi diagram of a \emph{continuous}
integral over the domain $\Omega$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:simplified-f-uniform}
\begin{aligned}
<\bv{F},\vv> & := \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p_i
\pi a_i^2 \ldiv\vv(\bx_i) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} |V_i| \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p_i
\frac{\pi a_i^2}{|V_i|} \ldiv\vv(\bx_i) \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \beta_i |V_i| \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p_i \ldiv\vv(\bx_i)
\\ & \simeq \sum_{i=1}^{n} \int_{V_i} \beta_i \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p_i \ldiv\vv(\bx)
\simeq \int_\Omega \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
p \ldiv\vv \d \Omega,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ and $p$ are homogenised quantities that can vary
spatially, and represent the local excess pressure and the local
vessel density of the tissue.
This approximation yields an homogenized elasticity problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:homogenous-vascularized-2}
(\tens{\sigma}(\bu^h_p), \tens{e}(\vv_h)) = \int_\Omega \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
p \ldiv\vv_h \d \Omega \qquad
\forall \vv_h \in V_h,
\end{equation}
where the forcing term on the right-hand-side acts on the dilatational part of the
deformation. The solution to \eqref{eq:homogenous-vascularized-2}
satisfies the following conservation equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conservation}
\int_\Omega 2\mu |\tens{e}(\bu)|^2 + \lambda |\ldiv\bu|^2 \d \Omega = \int_\Omega \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
p \ldiv\bu \d \Omega,
\end{equation}
where one clearly sees that the pressurized vessel network
acts as a non-conservative pressure source in the energy conservation
equation.
Let us now assume homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on the
outer boundary. The force due to the uniform distribution of vessels (with
constant pressure and fixed volume fraction)
would produce -- up to rigid deformations -- a uniform
dilation (or compression). We seek therefore a solution of the elasticity problem of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exact-solution-uniform-pressure}
\bu = c \bx\,.
\end{equation}
In order to determine the constant $c$, we insert
\[
|\ldiv\bu|^2 = (2c)^2 = 4 c^2,\;
|\tens{e}(\bu)|^2 = 2c^2
\]
into \eqref{eq:conservation}, obtaining
\[
4\mu c^2 + 4\lambda c^2 = 2 \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p c
\]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c-val}
c = \frac{\beta p}{2\mu}\, \frac{2\mu+\lambda}{\mu + \lambda}.
\end{equation}
The effect of the pressurized vasculature produces therefore a stress on the boundary equal to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:expected-pressure-vascularized}
\tens{\sigma}(\bu^h_p) \bn = \frac{\beta p}{\mu} (2\mu+\lambda)\bn,
\end{equation}
and the corresponding total force $\bF_p$ on the face $A$ can be
computed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}
\bF_p :=\int_A \tens{\sigma}(\bu^h_p) \bn \d A = |A|\frac{\beta p}{\mu} (2\mu+\lambda)\bn.
\end{equation}
In the case of a uniform spatial distribution of vessels, with constant vessel sizes
and constant pressure, we obtain $(\bF_p \cdot \bn) \bn = \bF$, i.e.,
the internal force generated by the pressurized vasculature is always
directed along the normal direction to the surface.
Notice that the derivation of the total force
\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force} is based on the assumptions
of Neumann boundary conditions and on the fact
that the term $\beta\frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}p$ is constant across
the domain. In this situation, the divergence theorem yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:simplified-f-uniform-byparts}
<\bv{F},\vv> = \int_\Omega \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
p \ldiv\vv \d \Omega = \int_{\partial\Omega} \beta \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
p \vv \cdot \bn \d \Gamma.
\end{equation}
The same argument cannot be used in the case of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.
In fact, the term on the right-hand-side of
Equation~\eqref{eq:simplified-f-uniform-byparts} would be tested
against functions $\vv$ in $V$, whose value on $\partial \Omega$ would
be zero, meaning that a uniform distribution
of vessels with constant pressure has no effect on the
solution.
In reality, since the distribution of vessels is discrete (although uniform), its
effect should be noticeable also with Dirichlet boundary conditions,
by measuring $\bF_p = \int_A \tens{\sigma}(\bu^h_p) \bn$ for each of the
faces of the domain. By linearity, this should be equal (on average)
to Equation~\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}.
\subsection{Derivation in the three-dimensional case}\label{ssec:derivation-3d}
In order to generalize the above arguments to the three-dimensional
case, let us first consider a uniformly pressurized tissue where the
distribution of vessels is spatially uniform and only aligned in a
specified direction $\boldsymbol{\tau}$. In this case, the force exerted by the
presence of the vessels is isotropic in the plane which is orthogonal
to the vessels direction.
The singular force due to the presence of a constant pressure and
uniform distribution of vessels, can then be written as
\[
<\bv{F},\vv> = \int_\Omega p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
\beta \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\tau}} \cdot \vv \d \Omega = \int_{\partial \Omega} p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \beta\left( \tens{1}- \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} \right) \vv \cdot \bn\,,
\]
resulting in a uniform internal stress in the material, given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma-tau}
\sigma(\bu) = p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \beta \left(\tens{1} - \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} \right).
\end{equation}
To investigate the effect of the internal pressure stress, we observe
that, by symmetry considerations, a solution with homogeneous Neumann
boundary conditions should have the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u3d}
\bu = c \bx + d \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \tau \bx
\end{equation}
(i.e., an uniform dilation/compression plus a uni-axial deformation
along the direction of the vessels).
In particular it holds:
\[
\tens{e}(\bu) = c \tens{1} + d \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}, \qquad \nabla \cdot \bu = 3c + d
\]
which yields
\[
\sigma(\bu) = 2 \mu c \tens{1} + 2 \mu \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} + \lambda(3c + d) \tens{1}.
\]
Equation~\eqref{eq:sigma-tau} indicates that the stress along the direction
$\boldsymbol{\tau}$ vanishes, i.e., $\sigma(\bu) \boldsymbol{\tau} = \boldsymbol{0}$, yielding
\begin{equation}\label{eq:d_of_c}
2\mu c + 2 \mu d + 3\lambda c + \lambda d = 0 \Rightarrow
d = -\frac{2 \mu + 3 \lambda}{2\mu + \lambda}c
\end{equation}
Inserting \eqref{eq:d_of_c} into \eqref{eq:u3d} we obtain
\[
\bu = c \left( \tens{1}- \frac{2 \mu + 3 \lambda}{2\mu + \lambda} \right)\bx
\]
and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma (\bu) & = 2\mu \tens{e}(\bu) +\lambda \nabla \cdot \bu \tens{1}=
c \left( 2\mu \left[ \tens{1} - \frac{2 \mu + 3 \lambda}{2\mu + \lambda} \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}\right]
+ \frac{4\mu}{2\mu + \lambda} \tens{1}
\right) \\
& = c \frac{2\mu}{2\mu + \lambda} \left( 2\mu + 3 \lambda\right)( \tens{1}- \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The latter equation, combined with \eqref{eq:sigma-tau} when $\bn \perp \boldsymbol \tau$, yields
$c = \frac{\beta p}{2\mu^2} \frac{(2\mu + \lambda)^2}{2\mu + 3 \lambda}$, which combined with
\eqref{eq:d_of_c} leads to the following solution for the displacement
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u-ex-3d}
\bu = \frac{\beta p}{2 \mu^2}(2\mu + \lambda)\left( \left( \frac{2\mu + \lambda}{2\mu + 3 \lambda} \right) \tens{1}- \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The latter, together with~\eqref{eq:sigma-tau}, characterizes pressurized
tissue materials with a single uniform distribution of vessels with
volume fraction $\beta$, directed along the direction $\boldsymbol{\tau}$, and
pressurized with constant pressure $p$.
The material responds to pressurisation with an anisotropic
deformation: a contraction along the direction of the vessels, and a
dilation in the direction orthogonal to the vessels. When the
direction $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ is not parallel to one of the axes, the anisotropic
contractile behaviour induces shear in the material, as depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:pressure-induced-shear}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figures/pressure-induced-shear.png}
\caption{The effect of vessels orientation in a uniformly
vascularized material (represented in blue in the figure), with a
single dominant vessel direction: when vessels are aligned with
one of the sample principal directions (left), the resulting
deformation (represented in green in the figure) is orthogonal to
the sample boundaries. If the vessels distribution is not aligned
with one of the sample principal directions (right), a pressure
induced shear is observed (right).}
\label{fig:pressure-induced-shear}
\end{figure}
Thanks to linearity, the model generalizes easily to uniform
distributions of vessels with more than one dominant direction. In
particular, an anisotropic vessel distribution can be described by a
tensor $\tens{\beta}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:anisotropic-distribution-density}
\tens{\beta} := \sum_{i=1}^3 \beta_i \left(\tens{1} - \boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_i} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_i} \right),
\end{equation}
where the directions $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_i}$ are mutually orthonormal, and
$\beta_i$ represent the (constant) vessel spatial densities across
planes that are orthogonal to the directions $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_i}$.
The corresponding source term takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:anisotropic-beta-source}
<\bv{F}_\beta,\vv> = \int_\Omega p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu}
\text{tr} (\tens{\beta} \nabla \vv)\d \Omega = \int_{\partial
\Omega} p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \vv \cdot \tens{\beta}\bn,
\end{equation}
And the generated cauchy stress due to the pressurisation is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cauchy-anisotropic-uniform-distribution}
\sigma(\bu) = p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \tens{\beta}.
\end{equation}
The symmetric tensor $\tens{\beta}$ may be used to characterize the
influence of pressurized vessels inside the tissue. In particular, for
densely distributed networks of vessels, one may approximate the
tensor $\tens{\beta}$ by the integral
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:measuring-beta}
\tens{\beta} := \frac{1}{|\Omega|} \int_\Gamma \pi a^2 (\tens{1} -
\boldsymbol{\tau}\otimes\boldsymbol{\tau})\d \Gamma,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the centerline of the vessel network (the union of
all vessel segments), $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ is the local tangent vector, and $a$ is
the local radius of the vessel. When the vessel network is not
explicitly available, because data resolution does not allow to
reconstruct it, one could infer the average properties of the
pressurized material (Lam\`e parameters, principal directions, and
local volume fraction), by a sequence of pure shear and pure dilation
measurements.
\subsection{Characterization of vascularized tissue properties}\label{ssec:tissue-charact}
In the context of magnetic resonance elastography, tissue characterization is based on
the solution of an inverse elasticity problem where the spatial resolution of available data
(i.e., displacement field acquired via phase contrast MRI) is of the order
of millimeters, and it is typically much coarser than
the scale of vascular structures (vessel diameters).
Neglecting the effect of vascular pressure might drastically change the values of the estimated parameters.
This was shown experimentally, e.g., in \cite{Chatelin2011}, where the shear modulus values
obtained via elastography ex-vivo were much lower than those found in vivo.
These observations demonstrate that the inverse modeling of tissue should be based
on effective material models (at the scale of available data) that are able to
capture the influence of microscopic vasculature (and related pressures) on the
coarse mechanical parameters (Lam\'e coefficients).
This section discusses the implication of the homogenized model including the singular forces
(derived in Section \ref{ssec:tissue-homo}) in the characterization of mechanical properties of tissues.
Typical experimental settings -- targeted to the quantification of
elastic parameters -- are designed to induce one of two ideal
deformations: \emph{pure shear}, used to obtain information about the
shear modulus $\mu$, and \emph{free compression}, used to obtain
information about the Poisson ratio $\nu$, i.e., the ratio of relative
contraction to relative expansion of the material. The second Lam\'e
coefficient can then be extracted by the relation
$\lambda = \frac{2\mu\nu}{1-2\nu}$.
Pure shear experiments are easier to reproduce in \emph{in-vivo}
tissues, and mimic an essentially two-dimensional configuration where
the displacement is given by
$\bu_{ij} = \frac{c}2 (\bv{e}_i\otimes\bv{e}_j) \bv{x}$, where $c$ is
a controlled constant, given by the experimental setting, and
$i \neq j$. In these cases, it is easy to show that the corresponding
stress is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pure-shear}
\tens{\sigma}(\bu_{ij}) = c \mu_{ij} (\bv{e}_i\otimes\bv{e}_j + \bv{e}_j\otimes\bv{e}_i).
\end{equation}
A measure of the force along the $i$-axis, measured on the face with
surface $|A|$ and normal $\bv{e}_j$ gives:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pure-forces}
\begin{split}
F_{ij} & := \int_{A_j} (\tens{\sigma}(\bu_s) \bv{e}_j)\cdot
\bv{e}_i \d\partial \Omega = c |A| \mu_{ij},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
that provides direct access to the shear modulus
$\mu_{ij} = F_{ij}/(c|A|)$. In case of isotropic materials,
$\mu_{ij} = \mu$ on every face, and one experiment is enough to
characterize the elastic matrix.
However, when the tissue contains pressurized fluid vessels
characterized by the density distribution $\tens{\beta}$, the internal
stress does not contain only the terms in
equation~\ref{eq:pure-shear}. In this situation, the homogeneized
characterization introduced in Section~\ref{ssec:tissue-homo}
shows that the pressure induced stress is in general
anisotropic, and adds up to the shear induced stress independently on
the shear amount $c$, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:total-stress}
\tens{\sigma}(\bu_{ij}) = \tens{\sigma}(\bu_{ij}) + \tens{\sigma}_p
= c \mu (\bv{e}_i\otimes\bv{e}_j + \bv{e}_j\otimes\bv{e}_i)
+
p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \tens{\beta}.
\end{equation}
This modified expression of the stress should be taken into account when performing pure
shear measurements in \emph{in-vivo} pressurized tissues, as the
measured forces will contain also the pressure-induced term
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta-shear}
F^p_{ij} = -|A| p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \sum_{k=1}^3
\beta_k \boldsymbol{\tau}_{k}\cdot \bv{e}_i \boldsymbol{\tau}_{k}\cdot\bv{e}_j,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the measured force due to vessels in the
direction $\bv{e}_j$, measured on the face with area $|A|$ and normal
$\bv{e}_i$.
In practice, the effective shear modulus $\mu^e$ that
would be measured with a pure shear experiment with shear displacement
of scale $c$, is offset with respect to the shear modulus $\mu$ of the
elastic matrix by a factor that depends on the orientation of the
vessels, their volume fraction, the amount of internal vessel pressure,
and the applied shear displacement $c$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shear-modulus-correction}
\mu^e_{ij} = \left(1- p \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{c\mu^2} \sum_{k=1}^3
\beta_k \boldsymbol{\tau}_{k}\cdot \bv{e}_i \boldsymbol{\tau}_{k}\cdot\bv{e}_j\right) \mu.
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq:shear-modulus-correction}
may explain some of the experimental observations in the
literature \cite{Chatelin2011}, where the in vitro shear modulus values
obtained by transient elastography were much lower than those found in vivo
(with a mean difference of 66\%).
\section{The discrete problem}\label{ssec:discrete}
Let us now assume to deal with a polygonal or polyhedral domain
$\Omega$, and let $\{\mathcal T_h\}_h$ be a family of conformal,
quasi-uniform quadrilateral or hexaedral meshes exactly covering
$\Omega$ where $h$ denotes the maximum element diameter.
We construct the finite element space
of globally continuous piecewise polynomials of
order $k$ in each coordinate directions defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-Vh}
V_{h}
:= \{ \vv \in (H^1_{\Gamma_D}(\Omega))^d, \text{ s.t. } \vv|_T \in
\mathcal Q^k(T) \quad \forall T \in \mathcal T_h, \vv |_{\Gamma_D} =
0\},
\end{equation}
denoting with $m$ its dimension and with $\{ \hat \vv_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$ a
basis for the space.
We consider the following discrete problem:
\begin{problem}[3D, Discrete]
\label{pb:discrete}
Let be given a curve $\bgamma: [0,L] \to \mathbb R^3$, a function
$a: [0,L] \to \mathbb R$ describing the radius, and a pressure
$p_{\bgamma}: [0,L] \to \mathbb R$. Moreover, let $\bv{F}$ be one of
the singular or hyper-singular source terms defined in the previous sections.
Find the
displacement $\bu_h \in V_{h}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:discrete}
(2\mu \tens{e}(\bu_h), \tens{e}(\vv_h))_{\Omega} + (\lambda \nabla\cdot
\bu_h, \ldiv\vv_h)_\Omega= <\bv{F},\vv_h>, \qquad \forall \vv_h
\in V_{h}.
\end{equation}
\end{problem}
Problem~\ref{pb:discrete} reduces to the solution of the following
linear system of equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:linear-system}
\tens{K} \cdot \bv U = \bv b,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-K}
\begin{split}
\bv K_{ij} &:= 2\mu (\tens{e}(\hat \vv_j), \tens{e}(\hat \vv_i))_{\Omega} + \lambda
(\ldiv\hat \vv_j, \ldiv\hat \vv_i)_\Omega\\
\bv b_{i} &:= <\bv{F}, \hat \vv_i>_\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $\bv U = \{u^i\}_{i=1,\hdots,m}$ indicates the vector of coefficients of the finite element function
$\bu_h$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:definition-uh}
\bv u_h(\bx) = \sum_{i=1}^m u^i \vv_i(\bx) \quad \bx \in \Omega.
\end{equation}
The right-hand side of equation \eqref{eq:discrete} contains a
singular forcing term, whose numerical computation may require a discrete
approximation of the Dirac delta distribution.
We use one of
the classical approximations widely employed in the context of the Immersed
Boundary Method~\cite{Peskin-2002-The-immersed-boundary-0}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dirac-approximation}
\delta^\varepsilon(\bx) := \frac{1}{\varepsilon^d} \prod_{i=1}^d \theta\left( \frac{\bx_i}{\varepsilon}\right)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\theta(y) :=
\begin{cases}
\left(\cos(\pi y)+1\right)/2 & \text{ if } -1 < y < 1 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon$ is an arbitrary (small) parameter.
In the numerical experiments presented in the following Section,
we set $\varepsilon = 2h$, i.e., twice the diameter of the smallest triangulation element.
This approximation of the Dirac distribution guarantees that
$\int_{\Re^d} \delta^\varepsilon \d \bx = 1$ and that
$\delta^\varepsilon \in C^1(\Re^d)$, making it a good candidate for a
regularization of the Dirac distribution required for the
hyper-singular formulation.
For a in-depth discussion on alternative approximations of the Dirac distribution
and of their approximation
properties, we point the reader to the excellent
work of~\cite{Hosseini2014}.
\section{Numerical results}\label{sec:numerics}
This section is dedicated to the numerical validation of the mathematical models derived in Sections
\ref{sec:2d} and \ref{sec:3d}. We will consider first the simple 2D axi-symmetric situation with known exact solution.
Next, we will investigate the effect of random distribution of vessels (in two and three dimensions) and
use the hyper-singular formulation to derive a statistical model for the effective tissue behavior.
All numerical examples provided in this section were obtained using an
open source code based on the \texttt{deal.II}
library~\cite{Bangerth2007,ArndtBangerthDavydov-2017-a,AlzettaArndtBangerth-2018-a}. The
code is freely available at the address
\url{https://gitlab.com/code_projects/immersed-elasticity}
(\cite{HeltaiCaiazzo-2018-a}), and it is inspired by the \texttt{deal.II} \emph{step-60}
tutorial~\cite{HeltaiAlzetta-2018-a}.
All simulations were performed using $\mathcal Q^1$ conforming finite
element spaces on quadrilaterals or hexaedral meshes.
\subsection{Reference solution in two-dimension}
We consider first a 2D axi-symmetric problem, comparing
the results obtained via the proposed method employing
three different source terms to approximate the vessel network:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\sf{(S)}}]
A singular forcing term, whose
distributional definition is given by
\begin{equation*}
<\bv{F}, \vv> := \int_{\Gamma^a} \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p \vv
\d \Gamma
\end{equation*}
\item[ {\sf{(RS)}}] A regularized singular forcing term, given by
\begin{equation*}
\bv{F}^\varepsilon (\bx) := \int_{\Gamma^a} \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} p
\delta^\varepsilon(\bx-\by) \d \Gamma_y
\end{equation*}
\item[ {\sf{(RHs)}}] A regularized hyper-singular forcing term, given by
\begin{equation*}
\bv{F}^\varepsilon (\bx) := -\frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \pi a^2 p
\grad \delta^\varepsilon(\bx)
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
We consider $\lambda = \mu = p = 1$ Pa.
Figure~\ref{fig:comparison-mesh}
shows the comparison,
on a circular domain of radius $R=1$,
with a vessel of radius $a=.1$, between the exact solution (left plot) and
the solution obtained using the singular source {\sf{(S)}} (right plot).
Notice that the grid does not need to be aligned to the surface
$\Gamma$, thanks to non-matching interpolation techniques~\cite{RoyHeltaiCostanzo-2015-a, HeltaiCostanzo-2012-a,
BoffiGastaldiHeltaiPeskin-2008-a, Heltai-2008-a}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{figures/reference-2d}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=.32\textwidth]{figures/exact-dirac-2d}
\caption{2D axi-symmetric problem. Comparison between the exact solution (left) and
the numerical solution obtained with the singular forcing term (case {\sf{(S)}}).}
\label{fig:comparison-mesh}
\end{figure}
%
Although the ratio $\frac{a}{R}$ is not too small (equal to 0.1), the
solutions are remarkably close outside of the vessel, in agreement
with the asymptotic expansion \eqref{eq:2d-sigma-jump-approx}, which predicts
a residual error of the order of $\sim \mathcal{O}\big((a/R)^2\big)$.
For a more quantitative assessment, we studied the error, with
respect to the known exact solution, of the standard finite element
approximation in the exact domain (applying a Neumann boundary
condition on the resolved vessel boundary) and of the regularized
hyper-singular approach {\sf{(RHs)}}.
We considered two situations, with vessel radius $a=0.1$ and $a=0.01$.
For the first case (radius $a=0.1$), the errors are reported in Tables \ref{tab:exact_hole_a=.1}
and~\ref{tab:approx_hole_a=.1}, and graphically in
Figure~\ref{fig:error_comparison_H1_a=.1}.
Tables~\ref{tab:exact_hole_a=.01} and~\ref{tab:approx_hole_a=.01}
report the errors for the exact domain case and the regularized
hyper-singular case when the vessel radius is $a=.01$, while, in this case, the graphical
comparison is reported in Figure~\ref{fig:error_comparison_H1_a=.01}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\ErrorTable{error_exact_hole_a.1}
\caption{Error on the standard Finite Element Approximation, with
exact domain, and vessel radius $a= 0.1$. The columns reporting the number of degrees of freedom
is particularly relevant for the comparisons, in terms of efficiency, with the immersed formulation.}
\label{tab:exact_hole_a=.1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\ErrorTable{error_approx_dirac_a.1}
\caption{Error on the Finite Element Approximation, with
approximated vessel using the regularized hyper-singular approach
\sf{(RHs)}, and vessel radius $a=0 .1$. The columns reporting the number of degrees of freedom
is particularly relevant for the comparisons, in terms of efficiency, with the full finite element formulation.}
\label{tab:approx_hole_a=.1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{H1_error_comparison_a.1}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{loglogaxis}[
width=.45\textwidth,
height=.35\textwidth,
xlabel={Degrees of freedom},
ylabel={$\|u-u_h\|_{H^1}$ },
grid=major,
legend entries={{\small Exact domain}, {\small Immersed: Approximated Dirac}}
]
\addplot table[x=1, y=4]{\DataTwoD};
\addplot table[x=1, y=4]{\DataTwoDDirac};
\logLogSlopeTriangleReversed{0.8}{0.3}{0.1}{.5}{black}{1.0};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
%
\hfill
%
\tikzsetnextfilename{L2_error_comparison_a.1}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{loglogaxis}[
width=.45\textwidth,
height=.35\textwidth,
xlabel={Degrees of freedom},
ylabel={$\|u-u_h\|_{L^2}$ },
grid=major,
legend entries={{\small FEM Exact domain}, {\small Immersed: Approximated Dirac}}
]
\addplot table[x=1, y=2]{\DataTwoD};
\addplot table[x=1, y=2]{\DataTwoDDirac};
\logLogSlopeTriangleReversed{0.8}{0.3}{0.1}{1.0}{black}{2.0};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Comparisons of the errors with respect to the analytical solution obtained
using a finite element method where the mesh resolved the vessel-tissue interface and using the
immersed (approximated Dirac) approach, for
vessel radius $a=.1$.
Left. Error in $H^1$norm. Right. Error $L^2$-norm. The triangles refer to first order (left plot) and second order (right plot)
convergence slopes. The plots show that the immersed approach has the same order of
accuracy, and a comparable numerical error, as the
full finite element method, up to a mesh size comparable $O(a^2)$. }
\label{fig:error_comparison_H1_a=.1}
\end{figure}
The comparison clearly shows that for large vessels the exact domain
approximation remains the method of choice in terms of accuracy per
degree of freedom.
In fact, in the case of large vessel radius, the generation of the discrete domain
does not increase the complexity of the overall simulation and does not increase
substantially the required resolution of the mesh.
As it can be expected, the simulation based on the exact domain has a clear advantage
with respect to the regularized approach only when the mesh size decreases below $a^2$, i.e., the square of vessel radius.
At this stage, the immersed method
exhibits a
plateau on the $L^2$ error, coherently with the asymptotic analysis
presented in the previous sections.
\begin{table}
\centering
\ErrorTable{error_exact_hole_a.01}
\caption{Error on the standard Finite Element Approximation, with
exact domain, and vessel radius $a= .01$.}
\label{tab:exact_hole_a=.01}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\ErrorTable{error_approx_dirac_a.01}
\caption{Error on the Finite Element Approximation, with
approximated vessel using the regularized hyper-singular approach
\sf{(RHs)}, and vessel radius $a= .01$.}
\label{tab:approx_hole_a=.01}
\end{table}
When the vessel size decreases, however, the domain generation
becomes more and more computationally expensive, the required
mesh characteristic sizes decreases considerably, and mesh
quality might deteriorate, challenging also the exact domain approach, as
shown in Figures~\ref{fig:error_comparison_H1_a=.01}.
Hence, for small vessel radii, it has to be expected that full numerical simulations with mesh size
below the critical $a^2$-regime are no longer feasible.
These last plots show that the correct order of convergence is reached
by the Finite Element Approximation on the fully resolved domain only using a large number of degrees of
freedom. On the other hand, for smaller vessel size, the
regularized hyper singular approach achieves a comparable accuracy
with respect to the exact domain approach, at a fraction of the
computational cost in terms of mesh generation, which is totally
independent on to the vessel geometry and location.
\begin{remark}
Although the accuracy of the fully resolved approach might still be better, the order
of magnitude of the errors are comparable for the two methods,
making
the regularized approach a competitive alternative when the
ratio $a/R$ is small, with the
additional advantage that it does not require the meshing of the tissue-vessel interface,
which might introduce additional complexity in the fully resolved case.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{H1_error_comparison_a.01}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{loglogaxis}[
width=.45\textwidth,
height=.35\textwidth,
xlabel={Degrees of freedom},
ylabel={$\|u-u_h\|_{H^1}$ },
grid=major,
legend entries={{\small FEM Exact domain}, {\small Immersed: Approximated Dirac}}
]
\addplot table[x=1, y=4]{\DataTwoDSmall};
\addplot table[x=1, y=4]{\DataTwoDDiracSmall};
\logLogSlopeTriangleReversed{0.8}{0.15}{0.1}{.5}{black}{1.0};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
%
\hfill
%
\tikzsetnextfilename{L2_error_comparison_a.01}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{loglogaxis}[
width=.45\textwidth,
height=.35\textwidth,
xlabel={Degrees of freedom},
ylabel={$\|u-u_h\|_{L^2}$ },
grid=major,
legend entries={{\small FEM Exact domain}, {\small Immersed: Approximated Dirac}}
]
\addplot table[x=1, y=2]{\DataTwoDSmall};
\addplot table[x=1, y=2]{\DataTwoDDiracSmall};
\logLogSlopeTriangleReversed{0.8}{0.15}{0.1}{1.0}{black}{2.0};
\end{loglogaxis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Comparisons of the errors with respect to the analytical solution obtained
using a finite element method where the mesh resolved the vessel-tissue interface and using the
immersed (approximated Dirac) approach, for
vessel radius $a=.01$.
Left. Error in $H^1$norm. Right. Error $L^2$-norm.
The triangles refer to first order (left plot) and second order (right plot)
convergence slopes.
The plots show that the immersed approach has the same order of
accuracy, and a comparable numerical error, as the
full finite element method, up to a mesh size comparable $O(a^2)$. }
\label{fig:error_comparison_H1_a=.01}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Prototypical vessel junction}
The simple axis symmetric two-dimensional cases presented in the previous example provides
evidence that, when an exact solution is available, the proposed method achieves
the correct order of convergence.
To further assess the prediction capabilities of our method, we consider
a case in three dimensions that represents the prototypical building
block of blood vasculature: a $Y$-junction branching (see
Figure~\ref{fig:branching-test}).
We consider a $Y$-junction pressurised vessel of diameter $0.1$,
passing through a cubic sample of dimensions $[0,1]^3$ , clamped at
the top and at the bottom, and stress free on the lateral
surfaces. The minimum radius of curvature of the vessel centerline is
equal to $0.125$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics{figures/y-branching-configuration.pdf}
\caption{Prototypical building block of blood vessels: a
$Y$-junction, where a single vessel splits into two. The
$Y$-junction is surrounded by an elastic cube of dimension one,
while the diameter of the vessel remains constant, and it is equal
to $0.1$. The minimum radius of curvature of the vessel centerline
is equal to $0.125$. Numbers on the faces are used in
Table~\ref{tab:comparison-y-junction} to refer to the average
displacements. }
\label{fig:branching-test}
\end{figure}
The setting is designed to understand
(i) the effect of the curvature
of the vessel, verifying that the immersed approximation
is able to deliver a good approximation at the effective tissue scale, and
(ii) verify that
the model works when vessels intersect and overlap.
In this case, we compare the results obtained using with a finite element simulation based on a
fine mesh on the exact domain (i.e., resolving the vessel-tissue interafce), with the results obtained with
the regularized hyper-singular forcing term \eqref{eq:3d-hyper}:
\begin{equation*}
\bv{F}^\varepsilon (\bx) := -\int_\Gamma \frac{(2\mu+\lambda)}{\mu} \pi a^2 p
\grad \delta^\varepsilon(\bx).
\end{equation*}
In the case of the immersed method, the discrete domain does not need to resolve the vessel, but the mesh is
adaptively refined near the junction centerline.
We set $\lambda = \mu = p = 1$ Pa.
Table~\ref{tab:comparison-y-junction} provides a comparison of the
average displacements on the lateral and front faces:
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc|c}
& Exact domain & Hypersingular\\
$\bu_0 $ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
-3.87e-03\\
1.48e-06\\
-3.41e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
-4.81e-03\\
-4.66e-13\\
-1.75e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ \\
$\bu_1 $ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
3.87e-03\\
1.48e-06\\
-3.41e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
4.81e-03\\
-4.25e-13\\
-1.75e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ \\
$\bu_2 $ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
-8.86e-11\\
-3.18e-03\\
-7.70e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
3.73e-13\\
-2.88e-03\\
-2.07e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ \\
$\bu_3 $ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
-9.65e-11\\
3.18e-03\\
-7.69e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$ &
$\begin{pmatrix}
-2.93e-13\\
2.88e-03\\
-2.07e-04\\
\end{pmatrix}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between exact domain and hyper-singular lateral
displacements of the $Y$-junction problem. The numbering of the
displacements follows the convention used in
Figure~\ref{fig:branching-test}. In all cases, the leading order component of the average displacements obtained
with the full finite element simulation and with the hypersingular formulation are very similar.}
\label{tab:comparison-y-junction}
\end{table}
The table shows that the two simulations agree both qualitatively and
quantitatively, providing a good estimation of the behaviour of the
tissue surrounding the junction, with average displacements in the
same order of magnitude. Given that the radius of the vessel is
$R=0.1$, the expansion used to derive the hypersingular model, expects
an error in the average displacements in the order $10^{-2}$, i.e.,
$R^2$. The simulations, however, show a quantitative agreement with
maximum errors of one order of magnitude less than $R^2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{figures/junction-full-front.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{figures/junction-immersed-front.png}\\
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{figures/junction-full-top.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{figures/junction-immersed-top.png}
\caption{Local displacement plots in the exact domain case (left
figures), and in the hyper-singular model (right figures). Away
from areas of high curvature (bottom figures), the local
agreement is good. Close to areas of high curvature, the
hyper-singular model tends to flatten the response of the elastic
material.}
\label{fig:junction}
\end{figure}
Inspection of the displacement field close to the vessels is provided
in Figure~\ref{fig:junction}. The displacement plots show that there
is good agreement between the solutions in planes that are
perpendicular to the vessel direction, far from regions of high
curvature of the vessels (bottom figures).
However, the hyper-singular model tends to flatten the response of the
material around areas with very high curvature (top right figure),
providing an effective response similar to the one coming
from a \emph{straightened} version of the vessels. While the local
response is clearly different in the two cases,
Table~\ref{tab:comparison-y-junction} shows that the average response
on the faces of the sample is within the expected range, and the hypersingular
formulation yields, on average, comparable displacement in the leading order of magnitude.
A correction of the model that takes explicitly into account the
curvature of the vessels is currently under investigation.
\subsection{Pressurized tissue in two dimensions}
As next, we consider a tissue sample (2D) $[0,1] \times [0,1]$ with a set of 36 vessels of
radius $r=0.012$ placed at random locations (see Figure \ref{fig:tissue2d-domain}, left).
In each vessel, we prescribe an unitary pressure $p=1$, comparing the results
for the tissue displacement when performing a \textit{full-scale} simulation
(e.g., resolving the vessel interface and applying a Neumann boundary condition)
and when using the regularized immersed method.
We consider the case where the immersed method has a computational
complexity (in terms of number of degrees of freedom) comparable with
the full-scale simulation. Notice, however, that the immersed method
does not require the explicit resolution of the interface, hence
allowing for a much easier generation of the computational mesh, which
has been constructed starting from an uniform mesh on the unit square
via an automatic refinement strategy based on the Kelly-error
estimator (see, for example,~\cite{Kelly1983}).
Figure \ref{fig:tissue2d-domain} (right) shows the size of the discretization around the vessels
in both cases.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.42\textwidth,trim=2cm 1cm 7cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_fullscale_n36_domain.png}
\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth,trim=6.5cm 3cm 7.5cm 2cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_fullscale_n36_mesh.png}
\hspace{.1cm}
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth,trim=6.5cm 3cm 7.5cm 2cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_immersed_n36_mesh.png}
\caption{Left: Two-dimensional domain (unit square) with 36 vessels of radius $r=0.12$.
Right: Mesh around a vessel in the full-scale (left) and immersed (right) simulation.}
\label{fig:tissue2d-domain}
\end{figure}
A comparison of the two approaches is provided in Figures \ref{fig:tissue2d-results}-\ref{fig:tissue2d-results-zoom},
demonstrating the qualitative agreement between the displacement fields, especially
close to the vessels.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth,trim=5.5cm 0cm 7.5cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_fullscale_n36_contour.png}
\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth,trim=5.5cm 0cm 7.5cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_immersed_n36_contour.png}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=.17\textwidth,trim=25cm 0cm 0cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_immersed_n36_contour.png}
\caption{Two-dimensional pressurized tissue: isolines of the displacement field. Left: full-scale simulation.
Right: Immersed method.}
\label{fig:tissue2d-results}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth,trim=5cm 2cm 8.2cm 2cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_fullscale_n36_zoom.png}
\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth,trim=5cm 2cm 8.2cm 2cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_immersed_n36_zoom.png}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=.17\textwidth,trim=24.5cm 2cm 0cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/tissue2d_immersed_n36_zoom.png}
\caption{Two-dimensional pressurized tissue: zoom of the numerical solution
(magnitude of the displacement field) close to the bottom-right corner, in order to better compare the values of displacement
near the pressurized vessels. Left: full-scale simulation.
Right: Immersed method.}
\label{fig:tissue2d-results-zoom}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Homogenized -- Two-dimensional case}
\label{sec:two-dimensional-case}
In this section, we probe the hypothesis derived in Section
\ref{ssec:derivation} by performing a set of statistical simulations
in two dimensions, in which we consider several realizations of a random
collection of vessels in a box domain $\Omega = [0,1]^2$, we impose
zero Dirichlet conditions, and we measure the effects of the
deformations on the boundary, by averaging the forces exerted by the
expanding solid on the faces.
In this set of tests, we fix $\mu=1$, $p=1$, and we vary $\lambda$,
the number of vessels, the radius, and the refinement level of the
grid, to understand the robustness of the method with respect to grid
size, vessel density, and material properties. In the presented simulation,
the grid size is given by $h=2^{-\text{ref}}$, where $\text{ref}$ will be denoted as
the refinement level.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{random_distribution}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
axis equal image,
xmin = 0,
xmax = 1,
ymin = 0,
ymax =1,
yticklabels={},
xticklabels={},
ticks=none,
]
\pgfplotstableread{./data/statistical_2d_000_hyper_singularities.gpl}\mytable;
\addplot [
only marks,
mark size=1pt,
mark options={black},
]
table
{\mytable};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=5.7cm]{figures/statistical_2d_000.png}
\caption{Left: Example of random realization with 500 vessels of radius
$5.65\times 10^{-4}$ ($\beta=5\%$). Displacement field, obtained with $\lambda = 1$
and mesh refinement level 7 ($h=2^{-7} = 7.8125\times 10^{-3}$,
number of degrees of freedom equal to $33,282$). The maximum
displacement is on the order of $10^{-3}$.}
\label{fig:statistical-2d-500}
\end{figure}
The vessels are randomly distributed on $\Omega$, assuring that they
do not intersect the boundary.
An example of resulting distribution, considering $500$ randomly distributed
vessels of radius $5.65\times 10^{-3}$ (total volume fraction $\beta \approx 0.05$)
is provided in Figure~\ref{fig:statistical-2d-500} (left), while
Figure ~\ref{fig:statistical-2d-500} (right) shows the results
obtained with $\lambda=1$.
Figure~\ref{fig:statistical_distribution_2d} shows the statistical
distribution of the normal and tangential pressure force for 10,000
realizations of randomly distributed vessels with fixed volume
fraction $\beta \simeq 5\%$, Lam\`e parameter $\lambda = 1$, and
constant pressure $p=1$, on a grid with refinement refinement level 9
($h=2^{-9}=1.953125 \times 10^{-3}$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_2d_normal}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
ylabel={\# of realizations},
xlabel={Normal component}
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=0]
{./data/statistical_2d,ref=9,lambda=1,n=30000,r=0.001.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_2d_tangential}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
xlabel={Tangential component}
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=1]
{data/statistical_2d,ref=9,lambda=1,n=30000,r=0.001.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Statistical distribution of the normal (left) and
tangential (right) pressure force, generated with
$\beta \simeq 5\%$, $\lambda = 1$, $p=1$, and refinement
refinement level 9 on 10,000 realizations.}
\label{fig:statistical_distribution_2d}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:force_vs_beta} shows the mean normal force (with
$\lambda=1$ and $\lambda=10$) as a function of the volume fraction
$\beta$. The error bars show the value of the standard deviation,
which are only visible in the plot for the refinement 8 case, as in
the case with refinement 9 they are much smaller in scale.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_distribution_normal_forces_ref8}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[%
legend pos= north west,
xtick={
0.05, 0.1, 0.15
},
xlabel={Volume fraction of vessels $\beta$},
ylabel={Normal component of $F$},
]
\pgfplotstableread{./data/statistical_2d_error_bars_ref8.gpl}\mytable;
\addplot+[
only marks,
mark size=1pt,
error bars/.cd,
y dir=both,
y explicit
] table[x index = 0, y index = 1, y error index = 2]
{\mytable};
\addplot[only marks, mark size=1pt, mark
options={red}] table[x index = 0, y index = 3]
{\mytable};
\legend{{Refinement level 8}, {Estimated}};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_distribution_normal_forces_ref9}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[%
legend pos= north west,
xtick={
0.05, 0.1, 0.15
},
xlabel={Volume fraction of vessels $\beta$},
]
\pgfplotstableread{./data/statistical_2d_error_bars_ref9.gpl}\mytable;
\addplot+[
only marks,
mark size=1pt,
error bars/.cd,
y dir=both,
y explicit
] table[x index = 0, y index = 1, y error index = 2]
{\mytable};
\addplot[only marks, mark size=1pt, mark
options={red}] table[x index = 0, y index = 3]
{\mytable};
\legend{{Refinement level 9}, {Estimated}};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Mean and variance (vertical bars) value of the normal
component of the force on the pressurized tissue computed from the
statistical simulations, with refinement level 8 (left) and 9
(right), compared with the value estimated in
\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}, for $\lambda = 1$
(bottom three experimental measures) and $\lambda = 10$ (top three
experimental measures).}
\label{fig:force_vs_beta}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Homogenized -- Three dimensional case (aligned vessels)}
In the three-dimensional setting, the homogenized hypothesis derived
in Section~\ref{ssec:derivation-3d} are more difficult to probe because
vessels are anisotropic in nature, and realizations with totally
random distributions of vessels cannot be reasonably considered as
uniformly distributed in the three directions \emph{at the same time},
making the homogeneized model only valid as an average approximated
model.
For simpler settings, where the vessels are uniformly distributed and
alligned along a preferred direction, the estimated forces of the
two-dimensional case presented in
Equation~\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force} are still a
reasonable estimate of the force generated by the pressurized vessels
measured on boundary walls whose normals are orthogonal to the vessels
center-line, but cannot be used to estimate the forces on walls whose
normal is parallel to the vessels. The two-dimensional setting
corresponds to an infinite material along the z-direction, where
deformation and stress are negligible along the z-direction.
In the finite-domain case, boundary effects become more and more
important, and introduce a distortion in the homogenized estimate
given by Equation~\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}. In this
section we consider several realizations of random collection of
streight vessels, aligned in the z-direction, included a box domain
$\Omega = [0, 1]^3$, as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:3d-scheme}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{sample-3d}
\caption{Schematic cut-view of a three-dimensional realization of a
uniform distribution of vessels aligned along the z-axis.}
\label{fig:3d-scheme}
\end{figure}
We impose zero Dirichlet conditions, and we measure the effect of the
deformations on the boundary due to the pressurized vessels, by
averaging the forces exerted by the expanding solid on the faces. By
symmetry, the z-component of the total force on each lateral face is
zero. In Figure~\ref{fig:statistical_distribution_3d_lateral}, we show
the statistical distribution of the non-zero components of the total
force on the lateral faces of the cube.
For a domain that is infinitely long in the $z$-direction, this
distribution should correspond to the estimates provided by the
homogeneized expression of
Equation~\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_3d_lateral_normal}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
ylabel={\# of realizations},
xlabel={Lateral normal component},
xticklabel style={/pgf/number format/fixed,
/pgf/number format/precision=4},
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=0]
{./data/statistical_3d,ref=6,lambda=1,n=500,r=0.00565_sides.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_3d_lateral_tangential}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
xlabel={Lateral non-zero tangential component},
xticklabel style={/pgf/number format/fixed,
/pgf/number format/precision=4},
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=1]
{./data/statistical_3d,ref=6,lambda=1,n=500,r=0.00565_sides.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Statistical distribution of the lateral normal (left) and
of the lateral non-zero tangential (right) pressure force,
generated with $\beta \simeq 5\%$, $\lambda = 1$, $p=1$, and
refinement refinement level 6 on 6,000 realizations.}
\label{fig:statistical_distribution_3d_lateral}
\end{figure}
By constrast, the force exerted on the top and bottom faces is not
taken into account by
Equation~\eqref{eq:estimated-total-pressure-force}. For an infinte
domain, with Neumann boundary conditions on the lateral faces, this
force should be zero. However, in this case we have a finite domain,
and we impose Dirichlet boundary
conditions. Figure~\ref{fig:statistical_distribution_3d_z} shows the
statistical distribution of the normal and $x$-components on the top
face of the domain.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_3d_z_normal}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
ylabel={\# of realizations},
xlabel={Top normal component},
xticklabel style={/pgf/number format/fixed,
/pgf/number format/precision=4},
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=0]
{./data/statistical_3d,ref=6,lambda=1,n=500,r=0.00565_top.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\tikzsetnextfilename{statistical_3d_z_tangential}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\begin{axis}[
ybar,
ymin=0,
xlabel={Top $x$-component},
xticklabel style={/pgf/number format/fixed,
/pgf/number format/precision=4},
]
\addplot +[
hist={
bins=40,
}
] table [y index=1]
{./data/statistical_3d,ref=6,lambda=1,n=500,r=0.00565_top.gpl};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Statistical distribution of the top and bottom normal
(left) and along the $x$-direction (right) pressure force,
generated with $\beta \simeq 5\%$, $\lambda = 1$, $p=1$, and
refinement refinement level 6 on 1,500 realizations.}
\label{fig:statistical_distribution_3d_z}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A three-dimensional vascular network}\label{ssec:3dreal}
In this section we study the effect of realistic pressurized vessel
networks on a tissue sample mimicking a realistic setting of the inversion procedure
in liver elastography.
Namey, we consider a cubic tissue sample $[0,L]^3$, with $L=3$ mm
(of the order of voxel resolution of MRI scans), and elastic
characteristics similar to those found in human liver
($\mu=2kPa$, $\lambda=50kPa$). In these settings, we investigate
three examples of vessel distributions, with a fixed volume
fraction of $5\%$. We impose a physiological
pressure of $1kPa$.
In order to produce a realistic vessel distribution in silico, we begin with the
assumption that a vascular tree should fulfill the perfusion task with
the minimum effort, while maintaining its anatomical structure. In
general, this results in two or more competing mechanisms: on the one
hand, one expects that the total length of the vasculature shall be minimized;
on the other hand, other relevant physiological
quantity shall be minimized as well, e.g., the time needed by
oxigenated blood to reach perfusion points.
From the topological point of view, a vasculature tree can be seen as
a connected, edge-weighted undirected graph that connects some points
in the sample volume (the vertices) with a root point without any
cycles. When one tries to minimize the total edge weight, the emerging
structure is that of a minimum spanning tree\cite{Prim1957}.
In this work we use a simplified cost function, where the weight
assigned to each edge of the tree is the weighted average of two
factors: the \emph{piping cost}, represented by the Euclidean distance
between the irroration point and the connecting node in the tree, and
a \emph{total path length cost}, measuring the total path cost along
the tree from the root to the irroration point.
In particular, when the balancing factor ranges from zero to one, the
trees range from perfect minimum spanning trees (minimizing the total
length of the tree) to almost direct connections from the root to any
point (minimising the time it takes for blood to travel from the root
point to the perfusion point).
More realistic cost functions could be used\cite{Jiang2010} to take
into account other physiological details, or even mechanical
properties, but we leave this exploration for future works. We
generate artificial vessel trees using a publicly available code\footnote{https://github.com/pherbers/MST-Dendrites} originally written to
produce synthetic neuronal structures~\cite{Cuntz2010}, setting the
balancing factor to $0.5$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figures/randomly-generated-vessels.png}
\caption{Randomly distributed vessels, constructed using minimum
spanning trees with a balancing factor equal to $0.5$, irrorating
two thousands randomly distributed points in the sample.
Left: root point situated in the lower left corner (acronym LL).
Center: root point located in the center of the cube (acronym C).
Right: root point located in the center of the left face (acronym FC).}
\label{fig:three-vessels}
\end{figure}
We provide three different artificial vessel networks, which, in what follows, will be denoted by LL, C, and FC, depending
on the position of the root point relative to the sample, as
explained in Figure~\ref{fig:three-vessels}.
For each configuration, we compute the three averaged principal
directions as the eigenvectors of the matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:principal-directions}
\int_\Gamma \boldsymbol{\tau} \otimes \boldsymbol{\tau} \d\Gamma.
\end{equation}
Table~\ref{tab:stats-vessels} reports some statistical information
about the networks, providing the three principal directions and the
corresponding eigenvalues (rescaled and reordered so that the maximum
eigenvalue is always equal to one, and corresponds to the third axis
$\boldsymbol{\tau}_{3}$), and the total length $L$ of the vasculature network. The
average volume fraction along the direction $\tau_i$ is proportional
to $\lambda_i$. In particular:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:formula-for-beta-i}
\beta_i = \frac{L\pi a^2\lambda_i}{V_{\text{Sample}}(\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3)^{\frac{1}{3}}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|r|r|r}
& LL & C & FC \\
\hline
$\lambda_1, \boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_1}$: &
$ 0.4065,
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.0202 \\
-0.6652 \\
0.7463
\end{pmatrix}$
&
$ 0.9264,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.0775 \\-0.9225\\ -0.3780
\end{pmatrix}
$
&
$
0.6367,
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.0416 \\ 0.2416 \\ 0.9694
\end{pmatrix}
$\\
$\lambda_2, \boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_2}$: &
$
0.4274,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.8227 \\-0.4352 \\-0.3655
\end{pmatrix}
$
&
$
0.9609,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.3186 \\ 0.3822 \\ -0.8673
\end{pmatrix}
$
&
$
0.6936,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.0340 \\ 0.9700 \\ -0.2403
\end{pmatrix}
$\\
$\lambda_3, \boldsymbol{\tau}_{s_3}$: &
$
1.0,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.5680 \\ 0.6066 \\ 0.5561
\end{pmatrix}$
&
$
1.0,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.9446 \\-0.0531 \\ 0.3236
\end{pmatrix}
$
&
$
1.0,
\begin{pmatrix}
0.9985 \\ -0.0229 \\ 0.0486
\end{pmatrix}
$\\[1cm]
& \includegraphics[height=.1\textwidth]{figures/ellipsoid_LL.png}
& \includegraphics[height=.1\textwidth]{figures/ellipsoid_C.png}
& \includegraphics[height=.1\textwidth]{figures/ellipsoid_Fc.png}
\\
\hline
Total length: & $0.3839$m & $0.3795$m & $0.3878$m\\
Vessels radius: & $3.3455\times 10^{-5}$m & $3.3646\times 10^{-5}$m & $3.3284\times 10^{-5}$m
\end{tabular}
\caption{Statistical data of the vessels trees constructed in
Figure~\ref{fig:three-vessels}.}
\label{tab:stats-vessels}
\end{table}
In the LL and FC cases, alignment is predominant along one direction
(the principal diagonal in the LL case, and the $x$ axis in the FC
case), while in the C case, the alignment is roughly uniformly
distributed. Only the LL case should show a significant amount of
pressure induced shear (see
Figure~\ref{fig:pressure-induced-shear}). In all other cases, a
pressurisation would produce uniform deformations in the C case, and
non-uniform dilations along the $x$ axis and on the $yz$ plane in the
FC case, without significant induced shear.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.27\textwidth,trim=0cm 0cm 14.5cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/LL-disp.png}
\includegraphics[width=.27\textwidth,trim=0cm 0cm 14.5cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/C-disp.png}
\includegraphics[width=.27\textwidth,trim=0cm 0cm 14.5cm 0cm,clip=true]{figures/FC-disp.png}
\includegraphics[width=.13\textwidth]{figures/disp-legend.png}
\caption{Magnitude of the displacement field on selected slices
in the three sample networks (in red). The maximum displacements are given by
$7.9\times10^{-5}$ m in the LL case (left), $9.0\times10^{-5}$ m in the C
case (center), and $9.6\times10^{-5} $m in the FC case (right).}
\label{fig:displacement-three-vessels}
\end{figure}
For all these simulations, we constructed a structured mesh with grid
size roughly equal to $h=10^{-4}$. Given the relatively small number
of vessels in each principal direction, we do not expect the
homogeneized model presented in Section~\ref{ssec:derivation-3d} to
provide the same answers of the multiscale simulation. We measure the
pressure induced tractions defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pressure-induced-moments}
\mathbf{M}_{ij} = \mathbf{F}_{i+} \cdot \mathbf{e}_j -
\mathbf{F}_{i-} \cdot \mathbf{e}_j,
\end{equation}
where we indicate with $\mathbf{F}_{i\pm}$ the average force measured
on the face with normals $\mathbf{e}_i$ and $-\mathbf{e}_i$
respectively. These forces are the ones that an instrument would
measure on the given tissue sample.
Table~\ref{tab:pressure-induced-moments} report these measurements.
\definecolor{verylow}{HTML}{D5F5E3}
\definecolor{low}{HTML}{82E0AA}
\definecolor{medium}{HTML}{2ECC71}
\definecolor{high}{HTML}{28B463}
\definecolor{veryhigh}{HTML}{239B56}
\begin{table}
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
LL & C & FC \\
$ \begin{pmatrix}
\cellcolor{high} -3.00e-03 & \cellcolor{low} 3.30e-04 & \cellcolor{low} 2.00e-04\\
\cellcolor{low} 3.04e-04 & \cellcolor{high} -2.84e-03 & \cellcolor{low} 4.07e-04\\
\cellcolor{low} 2.05e-04 & \cellcolor{low} 2.12e-04 & \cellcolor{high} -2.60e-03\\
\end{pmatrix} $
&
$ \begin{pmatrix}
\cellcolor{veryhigh} -5.06e-03 & \cellcolor{low} -1.33e-04 & \cellcolor{verylow} 7.93e-07\\
\cellcolor{low} 1.28e-04 & \cellcolor{veryhigh} -5.05e-03 & \cellcolor{verylow} -6.61e-05\\
\cellcolor{verylow} 6.16e-05 & \cellcolor{verylow} -7.52e-05 & \cellcolor{veryhigh} -5.43e-03\\
\end{pmatrix} $
&
$ \begin{pmatrix}
\cellcolor{medium} -1.11e-03 & \cellcolor{verylow} 4.52e-06 & \cellcolor{verylow} 6.23e-05\\
\cellcolor{verylow} 5.76e-05 & \cellcolor{veryhigh} -4.61e-03 & \cellcolor{verylow} 1.71e-05\\
\cellcolor{verylow} 2.25e-05 & \cellcolor{verylow} -5.25e-05 &\cellcolor{veryhigh} -4.29e-03\\
\end{pmatrix} $
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Pressure induced tractions (measured in Pa) in the three
simulations (see Equation~\eqref{eq:pressure-induced-moments} for
a definition). Notice how in the case of perfectly symmetric
domains and vessels, these matrices should be symmetric, and close
to $|A|\tens{\sigma}$. The deviation from $\tens{\sigma}$ is an
effect of the lack of symmetry in the vessels. The color codes indicates the order of magnitude
of the different entries of the table (increasing, from light to dark green).}
\label{tab:pressure-induced-moments}
\end{table}
In all cases, nonzero off-diagonal terms indicate the presence of
pressure induced shear. Its magnitude and direction is non-trivially
connected with the local distribution of the vasculature. For example,
in the LL case, on each pair of opposite faces (a line in the matrices
of Table~\ref{tab:pressure-induced-moments}), we measure positive
forces (of roughly the same order of magnitude, ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 mPa) in the tangential direction. In the normal direction, instead,
we always measure a negative traction (of roughly the same intensity),
in all three cases, indicating the presence of vessels whose
directions have nonzero scalar product with the normal to \emph{every}
face.
In the C case, for every face there are always two directions along
which contraction is happening, while the FC case shows a mixture of
the LL and C behaviour (sometimes contraction along two directions,
sometimes only along the normal). From these results, it is evident
that drawing any type of conclusions on the effective mechanical
properties based only on average measurements
on the faces may be too inaccurate, if one does not properly take into
account the effect of the vasculature.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We presented a multiscale modeling of biphasic tissues composed by an
elastic matrix and a set of thin vessels.
Our approach is based on an immersed method, treating the interface between
solid and fluid as an immersed one dimensional manifold (described by
centerline, radius, and pressure).
Neglecting long range interaction between vessels, as well as vessel curvature,
we derived a finite element formulation in which the effect of the vascular network is modeled as a singular term -- with support on the
one-dimensional vessels -- in the elasticity equations.
The immersed method allows to simulate the effective behavior of a vascularized
tissue without requiring the full resolution of the vasculature. Hence,
the main advantage of our approach is that it drastically reduces the
computational complexity when dealing with large networks of vessels,
as it does not require to fully resolve the fluid-solid interface
within the computational mesh. In fact, vessels are represented
by point-wise singular or hypersingular sources (regularized Dirac delta functions) distributed along the
centerline of the vessels, and whose intensities depend on the physical and geometrical
parameters.
In order to validate the method, we show several numerical tests in simplified cases (a single vessel or
a bifurcation), comparing
the results of the immersed methods with the exact (when available) and fully resolved solutions.
In particular, we showed optimal convergence of the numerical solution in $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms
at the level of coarse scale, i.e., as long as the mesh resolution does not go beyond the spatial scale of the fluid vessels.
The numerical results show as well that, at the level of coarse scales, the immersed method
delivers an accuracy comparable to the fully resolved finite element solution, when using an overall comparable amount of degrees
of freedom, with the difference that the immersed formulation does not require the discretization of the
vessel boundaries. In order to validate the method in presence of curved (with small curvature) and intersecting vessels,
we compared the immersed solution with a full finite element solution on a mesh resolving in detail a vessel junction.
Starting from the variational formulation with immersed singular terms, we
propose a theoretical multiscale framework to analytically describe, in the case of uniform vessel distribution,
the effect of a pressurized vasculature onto the mechanical properties of the resulting tissue.
The purpose of these analysis is to, firstly, set the basis for the understanding on how vascular structures
should be taken into account when shear and compression experiments are used to characterize tissues, and, secondly,
to provide an explanation for experimental observations revealing strong differences in the
mechanical parameters (estimated, e.g., using elastography) in vivo and ex vivo.
The outcome of the multiscale analysis has been validated with a set
of statistical simulations, in order to correlate effective material
properties with the volume fraction of the vasculature and vessel
pressure. The presented examples showed that the non-matching
immersed method can be used to investigate, in silico and from a
statistical perspective, the mechanical behavior of the tissue given
the (statistical) properties of the vasculature. To this respect, the
main advantage of the immersed formulation is that the same
computational mesh can be employed for simulating different
realization, since the vessels are not explicitly resolved by the
mesh.
In order to demonstrate the potential of the immersed method in
realistic cases, we simulate a cubic tissue sample with three
different realization of a randomly generated vasculature, prescribing
different geometrical properties, and yielding different degrees of
anisotropy.
The scope of these simulations is to estimate, in silico, shear and
compression effects due to the presence of pressurised vessel
networks. This information provides a tools to correct the estimation
of mechanical parameters of in-vivo tissues.
We show that the pressure in the
(microscopic) vasculatures induces a (macroscopic) shear, measured as the difference between forces acting
on boundary faces. Although a validation
with a fully resolved simulation is not possible in this case, our results shows that the pressure induced shear
is highly correlated with the orientation of the underlying vasculature.
These results shall be interpreted as an intermediate step towards the
estimation of mechanical parameters of vascularized tissues. Our
purpose is to employ the proposed formulation for the solution of
inverse problems targeting the characterization of effective tissue
properties. The homogenized characterization, the statistical
simulations, and the simulation considering randomly generated
vasculature aims at providing evidence that the immersed method can be
effectively used to link microscale properties (geometry and pressure
of blood vessels) with macroscopic parameters (shear and compression
modulus of a tissue sample). In this work, we presented a detailed
numerical validation, limited to qualitative aspects in the case of
complex vasculatures. In order to assess the full potential of the
immersed method to address inverse problems in relevant clinical
contexts, future work shall focus -- in collaboration with
experimentalists -- on a more detailed experimental validation.
This work is motivated by the non-invasive estimation of mechanical
properties of living tissues using magnetic resonance elastography
(MRE), which combines displacement fields acquired using phase
contrast MRI (whose typical voxel resolution, in this context, is of
the order of millimeters) with a mathematical model of tissue
mechanics.
Physical models currently used in elastography are mainly restricted
to isotropic and homogeneous elastic or viscoelastic tissues. In
particular, due to the need of keeping the computational cost low,
clinical applications are often based on linear elasticity.
%
One of the scopes of our work is to go beyond these models, taking into
account sources of non linearity and anisotropy due to an underlying
vasculature, without necessarily sacrificing the computational
efficiency of the method.
The multiscale model derived in this first paper is based on the assumption of that the tissue matrix
behaves as a linear elastic isotropic tissue. However, by taking into account the fluid vasculature,
non linearities and anisotropies arise at the effective tissue scale.
On the other hand, although the assumption of linear behavior can be
justified in the range of small displacement induced in MRE, we plan
to extend the proposed model to more general structural models (e.g.,
poroelasticity) in upcoming works.
The presented multiscale model is limited to the situation of a static
fluid (at a given pressure) and it does not consider a full
fluid-structure interaction problem, i.e., we neglect the effect of
the tissue pressure onto the vascular pressure, and we ignore long
range interaction between far sections of the vessels. These
assumptions are motivated by the fact that, in the context of MRE, the
frequency of induced harmonic excitation (30 to 60Hz) is much higher
than a typical heart beat, and fluid pressure can therefore considered
to be constant.
One of the goal of our model is the possibility of linking
effective mechanical parameters with possibly pathological hemodynamic, motivated by current research
in obtaining non-invasive biomarkers of hypertension via MRE\cite{hirsch-etal-2013-compmre,hirsch-etal-2014-liver}.
Therefore, taking into account the coupling with an active vasculature, not only limited to the vessels irrigating the tissue sample,
is an aspect of utmost importance, and the coupling of the proposed immersed method with a
time dependent one-dimensional blood flow model\cite{mueller-etal-16} is subject of ongoing research.
In this context, it shall be also observed that the proposed finite element method
can be used to derive efficient reduced order models (e.g., reduced basis method or
proper orthogonal decomposition), where the finite element matrix
is assembled only once and projected onto a small subspace.
in fact, since the vasculature enter the elasticity equations only as a singular right hand side,
variation in the vessel (e.g., pressure depending on time) do not require reassembling the linear system, and all operations
can be performed within the reduced space.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{M}{odern} digital communications systems are rooted in networks of basic point-to-point (P2P) enabled devices. To ensure performance of these systems, various quality of service (QoS) metrics must be addressed to ensure user satisfaction. These QoS metrics range from security (e.g. low probability of detection, intercept, and/or exploitation [LPI, LPD, LPE]) \cite{2010Cirincione} in tactical networks to latency \cite{2011O'Melia,2010Cottle}, assurance, and throughput \cite{2016Nightingale} in more traditional networks; however, QoS can quickly degrade in unknown or attacked channels. A fully resilient P2P link would need to use dynamic signal processing capabilities coupled with autonomous machine intelligence to overcome drastic changes in the channel. This approach can be achieved with software-defined radios (SDRs) and machine learning (ML) and is intriguing in that it addresses the developing requirements of dynamic channels while increasing diversity and resilience. SDR and ML have seen increased use in the development of modern digital communications schemes including machine modems. The versatility of SDRs \cite{2014Goeller} to reconfigure radio links adaptively is used to increase the testing and development of digital communications. ML - the composing of machines to continuously improve (or learn) with experience \cite{mitchell1997machine} - has been applied across a broad scope of scientific and technological fields.
ML has been shown to be influential in signal processing applications such as computer and machine vision\cite{2017Kuang,2016Dhivyaprabha,2016Allodi}, anomaly detection\cite{2016Valdes,2016Mohd,2016Murphree}, and natural language processing\cite{2014Kandasamy,2015Pollettini,2015Lakhanpal}. In traditional systems, a ``machine'' is built as a solution to a mathematical system model. However, many practical applications are exceedingly complex which create cases where a mathematical model may not be easily formulated or implemented. Here, an algorithm can be used to build a machine by incorporating data which may be coupled with system models, regardless of their completeness. Currently, the use of multiple layers of ML algorithms to improve performance and broaden generalization, known as deep learning \cite{lecun2015deep}, is garnering the attention and focus of the research community.
SDRs are flexible and can dynamically alter functionality across the protocol stack which creates numerous areas of research interests and capabilities. Recent prevalence of 4th generation wireless techniques at the PHY layer has redirected SDR research to multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) antenna systems and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) applications. Similarly, SDRs are being used to investigate spectrum use optimization through congitive radio, dynamic spectrum access\cite{2014Kumar}, and software-defined networking at and above the MAC layer. In applications and complex concepts such as 5th generation wireless communications\cite{2015Wirth}, the flexibility and breadth of SDR approaches become ideal for low cost rapid prototyping.
By coupling the innovative capabilities of both SDR and ML, formerly impractical and computationally intensive tasks in communication systems are being accomplished on easily portable computational platforms. These couplings of SDR and ML result in a directional shift of modern communications systems such as in adaptive equalization \cite{widrow1975adaptive},\cite{ibnkahla2000applications}, spectrum sensing for cognitive radio\cite{bkassiny2013survey}, protocol identification\cite{hu2014mac}, and network optimization\cite{zorzi2015cognition}. Deep learning has been applied in Rayleigh fading channels for massive MIMO systems \cite{liao2018rayleigh}, been shown to synthesize modulation where the channel is previously unknown in adversarial networks \cite{o2018physical}, and has been applied as an autoencoder for OFDM schemes with non-linear amplifiers \cite{felix2018ofdm}. At the physical layer, ML is used in place of specific digital communications blocks such as: pulse-shaping filters, channel filters, serializers, forward-error correcting codes, and so on. Instead, network graphs are used to govern the operations of these blocks at the transmitter and receiver \cite{2017OSHEA,8054694,8214233}. The neural networks, or flow graphs\footnote{There is some ambiguity over the term ``network'' between the machine learning and communications communities. For clarity, ``network'', by itself, refers to the communications network while we use the word ``graph'' to refer to the learning network.}, are ``trained'' at their respective transmitter or receiver. After training, the learned machines, coupled with traditional communication blocks, are used for the PHY layer ML schemes.
In contrast to these discussed PHY techniques, this paper proposes the use of SDRs and ML in an attempt to replace {\it all} traditional signal processing blocks in order to create an expendable, yet resilient, communication scheme. A realistic framework is presented, referred to as deep modulation or deepmod, that can be used to generate a temporary PHY layer based on the channel and requirements of the communicating nodes. Upon the arrival of communication disruption or attack, such as a jammer, the graphs can be retrained allowing the nodes to recover communication. The link protocol is generated {\it ad hoc} and satisfies the current channel requirements. This protocol can be disposed of when: communication ends, periodically, or during an attack. As a result, two nodes create a unique communication chain that satisfies throughput requirements and can be discarded for a new and unique chain in the future.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig/system}
\caption{Example receiver processing blocks for A) a traditional PHY, B) a machine learning enabled PHY, and C) the proposed deepmod self-taught PHY.}
\label{fig:system}
\end{figure*}
{\bf Novelty}: To the best of our knowledge, we show for the first time a single machine learner able to create a holistic, self-taught P2P PHY that can communicate over acoustic, powerline communications (PLC), and radio frequency (RF) channels - all without changing software. Holistic in that, at the transmitter, information bits are converted directly to samples\footnote{More ambiguity between communications and machine learning communities. ``Samples'' is used for those values generated by the SDR while ``examples'' is instead used for inputs into ML graphs.} by the machine (deepmod); and, at the receiver, samples are mapped to classes using deepmod and then converted to bit estimates. Rather than replacing some individual signal processing blocks, deepmod creates and learns the entire software portion of the PHY layer in a self-taught manner.
\section{System Model}
To scope the presentation of this work, this paper focuses on the point-to-point (P2P) link where both Users are enabled for full duplex communications. The P2P channel then consists of two Users each equipped with an appropriate transducer (e.g. antenna) for that channel. This transducer is used to convey energy representing information over an unknown channel
\begin{eqnarray}
y_i & = & h_i\left(f_i(x_i)\right)+\eta_i
\label{eq:system} \\
\hat{x_i} & = & g_i(y_i)
\label{eq:systemrx}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_i$ are the information bits destined for User $i$. These bits are transformed to samples through PHY processing $f_i(\cdot)$ to then be transmitted over-the-air by the SDR. The channel $h_i(\cdot)$ corrupts the samples in some unknown manner and also includes adding $\eta_i$ as additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with variance $n^2_{std}$. For simplicity, \eqref{eq:system} assumes received samples $y_i$ are processed at baseband and signal magnitudes are bounded by unity. Estimates of information-bearing bits \eqref{eq:systemrx} are recovered through further processing, $g_i(\cdot)$, at the receive User.
\subsection{Traditional PHY}
The traditional approach to wireless communications is to find optimal bulk processing at the transmitter and receiver, $f_i(\cdot)$ and $g_i(\cdot)$, respectively, given some fixed distribution of the channel conditions $h_i(\cdot)$ and noise power $n^2_{std}$. Often, samples pass through a long chain of signal processing in order to correctly encode and decode the bits \cite{proakis1995}. Fig. \ref{fig:system}(A) shows what $g_i(\cdot)$ may look like at the receiver for a traditional approach to PHY layer processing. Raw samples are deframed according to some bursty traffic pattern. The carrier frequency offset (CFO) and timing mismatch, due to sensitive differences in User hardware, are recovered and corrected. Corrected samples are matched filtered and passed through an automatic gain controller (AGC) in case of multilevel modulation. After phase correction, the symbols are demodulated into bits and then corrected based on whatever forward error correction (FEC) was used at the transmitter. Though traditional PHYs may differ in order and types of processing from that shown in Fig. \ref{fig:system}(A); in general, each operation used on the data is ``optimal'' with regards to some metric such as bit-error rate (BER) or throughput for the given channel. Unfortunately, it is straightforward to alter $h_i(\cdot)$ or $\eta_i$ sufficiently, through an attack, an incidental interferer, or failure \cite{osti_1491329}, such that the optimal traditional processing also fails.
\subsection{Machine Learning PHY (ML-PHY)}
With the advent of SDR, many of these traditional signal processing blocks can be done digitally, and in real-time, after being sampled inside the radio. One use of ML in digital communications is to go further and remove these individual signal processing blocks altogether and simply pass the data through a ML graph, to perform, maybe not similar computations, but at least achieve similar results as suggested in \cite{2017OSHEA}. For example, consider the ML-PHY processing chain shown in Fig. \ref{fig:system}(B). Rather than using strict signal processing blocks, several of the blocks within the highlighted region are instead replaced by a machine that learns to do equivalent processing. This is immediately beneficially especially in channels where traditional blocks that were once optimal but become degraded through unknown channel effects or attacks.
Though using ML-PHY is interesting it is often not practical for two-way P2P links. In order to function correctly, the ML graphs must backpropagate calculations from the loss function through both graphs in order to update neuron weights. In a live system, this backpropagation cannot happen over the wireless channel in the traditional sense since there is not an instantaneous and error-free link between the source and sink Users. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the forward and reverse wireless channels are not heterogeneous. Finally, the above ML-PHY example would only replace a few of the many blocks required in a traditional processing channel. The following section attempts to design a more realizable, and holistic, framework for using ML in communications channels as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:system}(C).
\section{Deep Modulation (Deepmod)}
The idea of deepmod is to 1) Replace all traditional system blocks and 2) Overcome some of the practical difficulties of using ML-PHY in digital communications. By definition, deepmod must be self-taught as it learns the PHY layer and User graphs must converge independently over the channel. Consider the system described in Fig. \ref{fig:Deepmod2} which is referred to as the deep modulation framework or just deepmod for short. The transmit and receive chains are suggestive of autoencoders with convolutional neural networks (CNN); however, additional learning blocks are introduced to solve the problem of unrealistic feedback channels and signal asymmetry. Both User 1 and User 2 have separate network modules for their transmit and receive chains; \hl{a} ``critic'' graph is added to the traditional autoencoder CNN. The purpose of this framework is so that backpropagation of the graph happens only on the User's own node and not across the channel while still allowing meaningful training to occur.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/DeviceAdversarialTraining.png}
\caption{The adversarial deepmod PHY graph topology. A device can train its transmitter by utilizing a critic trained to recognize messages that will be successfully received by the other device (orange path). The receiver is only trained on whether or not it could properly decode the message from the known sequence (green path).}
\label{fig:Deepmod2}
\end{figure}
Training happens in ``epochs'' where all classes are transmitted as a batch over the channel. The deepmod loss functions $L$ are designed to minimize the class error detection
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{RX} &=& -\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} x_i \log(X^{\prime}_i)
\label{eq:costrx} \\
L_{TX} &=& -\log(C) \\
L_{CRIT} &=&
\begin{cases}
-\log(C), & \text{if}\ x = x^{\prime} \\
-\log(1-C), & \text{otherwise} \\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:cost}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N$ is the total number of classes. From \eqref{eq:system}, information bits are mapped to classes where a single time instance of the $i$th class is $X_i$ (a one-hot vector). This class is encoded as $Y_i$ (a group of samples or ``waveform'') by the transmit deepmod chain which passes through the wireless channel and is decoded at the sink User. The sink User then re-transmits the re-encoded message back through its own channel and the source User's receive chain decodes the message as $X_i^{\prime}$ as in \eqref{eq:costrx}. The critic is trained to predict value $C$ which indicates whether or not the sink User will be able to properly decode all $Y_i$. Figure \ref{fig:Deepmod2} demonstrates how the first path is used to train the critic and the transmit chain, and the second path is used to train the receive chain - all distributed and ``over-the-air''.
\hl{A detailed explanation of the machine learning graphs may be useful to understand how the system is able to train. Apart from the additional critic graph, deepmod follows a typical approach to deep autoencoding CNNs but applied to digital communications. At the transmitter, after bits are mapped to one-hot class labels, they are input into the encoder. An embedding layer maps the total number of input classes to a smaller embedding size. This is followed by two fully connected layers with $tanh$ activation functions. The output layer size is equal to the number of samples per class. Due to the activation functions, these sample magnitudes are bounded by unity and transmitted over the channel medium assisted by a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) and hardware amplification. At the receiver, complex samples, taken directly from the analog-to-digital converter (ADC), are deinterleaved into real and imaginary parts and input as features into the decoder. The decoder starts with two fully connected layers, which shrink the input feature size, followed by a convolutional layer. Max pooling is then used before a final linear layer to output decoded class probabilities.}
This approach to a self-taught PHY layer in digital communications is similar to approaches taken in generative adversarial networks \cite{goodfellow2014generative} where, instead of having a known set of ``real'' classes, deepmod nodes ``compete'' in developing their own PHY language classes understood by both Users. The learned weights of each portion of the network (i.e. receive chain, transmit chain, and critic) are updated based only on their corresponding loss function. The receive chain is only updated based on the known sequence, and not on the decoded/re-encoded message from the other User.
\section{Results}
The purpose of this paper is to show, experimentally, how deepmod can learn to exchange information over a variety of channel media without using any traditional processing blocks. All forward and reverse processing from \eqref{eq:system} must be learned and then implemented by deepmod. The following experiments were run using TensorFlow \cite{tensorflow2015} and Gnuradio \cite{gnu-radio} on a deepmod machine modem as described above. TensorFlow creates a fully connected graph when generating the gradient; to ensure that backpropagation only occurs within a User's own graph, care must be taken that backflow is stopped from the other User. For these experimental results, deepmod graphs are distributed on two separate laptop computers with no connections besides the wireless medium ensuring that no backpropagation occurs directly across the channel.
\subsection{Channel Media}
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Parameters for Different Channel Media}
\label{table:parm}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llllll@{}}
\toprule
Medium & fc (Hz) & Sample Rate & Transducer & USRP & PHY \\ \midrule
RF & 900M & 1 Msps & VERT900 & B210 & deepmod \\ \midrule
Powerline & 83M & 1 Msps & Coupler & B210 & deepmod \\ \midrule
Acoustic & 0 & 44.1 ksps & Speaker/Mic & N210 & deepmod \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In \cite{osti_1491329} favorable simulated and experimental results encourage closer examination into the concept of deepmod in a wider variety of channels. Details of these different media and hardware are explained below; however, Table \ref{table:parm} details the key hardware and parameter settings used for the channels. The primary takeaway from this table is that all media use the same PHY layer learner - deepmod - but with vastly different hardware and settings. For example, a 900 MHz signal, as in the RF channel, propagates fine in freespace with a VERT900 antenna but does not propagate well in the PLC channel and would not propagate at all in the extremely low frequency acoustic channel with a speaker and microphone combo; however, as shown below, deepmod learns a PHY protocol regardless of this extreme difference and viable communications takes place without traditional communications assistance.
\subsubsection{RF Channel}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/RFChannel}
\caption{RF channel experimental hardware for deepmod including B210 USRPs and VERT900 antennas.}
\label{fig:dm_rf}
\end{figure}
The RF channel represents the typical wireless environment such as that seen in the ISM band. For the RF experiments, we use Ettus Research's B210 SDR universal software radio peripheral (USRP) transceiver. These radios can operate at a center frequency from 70 MHz to 6 GHz with an effective bandwidth up to 56~MHz. Though the software-defined nature of this setup allows us to experiment in a variety of channel conditions by simply altering a few input variables such as center frequency and sample rate for purposes of these RF experiments the center frequency is fixed at 900~MHz, radios are equipped with VERT900 antennas, and the sample rate is set to 1 Msps. The transmit gain is adjusted, and received SNR calculated, to demonstrate deepmod performance over a wide range of receive SNR values for both training and testing. The experimental hardware setup for the RF channel is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dm_rf}.
\subsubsection{Powerline Channel}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/VariacChannel}
\caption{PLC channel experimental hardware setup for deepmod with high-pass filters protecting the B210s from the 60~Hz line power and variacs to simulate additional microgrid transformers.}
\label{fig:dm_plc}
\end{figure}
The PLC channel, though not as prolific as RF, has seen considerable use in commercial and academic enterprises \cite{facina2016cooperative}. For purposes of this benchtop experiment, a custom high-pass filter coupler was designed to ensure the USRPs were not damaged when operating over the high powerline voltages. To enable some customization of the channel, two 115 V input, 0-135 V output variacs are included in the forward and reverse links giving some control to the PLC channel characteristics. The experimental hardware setup for the PLC channel is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dm_plc}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/VariacMagResponse}
\caption{Frequency magnitude response of the PLC channel from 50 to 100~MHz for various output voltages of the variac transformer.}
\label{fig:dm_mag}
\end{figure}
It is well known that PLC channels have potentially rapid variations in the frequency magnitude response \cite{liu2014power}. Traditional communication protocols often assume so-called ``flat fading'' and rely on schemes such as OFDM when the channel is more selective. For example, the RF channel used in this work would be considered frequency flat. Ideally, deepmod is able to adapt and learn in whichever channel it is placed in regardless of the response characteristics. Fig. \ref{fig:dm_mag} shows the response for our benchtop microgrid hardware for a given turns ratio on the General Radio W5MT3 Variac. For testing purposes, we intentionally choose a center frequency such that the channel becomes frequency selective over the 1 MHz bandwidth. This is done to contrast the PLC channel with the frequency-flat RF channel and better demonstrate the power of using deepmod in the PHY layer.
\subsubsection{Acoustic Channel}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/AcousticChannel}
\caption{Acoustic channel experimental hardware setup: N210 USRPs with LFRX/TX daughtercards, network switch, and speakers/microphones for signal transduction.}
\label{fig:dm_acoustic}
\end{figure}
The acoustic channel is used for both over-the-air transmissions as well as underwater communications \cite{barbeau2017weak}. As the acoustic channel uses extremely low frequencies without RF energy, a different set of transducer hardware is required for this channel. The USRPs are changed to N210s with LFRX/TX daughtercards which can transmit at baseband with no carrier frequency. The trade-off is these daughtercards have no modifiable gain functionality disallowing power sweeps in the experimental results. The speaker and microphone are generic off-the-shelf models used in typical home computer environments. For the acoustic experiment, in addition to swapping transducers, the sample rate of the USRPs is set to 44.1 kHz, which is much smaller than that of the other higher frequency RF and PLC channels, and samples are transmitted at baseband (no carrier frequency). The experimental hardware setup for the acoustic channel is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dm_acoustic}.
\subsection{Deepmod Convergence}
When including any ML operations in communications networks \hl{there is a natural question that arises: How long does training take to converge? To answer this question,} over-the-air experiments were run using deepmod in the RF, PLC, and acoustic channels. For each experiment, the parameters from Table \ref{table:parm} were used. For training, deepmod initializes 256 random waveforms representing 256 classes. One training epoch consists of all possible classes sent across the chosen channel. Subsequent epochs contain a stochastic permutation, for training robustness, which is a typical approach to machine training. Each epoch is transmitted with a small time delay between batches so that frames can easily be detected by the USRP.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/convergence}
\caption{Class success percentage of deepmod training versus the number of epochs trained. Different curves represent training time in different channel media. Train SNR is fixed at roughly 10 dB.}
\label{fig:convergence}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:convergence} attempts to answer the question of deepmod convergence. Each curve represents the percent total number of correctly decoded classes per epoch as a function of epoch count. Initially, with random initialization of classes, the Users are unable to successfully decode each other's language. As time progresses, each channel successfully converges to a high probability of decoding most classes - all in under 200 epochs; however, the behavior of learning is quite different. The convergence time seems to follow the complexity of the channel involved which makes sense from a learning perspective. Where the RF and acoustic channels resemble AWGN, the RF channel is much wider in frequency and takes longer to learn than the acoustic channel. The PLC channel is the same bandwidth as the RF channel but is frequency selective resulting in greater training difficulty as shown by the jagged curve behavior and longer convergence time.
The number of epochs for convergence must be converted to seconds for a better comparison. The time to convergence, rather than number of epochs, depends on system parameters used such as sample rate and samples per class. For example, for batches containing all possible input classes, deepmod requires 2048 samples per epoch when using eight samples per class. In a 1 MHz RF channel - radios set at 1 Msps - the roughly 200 epoch training period can be accomplished realistically in just a few seconds even with the padding placed between epochs. The acoustic channel, with a faster convergence time in epochs, actually takes longer to train due to the lower sample rate of 44.1 \hl{kHz}.
\subsection{Deepmod Performance}
Similar to the deepmod convergence test, performance can be analyzed by first training at a certain power (called train SNR) and then sweeping test SNR in the different channels. It should be noted that these performance curves are class-error rate and not the traditional bit-error rate. 256 classes are used for the deepmod graphs with 16 real (or eight complex) samples at the inner layer. These values are 8 bits per class, and with transmitters set to 8 samples per class, result in a spectral efficiency of 1 bit per sample (potentially 1 Mbps for the given sample rate) of uncoded throughput. Uncoded since deepmod was not tasked with learning error correction for these experiments.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/cer}
\caption{Experimental class-error rate (CER) of deepmod in the RF and PLC channels. Train SNR is fixed at 10 dB while test SNR is swept as shown.}
\label{fig:cer}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:cer} shows the class-error rate (CER) of the RF and PLC channels when each are trained at 10 dB SNR and then swept test SNR as shown. The acoustic channel CER results are omitted as the hardware difference (no daughtercard gain) precluded a fair, and repeatable, comparison in received SNR values; however, Fig. \ref{fig:convergence} already showed that the acoustic channel can converge to a good CER performance. \st{For the given spectral efficiency, the CER performance of RF and PLC is on par with traditional communications of similar spectral efficiency and channels.}
It should be noted that the curves in Fig. \ref{fig:cer} refer to measured receive SNR and not transmit power. The pathloss in the PLC channel, with the chosen variac settings, is much greater than the RF channel for the distances between antennas. The USRP gain values are adjusted to compensate so that a comparison between received SNR can be made. Therefore, the difference in the curves is due to the nature of experimental results and not necessarily channel effects.
\st{In addition to showing how deepmod can replace traditional PHY layer processing, } \hl{This} experiment emphasizes another primary attribute of deepmod - its resilience or ability to change channel media on-the-fly without modifying PHY layer code. The exact same deepmod enabled laptops used for the RF experiment are used in the PLC channel simply by changing the transducers (antennas to couplers) and gain values. For example, one might envision next-generation smart grids utilizing PLC channels for data backhaul and secure communications. A catastrophic event or attack which renders PLC unusable, or severely limited, could be diverted immediately to RF simply by deepmod relearning to communicate in the new medium or remaining in PLC and learning around the event.
\subsection{A Note on Learning}
Though an exhaustive discussion on the implications of deepmod for digital communications is beyond the scope of a single paper, it is worthwhile to close with \hl{some final notes on how the machine learns to communicate, specifically, regarding hyperparameters used in deepmod neural networks and how deepmod is able to learn digital communications}.
One of the many hyperparameters in the deepmod graph is training SNR level. A popular question may \hl{be: What's} the optimal power level for training in a certain environment? To consider this question, two experiments were run in the RF channel where deepmod was trained at certain SNR levels and then tested at a different set of SNRs. First consider the convergence behavior of deepmod in the RF channel as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:convergence_db}. For these results the environment is fixed at RF while the train SNR is swept from 0 to 10 dB for various test SNR values. A valid conclusion is that the training time required for convergence decreases with increased test SNR. It is also shown that the system converges to the CER performance based on the train SNR value; however, this does not answer the question of CER performance as a function of train SNR.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/convergence_db}
\caption{Class success percentage of deepmod training versus the number of epochs trained in the RF channel. Different curves represent the different train SNRs.}
\label{fig:convergence_db}
\end{figure}
The results of this second experiment are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:train_snr} where a cross-section of the CER performance curve is shown for swept train SNR. It may be surprising to note that the performance of each test SNR is roughly convex as a function of the training SNR rather than strictly increasing or decreasing. Training at maximum SNR is not necessarily the optimal hyperparameter setting. This is easier to understand by considering the two edge cases: no noise (infinite train SNR) or no signal (zero train SNR). With no signal, the machine obviously cannot learn anything about the PHY layer and performance will be poor; however, a similar phenomenon occurs with no noise. At infinite SNR, the waveforms (representing classes) imagined by deepmod converge quickly to a solution that satisfy the machine's cost functions. Limited noise is too easy on the machine. The best learning takes place when deepmod must work at producing waveforms that function in noise - even if such learning never converges to perfection. This idea is not too dissimilar from data augmentation \cite{wong2016understanding} in computer vision and image machine learning algorithms where training images are intentionally distorted by a variety of operations (cropping, shearing, rotating, etc.) to improve machine learnability.
\hl{Finally, at first glance, it seems incredible that deepmod is able to relearn transmit and receive processing chains on its own. However, the CNN that defines deepmod is equipped with all the functionality required to reproduce traditional signal processing blocks. For example, adaptive AGCs are often used in software for multi-level modulations such as QAM. This is done in traditional schemes so that symbol magnitudes are bounded by unity for detection purposes. Analogously, deepmod contains $tanh$ activation functions, whose magnitude outputs are bounded by unity, that can result in similar behavior if training dictates such. Fully connected layers within the CNN have similar mathematical operations to traditional filters where weights are learned rather than preset as in matched filters. The comparisons can go on; however, the key concern is that traditional digital communication systems use human optimized blocks to find $f_i(\cdot)$ from (1) to convert bits to samples and $g_i(\cdot)$ from (2), to convert samples to bits. When deepmod is given sufficient depth in its CNN it can simply learn the functions $f_i(\cdot)$ and $g_i(\cdot)$, on its own, through the training methodology described in this work.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2 in]{fig/train_snr}
\caption{CER performance at various test SNR levels as a function of the deepmod train SNR in the RF channel. Note each curve is roughly convex.}
\label{fig:train_snr}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
Deep modulation, or deepmod, is a machine learning framework designed to replace much of the traditional signal processing blocks at the PHY layer by creating a machine that is self-taught in how to exchange information over an unknown channel. Deepmod-enabled Users initialize with a set of unique classes (waveforms) to transmit data over the current channel medium. With the assistance of a specially designed critic graph, these waveforms converge quickly to a set of decodeable classes at the receiver. It was shown experimentally that deepmod can be used to successfully transmit bit-bearing classes / waveforms across an unknown channel \st{and provide performance comparable to some traditional systems} - even across different media such as RF, acoustic\st{s}, or PLC channels. These media represent radically different environments from frequency-flat to frequency-selective channels as well as narrow- and wideband spectrum usage. Deepmod then has an inherent attribute of resilience as well as adaptability for just-in-time communications as the same machine can learn to communicate over different channels given the appropriate hardware transducer.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the last few years, machine learning (ML) has achieved impressive success, and more and more disciplines need to rely on it. However, current ML require human ML engineers help with pre-processing data, feature selection, model selection, parameter adjustment, etc. We hope that non-experts can experiment with ML to produce high-performing models. Automatic Machine Learning (Auto-ML) aims at achieving the automation of ML to free up developer’s time to focus on other aspects of tasks. The NeurIPS Auto-ML competition invites participants to design a model that can be self-trained, predicted and evaluated in a lifelong machine learning environment with limited resources and time.
The test of this competition will use multiple data sets which are anonymous, in consequence, it is difficult for us to build the corresponding professional features with
experience. By analyzing original methods, we found that constructing multidimensional features may be a viable approach, although it risks memory overflow. Therefore, we have constructed another automated feature method that first exploits the feature data with OrdinalEncoder, frequency, and logarithmic regression to extract the potential of the features. At the same time, Full-quantity learning is adopted to balance the distribution of data. In addition, we add the residuals from the previous data set to the next data set to speed up the fit of the trees. Through the above methods, it is possible to prevent more stress on the memory while mining data information as much as possible. Besides, we use the method of pre-training to greatly enhance the training speed. Moreover, we can ensure that our model can learn from more important data by adjusting the learning rate of the model.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II reviews the related work. Section III introduces the framework for lifelong learning. Section IV shows the performance of our framework. Finally, Section V summarizes the paper.
\section{Retlated Work}
The development of Auto-ML has been rapid in recent years. [1] list newest strategies for evaluation and optimization. Heuristic search, derivative-free optimization, gradient descent and reinforcement learning are used to optimize its search process. Besides, Meta-learning and transfer learning are also playing a great role in advanced evaluation strategies. Algorithms and strategies have been devoted to getting a better performance with lower computation budgets, however, the phenomenon of concept drift often leads to the low practicability of the whole algorithm.
The problem of concept drift has received the attention of many researchers many years ago. H. Wang et al. proposed a general framework for mining concept drifting data streams using weighted ensemble classifiers [2]. In addition, the classifiers in the ensemble are judiciously weighted based on their expected classification accuracy on the test data under the time-evolving environment. In [3], M. Scholz and R. Klinkenberg proposed a boosting-like method to train a classifier ensemble from data streams that naturally adapts to concept drift. Moreover, it allows to quantify the drift in terms of its base learners. [4] compares the three methods of maintaining an adaptive time window, selecting representative training examples and weighted training examples.
\section{Framework based on GBDT for lifelong learning}
Here, we will introduce our main work in this competition. The technical framework will be introduced firstly. The following are the several parts of the whole model construction.
\subsection{Framework design}
In this competition, the following questions were repeatedly considered when designing the framework model.
1. Algorithm versatility. Robust classification performance on different types of datasets
2. Lifelong learning. capability of adapting to changes in data distribution
3. Time budget and memory. reasonable allocation of program runtime and avoidance of memory overflow
For the above problems, the base framework is designed is as follows.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Flow.png}
\caption{Base framework for lifelong machine learning.}
\label{train_score}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pre-processing}
For pre-processing step, we deal with data from two perspectives. On the one hand, nan value or null value should be filled to avoid computing error, on the other hand, data needs to be re-coded to prevent performance degradation due to unnecessary correlation introduced by OrdinalEncoder, we also coded the data with the frequency of the category. This guarantees both computational speed and performance. It is worth mentioning that we coding one feature for twice, once ordinal and once frequency. Both of these features are fed into the model. And before this step, necessary operations are needed to reduce the amount of data
\subsection{Sampling and feature selection}
Different datasets generate a large number of features according to the same data processor method, resulting in a sharp increase in memory and runtime. The same feature has different effects on the classification model of different datasets. Therefore, it is particularly important to remove redundant features. The pre-trained model method is used to select a certain proportion of features based on feature importance for model training and prediction. In addition, the sliding window of the data is constructed. The classification model is updated by dynamically updating the data to achieve the purpose of processing the concept drift problem.
\subsection{Parameter adjustment}
We have developed a method of adjusting the learning rate based on the importance of data. In the face of CTR, we judge the more useful the data in the future based on the chronological order. Therefore, we continue to increase our initial learning rate by the time of different batches, the formula is:$$p_{t}=p_{t-1}+0.01*n_{t}$$
Here $p_{t}$ is the current initial learning compensation, $p_{t-1}$ is the initial learning step of the previous time, and $n_{t}$ is the current batch.
In addition to learning rate,there are hundreds of parameters in our model but most of them are well initialized, therefore, some of the parameters were chosen to be adjusted according to the data set.early-stopping was used instead of fixed num-iterations can ensure the optimal solution. Reg-alpha, reg-lambda, min-split-gain can effectively control the complexity of spanning trees.Considering the time constraints, we set these parameters more strictly to control the complexity.
\section{Experiments}
Combining the above work, we have done several experiments on the final results. The experimental results are as follows.
\subsection{Dataset introduction}
The competition offered five data sets named AA, B, C, D, E to test the performance of the algorithm. Each officially divided into 10 batches, of which 5 batches have target solutions. Competitors are allowed to use five targeted batches to construct the algorithm, and the final evaluation is carried out on the whole 10 batches, taking the average score of each batch. The details about the data sets are as Table \ref{data_info}. Each dataset has 4 types of features including categorical feature, numerical feature, multi-value categorical feature and time feature.
Used/Budget represent the actual consumption time and the official time budget. Last but not the least, our program are run into the ckcollab/codalab-legacy docker running Python 3.6 (from Anaconda).
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{datasets introduction.}
\label{data_info}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Feature} \\
\cmidrule(){2-6}
Dataset & Cat & Num & MVC & Time & Total & Size & Used[s]/Budge[s] \\
\midrule
AA & 51 & 23 & 6 & 2 & 82 & ~10 Million & 2821/3600 \\
B & 17 & 7 & 1 & 0 & 25 & ~1.9 Million & 216/600 \\
C & 44 & 20 & 9 & 6 & 79 & ~2 Million & 717/1200 \\
D & 17 & 54 & 1 & 4 & 76 & ~1.5 Million & 567/600 \\
E & 25 & 6 & 1 & 2 & 34 & ~17 Million & 1633/1800 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results on AutoML3 Datasets}
The datasets in the final phase of AutoML3 challenge were invisible, so we use the scores of feedback phase to evaluate the performance of our program. The datasets of feedback phase was introduced in previous section.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.3cm]{train.png}
\caption{Train dataset.}
\label{train_score}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.3cm]{test.png}
\caption{Test dataset.}
\label{test_score}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The scores obtained in the feedback phase of the AutoML3 competition are shown in Figure \ref{train_score} and \ref{test_score}. Figure \ref{train_score} represents the scores of train datasets, which is the best scores with the best number of trees. It is not difficult to see that the datasets AA, B, D, E overcome the concept drift, and the model has a generalization performance. But the scores of the dataset C has fluctuated in the test5 and test6 batches. As shown in Figure \ref{test_score}, the same phenomenon occurs on the verification set.
AutoML3 challenge has started in August 2018. In the feedback phase, our program ranked the 9th place. In addition, our program randed the 3th place in the final blind-test phase. Our programs are able to learn different datasets faster and have good generalization performance.
\section{Conclusion}
We designed the base framework to handle lifelong learning. This system has good algorithm versatility, good generalization performance when dealing with concept drift, and low time consumption. Although the current work ranks third in this competition, it still needs continuous improvement. In the future work, we will do more research on different data and learning tasks based on this framework.
\section*{References}
\small
[1] Yao Q.M., Wang M.S., Hugo J.M., Isabelle G., Hu Y.Q., Li Y.F., Tu W.W., Yang Q.\ \& Yu Y. (2018) Taking Human out of Learning Applications: A Survey on Automated Machine Learning.
[2] Wang H., Fan W., Yu P.S.\ \& Han J.\ (2003) Mining concept-drifting data streams using ensemble classifiers. {\it Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining} (pp. 226-235). ACM.
[3] Scholz M.\ \& Klinkenberg R. (2007) Boosting classifiers for drifting concepts. {\it Intelligent Data Analysis} {\bf 11}(1):3-28.
[4] Klinkenberg R.\ (2004) Learning drifting concepts: Example selection vs. example weighting. {\it Intelligent data analysis} {\bf 8}(3):281-300.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Continuous-valued signals can take any real value either in the entire range of real numbers or in a range limited by some system constraints. In either of the two cases, an uncountably infinite set of values is required to represent the signal values.
If a signal has to be processed or stored digitally, each of its values must be representable by a finite number of bits. Thus, all values together have to form a finite countable set. A signal consisting only of such discrete values is said to be quantized. The process of transformation of a continuous-valued signal into a discrete-valued one is called `quantization'. It has broad application in engineering and technology (see \cite{GG, GN, Z}).
For mathematical treatment of quantization one is referred to Graf-Luschgy's book (see \cite{GL1}).
Let $\D R^d$ denote the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space equipped with the Euclidean norm $\|\cdot\|$, and let $P$ be a Borel probability measure on $\D R^d$. Then, the $n$th \textit{quantization
error} for $P$, with respect to the squared Euclidean distance, is defined by
\begin{equation*} \label{eq1} V_n:=V_n(P)=\inf \Big\{V(P; \ga) : \ga \subset \mathbb R^d, \text{ card}(\ga) \leq n \Big\},\end{equation*}
where $V(P; \ga):= \int \min\limits_{a\in\alpha} \|x-a\|^2 dP(x)$ represents the distortion error for $P$ due to the set $\ga$.
A set $\ga\sci \D R^d$ is called an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$ if $V_n(P)=V(P; \ga)$. It is known that for a continuous Borel probability measure an optimal set of $n$-means always has exactly $n$-elements (see \cite{GL1}). Optimal sets of $n$-means for different probability distributions were calculated by several authors, for example, one can see \cite{CR, DR1, DR2, GL2, L1, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, RR1}. The number
\[\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{2\log n}{-\log V_n(P)},\] if it exists, is called the \tit{quantization dimension} of the probability measure $P$, and is denoted by $D(P)$; on the other hand, for any $s\in (0, +\infty)$, the number $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} n^{\frac 2 s} V_n(P)$, if it exists, is called the $s$-dimensional \tit{quantization coefficient} for $P$ (see \cite{GL1, P}).
Let us now state the following proposition (see \cite{GG, GL1}):
\begin{prop} \label{prop0}
Let $\ga$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$, and $a\in \ga$. Then,
$(i)$ $P(M(a|\ga))>0$, $(ii)$ $ P(\partial M(a|\ga))=0$, $(iii)$ $a=E(X : X \in M(a|\ga))$,
where $M(a|\ga)$ is the Voronoi region of $a\in \ga , $ i.e., $M(a|\ga)$ is the set of all elements $x$ in $\D R^d$ which are closest to $a$ among all the elements in $\ga$.
\end{prop}
Proposition~\ref{prop0} says that if $\ga$ is an optimal set and $a\in\ga$, then $a$ is the \tit{conditional expectation} of the random variable $X$ given that $X$ takes values in the Voronoi region of $a$.
The following theorem is known.
\begin{theorem} [see \cite{RR2}] \label{th31} Let $P$ be a uniform distribution on the closed interval $[a, b]$. Then, the optimal set $n$-means is given by $ \ga_n:=\set{a+\frac {2i-1}{2n}(b-a) : 1\leq i\leq n}$, and the corresponding quantization error is
$V_n:=V_n(P)=\frac{(a-b)^2}{12 n^2}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{th32}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for a uniform distribution on the unit circular arc $S$ given by
\[S:=\set{(\cos \gq, \sin \gq) : \ga\leq \gq\leq \gb},\]
where $0\leq \ga<\gb\leq 2\pi$. Then,
\[\ga_n:=\Big\{ \frac {2n}{\gb-\ga} \sin(\frac{\gb-\ga}{2n}) \Big(\cos \Big(\ga+(2j-1){\frac{\gb-\ga}{2n}}\Big), \ \sin \Big(\ga+(2j-1){\frac{\gb-\ga}{2n}}\Big)\Big) : j=1, 2, \cdots, n \Big \} \]
forms an optimal set of $n$-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by
\[V_n=\frac{(\ga-\gb)^2-2n^2+2n^2\cos\frac{\ga-\gb}{n}}{(\ga-\gb)^2}.\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $S$ is an arc of the unit circle $x_1^2+x_2^2=1$ which subtends a central angle of $\gb-\ga$ radian, and the probability distribution is uniform on $S$. Hence, the density function is given by $f(x_1, x_2)=\frac 1{\gb-\ga}$ if $(x_1, x_2)\in S$, and zero, otherwise. Thus, the proof follows in the similar way as the proof in the similar theorem in \cite{RR2}.
\end{proof}
Mixed distributions are an exciting new area for optimal quantization. For any two Borel probability measures $P_1$ and $P_2$, and $p\in (0, 1)$, if $P:=p P_1+(1-p)P_2$, then the probability measure $P$ is called the \tit{mixture} or the \tit{mixed distribution} generated by the probability measures $(P_1, P_2)$ associated with the probability vector $(p, 1-p)$. Such kind of problems has rigorous applications in many areas including signal processing. For example, while driving long distances, we have seen sometimes cellular signals get cut off. This happens because of being far away from the tower, or there is no tower nearby to catch the signal. In optimal quantization for mixed distributions one of our goals is to find the exact locations of the towers by giving different weights, also called importance, to different portions of a path.
The following theorem about the quantization dimension for the mixed distributions is well-known. For some more details please see \cite[Theorem~2.1]{L}.
\begin{theorem} \label{the01}
Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be any two Borel probability measures on $\D R^d$ such that both $D(P_1)$ and $D(P_2)$ exist. If $P=pP_1+(1-p)P_2$, where $0<p<1$, then $D(P)=\max\set{D(P_1), D(P_2)}$.
\end{theorem}
In this paper, in Section~\ref{sec2}, we have considered a mixed distribution generated by two uniform distributions on a circle and on one of its diameters associated with the probability vector $(\frac 12, \frac 12)$. For this mixed distribution, in Theorem~\ref{Th0}, we have explicitly determined the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for all positive integers $n\geq 2$. In Proposition~\ref{prop90}, we have proved that the quantization dimension $D(P)$ of the mixed distribution is one, which supports Theorem~\ref{the01} because $D(P_1)=D(P_2)=1$, and the quantization coefficient exists as a finite positive number which equals $\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right)$. Optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors are calculated, in Section~\ref{sec3}, for the mixture of two uniform distributions on two disconnected line segments $[0, \frac 12]$ and $[\frac 34, 1]$ associated with the probability vector $(\frac 34, \frac 14)$, and in Section~\ref{sec4}, for the mixture of two uniform distributions on two connected line segments $[0, \frac 12]$ and $[\frac 12, 1]$ associated with the probability vector $(\frac 34, \frac 14)$. We would like to mention that in these two sections, to determine the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for the mixed distributions we need to take the help of two different sequences $\set{a(n)}_{n=1}^\infty$ given by Definition~\ref{defi59}, and Definition~\ref{defi60}. If the probability vector $(\frac 34, \frac 14)$ is replaced by some other probability vector $(p, 1-p)$, where $0<p<1$, what will be the two such sequences are not known yet. In fact, optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors are not known yet for a more general mixed distribution.
\section{Quantization for a mixed distribution on the circles including a diameter} \label{sec2}
Let $i$ and $j$ be the unit vectors in the positive directions of the $x_1$- and $x_2$-axes, respectively. By the position vector $a$ of a point $A$, it is meant that $\overrightarrow{OA}=a$. We will identify the position vector of a point $(a_1, a_2)$ by $(a_1, a_2):=a_1 i +a_2 j$, and apologize for any abuse in notation. For any two position vectors $ a:=( a_1, a_2)$ and $ b:=( b_1, b_2)$, we write $\rho(a, b):=\|(a_1, b_1)-(a_2, b_2)\|^2=(a_1-a_2)^2 +(b_1-b_2)^2$, which gives the squared Euclidean distance between the two points $(a_1, a_2)$ and $(b_1, b_2)$. Let $P$ and $Q$ belong to an optimal set of $n$-means for some positive integer $n$, and let $D$ be a point on the boundary of the Voronoi regions of the points $P$ and $Q$. Since the boundary of the Voronoi regions of any two points is the perpendicular bisector of the line segment joining the points, we have
$|\overrightarrow{DP}|=|\overrightarrow{DQ}|, \te{ i.e., } (\overrightarrow{DP})^2=(\overrightarrow{DQ})^2$ implying
$( p- d)^2=( q- d)^2$, i.e., $\rho( d, p)-\rho( d, q)=0$. We call such an equation a \tit{canonical equation}.
By $E(X)$ and $V:=V(X)$, we represent the expectation and the variance of a random variable $X$ with respect to the probability distribution under consideration.
Let $P_1$ be the uniform distribution defined on the circle $x_1^2+x_2^2=1$ with center $O(0, 0)$, and $P_2$ be the uniform distribution on one of its diameters. Let us denote the diameter by $L_1$ and the circle by $L_2$. Without any loss of generality, we can assume that the diameter is horizontal, i.e., the diameter is represented by $L_1:=\set{(x_1, 0) : -1\leq x_1\leq 1}$ which intersects the circle at the two points $A(-1, 0)$ and $B(0, 1)$. Let $L$ be the path formed by the circle and the diameter $AB$. Thus, we have $L=L_1\uu L_2$, where
\[ L_1=\set{(t, 0) : -1\leq t\leq 1}, \te{ and } L_2=\set{(\cos \gq, \sin \gq) : 0\leq \gq\leq 2\pi}.\]
Let $s$ represent the distance of any point on $L$ from the origin tracing along the boundary $L$ in the positive direction of the $x_1$-axis, and in the counterclockwise direction. Thus, $s=1$ represents the point $B(1, 0)$, $s=1+\frac \pi 2$ represents the point $(0,-1)$, and so on. Take the mixed distribution $P$ as
\[P:=\frac 12 P_1+\frac 12 P_2, \]
i.e., $P$ is generated by $(P_1, P_2)$ associated with the probability vector $(\frac 12, \frac 12)$. For this mixed distribution $P$ in this section, we determine the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for all $n\in \D N$.
The probability density function (pdf) $f(x_1, x_2)$ for the mixed distribution $P$ is given by
\begin{align*}
f(x_1, x_2)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac 1 4 & \te{ if } (x_1, x_2) \in L_1,\\
\frac 1 {4 \pi} & \te{ if } (x_1, x_2) \in L_2.
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
On $L_1$ we have $ds=\sqrt{(\frac {dx_1}{dt})^2 +(\frac {dx_2}{dt})^2} \, dt=dt$ yielding $dP(s)=P(ds)=f(x_1, x_2)ds=\frac 14 dt$. Similarly, on $L_2$, we have $ds=d\gq$ yielding $dP(s)=P(ds)=f(x_1, x_2)ds=\frac 1{4 \pi} d\gq$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$ be a continuous random variable with mixed distribution taking values on $L$. Then,
\[E(X)=(0, 0) \te{ and } V:=V(X)=\frac 23 .\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We have,
\begin{align*} \label{eq1}
&E(X) =\int_L(x_1 i+x_2 j) dP=\frac 1 4\int_{L_1} (t, 0) \,dt +\frac 1{4 \pi} \int_{L_2}(\cos \gq, \sin \gq) \,d\gq=(0,0).
\end{align*} To calculate the variance, we know that $V(X)=E\|X-E(X)\|^2$, which implies
\begin{align*} V(X)=\frac 1 4\int_{L_1} \rho((t, 0), (0, 0))\,dt +\frac 1{4 \pi} \int_{L_2}\rho((\cos \gq, \sin \gq), (0, 0)) \,d\gq=\frac{2}{3}.
\end{align*}
Thus, the lemma is yielded.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{remark45} Using the standard theory of probability, for any $(a, b) \in \D R^2$, we have
\begin{align*}
&E\|X-(a, b)\|^2=\int_L\|(x_1, x_2)-(a, b)\|^2dP=V(X)+ \|(a, b)-(0, 0)\|^2,
\end{align*}
which is minimum if $(a, b)=(0, 0)$, and the minimum value is $V(X)$.
Thus, we see that the optimal set of one-mean is the set $\set{(0, 0)}$, and the corresponding quantization error is the variance $V:=V(X)$ of the random variable $X$ (see Figure~\ref{Fig0}~$(i)$).
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(i)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (-1.1435572534639595,0.5206572340693282) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (1.0701432039302117,0.5037587572953268) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.13662,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.13662,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(ii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (0.00000764394213067,2.009114050825449) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.217354207011962,0.06578922181530106) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (1.1377371110262169,0.09958617536330364) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.53392,1.28339)-- (0.,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.5274782908008957,1.2910499878517385)-- (0.,0.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.75488) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.18781,-0.283581) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.18781,-0.283581) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.53392,1.28339) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.53392,1.28339) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(iii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ } \label{Fig0}
\end{figure}
\begin{prop} \label{prop2}
The set $\set{(-\frac 1 4 -\frac 1 {\pi}, 0), (\frac 1 4 +\frac 1 {\pi}, 0)}$ forms the optimal set of two-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_2=0.343691$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $P$ is a mixed distribution giving the equal weights to both the component probabilities $P_1$ and $P_2$, and the path $L$ is symmetric with respect to the $x_2$-axis, without going into much calculation, we can assume that the boundary of the Voronoi regions of the two points in an optimal set of two-means lies along the $x_2$-axis. Thus, the optimal set of two-means is given by $\set{p_1, p_2}$ (see Figure~\ref{Fig0}~$(ii)$), where
\begin{align*}
p_1&=E(X : X \in \ol{AO } \ \uu (\te{left half of the circle}))=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^0 (x,0) \, dx+\frac 1 {4\pi} \int_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{3 \pi }{2}} (\cos\gq ,\sin\gq ) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^0 \, dx+\frac 1{4\pi} \int_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{3 \pi }{2}} \, d\theta}\\
&=(-\frac 1 4 -\frac 1 {\pi}, 0),
\end{align*}
and similarly, $p_2=(\frac 1 4+\frac 1 {\pi}, 0)$. The quantization error for two-means is given by
\[V_2=2\Big(\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^0 \rho((x,0), p_1) \, dx+\frac 1 {4\pi} \int_{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{3 \pi }{2}} \rho((\cos\gq ,\sin\gq ), p_1)\, d\theta\Big)=0.343691.\]
Thus, the proposition is yielded.
\end{proof}
The following proposition gives the optimal set of three-means (see Figure~\ref{Fig0}~$(iii)$). The proof follows in the similar way as Proposition~\ref{prop4} which is given later.
\begin{prop}\label{prop3}
The set $\set{(0, 0.877439), (-0.593906, -0.14179), (0.593906, -0.14179)}$ forms an optimal set of three-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_3=0.2386$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop} \label{prop4}
The set $\set{(0, 0.90407), (-0.633881, 0), (0, -0.90407), (0.633881, 0)}$ forms an optimal set of four-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_4=0.163013$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $\ga:=\set{p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4}$ be an optimal set of four-means. The following cases can arise:
\tit{Case~1. $\ga$ contains one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$.}
In this case, we can assume that $p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4$ can be located as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig01}~$(i)$. Let the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_1$ and $p_2$ intersect $L_2$ at the point $d_1$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi-b$, where $0<b<\frac {\pi}2$, and the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_2$ and $p_3$ intersect $L_1$ at the point $d_2$ given by $x_1=-a$, where $0<a<1$. Thus, due to symmetry, we have
\begin{align*} p_1&=\frac{\int_b^{\pi -b} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_b^{\pi -b} d\theta }=\Big(0,\frac{2 \cos b}{\pi -2 b}\Big),\\
p_2&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} (x,0) \, dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} (\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} d\theta}=\Big(\frac{-\pi a^2+2 \sin b+\pi +2}{\pi (2 a-3)-2 b},-\frac{2 \cos b}{-2 \pi a+2 b+3 \pi }\Big), \\
p_3&=(0, 0), \quad d_1=(-\cos b, \sin b), \te{ and } d_2=(-a, 0).
\end{align*}
Thus, solving the canonical equations $\rho(d_1, p_1)-\rho(d_1, p_2)=0$, and $\rho(d_2, p_2)-\rho(d_2, p_3)=0$, we have $a=0.377997$, $b=0.678642$. Hence, putting the values of $a$ and $b$ we have, $p_1=(0, 0.872524)$, $p_2=(-0.707525, -0.185184)$, and $p_3=(0, 0)$, and so, due to symmetry, $p_4=(0.707525, -0.185184)$. The corresponding distortion error is given by
\begin{align*}
V(P; \ga)&=\frac 1{4\pi} \int_b^{\pi -b} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_1)\, d\theta+2\Big(\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} \rho((x,0), p_2) \, dx\\
&\qquad +\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} \rho((\cos \theta,\sin \theta), p_2) \, d\theta\Big)
+\frac{1}{4} \int_{-a}^{a} \rho((x,0), p_3) \, dx=0.21596.
\end{align*}
\tit{Case~2. $\ga$ does not contain any point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$.}
In this case, we can assume that $p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4$ can be located as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig01}~$(ii)$. Let the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_1$ and $p_2$ intersect $L_2$ at the point $d_1$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi-b$, where $0<b<\frac {\pi}2$. Thus, due to symmetry, we have
\begin{align*} p_1&=\frac{\int_b^{\pi -b} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_b^{\pi -b} d\theta }=\Big(0,\frac{2 \cos b}{\pi -2 b}\Big),\\
p_2&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^0 (x,0) \, dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} (\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^0 dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} d\theta}=\Big(-\frac{4 \sin b+\pi }{4 b+2 \pi },0\Big), \te{ and}\\
d_1&=(-\cos b, \sin b).
\end{align*}
Thus, solving the canonical equations $\rho(d_1, p_1)-\rho(d_1, p_2)=0$, we have $b=0.800791$. Hence, putting the values of $b$, we have, $p_1=(0, 0.90407)$, $p_2=(-0.633881, 0)$, and so, due to symmetry, $p_3=(0.633881, 0)$, and $p_4=(0, -0.90407)$. The corresponding distortion error is given by
\begin{align*}
V(P; \ga)&=2\Big(\frac 1{4\pi}\int_{b}^{\pi -b} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_1)\, d\theta +\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{0} \rho((x,0), p_2) \, dx\\
&\qquad +\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} \rho((\cos \theta,\sin \theta), p_2) \, d\theta \Big)=0.163013.
\end{align*}
Comparing Case~1 and Case~2, we see that if $\ga$ contains only one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which does not contain any point from $L_2$, then the distortion error is larger than the distortion error obtained in Case~2. Similarly, we can show that if $\ga$ contains more than one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, then the distortion error is larger than the distortion error obtained in Case~2. Considering all the above cases, we see that the distortion error in Case~2 is the smallest. Hence, the points in $\ga$ obtained in Case~2 form an optimal set of four-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_4=0.163013$.
Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (0.00043764394213067,2.109114050825449) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.4539328818479804,0.03060140762329074) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (-0.03125778637987325,0.46996180374732427) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (1.3743157858622352,0.0812968379452946) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (-2.108871850680196,1.6697536547014158) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-0.869384671531936,0.4868602805213256) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.55685,1.25547)-- (0.755994,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.755994,0.)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.755994,0.)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.5542442734793633,1.2586996219736486)-- (1.55685,1.25547);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.5542442734793633,1.2586996219736486)-- (-0.755994,0.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.74505) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.41505,-0.370369) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.41505,-0.370369) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.55685,1.25547) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.755994,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.55685,1.25547) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.755994,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(i)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (0.00043764394213067,2.109114050825449) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.3125420212039725,0.4868602805213256) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (0.000539167168129362,-1.3888706413928176) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (1.2391279716702248,0.46996180374732427) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (-1.8612069870060027,1.8894338527634325) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.39228,1.43581)-- (0.,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (1.39228,1.43581);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (1.39228,-1.43581);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (-1.39228,-1.43581);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.80814) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.26776,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.80814) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.26776,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.39228,1.43581) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.39228,-1.43581) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.39228,1.43581) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.39228,-1.43581) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(ii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ } \label{Fig01}
\end{figure}
\begin{prop} \label{prop5}
An optimal set of five-means is given by \[\set{(0, 0.903584), (-0.788308, 0), (0, 0), (0, -0.903584), (0.788308, 0)}\] and the corresponding quantization error is $V_5=0.119779$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $\ga:=\set{p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4, p_5}$ be an optimal set of five-means. The following cases can arise:
\tit{Case~1. $\ga$ contains two points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$.}
In this case, we can assume that $p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_5$ can be located as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig11}~$(i)$. Let the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_1$ and $p_2$ intersect $L_2$ at the point $d_1$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi-b$, where $0<b<\frac {\pi}2$, and the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_2$ and $p_3$ intersect $L_1$ at the point $d_2$ given by $x_1=-a$, where $0<a<1$. Thus, due to symmetry, we have
\begin{align*} p_1&=\frac{\int_b^{\pi -b} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_b^{\pi -b} d\theta }=\Big(0,\frac{2 \cos b}{\pi -2 b}\Big),\\
p_2&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} (x,0) \, dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} (\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} d\theta}=\Big(\frac{-\pi a^2+2 \sin b+\pi +2}{\pi (2 a-3)-2 b},-\frac{2 \cos b}{-2 \pi a+2 b+3 \pi }\Big), \\
p_3&=(-\frac a 2, 0), \quad d_1=(-\cos b, \sin b), \te{ and } d_2=(-a, 0).
\end{align*}
Thus, solving the canonical equations $\rho(d_1, p_1)-\rho(d_1, p_2)=0$, and $\rho(d_2, p_2)-\rho(d_2, p_3)=0$, we have $a=0.567815$, $b=0.656426$. Hence, putting the values of $a$ and $b$ we have, $p_1=(0, 0.866365)$, $p_2=(-0.74607, -0.220972)$, and $p_3=(-0.283907, 0)$, and so, due to symmetry, $p_4=(0.283907, 0)$, and $p_5=(0.74607, -0.220972)$. The corresponding distortion error is given by
\begin{align*}
V(P; \ga)&=\frac 1{4\pi} \int_b^{\pi -b} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_1)\, d\theta+2\Big(\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} \rho((x,0), p_2) \, dx\\
&\qquad +\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\frac {3\pi}2} \rho((\cos \theta,\sin \theta), p_2) \, d\theta
+\frac{1}{4} \int_{-a}^{0} \rho((x,0), p_3) \, dx\Big)=0.18911.
\end{align*}
\tit{Case~2. $\ga$ contains only one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$.}
In this case, we can assume that $p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_5$ can be located as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig11}~$(ii)$. Let the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_1$ and $p_2$ intersect $L_2$ at the point $d_1$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi-b$, where $0<b<\frac {\pi}2$, the boundary of the Vonoroi regions of $p_2$ and $p_3$ intersect $L_1$ at the point $d_2$ given by $x_1=-a$, where $0<a<1$. Thus, due to symmetry, we have
\begin{align*} p_1&=\frac{\int_{b}^{\pi -b} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_{b}^{\pi -b} d\theta }=\Big(0,\frac{2 \cos b}{\pi -2 b}\Big),\\
p_2&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} (x,0) \, dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} (\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} d\theta}=\Big(-\frac{-\pi a^2+4 \sin b+\pi }{-2 \pi a+4 b+2 \pi },0\Big), \\
p_3&=(0, 0), \quad d_1=(-\cos b, \sin b), \quad d_2=(-a, 0).
\end{align*}
Thus, solving the canonical equations $\rho(d_1, p_1)-\rho(d_1, p_2)=0$, $\rho(d_2, p_2)-\rho(d_2, p_3)=0$, we have $a=0.394154$, and $b=0.798783$. Hence, putting the values of $a$, and $b$, we have, $p_1=(0, 0.903584)$, $p_2=(-0.788308, 0)$, and $p_3=(0, 0)$, and so, due to symmetry, $p_4=(0, -0.903584)$, and $p_5=(0.788308, 0)$. The corresponding distortion error is given by
\begin{align*}
V(P; \ga)&=2\Big(\frac 1{4\pi} \int_b^{\pi -b} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_1)\, d\theta +\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} \rho((x,0), p_2) \, dx\\
&\qquad+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+b} \rho((\cos \theta,\sin \theta),p_2) \, d\theta\Big)+\frac{1}{4} \int_{-a}^{a} \rho((x,0), p_3) \, dx=0.119779.
\end{align*}
\tit{Case~3. $\ga$ does not contain any point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$.}
In this case, we can assume that $p_1, p_2, \cdots, p_5$ can be located as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig11}~$(iii)$. Let the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_1$ and $p_2$ intersect $L_2$ at the point $d_1$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi-b$, where $0<b<\frac {\pi}2$, and the boundary of the Voronoi regions of $p_2$ and $p_3$ intersect $L_2$ as the point $d_2$ given by the parametric value $\gq=\pi+c$, where $0<c<\frac {\pi}2$. Thus, due to symmetry, we have
\begin{align*} p_1&=\frac{\int_{\frac \pi 2}^{\pi -b} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_{\frac \pi 2}^{\pi -b} d\theta }=\Big(\frac{2 (\sin b-1)}{\pi -2 b},\frac{2 \cos b}{\pi -2 b}\Big),\\
p_2&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{0} (x,0) \, dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+c} (\cos \theta,\sin \theta) \, d\theta}{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{0} dx+\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+c} d\theta}=\Big(-\frac{2 \sin b+2 \sin c+\pi }{2 (b+c+\pi )},\frac{\cos c-\cos b}{b+c+\pi }\Big), \\
p_3&=\frac{\int_{\pi+c}^{2\pi -c} (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )\, d\theta }{\int_{\pi+c}^{2\pi -c} d\theta }=\Big(0,-\frac{2 \cos c}{\pi -2 c}\Big)\\
d_1&=(-\cos b, \sin b), \te{ and } d_2=(-\cos c, -\sin c).
\end{align*}
Thus, solving the canonical equations $\rho(d_1, p_1)-\rho(d_1, p_2)=0$, and $\rho(d_2, p_2)-\rho(d_2, p_3)=0$, we have $b=0.426473$, and $c=0.837847$. Hence, putting the values of $b$, and $c$, we have, $p_1=(-0.512388, 0.795606)$, $p_2=(-0.619091, -0.0547824)$, $p_3=(0, -0.912839)$, and so, due to symmetry, $p_4=(0.619091, -0.0547824)$, and $p_5=(0.512388, 0.795606)$. The corresponding distortion error is given by
\begin{align*}
V(P; \ga)&=2\Big(\frac 1{4\pi}\int_{\frac \pi 2}^{\pi -b} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_1)\, d\theta \Big)+\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{0} \rho((x,0), p_2) \, dx\\
&\qquad +\frac1{4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+c} \rho((\cos \theta,\sin \theta), p_2) \, d\theta \Big)+\frac 1{4\pi}\int_{\pi+c}^{2\pi -c} \rho((\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ), p_3)\, d\theta=0.1355.
\end{align*}
Comparing Case~1 and Case~2, we see that if $\ga$ contains two points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, then the distortion error is larger than the distortion error obtained in Case~2. Similarly, we can show that if $\ga$ contains more than two points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, then the distortion error is larger than the distortion error obtained in Case~2. Comparing Case~2 and Case~3, we see that Case~3 can not happen as the distortion error is larger in Case~3. Considering all the above cases, we see that the distortion error in Case~2 is the smallest. Hence, the points in $\ga$ obtained in Case~2 form an optimal set of five-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_5=0.119779$.
Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.58436,1.22058)-- (1.13563,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.13563,0.)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.13563,0.)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.5827931763841139,1.2226061347759907)-- (1.58436,1.22058);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.5827931763841139,1.2226061347759907)-- (-1.13563,0.);
\draw (0.000336120716131975,2.109114050825449) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.5615267889439856,-0.070789453020717) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (-0.6866029502439203,0.5206572340693282) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (0.4462904239361712,0.5206572340693282) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (1.4326051232802444,-0.10458640656871958) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (-2.0708871850680196,1.6697536547014158) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-1.287354207011962,0.4868602805213256) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.73273) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.49214,-0.441944) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.567815,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.49214,-0.441944) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.567815,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.58436,1.22058) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.13563,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.58436,1.22058) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.13563,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(i)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (0.00000004587222234,2.11986762695436) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.6305406295874518,0.46074445277968734) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (0.00000004587222234,0.43001994955423045) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (0.00000004587222234,-1.4902615020368257) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (1.5033586994091548,0.46074445277968734) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (-1.9012651328129089,1.8433470979252478) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-0.8970657973383002,0.46074445277968734) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.39516,1.43302)-- (0.788308,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.788308,0.)-- (1.39516,-1.43302);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.39516,-1.43302)-- (-1.39516,-1.43302);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.39516,-1.43302)-- (-0.788308,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.39516,1.43302)-- (-1.39516,1.43302);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.39516,1.43302)-- (-0.788308,0.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.80717) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.57662,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.80717) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.57662,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (-1.39516,1.43302) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (-0.788308,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (-1.39516,-1.43302) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (-0.788308,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (1.39516,1.43302) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffxfqq] (1.39516,-1.43302) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.788308,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(ii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (-1.0477840221108924,1.9459669386982732) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.2635800479145478,0.17930800323450138) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (0.00000000716457705,-1.4490906677147144) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (1.2097424617347348,0.16394575162177294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (1.0253954423819933,1.7923444225709886) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (-2.3099528930655274,1.253216609674579) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-1.7583608414582165,-1.2186568935237876) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (-1.33813,-1.48641);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.33813,-1.48641)-- (1.345674764197645,-1.4795808288165984);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.345674764197645,-1.4795808288165984)-- (0.,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (1.82086,0.827324);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.82086,0.827324)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (-1.82086,0.827324);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.82086,0.827324)-- (0.,0.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.02478,1.59121) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.23818,-0.109565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.82568) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.02478,1.59121) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.23818,-0.109565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.82086,0.827324) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.33813,-1.48641) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.82086,0.827324) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.33813,-1.48641) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(iii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ } \label{Fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{prop} \label{prop6}
An optimal set of six-means is
\begin{align*}
\set{(-0.497577,0.809422), & (-0.786245,-0.0706781),(0, 0), (0,-0.913921), (0.786245,-0.0706781), \\
& (0.497577,0.809422)}
\end{align*} and the corresponding quantization error for six-means is given by $V_6=0.093342$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $\ga:=\set{p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4, p_5, p_6}$ be an optimal set of six-means. As in Proposition~\ref{prop5}, here also we consider three different cases as shown in Figure~\ref{Fig2}. In each case, we calculate the distortion errors. Then, comparing the distortion errors, we see that the points given by the proposition give the smallest distortion error for six points, and hence they form an optimal set of six-means, which is shown by Figure~\ref{Fig2}~$(ii)$. Thus, the proof of the proposition is deduced.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.40311,1.42523)-- (-1.12543,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.12543,0.)-- (-1.40311,-1.42523);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.40311,-1.42523)-- (1.3907039633856693,-1.437338681808637);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.40311,1.42523)-- (1.12543,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.12543,0.)-- (1.3907039633856693,-1.437338681808637);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.40311,1.42523)-- (-1.40311,1.42523);
\draw (0.00003155103813541,2.092215574051448) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.9519024173280071,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (-0.6366029502439208,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (-1.8012069870060031,1.9401292830854364) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-1.3604557302379612,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\draw (0.42179804006616415,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (0.0093361207161315,-1.4057691181668188) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (1.5101990303762492,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_6$};
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.80446) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.68815,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.562717,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.80446) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.68815,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.562717,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.40311,1.42523) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.12543,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.12543,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.40311,-1.42523) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.40311,1.42523) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.40311,-1.42523) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(i)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.78455,0.902981)-- (-0.792598,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.792598,0.)-- (-1.3195429979402469,-1.5029325588950642);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.3088544602241603,-1.512249979980599)-- (0.792598,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.792598,0.)-- (1.78455,0.902981);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.78455,0.902981)-- (1.78455,0.902981);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.3195429979402469,-1.5029325588950642)-- (1.33114,-1.49267);
\draw (-1.1076740089499456,1.7880429921194247) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.682917649587994,0.00019531471929589) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (0.00043764394213019,0.4037587572953268) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (0.000039167168128883,-1.4888706413928176) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (0.9011584361901981,1.7880429921194247) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (1.4601990303762492,0.00019531471929589) node[anchor=north west] {$p_6$};
\draw (-2.2067704295820344,1.4486825959953912) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw (-0.9469785786279416,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$d_2$};
\draw (-1.7491206960399913,-1.255073687844815) node[anchor=north west] {$d_3$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (-1.78455,0.902981);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (1.7845512681823221,0.902982154435438);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.995154,1.61884) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.57249,-0.141356) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.82784) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.995154,1.61884) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.57249,-0.141356) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.78455,0.902981) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.792598,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.33114,-1.49267) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.78455,0.902981) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.792598,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.33114,-1.49267) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(ii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (-1.042166392819952,1.8218399456674275) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.2618465908819692,0.5375557108433294) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (-1.1183694392719496,-1.118495013008797) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (0.8335645290941929,-1.118495013008797) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (1.2053310181222217,0.5037587572953268) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (1.002549296834206,1.8218399456674275) node[anchor=north west] {$p_6$};
\draw (-2.2667704295820344,1.3886825959953912) node[anchor=north west] {$d_1$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.7819682440770641,0.9080689275054534)-- (0.,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (-1.78606,-0.899997);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (1.78606,0.899997);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,0.)-- (1.78606,-0.899997);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.78606,0.899997)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.78606,-0.899997)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (1.78606,-0.899997);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (1.78606,0.899997);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.99635,1.61776) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.21262,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.99635,-1.61776) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.21262,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.99635,-1.61776) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.99635,1.61776) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.78606,0.899997) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.78606,-0.899997) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.78606,0.899997) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.78606,-0.899997) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(iii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ } \label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Proceeding in the similar way as Proposition~\ref{prop5} and Proposition~\ref{prop6}, we can deduce that the following proposition is also true.
\begin{prop} \label{prop7} Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means, and let $V_n$ be the corresponding quantization error. Then,
\begin{align*}
\ga_7=\set{&(-0.476891, 0.827476), (-0.788772, 0), (0, 0), (-0.476891, -0.827476), \\
& (0.476891, -0.827476), (0.788772, 0), (0.476891, 0.827476)},
\end{align*} with $V_7=0.070674$, see Figure~\ref{Fig3}~$(i)$;
\begin{align*}
\ga_8=\set{& (-0.475258,0.828843), (-0.860649,0),(-0.286883,0), (-0.475258, -0.828843), \\
&(0.475258, -0.828843), (0.860649,0),(0.286883,0), (0.475258, 0.828843)},
\end{align*} with $V_8=0.0577852$, see Figure~\ref{Fig3}~$(ii)$;
\begin{align*}
\ga_9=\set{& (-0.463928,0.838108),(-0.857223,0.0396484),(-0.286659,0),(-0.704114,-0.671446),\\
& (0,-0.972943),(0.704114,-0.671446),(0.286659,0), (0.857223,0.0396484),\\
& (0.463928,0.838108)},
\end{align*} with $V_9=0.04803$, see Figure~\ref{Fig3}~$(iii)$;
\begin{align*}
\ga_{10}=\set{& (0,0.974386),(-0.690161,0.687826),(-0.854308,0),(-0.284769,0),\\
& (-0.690161, -0.687826),(0,-0.974386),(0.690161, -0.687826), (0.854308,0), \\
& (0.284769,0), (0.690161,0.687826)},
\end{align*} with $V_{10}=0.039046$, see Figure~\ref{Fig3}~$(iv)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw (-0.9301955940961008,2.1023137975970934) node[anchor=north west] {$p_1$};
\draw (-1.6037794766555944,0.5133466900208501) node[anchor=north west] {$p_2$};
\draw (0.00000157337005516,0.3888187291676852) node[anchor=north west] {$p_3$};
\draw (-0.9129242124920112,-1.1792487071799311) node[anchor=north west] {$p_4$};
\draw (0.9351136191455742,-1.1792487071799311) node[anchor=north west] {$p_5$};
\draw (1.5050692120805305,0.5133466900208501) node[anchor=north west] {$p_6$};
\draw (0.9523850007496638,1.912328599952108) node[anchor=north west] {$p_7$};
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (1.7305,1.00268);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.7305,1.00268)-- (0.788772,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.788772,0.)-- (1.7305,-1.00268);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (1.7305,-1.00268);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (-1.7305,-1.00268);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.7305,-1.00268)-- (-0.7747531596592945,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.7747531596592945,0.)-- (-1.7305,1.00268);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.7305,1.00268)-- (0.,2.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.953782,1.65495) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.57754,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.953782,1.65495) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.57754,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.953782,-1.65495) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.953782,-1.65495) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.7305,1.00268) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.788772,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.7305,-1.00268) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.788772,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.7305,1.00268) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.7305,-1.00268) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.7305,-1.00268) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(i)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (-1.72608,1.01027);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.72608,1.01027)-- (-1.14753,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.14753,0.)-- (-1.72608,-1.01027);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.72608,-1.01027)-- (0.,-2.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (1.72608,-1.01027);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.72608,-1.01027)-- (1.14753,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.14753,0.)-- (1.72608,1.01027);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.72608,1.01027)-- (0.,2.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.950516,1.65769) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.7213,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.573766,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.950516,1.65769) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.7213,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.573766,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.950516,-1.65769) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.950516,-1.65769) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.72608,1.01027) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.14753,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.72608,1.01027) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.14753,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.72608,-1.01027) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.72608,1.01027) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.72608,-1.01027) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=qqwuqq] (0.,2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=qqwuqq] (0.,-2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(ii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,2.)-- (-1.69485,1.06183);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.69485,1.06183)-- (-1.14664,0.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.14664,0.)-- (-1.87384,-0.699084);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.87384,-0.699084)-- (-0.787249,-1.83854);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.787249,-1.83854)-- (0.7815234120096467,-1.8409837469355346);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.7815234120096467,-1.8409837469355346)-- (1.874920313417217,-0.6961851896840988);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.874920313417217,-0.6961851896840988)-- (1.14664,0.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.14664,0.)-- (1.69485,1.06183);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.69485,1.06183)-- (0.,2.);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,2.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.927856,1.67622) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.71445,0.0792968) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.573319,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.40823,-1.34289) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.94589) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.927856,1.67622) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.71445,0.0792968) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.573319,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.40823,-1.34289) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.69485,1.06183) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.14664,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.87384,-0.699084) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.787249,-1.83854) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.69485,1.06183) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.14664,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.87384,-0.699084) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.787249,-1.83854) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(iii)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle 45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm]
\clip(-2.1431409553721457,-2.454073612323069) rectangle (2.119731706345336,2.1580023224116287);
\draw(0.,0.) circle (2.cm);
\draw (-1.9739043510998817,0.)-- (2.0260956489001183,0.);
\draw [dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.,-2.)-- (0.,2.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.7546649797611029,1.8521557084441291)-- (-0.766932,1.84711);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.766932,1.84711)-- (-1.8497,0.760668);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.8497,0.760668)-- (-1.13908,0.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.13908,0.)-- (-1.8497,-0.760668);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-1.8497,-0.760668)-- (-0.766932,-1.84711);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (-0.766932,-1.84711)-- (0.6981350704040327,-1.8741951401793668);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (0.6981350704040327,-1.8741951401793668)-- (1.8497,-0.760668);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.8497,0.760668)-- (0.7546649797611029,1.8521557084441291);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.8497,0.760668)-- (1.13908,0.);
\draw [line width=0.4pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1pt,color=ffqqqq] (1.13908,0.)-- (1.8496973539489154,-0.7606705586483418);
\begin{scriptsize}
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,1.94877) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.38032,1.37565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.70862,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.569538,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.,-1.94877) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.38032,1.37565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.70862,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.569538,0.) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.38032,-1.37565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.38032,-1.37565) circle (1.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.766932,1.84711) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.8497,0.760668) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.13908,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.766932,1.84711) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.8497,0.760668) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.13908,0.) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-0.766932,-1.84711) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (-1.8497,-0.760668) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (0.766932,-1.84711) circle (0.5pt);
\draw [fill=ffqqqq] (1.8497,-0.760668) circle (0.5pt);
\draw[] (0.00096496167399,-2.330438200585347174) node { $(iv)$ };
\end{scriptsize}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ } \label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
The following proposition plays an important role in the paper.
\begin{prop} \label{prop000}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$, and $n\geq 5$. Then, $\ga_n$ contains at least one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$; and at least one point from $L_2$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $V_n$ denote the $n$th quantization error for any positive integer $n$. By the previous propositions, the lemma is true for $5\leq n\leq 10$. Let $n\geq 11$. Then, $V_n\leq V_{11}<V_{10}=0.039046$. For the sake of contradiction, assume that for $n\geq 11$, the set $\ga_n$ does not contain any point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$. Then,
\[V_n>\int_{L_1}\min_{a\in \set{(-\frac 12 , 0), (0,\frac 12)}}\rho((x, 0), a) dP=\frac 1 4\int_{-1}^0 \rho((t, 0), (-\frac 12, 0)) dt+\frac 14\int_{0}^1 \rho((t, 0), (\frac 12, 0)) dt=\frac{1}{24},\]
implying $V_n>\frac{1}{24}=0.0416667>V_{10}$, which leads to a contradiction. Hence, $\ga_n$ contains at least one point from $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$. Similarly, we can prove the other part of the proposition. Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
We now state and prove the following theorem, which is the main theorem of this section. Notice that we are saying the theorem as the main theorem of this section, because as mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem22}, this theorem helps us to calculate all the optimal sets of $n$-means, and so, the $n$th quantization errors for all $n\geq 5$ for the mixed distribution $P$.
\begin{theorem} \label{Th0}
Let $n\geq 5$ be a positive integer, and let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$. Let $3k+2\leq n\leq 3k+4$ for some positive integer $k$. Then, $\ga_n$ contains $k$ elements from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{prop000}, for $n\geq 5$, the set $\ga_n$ always contains points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, and points from $L_2$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$.
Since the Voronoi region of a point in an optimal set covers maximum area within a shortest distance $P$-almost surely, the set $\ga_n$, given in the theorem, must contain the two points, the Voronoi regions of which contain points from both $L_1$ and $L_2$, in other words, the Voronoi regions of these two points contain points around the two intersections of $L_1$ and $L_2$. Each of the remaining $n-2$ points occurs due to the uniform distribution on $L_1$, or $L_2$, the Voronoi region of which contains points only from $L_1$, or from $L_2$, respectively.
Let $n=n_1+n_2+k+2$ be such that $\ga_n$ contains $k$ elements from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$; $n_1$ elements from above the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$, and $n_2$ elements from below the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$. Then, there exist three real numbers $a, \, b$, and $c$, where $-1<a<1$, $0<b<\frac \pi 2$, and $0<c<\frac \pi 2$, such that the following occur:
$(i)$ The $k$ elements that $\ga_n$ contains from $L_1$ occur due to the uniform distribution on $[-a, a]$, and as mentioned in Theorem~\ref{th31}, are given by the set
\[\set{-a+\frac{2i-1}{k}a : 1\leq i\leq k},\]
with distortion error given by
\begin{align*} &k \Big(\te{distortion error due to the point } -a+\frac a k \te{ in the interval } [-a, -a+\frac{2a} k]\Big)\\
&= \frac k 4 \int_{-a}^{-a+\frac{2a} k}\Big(t-(-a+\frac{a} k)\Big)^2 dt=\frac{a^3}{6 k^2}.
\end{align*}
$(ii)$ The $n_1$ elements that $\ga_n$ contains from above the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$, occur due to the uniform distribution on the circular arc $\set{(\cos\gq, \sin \gq) : b\leq \gq\leq \pi-b}$, and by Theorem~\ref{th32}, are given by the set
\begin{equation*} \label{eq0000} \left\{\frac{2n_1}{\pi-2b}\sin\frac{\pi-2b}{2n_1}\Big(\cos(b+(2j-1)\frac{\pi-2b}{2n_1}), \sin(b+(2j-1)\frac{\pi-2b}{2n_1})\Big) : 1\leq j\leq n_1\right\},\end{equation*}
with distortion error
\begin{align*}
&n_1\Big(\frac 1{4\pi} \int_b^{b + \frac{\pi -2 b}{n_1}}\rho\Big((\cos\gq, \sin\gq), \frac{2 n_1}{\pi -2 b} \sin (\frac{\pi -2 b}{2 n_1} )\Big(\cos(b+\frac{\pi -2 b}{2 n_1}), \sin(b+\frac{\pi -2 b}{2 n_1})\Big)\Big)d\gq\Big)\\
&=\frac{(\pi -2 b)^2-2 n_1^2+2 n_1^2 \cos (\frac{2 b-\pi }{n_1})}{4 \pi (\pi -2 b)},
\end{align*}
and we denote it by $D_{n_1}$.
$(iii)$ The $n_2$ elements that $\ga_n$ contains from below the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$, occur due to the uniform distribution on the circular arc $\set{(\cos\gq, \sin \gq) : \pi+c\leq \gq\leq 2\pi-c}$, and by Theorem~\ref{th32}, are given by the set
\begin{equation*} \label{eq0000} \left\{\frac{2n_2}{\pi-2c}\sin\frac{\pi-2c}{2n_2}\Big(\cos(\pi+c+(2j-1)\frac{\pi-2c}{2n_2}), \sin(\pi+c+(2j-1)\frac{\pi-2c}{2n_2})\Big) : 1\leq j\leq n_2\right\},\end{equation*}
with distortion error
\begin{align*}
&n_2\Big(\frac 1{4\pi} \int_{\pi+c}^{\pi+c + \frac{\pi-2c}{n_2}}\rho\Big((\cos\gq, \sin\gq), \frac{2 n_2}{\pi-2c} \sin (\frac{\pi-2c}{2 n_2} )\Big(\cos(\pi+c+\frac{\pi-2c}{2 n_2}), \sin(\pi+c+\frac{\pi-2c}{2 n_2})\Big)\Big)d\gq\Big)\\
&=\frac{(\pi -2 c)^2-2 n_2^2+2 n_2^2 \cos (\frac{2 c-\pi }{n_2})}{4 \pi (\pi -2 c)},
\end{align*}
and we denote it by $D_{n_2}$.
$(iv)$ The two points in $\ga_n$, the Voronoi regions of which contain points from both $L_1$ and $L_2$, are given by the set $\set{(-r, s), (r, s)}$, where
\begin{align*}(-r, s)&=\frac{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} (t,0)\, dt+\frac 1 {4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{ \pi+c } (\cos \theta,\sin\theta )d\theta }{\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} dt+\frac 1 {4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{\pi+c } d\theta}\\
&= \Big(-\frac{-\pi a^2+2 \sin b+2 \sin c+\pi }{2 (-\pi a+b+c+\pi )},\frac{\cos c-\cos b}{-\pi a+b+c+\pi }\Big),
\end{align*}
i.e.,
\[r=\frac{-\pi a^2+2 \sin b+2 \sin c+\pi }{2 (-\pi a+b+c+\pi )}, \te{ and } s=\frac{\cos c-\cos b}{-\pi a+b+c+\pi },\]
and the distortion error for both the two points is given by
\begin{align*} & 2\Big(\frac{1}{4} \int_{-1}^{-a} \rho\Big((t,0), (-r, s)\Big)\Big)\, dt+\frac 1 {4\pi} \int_{\pi -b}^{ \pi+c } \rho\Big((\cos \gq, \sin \gq), (-r, s)\Big)\Big)\,d\theta\Big)\\
&=\frac{1}{24 \pi (-\pi a+b+c+\pi )}\Big(\pi ^2 a^4-4 \pi a^3 b-4 \pi a^3 c-4 \pi ^2 a^3+12 \pi \left(a^2-1\right) \sin b\\
&\qquad +12 \pi a^2 \sin c+6 \pi ^2 a^2-12 \pi a b-12 \pi a c-4 \pi ^2 a+12 b^2+24 b c+24 \cos (b+c)+16 \pi b\\
&\qquad +12 c^2+16 \pi c-12 \pi \sin c+\pi ^2-24\Big),
\end{align*}
and we denote it by $D(a, b, c)$.
Let $V(n_1, n_2, k)$ denote the distortion error due to the all above $n_1+n_2+k+2$ elements in $\ga_n$. Then, we have
\begin{align} \label{eq90}
V(n_1, n_2, k)=\frac{a^3}{6 k^2}+D_{n_1}+D_{n_2}+D(a, b, c).
\end{align}
Let $n_1, n_2$, and $k$ be fixed. Then, using the partial derivatives we can obtain the following equations
\begin{equation} \label{eq91} \frac{\pa}{\pa a}(V(n_1, n_2, k))=0, \ \frac{\pa}{\pa b}(V(n_1, n_2, k))=0, \te{ and } \frac{\pa}{\pa c}(V(n_1, n_2, k))=0.
\end{equation}
For a given set of values of $n_1, n_2$, and $k$, solving the equations in \eqref{eq91}, we can obtain the values of $a, b, c$. Putting the values of $a, b, c$ in \eqref{eq90}, we can obtain the distortion error for the given set of values of $n_1, n_2, k$.
Now, to prove the theorem we use induction on $k$. If $k=1$, and $k=2$, the theorem is true due to the previous propositions. Let us assume that the theorem is true for $k=m$, i.e., when $3m+2\leq n\leq 3m+4$. We now prove that the theorem is true for $3(m+1)+2\leq n\leq 3(m+1)+4$.
By the assumption, the theorem is true for $n=3m+4$, i.e., the set $\ga_{3m+4}$ contains $m$ points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, and $(2m+2)$ points occur due to the uniform distribution on $L_2$, the Voronoi region of which do not contain any point from $L_1$. Again, due to the mixed distribution with equal weights to the component probabilities, and symmetry of the circle with respect to the $x_1$-axis, we can can assume that $\ga_n$ contains $m+1$ elements from above, and $m+1$ elements from below. Now, to calculate $\ga_{n+1}$, we need to add one extra point either to $L_1$, or $L_2$ in an optimal way, i.e., the Voronoi regions of the new point will contain only the points from $L_1$, or from $L_2$, and the overall distortion error due to $n+1$ points becomes smallest.
First suppose that the extra point is added to $L_1$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_2$. As described above using \eqref{eq90}, we calculate the distortion error $V(m+1, m+1, m+1)$. Next, suppose that the extra point is added to $L_2$, the Voronoi region of which does not contain any point from $L_1$, and using \eqref{eq90}, we calculate the distortion error $V(m+2, m+1, m)$, or $V(m+1, m+2, m)$. We see that the distortion error $V(m+1, m+1, m+1)$ is the smallest, which implies the fact that $\ga_{n+1}$ contains $m+1$ points from $L_1$. Once, $\ga_{n+1}$ is known, similarly we can obtain $\ga_{n+2}$, and $\ga_{n+3}$ with distortion errors, respectively, $V(m+1, m, m+1)$ and $V(m+1, m+1, m+1)$. Thus, we see that each of $\ga_{n+1}$, $\ga_{n+2}$, and $\ga_{n+3}$ contains $m+1$ points from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$. Notice that $n+1=3(m+1)+2$, $n+2=3(m+1)+3$, and $n+1=3(m+1)+4$, i.e., for the positive integer $n$ satisfying $3(m+1)+2\leq n\leq 3(m+1)+4$, the set $\ga_n$ contains $m+1$ elements from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$. Thus, the theorem is true for $k=m+1$ if it is true for $k=m$. Hence, by the principle of mathematical induction, the theorem is true for all positive integers $k$, and thus, the proof of the theorem is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem22}
For $n\geq 5$, let $3k+2\leq n\leq 3k+4$ for some positive integer $k$. Then, by Theorem~\ref{Th0}, we can say that if $n-k-2$ is an even number, then an optimal set of $n$-means contains $\frac 12(n-k-2)$ elements from either side of the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$; and if $n-k-2$ is an odd number, then an optimal set of $n$-means contains $\frac 12\lfloor n-k-2\rfloor$ elements from one side of the $x_1$-axis, and $\frac 12\lfloor n-k-2\rfloor+1$ elements from the other side of the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_1$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{Th0}, using Theorem~\ref{th31}, and Theorem~\ref{th32}, we can easily determine the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for all $n\geq 5$.
\end{remark}
The following proposition gives the quantization dimension and the quantization coefficient for the mixed distribution.
\begin{prop} \label{prop90}
Quantization dimension $D(P)$ of the mixed distribution $P$ is one, which is the dimension of the underlying space, and the quantization coefficient exists as a finite positive number which equals $\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} By Remark~\ref{rem22}, we see that if $n$ is of the form $n=3k+2$ for some positive integer $k$, then $\ga_n$ contains $k$ elements from $L_1$, the Voronoi regions of which do not contain any point from $L_2$, and $k$ elements from the above, and $k$ elements from below the $x_1$-axis, the Voronoi region of which do not contain any point from $L_1$.
For $n\in \D N$, $n\geq 5$, let $\ell(n)$ be the unique positive integer such that $3\ell(n)+2 \leq n<3(\ell(n)+1)+2$. Then,
$V_{3(\ell(n)+1)+2}<V_n\leq V_{3\ell(n)+2}$ implying
\begin{align} \label{eq45}
\frac {2 \log (3\ell(n)+2)}{-\log V_{3(\ell(n)+1)+2}}<\frac {2\log n}{-\log V_n} <\frac{2 \log (3(\ell(n)+1)+2)}{-\log V_{3\ell(n)+2}}.
\end{align}
Notice that if $n \to \infty$, then $\ell(n) \to \infty$. Moreover, if $n\to \infty$, they by \eqref{eq90} and \eqref{eq91}, we can see that $a\to 1$, $b\to 0$, and $c\to 0$. Assume that $n$ is sufficiently large, in other words, assume that $\ell(n)$ is sufficiently large, and then as $a\to 1$, $b\to 0$, and $c\to 0$, by \eqref{eq90} we have $D(a, b, c)\to 0$, implying
\[V_{3\ell(n)+2}=V(\ell(n), \ell(n), \ell(n))=\frac{-6 \ell(n)^4+6 \ell(n)^4 \cos \frac{\pi }{\ell(n)}+3 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2+\pi ^2}{6 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2},\]
yielding
\[\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac {2 \log (3\ell(n)+2)}{-\log V_{3(\ell(n)+1)+3}}=\underset{\ell(n)\to \infty }{\text{lim}}\frac{2 \log (3 \ell(n)+2)}{-\log \Big(\frac{-6 (\ell(n)+1)^4+3 \pi ^2 (\ell(n)+1)^2+6 (\ell(n)+1)^4 \cos (\frac{\pi }{\ell(n)+1})+\pi ^2}{6 \pi ^2 (\ell(n)+1)^2}\Big)}=1,\]
and \[\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{2 \log (3(\ell(n)+1)+2)}{-\log V_{3\ell(n)+2}}=\underset{\ell(n)\to \infty }{\text{lim}}\frac{2 \log (3 (\ell(n)+1)+2)}{-\log \Big(\frac{-6 \ell(n)^4+6 \ell(n)^4 \cos (\frac{\pi }{\ell(n)})+3 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2+\pi ^2}{6 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2}\Big)}=1\]
and hence, by \eqref{eq45}, $\mathop{\lim}\limits_{n\to \infty} \frac {2\log n}{-\log V_n}=1$, which is the dimension of the underlying space. Again,
\begin{equation} \label{eq46} (3\ell(n)+2)^2V_{3(\ell(n)+1)+2}<n^2 V_n<(3(\ell(n)+1)+2)^2V_{3\ell(n)+2}.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{n \to \infty} (3\ell(n)+2)^2V_{3(\ell(n)+1)+2}\\
&=\underset{\ell(n)\to \infty }{\text{lim}}(3 \ell(n)+2)^2 \frac{-6 (\ell(n)+1)^4+3 \pi ^2 (\ell(n)+1)^2+6 (\ell(n)+1)^4 \cos (\frac{\pi }{\ell(n)+1})+\pi ^2}{6 \pi ^2 (\ell(n)+1)^2}\\
&=\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{n \to \infty} (3(\ell(n)+1)+2)^2V_{3\ell(n)+2}\\
&=\underset{\ell(n)\to \infty }{\text{lim}}(3 (\ell(n)+1)+2)^2 \frac{-6 \ell(n)^4+6 \ell(n)^4 \cos (\frac{\pi }{\ell(n)})+3 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2+\pi ^2}{6 \pi ^2 \ell(n)^2}=\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right),
\end{align*}
and hence, by \eqref{eq46} we have
$\mathop{\lim}\limits_{n\to\infty} n^2 V_n=\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right)$, i.e., the quantization coefficient exists as a finite positive number which equals $=\frac{3}{8} \left(4+\pi ^2\right)$.
Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Optimal quantization for the mixture of two uniform distributions on two disconnected line segments} \label{sec3}
Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be two uniform distributions, respectively, on the intervals $[0, \frac 12]$ and $[\frac 34, 1]$. Write
\[J_1:=[0, \frac 12], \te{ and } J_2:=[\frac 34, 1].\]
Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be their respective density functions. Then, $f_1(x)=2$ if $x\in [0,\frac 12]$, and zero, otherwise; and $f_2(x)=4$ if $x\in [\frac 34, 1]$, and zero, otherwise. Let $P:=\frac 34 P_1+\frac 14 P_2$. In the sequel, for the mixed distribution $P$, we determine the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for all positive integers $n$. By $E(P)$ and $V(P)$, we mean the expectation and the variance of a random variable with distribution $P$. By $\ga_n(\mu)$, we denote an optimal set of $n$-means with respect to a probability distribution $\mu$, and $V_n(\mu)$ represents the corresponding quantization error for $n$-means. If $\mu$ is the mixed distribution $P$, in the sequel, we sometimes denote it by $\ga_n$ instead of $\ga_n(P)$, and the corresponding quantization error is denoted by $V_n$ instead of $V_n(P)$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $P$ be the mixed distribution defined by $P=\frac 34 P_1+\frac 1 4 P_2$. Then, $E(P)=\frac{13}{32}$, and $V(P)=\frac{277}{3072}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[E(P)=\int x dP=\frac 34 \int x d(P_1(x))+\frac 14 \int x d(P_2(x))=\frac 34 \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2x \, dx+\frac 14 \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 x \, dx\]
yielding $E(P)=\frac{13}{32}$, and
\[V(P)=\int (x-E(P))^2 dP=\frac 34 \int(x-E(P))^2 d(P_1(x))+\frac 14 \int(x-E(P))^2 d(P_2(x)),\]
implying
$V(P)=\frac{277}{3072}$, and thus, the lemma is yielded.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The optimal set of one-mean is the set $\set{\frac{13}{32}}$, and the corresponding quantization error is the variance $V:=V(P)$ of a random variable with distribution $P$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma2}
The set $\ga:=\set{ \frac 14, \frac 7 8}$ is an optimal set of two-means, and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_2=\frac{13}{768}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Consider the set of two points $\gb$ given by $\gb:=\set{ \frac 14, \frac 7 8}$. The distortion error due to the set $\gb$ is given by
\begin{align*} &\int\min_{a\in \gb} (x-a)^2 dP=\int_{J_1}(x-\frac 14)^2 dP+\int_{J_2} (x-\frac 78)^2 dP=\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{4})^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{7}{8})^2 \, dx\\
&=\frac{13}{768}=0.0169271.
\end{align*}
Since $V_2$ is the quantization error for two-means, we have $V_2\leq 0.0169271$. Let $\ga:=\set{a_1, a_2}$ be an optimal set of two-means. Since the points in an optimal set are the conditional expectations in their own Voronoi regions, without any loss of generality, we can assume that $0<a_1<a_2<1$. We now show that the Voronoi region of $a_1$ does not contain any point from $J_2$, and the Voronoi region of $a_2$ does not contain any point from $J_1$. Suppose that $\frac{13}{40}\leq a_1$. Then,
\[V_2>\int_{[0, \frac{13}{40}]} (x-\frac{13}{40})^2 dP=\frac{2197}{128000}=0.0171641>V_2,\]
which is a contradiction, and so, we can assume that $a_1<\frac{13}{40}<\frac 12$. Since $a_1<\frac {13}{40}$, the Voronoi region of $a_1$ does not contain any points from $J_2$. If it contains points from $J_2$, then
$\frac 12(a_1+a_2)>\frac 34$, implying $a_2>\frac 32-a_1\geq \frac 32-\frac {13}{40} =\frac {47}{40}>1$, which is a contradiction. Hence, we can assume that \begin{equation}\label{eq001}
a_1\leq E(X : X \in J_1)=\frac 14, \te{ and } a_2\leq E(X : X\in J_2)=\frac 78.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $a_2<\frac 58$. Then,
\[V_2> \frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{5}{8})^2 \, dx=\frac{13}{768}=0.0169271\geq V_2,\]
which leads to a contradiction. So, we can assume that $\frac 58\leq a_2$. Thus, by \eqref{eq001}, we have $\frac 58\leq a_2\leq \frac 78$. Assume that $\frac 58\leq a_2\leq \frac 34$. Since $a_1\leq \frac 14$, the following cases can arise:
\tbf{Case~1.} $\frac 18\leq a_1\leq \frac 14$.
Then, notice that $\frac {13}{32}<\frac 12(\frac 14+\frac 58)=\frac 7{16}<\frac 12$, and so,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{[0, \frac {13}{32}]}\min_{a \in \set{a_1, a_2}}(x-a)^2 dP=\frac{13 \left(3072 a_1^2-1248 a_1+169\right)}{65536},
\end{align*}
the minimum value of which is $\frac{2197}{262144}$, and it occurs when $a_1=\frac{13}{64}$. Notice that for $a_1=\frac{13}{64}$, we have $\frac{13}{32}=0.40625<\frac{1}{2} (\frac{13}{64}+\frac{5}{8})=0.414063$.
Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
V_2\geq \frac{2197}{262144} +\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{13}{32}}^{\frac{7}{16}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{4} )^2 \, dx+\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{7}{16}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{5}{8} )^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{3}{4})^2 \, dx=\frac{13603}{786432},
\end{align*}
yielding $V_2\geq 0.0172971>V_2$, which is a contradiction.
\tbf{Case~2.} $a_1<\frac 18$.
Then, $\frac 12(\frac 18+\frac 58)=\frac 38<\frac 12$, and so
\[V_3\geq \frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{8}}^{\frac{3}{8}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{8} )^2 \, dx+\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{8}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{5}{8} )^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{3}{4} )^2 \, dx=\frac{61}{3072}=0.0198568>V_3,\]
which leads to a contradiction.
Hence, by Case~1 and Case~2, we can conclude that $\frac 34\leq a_2\leq \frac 78$. Suppose that $\frac 34\leq a_2\leq \frac {13}{16}$. Then, the Voronoi region of $a_2$ must contain points prom $J_1$ implying $\frac 12(a_1+a_2)<\frac 12$, which yields $a_1<1-a_2\leq 1-\frac 34=\frac 14$. Again, \[\int_{J_1} (x-a_1)^2 dP=\frac{1}{16} (12 a^2-6 a+1),\]
the minimum value of which is $\frac{1}{64}$ when $a_1=\frac 14$.
Thus, we have
\[V_2\geq \int_{J_1}(x-\frac 14)^2 dP+\int_{J_2}(x-\frac {13}{16})^2 dP=\frac{55}{3072}=0.0179036>V_2,\]
which gives a contradiction.
Hence, we can assume that $\frac{13}{16}<a_2\leq \frac 78$. Suppose that the Voronoi region of $a_2$ contains points from $J_1$, i.e., $\frac 12(a_1+a_2)<\frac 12$. Then, $a_1<1-a_2\leq 1-\frac{13}{16}=\frac {3}{16}$. Notice that
\[\int_{J_1} (x-a_1)^2 dP=\frac{1}{16} (12 a_1^2-6 a_1+1),\]
the minimum value of which is $\frac{19}{1024}$ when $a_1=\frac 3{16}$.
Thus, we have $V_2\geq \frac{19}{1024}=0.0185547>V_2$, which is a contradiction. Thus, we can assume that the Voronoi region of $a_2$ does not contain any point from $J_1$. Previously, we have proved that the Voronoi region of $a_1$ does not contain any point from $J_2$. Hence, we have
$a_1=E(X : X \in J_1)=\frac 14, \te{ and } a_2= E(X : X\in J_2)=\frac 78$, and the corresponding quantization error for two-means is given by $V_2=\frac{13}{768}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma3}
The set $\set{\frac 18, \frac 38, \frac 78}$ forms an optimal set of three-means with quantization error $V_3=\frac{1}{192}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the set of three points $\gb$, such that $\gb:=\set{\frac 18, \frac 38, \frac 78}$. The distortion error due to the set $\gb$ is given by
\begin{align*} &\int\min_{a\in \gb} (x-a)^2 dP=2\cdot \frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{4}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{8})^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{7}{8})^2 \, dx=\frac{1}{192}.
\end{align*}
Since $V_3$ is the quantization error for three-means, we have $V_3\leq \frac{1}{192}= 0.00520833$. Let $\ga:=\set{a_1, a_2, a_3}$ be an optimal set of three-means. Since the points in an optimal set are the conditional expectations in their own Voronoi regions, without any loss of generality, we can assume that $0<a_1<a_2<a_3<1$. We now show that $a_2<\frac 12$, and $\frac 34<a_3$. If $a_3<\frac 34$, then
\[V_3>\int_{J_2}(x-\frac 34)^2 dP=\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{3}{4})^2 \, dx= \frac{1}{192}= 0.00520833\geq V_3,\]
which leads to a contradiction.
Hence, we can assume that $\frac 34<a_3$. Next, we show that $a_2<\frac 12$. Suppose that $\frac 12\leq a_2$. Then,
\begin{align*}
&\int_{J_1}\min_{a \in \set{a_1, \frac 12}}(x-a)^2 dP=\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+\frac{1}{2}\right)} 2 (x-a_1)^2 \, dx+\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+\frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 \Big(x-\frac{1}{2}\Big)^2 \, dx\\
&=\frac{1}{64} (24 a_1^3+12 a_1^2-6 a_1+1),
\end{align*}
the minimum value of which is $\frac{1}{144}$, and it occurs when $a_1=\frac 16$. Thus, in this case, we see that $V_3\geq \frac{1}{144}=0.00694444>V_3$, which leads to a contradiction. Hence, we can assume that $0<a_1<a_2<\frac 12$. Suppose that the Voronoi region of $a_2$ contains points from $J_2$. Then, $\frac 12(a_2+a_3)>\frac 34$ implying $a_3>\frac 32-a_1\geq \frac 32-\frac 12=1$, which is a contradiction, as $a_3<1$. Thus, we see that the Voronoi region of $a_2$ does not contain any point from $J_2$. Suppose that the Voronoi region of $a_3$ contains points from $J_1$. Then, $\frac 12(a_2+a_3)<\frac 12$ implying $a_2<1-a_3\leq 1-\frac 34=\frac 14$, and so
\[V_3>\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{4}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{4})^2 \, dx=\frac{1}{128}=0.0078125>V_3,\]
which is a contradiction. So, we can assume that the Voronoi region of $a_3$ does not contain any point from $J_1$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{th31}, we can conclude that $a_1=\frac 18$, $a_2=\frac 38$, and $a_3=\frac 78$, and
\[V_3=\int\min_{a\in \ga} (x-a)^2 dP=\frac{1}{192},\]
which completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem1}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma2}, and Lemma~\ref{lemma3}, we see that $\ga_2=\ga_1(P_1)\uu\ga_1(P_2)$, and $\ga_3=\ga_2(P_1)\uu \ga_1(P_2)$. Using the similar technique, we can show that $\ga_4=\ga_3(P_1)\uu \ga_1(P_2)$, $\ga_5=\ga_3(P_1)\uu \ga_2(P_2)$, $\ga_6=\ga_4(P_1)\uu \ga_2(P_2)$, $\ga_7=\ga_5(P_1)\uu \ga_2(P_2)$, $\ga_8=\ga_6(P_1)\uu \ga_2(P_2)$, and $\ga_9=\ga_6(P_1)\uu \ga_3(P_2)$.
\end{remark}
We now prove the following propositions.
\begin{prop}\label{prop0001}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$ for $n\geq 2$. Then, the set $\ga_n$ does not contain any point from the open interval $(\frac 12, \frac 34)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Remark~\ref{rem1}, the proposition is true for $2\leq n\leq 9$. We now prove that the proposition is true for any positive integer $n\geq 10$. Take any $n\geq 10$. Since $\ga_9=\ga_6(P_1)\uu \ga_3(P_2)$, and the Voronoi region of any point in $\ga_9\ii J_1$ does not contain any point from $J_2$, and the Voronoi region of any point in $\ga_9\ii J_2$ does not contain any point from $J_1$, we have
\[V_9=\frac 34 V_6(P_1)+\frac 14 V_3(P_2)=\frac{1}{1728}=0.000578704.\]
Since $V_n$ is the quantization error for $n$-means for $n\geq 10$, we have $V_n\leq V_9= 0.000578704$. Let $\ga_n:=\set{a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_n}$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$ such that $a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_n$.
Let $j=\max\set{i : a_i\leq \frac 12}$. Then, $a_j\leq \frac 12<a_{j+1}$. The proposition will be proved if we can show that $a_{j+1}\in J_2$. For the sake of contradiction, assume that $a_{j+1} \in (\frac 12,\frac 34)$. Then, the following two cases can arise:
\tbf{Case~1.} $\frac 12<a_{j+1}\leq \frac 58$.
In this case, the Voronoi region of $a_{j+1}$ must contain points from $J_2$, otherwise, the quantization error can be strictly reduced my moving the point $a_{j+1}$ to $\frac 12$. Thus, $\frac 12(a_{j+1}+a_{j+2})>\frac 34$ implying $a_{j+2}>\frac 32-a_{j+1}\geq \frac 32-\frac 58=\frac 78$, which yields the fact that \[V_n\geq \int_{[\frac 34, \frac 78]}(x-\frac 78)^2 dP=\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^{\frac{7}{8}} 4(x-\frac{7}{8})^2 \, dx=0.000651042>V_n,\]
which leads to a contradiction.
\tbf{Case~2.} $\frac 58\leq a_{j+1}< \frac 34$.
In this case, we have $\frac 12(a_{j}+a_{j+1})<\frac 12$ implying $a_{j}<1-a_{j+1}\leq 1-\frac 58=\frac 38$, which yields the fact that
\[V_n\geq \int_{[\frac 38, \frac 12]}(x-\frac 38)^2 dP=\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{8}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2(x-\frac{3}{8})^2 \, dx=0.000976563>V_n,\]
which is a contradiction.
In light of the above two cases, we can conclude that $a_{j+1}\nin (\frac 12, \frac 34)$. Hence, $\frac 34<a_{j+2}$, i.e., $a_{j+2}\in J_2$. Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prop02}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$ for $n\geq 2$. Then, for $n\geq 2$, $\ga_n\ii J_1\neq \es$, and $\ga_n\ii J_2\neq \es$. Moreover, for $n\geq 2$, any point in $\ga_n\ii J_1$ does not contain any point from $J_2$, and any point in $\ga_n\ii J_2$ does not contain any point from $J_1$,
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As shown in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma2}, and Lemma~\ref{lemma3}, we see that the proposition is true for $n=2, 3$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma3}, we know $V_3=\frac{1}{192}= 0.00520833$. We now prove the proposition for $n\geq 4$. Let $n\geq 4$.
Since $V_n$ is the quantization error for $n$-means for $n\geq 4$, we have $V_n\leq V_3= 0.00520833$.
Let $\ga_n:=\set{a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_n}$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$ such that $a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_n$. If $\ga_n\ii J_2=\es$, then
\[V_n>\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{3}{4}}^1 4 (x-\frac{3}{4})^2 \, dx=0.00520833,\]
which is a contradiction as $V_n\leq 0.00520833$. On the other hand, if $\ga_n\ii J_1=\es$, then
\[V_n>\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{4})^2 \, dx=\frac{1}{64}=0.015625>V_n,\]
which leads to a contradiction. Hence, $\ga_n\ii J_1\neq \es$, and $\ga_n\ii J_2\neq \es$.
Let $j=\max\set{i : a_i\leq \frac 12}$. Then, $a_j\leq \frac 12$, and due to Proposition~\ref{prop0001}, we have $\frac 34\leq a_{j+1}$. If the Voronoi region of $a_j$ contains points from $J_2$, then $\frac 12(a_j+a_{j+1})>\frac 34$ implying $a_{j+1}>\frac 32-a_j\geq \frac 32-\frac 12=1$, which is a contradiction. If the Voronoi region of $a_{j+1}$ contains points from $J_1$, then $\frac 12(a_j+a_{j+1})<\frac 12$ implying $a_{j}<1-a_{j+1}\leq 1-\frac 34=\frac 14$. Then,
\[V_n\geq \int_{[\frac 14, \frac 12]}(x-\frac 14)^2 dP=\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{4}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-\frac{1}{4})^2 \, dx=\frac{1}{128}\]
yielding $V_n\geq 0.0078125>V_n$, which leads to a contradiction. Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{defi} \label{defi59}
For $n\in\D N$, and $n\geq 2$, define the function $a(n)$ as follows:
\[a(n)=\min\set {k\in \D N : H(n, k)>0}, \]
where $H(n, k)= \frac 1{n^3} -\sum_{i=k}^\infty \frac 1{(i+1)^4}$.
\end{defi}
\begin{remark}
Notice that $\sum_{i=k}^\infty \frac 1{(i+1)^4}$ is a decreasing function of $k\in \D N$, and so for a given $n\geq 2$, $H(n, k)$ is an increasing function of $k$, and thus the function $a(n)$ is well defined. Moreover, $\set{\frac 1{n^3}}_{n\geq 2}$ is a decreasing sequence, and so, the sequence $\{a(n)\}_{n=2}^\infty$ is an increasing sequence. In fact,
\[\set{a(n)}_{n=2}^\infty=\set{1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18, 19, \cdots}.\]
By $\lfloor x\rfloor$ it is meant the greatest integer not exceeding $x$.
To find the value of $a(n)$ for any positive integer $n$, one can start checking by putting $k=\lfloor \frac {2n}3\rfloor$ in the function $H(n, k)$. If $H(n, k)>0$ then find $H(n, k-1), H(n, k-2), \cdots$ until one obtains some positive integer $m$, such that $H(n, m)>0$, and $H(n, m-1)<0$, and then $a(n)=m$. If $H(n, k)<0$ then find $H(n, k+1), H(n, k+2), \cdots$ until one obtains some positive integer $m$, such that $H(n, m)>0$, and $H(n, m-1)<0$, and then $a(n)=m$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rem34}
For $n\geq 2$ let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$. Due to Proposition~\ref{prop0001} and Proposition~\ref{prop02}, we can conclude that if $\ga_n$ contains $k$ elements from $J_1$, then $\ga_n$ contains $n-k$ elements from $J_2$. Thus, we have
\[V_n:=V_n(P)=\int\min_{a\in \ga_n}(x-a)^2 dP=\frac 34 \int\min_{a\in \ga_n\ii J_1}(x-a)^2 dP_1+\frac 14 \int\min_{a\in \ga_n\ii J_2}(x-a)^2 dP_2,\]
yielding
\[V_n(P)=\frac 34 V_{k}(P_1)+\frac 14 V_{n-k}(P_2).\]
\end{remark}
Let us now give the following theorem, which gives the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for the mixed distribution $P$ for all positive integers $n\geq 2$.
\begin{theorem} \label{main1}
For $n\geq 2$, let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$. Then, $\ga_n$ contains $a(n)$ elements from $J_1$, i.e.,
\[\ga_n(P)=\ga_{a(n)}(P_1)\uu \ga_{n-a(n)}(P_2), \te{ and } V_n(P)=\frac 34 V_{a(n)}(P_1)+\frac 1 4 V_{n-a(n)}(P_2).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\ga_n$ contains $k$ elements from $J_1$. Let $V(k, n-k)$ is the corresponding distortion error. Then, as mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem34}, we have
\[V(k, n-k)=\frac 34 V_{k}(P_1)+\frac 1 4 V_{n-k}(P_2).\]
Notice that if our assumption is correct, then we must have $V_n=V(k, n-k)$.
Let us now run the following algorithm:
$(i)$ Write $k:=\lfloor \frac {2n}3\rfloor$.
$(ii)$ If $V(k-1, n-(k-1))<V(k, n-k)$ replace $k$ by $k-1$ and return, else go to step $(iii)$.
$(iii)$ If $V(k+1, n-(k+1))<V(k, n-k)$ replace $k$ by $k+1$ and return, else step $(iv)$.
$(iv)$ End.
After running the above algorithm, we see that $k=a(n)$, i.e., our assumption is correct. Thus, the proof of the theorem is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
If $n=14$, then $k=\lfloor \frac {28} 3\rfloor=9$. By running the algorithm as mentioned in the theorem, we obtain $k=10$. Moreover, notice that $a(14)=10$, i.e., $\ga_{14}$ contains $a(14)$ elements from $J_1$, and $n-a(14)$ elements from $J_2$, i.e., $\ga_{14}=\ga_{a(14)}(P_1)\uu \ga_{14-a(14)}(P_2)$. If $n=100$, then $k=\lfloor \frac {200} 3\rfloor=66$. By running the algorithm as mentioned in the theorem, we obtain $k=69$. Moreover, we have $a(100)=69$, i.e., $\ga_{100}$ contains $a(100)$ elements from $J_1$, and $n-a(100)$ elements from $J_2$, i.e., $\ga_{100}=\ga_{a(100)}(P_1)\uu \ga_{100-a(100)}(P_2)$.
\end{remark}
\section{Optimal quantization for the mixture of two uniform distributions on two connected line segments} \label{sec4}
Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be two uniform distributions, respectively, on the intervals $[0, \frac 12]$ and $[\frac 12, 1]$. Write
\[J_1:=[0, \frac 12], \te{ and } J_2:=[\frac 12, 1].\]
Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be their respective density functions. Then, $f_1(x)=2$ if $x\in [0,\frac 12]$, and zero, otherwise; and $f_2(x)=2$ if $x\in [\frac 12, 1]$, and zero, otherwise. Let $P:=\frac 34 P_1+\frac 14 P_2$.
For such a mixed distribution, in this section, we investigate the optimal sets of $n$-means and the $n$th quantization errors for all $n\in \D N$. Notice that the density function of the mixed distribution $P$ can be written as follows:
\[f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac 32 & \te{ if } x\in J_1,\\
\frac 12 & \te{ if } x\in J_2,\\
0 & \te{ otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.\]
Let us now prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $P$ be the mixed distribution defined by $P=\frac 34 P_1+\frac 1 4 P_2$. Then, $E(P)=\frac{3}{8}$, and $V(P)=\frac{13}{192}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[E(P)=\int x dP=\frac 34 \int x d(P_1(x))+\frac 14 \int x d(P_2(x))=\frac 34 \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2x \, dx+\frac 14 \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1 2 x \, dx\]
yielding $E(P)=\frac{3}{8}$, and
\[V(P)=\int (x-E(P))^2 dP=\frac 34 \int(x-E(P))^2 d(P_1(x))+\frac 14 \int(x-E(P))^2 d(P_2(x)),\]
implying
$V(P)=\frac{13}{192}$, and thus, the lemma is yielded.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The optimal set of one-mean is the set $\set{\frac{3}{8}}$, and the corresponding quantization error is the variance $V:=V(P)$ of a random variable with distribution $P$.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop} \label{prop01}
For $n\geq 2$, let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means. Then, $\ga_n\ii J_1\neq \es$, and $\ga_n\ii J_2\neq \es$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the set of two points $\gb:=\set{\frac 14, \frac 34}$. The distortion error due to the set $\gb$ is given by
\begin{align*}
&\int\min_{b\in \gb} (x-b)^2 dP=\int_{J_1}(x-\frac 14)^2 dP+\int_{J_2}(x-\frac 34)^2 dP\\
&=\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 \Big(x-\frac{1}{4}\Big)^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1 2 \Big(x-\frac{3}{4}\Big)^2 \, dx=\frac 1{ 48}.
\end{align*}
Since $V_n$ is the quantization error for two-means, and $n\geq 2$, we have $V_n\leq V_2\leq \frac 1{48}=0.0208333$. For the sake of contradiction assume that $\ga_n\ii J_2=\es$. Then,
\[V_n>\int_{J_2}(x-\frac 12)^2 dP=\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1 2 \left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 \, dx=\frac 1{48}\geq V_n,\]
which is a contradiction. Hence, we can assume that $\ga\ii J_2\neq \es$. Similarly, we can show that $\ga_n\ii J_1\neq \es$. Thus, the proof of the proposition is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma67}
The set $\set{\frac 14, \frac 34}$ forms an optimal set of two-means with quantization error $V_2=\frac 1{48}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\ga:=\set{a_1, a_2}$ be an optimal set of two-means such that $0<a_1<a_2<1$. By Proposition~\ref{prop01}, we have $a_1<\frac 12<a_2$. The following two cases can arise:
\tbf{Case~1.} $\frac 12\leq \frac{a_1+a_2}2$.
In this case, we have
\begin{align*}
a_1=\frac{\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 x \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right)} 2 x \, dx}{\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right)} 2 \, dx}, \te{ and } a_2=\frac{1}{2} \Big(\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right)+1\Big).
\end{align*}
Solving the above two equations, we have $a_1=\frac 14$, and $a_2=\frac 34$, with distortion error
\[V(P; \ga)=\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-a_1)^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right)} 2 (x-a_1)^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2} \left(a_1+a_2\right)}^1 2 \left(x-a_2\right){}^2 \, dx=\frac 1{ 48}.\]
\tbf{Case~2.} $\frac {a_1+a_2}{2}<\frac 12$.
Proceeding in the similar way as Case~1, we obtain two equations, and see that there is no solution in this case.
Considering the above two cases, we see that the set $\set{\frac 14, \frac 34}$ forms an optimal set of two-means with quantization error $\frac 1{48}$, which is the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma68}
The set $\set{\frac{1}{3} (\frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2), \, \frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2, \, \frac{1}{24} (21-\sqrt{3})}$ forms an optimal set of three-means with quantization error $V_3=0.00787482$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the set of three points $\gb:=\set{u, v, w}$, where
\[u=\frac{1}{3} (\frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2), \ v=\frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2, \te{ and } w=\frac{1}{24} (21-\sqrt{3}).\]
Since $0<u<v<\frac{1}{2}<\frac{v+w}{2}<w<1$, the distortion error due to the set $\gb$ is given by
\[V(P; \gb)=\frac{3}{4} \int_0^{\frac{u+v}{2}} 2 (x-u)^2 \, dx+\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{u+v}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 (x-v)^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{v+w}{2}} 2 (x-v)^2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{v+w}{2}}^1 2 (x-w)^2 \, dx\]
yielding $V(P; \gb) =0.00787482.$ Since $V_3$ is the quantization error for three-means we have $V_3\leq 0.00787482$. Let $\ga:=\set{a, b, c}$ be an optimal set of three-means. Without any loss of generality we can assume that $0<a<b<c<1$. By Proposition~\ref{prop01}, we know $a<\frac 12<c$. We now show that $b<\frac 12$. Suppose that $\frac 9{16}<b$. Then,
\begin{align*} V_3&\geq \int_{J_1}\min_{r\in \set{a, \frac 9 {16}}}(x-r)^2dP\\
&= \frac{3}{4} \mathop{\int}\limits_0^{\frac{1}{2} (a+\frac{9}{16})} 2 (x-a)^2 \, dx+\frac{3}{4} \mathop{\int}\limits_{\frac{1}{2} (a+\frac{9}{16})}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2(x-\frac{9}{16})^2 \, dx=\frac{12288 a^3+6912 a^2-3888 a+725}{32768},
\end{align*}
the minimum value of which is $0.00976563$ and it occurs when $a=\frac{3}{16}$, and thus, we have $V_3\geq 0.00976563>V_3$, which is a contradiction. So, we can assume that $b\leq \frac 9{16}$. Next, assume that $\frac 12\leq b\leq \frac 9{16}$. Notice that then $\frac 9{16}<c<1$.
Then, as before we have
\begin{align*}
&V_3\geq \int_{J_1}\min_{r\in \set{a, \frac 12}}(x-r)^2dP+\int_{\frac 9{16}}^1\min_{s\in \set{\frac 9{16}, c}}(x-r)^2dP\\
&=\frac{1}{64} (24 a^3+12 a^2-6 a+1)+\frac{-12288 c^3+42240 c^2-45264 c+15655}{98304},
\end{align*}
the minimum value of which is $\frac{1}{144}+\frac{343}{221184}=0.00849519$, and it occurs when $a=0.166667$, and $c=0.854167$. Thus, we have
$V_3\geq 0.00849519>V_3$, which is a contradiction. Hence, we can assume that $b<\frac 12$. Then, the two cases can arise: either $\frac 12(b+c)<\frac 12$, or $\frac 12\leq \frac 12(b+c)$. Proceeding as in Lemma~\ref{lemma67}, we can see that $\frac 12(b+c)<\frac 12$ can not happen. Thus, we have $\frac 12\leq \frac 12(b+c)$ implying
\begin{align*}
a=\frac{a+b}{4}, \ b=\frac{\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{a+b}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 x \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{b+c}{2}} 2 x \, dx}{\frac{3}{4} \int_{\frac{a+b}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}} 2 \, dx+\frac{1}{4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{b+c}{2}} 2 \, dx},\te{ and } c=\frac{\int_{\frac{b+c}{2}}^1 2 x \, dx}{\frac{4}{4} \int_{\frac{b+c}{2}}^1 2 \, dx}.
\end{align*}
Solving the above equations, we have
\[a=\frac{1}{3} (\frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2), \ b=\frac{1}{8} (21-\sqrt{3})-2, \te{ and } c=\frac{1}{24} (21-\sqrt{3}),\]
and the corresponding quantization error is given by $V_3=0.00787482$, and thus, the proof of the lemma is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{defi} \label{defi60}
For $n\in\D N$, define the sequence $\set{a(n)}_{n=1}^\infty$ as follows:
\[a(n):=\lfloor \frac{5 (n+1)}{8}\rfloor,\]
i.e.,
$\set{a(n)}_{n=1}^\infty=\set{1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 13,
14, 15, 15, 16, 16, \cdots}.$
\end{defi}
The us now state and prove the following two claims.
\begin{claim}\label{claim11}
Let $\set{a(n)}$ be the sequence defined by Definition~\ref{defi60}. Take $n=8$, and then $a(n)=5$. Assume that $\ga_n:=\set{a_1<a_2<a_3<a_4<a_5<b_1<b_2<b_3}$ is an optimal set of eight-means for $P$. Then, $\frac 12\leq \frac 12 (a_5+b_1)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} For the sake of contradiction, assume that $\frac 12 (a_5+b_1)<\frac 12$. Then,
\begin{align*}
a_1=\frac 12 (0+\frac {a_1+a_2}{2}), \te{ and } a_2=\frac 12(\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}+\frac {a_2+a_3}{2})
\end{align*}
implying $a_1=\frac 13 a_2$, and $a_2=\frac 35 a_3$. Similarly, $a_3=\frac 57 a_4$, $a_4=\frac 79 a_5$. Again, $b_2=\frac 12(\frac {b_1+b_2}{2}+\frac{b_2+b_3}2)$, and $b_3=\frac 12 (\frac{b_2+b_3}2+1)$ implying $b_2=\frac 35 b_1+\frac 25$, and $b_3=\frac 13 b_2+\frac 23$. Moreover,
\[a_5=\frac 12(\frac {a_4+a_5}2+\frac {a_5+b_1}2)=\frac 12(\frac {\frac 79 a_5+a_5}2+\frac {a_5+b_1}2)\te { implying } a_5=\frac 9{11} b_1,\]
and
\begin{align*}
b_1=E\Big(X : X\in [\frac {a_5+b_1}2, \frac 12]\uu [\frac 12, \frac{b_1+b_2}2]\Big)=\frac{-6 a_5 b_1-3 a_5^2-2 b_1^2+b_2^2+2 b_1 b_2+2}{-12 a_5-8 b_1+4 b_2+8}.
\end{align*}
Next, putting the values of $a_5$ and $b_2$ in the expression of $b_1$, we have
\[b_1=\frac{-11128 b_1^2+1936 b_1+3267}{14520-23320 b_1} \te{ yielding } b_1=\frac{11 \left(143\pm5 i \sqrt{5}\right)}{3048},\]
which is not real. Thus, $\frac 12 (a_5+b_1)<\frac 12$ leads to a contradiction. Hence, $\frac 12\leq \frac 12 (a_5+b_1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}\label{claim12}
Let $\set{a(n)}$ be the sequence defined by Definition~\ref{defi60}. Take $n=9$, and then $a(n)=6$. Assume that $\ga_n:=\set{a_1<a_2<a_3<a_4<a_5<a_6<b_1<b_2<b_3}$ is an optimal set of nine-means for $P$. Then, $\frac 12\leq \frac 12 (a_6+b_1)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} For the sake of contradiction, assume that $\frac 12 (a_6+b_1)<\frac 12$. Then,
\begin{align*}
a_1=\frac 12 (0+\frac {a_1+a_2}{2}), \te{ and } a_2=\frac 12(\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}+\frac {a_2+a_3}{2})
\end{align*}
implying $a_1=\frac 13 a_2$, and $a_2=\frac 35 a_3$. Similarly, $a_3=\frac 57 a_4$, $a_4=\frac 79 a_5$, and $a_5=\frac 9{11} a_6$. Again, $b_2=\frac 12(\frac {b_1+b_2}{2}+\frac{b_2+b_3}2)$, and $b_3=\frac 12 (\frac{b_2+b_3}2+1)$ implying $b_2=\frac 35 b_1+\frac 25$, and $b_3=\frac 13 b_2+\frac 23$. Moreover,
\[a_6=\frac 12(\frac {a_5+a_6}2+\frac {a_6+b_1}2)=\frac 12(\frac {\frac 9{11} a_6+a_6}2+\frac {a_6+b_1}2)\te { implying } a_6=\frac {11}{13} b_1,\]
and
\begin{align*}
b_1=E\Big(X : X\in [\frac {a_6+b_1}2, \frac 12]\uu [\frac 12, \frac{b_1+b_2}2]\Big)=\frac{-6 a_5 b_1-3 a_5^2-2 b_1^2+b_2^2+2 b_1 b_2+2}{-12 a_5-8 b_1+4 b_2+8}.
\end{align*}
Next, putting the values of $a_5$ and $b_2$ in the expression of $b_1$, we have
\[b_1=\frac{-16192 b_1^2+2704 b_1+4563}{20280-33280 b_1} \te{ yielding } b_1=\frac{13 \left(169\pm5 i \sqrt{11}\right)}{4272},\]
which is not real. Thus, $\frac 12 (a_6+b_1)<\frac 12$ leads to a contradiction. Hence, $\frac 12\leq \frac 12 (a_6+b_1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma444}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$, where $n\geq 2$, and $\set{a(n)}$ be the sequence defined by Definition~\ref{defi60}. Then, $\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_1)=a(n)$, and $\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_2)=n-a(n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma by induction. By Lemma~\ref{lemma67} and Lemma~\ref{lemma68}, the lemma is true for $n=2, 3$. Assume that that the lemma is true for $n=\ell$, i.e., $\te{card}(\ga_\ell\ii J_1)=a(\ell)$, and $\te{card}(\ga_\ell\ii J_2)=n-a(\ell)$.
We need to show that $\te{card}(\ga_{\ell+1}\ii J_1)=a(\ell+1)$. Assume that $\te{card}(\ga_{\ell+1}\ii J_1)=k$, i.e., $\ga_{\ell+1}$ contains $k$ elements from $J_1$, and $n-k$ elements from $J_2$. Let
\[\ga_{\ell+1}\ii J_1=\set{a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_k}, \te{ and } \ga_{\ell+1}\ii J_2=\set{b_1<b_2< \cdots<b_{n-k}}.\]
Then, either $\frac 12(a_k+b_1)<\frac 12$, or $\frac 12<\frac 12(a_k+b_1)$. In each case, using the similar techniques as in the proofs of Claim~\ref{claim11} and Claim~\ref{claim12}, if the solution exists, we solve for $a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_k, b_1, \cdots, b_{n-1}$, and find the distortion errors. Notice that at least one solution will exist. Let $V(k, n-k)$ be the minimum of the distortion errors if $\ga_{\ell+1}$ contains $k$ elements from $J_1$, and $n-k$ elements from $J_2$.
Let us now run the following algorithm:
$(i)$ Write $k:=a(\ell)$.
$(ii)$ If $V(k-1, n-(k-1))<V(k, n-k)$ replace $k$ by $k-1$ and return, else go to step $(iii)$.
$(iii)$ If $V(k+1, n-(k+1))<V(k, n-k)$ replace $k$ by $k+1$ and return, else step $(iv)$.
$(iv)$ End.
After running the above algorithm, we see that the value of $k$ obtained equals $a(\ell+1)$, i.e., the lemma is true for $n=\ell+1$ if it is true for $n=\ell$. Hence, by the Induction Principle, we can say that the lemma is true for all positive integers $n\geq 2$, i.e., $\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_1)=a(n)$ for any positive integer $n\geq 2$. Since $\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_1)+\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_2)=n$, we have $\te{card}(\ga_n\ii J_2)=n-a(n)$. Thus, the proof of the lemma is complete.
\end{proof}
Let us now state and prove the following theorem which is the main theorem in this section.
\begin{theorem} \label{The90}
Let $\ga_n$ be an optimal set of $n$-means for $P$, where $n\geq 2$, and $\set{a(n)}$ be the sequence defined by Definition~\ref{defi60}. Write $k:=a(n)$, $m:=n-a(n)$. Then,
\[\ga_n:=\set{a_1<a_2< \cdots<a_k<b_1< b_2< \cdots< b_m},\]
where
\[a_j=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac {a_1+a_2}{4} & \te{ if } j=1,\\
\frac 12\Big(\frac{a_{j-1}+a_j} 2+\frac{a_j+a_{j+1}}2\Big) &\te{ if } 2\leq j\leq k-1,\\
E(X : X \in [\frac{a_{k-1}+a_k}2, \frac 12]\uu [\frac 12,\frac{a_k+b_1}2]) & \te{ if } j=k,
\end{array}\right.\] and
\[b_j=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac 12(\frac{a_k+b_1}2 +\frac{b_1+b_2}2)& \te{ if } j=1,\\
\frac 12\Big(\frac{b_{j-1}+b_j} 2+\frac{b_j+b_{j+1}}2\Big) &\te{ if } 2\leq j\leq m-1,\\
\frac 1 2(\frac{b_{m-1}+b_{m}}2+1) &\te{ if } j= m,
\end{array}\right.\]
and the corresponding quantization error is given by
\begin{align*} V_n&=\frac{1}{48} \Big(-3 b_1^2 m a_k+3 b_1 m a_k^2-3 b_1^2 a_k+3 b_1 a_k^2-m a_k^3+21 a_1^3 (k-1)+9 a_2 a_1^2 (k-1)\\
&-9 a_2^2 a_1 (k-1)+3 a_2^3 (k-1)-3 a_{k-1}^3-14 a_k^3-9 a_{k-1} a_k^2+24 a_k^2+9 a_{k-1}^2 a_k-12 a_k+b_2^3 m\\
&-3 b_1 b_2^2 m+3 b_1^2 b_2 m+b_1^3+2\Big).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma444}, the optimal set $\ga_n$ of $n$-means contains $k$ elements from $J_1$, and $m$ elements from $J_2$, where $k=a(n)$ and $m=n-k$.
Let $\ga_n:=\set{a_1<a_2< \cdots<a_k<b_1< b_2< \cdots< b_m}$. Recall Theorem~\ref{th31}, and the fact that $P_1$ is a uniform distribution on $[0, \frac 12]$, and $P_2$ is a uniform distribution on $[\frac 12, 1]$. Thus, we have
\[a_j=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac {a_1+a_2}{4} & \te{ if } j=1,\\
\frac 12\Big(\frac{a_{j-1}+a_j} 2+\frac{a_j+a_{j+1}}2\Big) &\te{ if } 2\leq j\leq k-1,
\end{array}\right.\] and
\[b_j=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac 12\Big(\frac{b_{j-1}+b_j} 2+\frac{b_j+b_{j+1}}2\Big) &\te{ if } 2\leq j\leq m-1,\\
\frac 1 2(\frac{b_{m-1}+b_{m}}2+1) &\te{ if } j= m,
\end{array}\right.\]
The following two cases can arise:
\tbf{Case~1.} $\frac 12\leq \frac 12(a_k+b_1)$.
In this case, we have $a_k=E(X : X \in [\frac{a_{k-1}+a_k}2, \frac 12]\uu [\frac 12,\frac{a_k+b_1}2])$, and $b_1=\frac 12(\frac{a_k+b_1}2 +\frac{b_1+b_2}2)$.
\tbf{Case~2.} $\frac 12(a_k+b_1)<\frac 12$.
In this case, we have $a_k=\frac 12(\frac {a_{k-1}+a_k}2+\frac{a_k+b_1}2)$, and $b_1=E(X : X \in [\frac{a_k+b_1}2, \frac 12]\uu [\frac 12,\frac{b_1+b_2}2])$.
For any given positive integer, using the similar techniques as in the proofs of Claim~\ref{claim11} and Claim~\ref{claim12}, we see that in Case~2, the system of equations to obtain $a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_k, b_1, \cdots, b_m$ does not have any solution. Hence Case~2 cannot happen.
Thus, we have $\frac 12\leq \frac 12(a_k+b_1)$, i.e., the system of equations to obtain $a_1, a_2, \cdots, a_k, b_1, \cdots, b_m$ as stated in the theorem are true, and hence, the corresponding quantization error is given by
\begin{align*} V_n&=\frac {3(k-1)} 4\int_{0}^{\frac{a_1+a_2}2} 2(x-a_1)^2 dx+\frac 3 4\int_{\frac{a_{k-1}+a_k}2}^{\frac 12}2(x-a_k)^2 dx+\frac 1 4\int_{\frac 12}^{\frac{a_{k}+b_1}2}2(x-a_k)^2 dx \\
&\qquad + \frac {m} 4\int_{\frac{a_{k}+b_1}2}^{\frac{b_1+b_2}{2}} 2(x-b_1)^2 dx\\
&=\frac{1}{48} \Big(-3 b_1^2 m a_k+3 b_1 m a_k^2-3 b_1^2 a_k+3 b_1 a_k^2-m a_k^3+21 a_1^3 (k-1)+9 a_2 a_1^2 (k-1)\\
&-9 a_2^2 a_1 (k-1)+3 a_2^3 (k-1)-3 a_{k-1}^3-14 a_k^3-9 a_{k-1} a_k^2+24 a_k^2+9 a_{k-1}^2 a_k-12 a_k+b_2^3 m\\
&-3 b_1 b_2^2 m+3 b_1^2 b_2 m+b_1^3+2\Big).
\end{align*}
Thus, we complete the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Now, we give the following example.
\begin{exam}
Take $n=16$. Then, $k=a(n)=10$, and so, $m=6$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{The90}, we have
\begin{align*}
\set{& a_1= 0.0255733, a_2= 0.0767199, a_3= 0.127866, a_4= 0.179013, a_5= 0.23016, a_6=0.281306, \\
& a_7= 0.332453, a_8= 0.383599, a_9= 0.434746, a_{10}= 0.485893, b_1=0.564986, b_2= 0.644079, \\
& b_3= 0.723173, b_4=0.802266, b_5= 0.88136, b_6= 0.960453},
\end{align*}
and the corresponding quantization error is given by
\begin{align*} V_{16}&=\frac{1}{48} \Big(-21 a_{10} b_1^2+21 a_{10}^2 b_1+189 a_1^3+81 a_2 a_1^2-81 a_2^2 a_1+27 a_2^3-3 a_9^3-20 a_{10}^3-9 a_9 a_{10}^2\\
&+24 a_{10}^2+9 a_9^2 a_{10}-12 a_{10}+b_1^3+6 b_2^3-18 b_1 b_2^2+18 b_1^2 b_2+2\Big)=0.000293827.
\end{align*}
\end{exam}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
In declarative programming languages with algebraic datatypes,
\emph{constructing} and \emph{querying} structured data are symmetric tasks,
handled by languages features of equal expressiveness, the latter namely by
\emph{pattern matching}. Semantics are given by a clean, reversible
\emph{algebraic} interpretation.
In object-oriented languages, by contrast, the query side is markedly deficient
in expressiveness~\cite{mowp,paisley-atps}. This is due partly to shortcomings in
language design, partly to the doctrine of \emph{data abstraction} which is
generally incompatible with algebraic semantics.
\textsf{Paisley}\,\cite{paisley-icmt} is a solution for this dialectic problem.
It is a lightweight embedded domain-specific language (EDSL) that raises the
pattern-matching expressiveness of the host language Java considerably, without
breaking either the imperative control flow or the abstraction of
object-oriented data models.
{\NEEEEW
The present paper summarizes the design of \textsf{Paisley} in
section~\ref{intro}. Its main contribution is the description and
evaluation of a novel compilation technique, presented in sections
\ref{compile} and \ref{eval}, respectively.}
\subsection{Basic Design and Usage of Paisley}
The lightweight implementation of the \textsf{Paisley} EDSL is
a pure Java library that runs on a vanilla Java platform
requiring neither compiler nor runtime extensions, and that \emph{reifies}
pattern matching primitives by a collection of Java classes. Constructor terms
for objects of these classes form a declarative language,
but since they {\NEEEEW denote} plain Java objects and thus first-class citizens, patterns
may also be configured algorithmically by meta-programming in the host system.
In the following presentation, all code samples are in Java\,8, which we assume
the reader is basically familiar with. We shall take the liberty to add a
keyword \lstinline|partial| for partial type definition {\NEEEEW fragments that
add up throughout a collection of sources}, borrowed from C\#, in order to focus on
distinct aspects of the APIs according to the flow of discussion.
The \textsf{Paisley} design aims at representing the imperative object-oriented
view on Java data objects faithfully. Thus it is concerned with the full
spectrum of \emph{operational} semantics of data query operations, of which the
implementation of algebraic semantics is merely a particularly well-behaved
special case. The basic API is deceptively simple:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial abstract class Pattern<A> {
public boolean match(A target);
public boolean matchAgain(); ^\smallskip^
}
\end{lstlisting}
A pattern is an object that can be attempted to \lstinline|match| against some
value \lstinline|target| of the parameter type \lstinline|A|, and will indicate
success by its \lstinline|boolean| return value. All additional information,
such as extracted pieces of data, needs to be communicated via side effects.
Patterns are potentially non-deterministic; additional matches beyond the
successful first, each with their own observable side effects, can be obtained
by iterating \lstinline|matchAgain| until it fails. Note that patterns are
required to store the information needed for backtracking as private mutable
state, thus they are reusable sequentially but not concurrently.
The event of a successful match, together with the collection of all
observable side effects, is called a \emph{solution}.
The sequence of all solutions is the primary behavioral semantics of a
pattern.
The single most important pattern class is the \lstinline|Variable|, which can
be bound to data obtained from the target:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial class Variable<A> extends Pattern<A> { ^\smallskip^
A value; ^\smallskip^
public boolean match(A target) { value = target; return true; }
public boolean matchAgain() { return false; }
}
\end{lstlisting}
A variable pattern simply matches any target deterministically, and records it
as a side effect.\footnote{\NEEEEW This is the only solution-relevant side
effect discussed in this paper, but others could be implemented by
user-defined combinators.} Their power comes from the ability to be nested
inside complex patterns, and hence record selected parts of the overall target
data, under controlled conditions. Note that variable binding is by ordinary
imperative assignment; there are no declarative concepts such as \emph{single
assignment} (which would prevent {\NEEEEW transparent} sequential reuse) or
\emph{unification} (which is ill-defined for arbitrary non-algebraic data APIs).
The basic usage template consists of four steps: (1)~allocate pattern variables
to hold results; (2)~construct a complex pattern over the variables; (3)~attempt
one or more matches; (4)~on success, proceed using the result values; see
Fig.~\ref{fig:usage}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.8\textwidth}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\lstset{moredelim=**[is][\color{black!50}]{!}{!},moredelim=**[is][\NEEEW]{@}{@},xleftmargin=1em}
\begin{lstlisting}[gobble=2]
Variable<V1> v1 = new Variable<>(); // (1)
// ...
Variable<Vn> vn = new Variable<>(); // (1) ^\smallskip^
Pattern<A> p = createPattern(v1, ..., vn); // (2) ^\smallskip^
if (p.match(target)) !do! // (3a) ^\smallskip^
doSomething(v1.value, ..., vn.value); // (4) ^\smallskip^
!while (@wantingMore() &&@ p.matchAgain());! // (3b)
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-\baselineskip}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\end{minipage}
\caption{Basic usage template for \textsf{Paisley} patterns}
\label{fig:usage}
\end{figure}
Here \lstinline|createPattern| is problem-specific producer code that may build
on operations from the \textsf{Paisley} library, \lstinline|doSomething| is
arbitrary consumer code that does not need to know about patterns, and the
greyed-out part is optional for the case of exhaustive search of matches for
non-deterministic patterns. Note that the API is statically type-safe for both
targets and results, and backtracking is subject to explicit imperative control
flow{\NEEEW, including the user-defined condition \lstinline|wantingMore|}.
\subsection{Summary of Features}
This section gives a brief overview of the features of the \textsf{Paisley} core
library. It is not intended as a detailed or complete introduction, but rather
to convey an intuition about the operational principles and recurring idioms, as
well as the scope of the task of developing a compiler for the \textsf{Paisley}
language.
\newml{\textsf{Paisley} is a \emph{combinatorial language} in the sense of
Schönfinkel and Curry.}
\newml{E}ach primitive
is either a full-fledged pattern that can be used
on its own, or an operator that \newml{builds new patterns from one or more
existing ones.}
The core library can be extended as needed by giving new
implementations (subclasses) of the existing APIs.
\paragraph*{Logic}
The most basic \textsf{Paisley} combinators are \lstinline|both| and
\lstinline|either|, which implement the logical conjunction and disjunction of
patterns, respectively.
The pattern \lstinline|both(p, q)| produces all solutions of \lstinline|q| for
each successive solution of \lstinline|p| in order, both applied to the same
target. Since \lstinline|q| may observe the variable bindings established by
the successful match for \lstinline|p|, the solution semantics of the combinator
is a \emph{dependent sum} rather than {\NEEEW just} a Cartesian product of the
individual semantics.
The pattern \lstinline|either(p, q)| produces all solutions of \lstinline|p|
followed by all solutions of \lstinline|q|, both applied to the same target.
This is the most straightforward way to introduce non-determinism. Since
\lstinline|q| is only invoked after solutions for \lstinline|p| are exhausted,
the latter can not observe the former, and the solutions semantics of the
combinator is just the concatenation of the individual semantics. Note that a
variable can only be considered bound in \newml{each} solution of
\lstinline|either(p, q)| if it is bound by \emph{both} \lstinline|p| and
\lstinline|q|.
\paragraph*{Projections}
Any data access operation that can be reified as an instance \lstinline|f| of
the Java standard interface \lstinline|Function<A, B>|, such as a getter for a
field of type \lstinline|B| from objects of class \lstinline|A|, contravariantly
induces a transform from \lstinline|Pattern<B> p| to
\lstinline|Pattern<A> transform(f, p)| ---
namely, \lstinline|transform(f, p).match(a)| should behave equivalently to
\lstinline|p.match(f.apply(a))|. This allows patterns operating on parts of a
data structure to be lifted to patterns operating on the whole, by transforming
them with the appropriate access operation.
\paragraph*{Tests}
Any data access operation that can be reified as an instance \lstinline|t| of
the Java standard interface \lstinline|Predicate<A>|, such as a
\lstinline|boolean|-valued getter or an \lstinline|instanceof| test,
induces \lstinline|Pattern<A> guard(t)| --- namely,
\lstinline|guard(t).match(a)| should behave equivalently to
\lstinline|t.test(a)|. Thus, the pattern matches a target deterministically and
without extra side effects, if and only if the underlying predicate is
satisfied.
\paragraph*{Encapsulated Search}
An important usage of non-deterministic computations embedded in a conventional
deterministic program is \emph{encapsulated search}: locally enumerating all
solutions of a non-deterministic subproblem, without leaking backtracking
control flow to the consumer. \textsf{Paisley} provides convenience operations
for encapsulating the ubiquitous special case of patterns with a single
variable. An expression of the form \lstinline|v.bindings(p, a)| enumerates the
values of variable \lstinline|v| for all solutions of \lstinline|p.match(a)|.
Both eager and lazy evaluation are supported:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial class Variable<A> {
public <B> List<A> eagerBindings(Pattern<B> pattern, B target);
public <B> Iterable<A> lazyBindings (Pattern<B> pattern, B target);
}
\end{lstlisting}
\paragraph*{Pattern Algebra}
For meta-programming with patterns, it would be desirable to be able to
substitute a \lstinline|Variable<B> v| occurring in a \lstinline|Pattern<A> p|
with another \lstinline|Pattern<B> q|. Since patterns are specified by an
abstract API and in general have no discernible term structure, this is not
straightforward. If \lstinline|v| is definitely bound in \lstinline|p| however,
we can have the next best thing: an external data-flow composition
\lstinline|v.bind(p, q)| --- namely \lstinline|v.bind(p, q).match(a)| should
behave equivalently to \lstinline|b -> q.match(b)| iterated disjunctively over the
elements of \lstinline|v.lazyBindings(p, a)|. Note that lazy evaluation ensures
that computations from \lstinline|p| and \lstinline|q| are interleaved in the
expected order~\cite{whyfp}.
Substitution in turn is good enough to define a \lstinline|lambda| operator for
pattern function abstraction. Considering functions on patterns (\emph{motifs})
as first-class citizens raises the level of abstraction considerably:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial interface Motif<A, B> extends Function<Pattern<A>, Pattern<B>> { } ^\smallskip^
partial class Variable<A> {
public <B> Motif<A, B> lambda(Pattern<B> body);
}
\end{lstlisting}
Besides the basic composition operations for point-free construction
\newml{(e.g.\ lifted \lstinline!transform()! and \lstinline!guard()!)}, motifs
also provide Kleene \lstinline|star()| and \lstinline|plus()| operators for
full-fledged relational programming~\cite{paisley-xpath}. {\NEEW These
operations implement unbounded iteration of a pattern {\NEEEW transparently}
by lazy cloning, and thus increase the expressive power of \textsf{Paisley}
considerably.} See Fig.~\ref{fig:countdown} for a concise
example.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.85\linewidth}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\begin{lstlisting}[gobble=4,mathescape=true,xleftmargin=1em]
Motif<Integer, Integer> positive = Motif.guard(n -> n _>_ 0),
pred = Motif.transform(n -> n - 1),
countdown = Motif.star(positive.andThen(pred)); ^\smallskip^
System.out.println(countdown.eagerBindings(10));
\end{lstlisting}
\hrule height \lightrulewidth\medskip
\quad $\leadsto$ \texttt{[10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0]} \medskip
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\end{minipage}
\caption{Relational programming on numbers}
\label{fig:countdown}
\end{figure}
\paragraph*{Standard Data Bindings}
The API design of \textsf{Paisley} is modular and open, such that pattern
primitives that bind to actual data APIs can be added as needed. For
convenience, the core library comes with predefined bindings for some of the
most common Java datatypes: objects (equality, type checks); numbers
(comparison, arithmetic); strings (substrings, regular expressions);
collections and arrays (shape checks, element iteration); XML (DOM trees, XPath
relations).
\subsection{Bottom-Up Optimization}
A major downside of highly generic and reusable combinators is that, without a
specialization framework, their implementation is quite hard to optimize. By
the very compositional nature of the combinators, the code that implements the
operational semantics of each is a small fragment, and has {\NEEEW hardly any}
metadata about its context that could be exploited for optimization.
We shall take a short detour to demonstrate the optimization potential given by
even the most rudimentary bottom-up context information. The remainder of this
paper is then the description of a complementary, technologically more
sophisticated solution that also takes the more powerful top-down metadata flow
into account.
The \textsf{Paisley} API specifies a single item of heuristic metadata, namely a
flag that indicates whether a pattern is statically guaranteed to be
deterministic, i.e., not to match any single target more than once:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial class Pattern<A> {
public boolean isDeterministic();
}
\end{lstlisting}
This information is exploited by the pattern combinator \lstinline|both(p, q)|
that implements the conjunctive sequential combination of patterns \lstinline|p|
and \lstinline|q| (analogous to the Prolog comma operator \texttt{(p, q)}). If
\lstinline|p| is \emph{not} certainly deterministic, then storage for
backtracking (analogous to a frame of the Prolog choice stack) must be
allocated, for restarting \lstinline|q| for each solution of \lstinline|p|.
Otherwise, both the choice-point storage and the corresponding fragment of a
global backtracking algorithm can be elided. Note that possible non-determinism
of \lstinline|q| is irrelevant, as it must be realized further down.
The choice between the generic, backtracking implementation and the
optimized, semi-deterministic one is made at pattern construction
time, depending on the value returned by
\lstinline|p.isDeterministic()|. Figure~\ref{fig:both} depicts both
implementations in horizontal synopsis. The subpatterns
\lstinline|p|/\lstinline|q| are stored as
\lstinline|left|/\lstinline|right|, respectively. It is easy to see
that the optimized version is significantly superior in terms of space
and time efficiency, and that this optimization is crucially necessary
for ensuring that \textsf{Paisley} non-determinism does not impose
prohibitive costs where it is not needed.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.57\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[gobble=4,xleftmargin=0.5em]
private A target_save;
private boolean left_matched; ^\smallskip^
public boolean match(A target) {
return (left_matched = left.match(target))
&& matchNext(target_save = target, false);
} ^\smallskip^
public boolean matchAgain() {
return left_matched
&& matchNext(target_save, true);
} ^\smallskip^
private boolean matchNext(A target,
boolean again) {
if (again ? right.matchAgain()
: right.match(target))
return true;
else
while (left_matched = left.matchAgain())
if (right.match(target))
return true;
return false;
}
\end{lstlisting}
\end{minipage}%
\hfill\vrule width \lightrulewidth\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.40\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[gobble=4,xleftmargin=0pt]
// ^no mutable fields, but^
// ^assert left.isDeterministic();^ ^\smallskip^
public boolean match(A target) {
return left.match(target)
&& right.match(target);
} ^\smallskip^
public boolean matchAgain() {
return
right.matchAgain();
}
\end{lstlisting}
\end{minipage}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\caption{Pattern conjunction, non-deterministic ({\em left}) and
semi-deterministic ({\em right})}
\label{fig:both}
\end{figure}
\section{Compiling Paisley}
\label{compile}
The basic mode of \textsf{Paisley} pattern execution is by a modular
interpreter; each object in the graph making up a complex pattern
encapsulates the code and the state variables required for a
particular step of the overall pattern-matching algorithm. While
elegant and lightweight, this technique has evident limitations regarding
performance.
Fortunately however, combinators have the ideal structure for a
well-known compilation technique, namely \emph{partial evaluation}.
The inputs to each fragment of implementation are clearly
distinguished into two categories of binding time: Combinator
arguments make up the pattern structure, and are bound at pattern
\emph{construction} time; targets are bound at pattern
\emph{application} time. Thus a pattern may be specialized after
construction, exploiting the information of the former, to obtain the
code of a residual program that just inputs the latter --- that is, an
equivalent monolithic pattern.
{\NEW
Compiling an interpreted language by explicitly controlled partial evaluation of
the interpreter is a ubiquitous and well-proven technique, ultimately haling
back to Futamura's first projection \cite{futamura}, but more recently known as
\emph{staging}\,\cite{metaml}.
}
\subsection{Design of the Paisley Compiler}
The user perspective on \textsf{Paisley} pattern compilation is an extremely
simple API that subsumes interpreted and compiled patterns transparently, and
requires no configuration or global context:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial class Pattern<A> {
public Pattern<A> compile();
}
\end{lstlisting}
Here \lstinline|p.compile().match(a)| should behave equivalently to
\lstinline|p.match(a)|, although hopefully with less computational overhead,
{\NEEEW as returns on the resources invested in compilation}.
Semantic equivalence implies that \lstinline|p.compile()| shares pattern
variables with \lstinline|p|, but higher-level combinators may have been fused
to a single object, whose code can be executed without internal dynamic function
calls {\NEW and field indirections}, and thus optimized far more aggressively by
the jit compiler.
\begingroup\NEEW
\subsection{Implementation of the Paisley Compiler}
The Java language and virtual machine (JVM) have no native support for partial
evaluation, and are in general not a suitable candidate either, due to their
complex imperative semantics. Thus \emph{homoiconic} staged meta-programming,
where object and meta code share the same syntax, is not an option. The JVM
does, however, support dynamic extensions of the code base through class loaders.
Given an expressive JVM bytecode synthesis tool, partial evaluation can be
implemented for well-behaved reified languages, in particular declarative
lightweight EDSLs such as \textsf{Paisley}, with reasonable effort.
We have implemented such a tool based on our \textsf{LLJava}\,\cite{lljava}
framework. \textsf{LLJava} defines both a low-level JVM programming language
and an abstract bytecode model, and translation tools that can be used as
compiler, disassembler and bytecode manipulation library. Our experimental new
tool, \textsf{LLJava-live} provides a convenient front-end to the
\textsf{LLJava} bytecode model, particularly tailored to the purpose of modular
synthesis of code for immediate use. \textsf{Paisley} is its first completed
application.
Generator modules interact with \textsf{LLJava-live} through a
\lstinline|CompilationContext| API that serves both as a source of context (such
as variable bindings) and as a sink for code (such as instructions and scoping
blocks). Generated code fragments are organized at the intra-method level by
default, and connected in a data-flow network: The enclosing scope of each
fragment denotes $m$ input and $n$ output variables, which are statically typed
and can be realized in bytecode transparently as fields, parameters, temporary
local variables, or arbitrary access code. For fragments corresponding to
methods, $m$ equals the number of parameters and $n$ equals $1$ or $0$ for a
return value or \lstinline|void|, respectively.
For local data flow, the fragment may read the inputs and must write the outputs
and terminate. In the process, local variables may be allocated, and nested
fragments inserted and connected.
For non-local data flow, fragments may allocate and share state variables which are
realized as \lstinline|private| fields of the enclosing class.
The virtual instruction set understood by the context comprises both
operand-stack style (\emph{load}/\emph{store}) and register style (\emph{move}).
Basic block generators are passed as \lstinline|Runnable| callbacks, such that
the context can rearrange them as needed. The code base of the host program can
be referred directly via the standard reification as \lstinline|Class| and
\lstinline|Method| objects. See Fig.~\ref{fig:live} for an example where a
(highly contrived) code fragment \lstinline|foo| is compiled, including a
subfragment \lstinline|bar|.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\NEEW
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\begin{minipage}{.3\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}
boolean foo(int n) {
bar(n + 1);
return true;
}
void bar(int m);
\end{lstlisting}
\end{minipage}\vrule width \lightrulewidth%
\begin{minipage}{.65\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}
void compileFoo(CompilationContext context) {
Variable n = context.getInput(0),
tmp = context.createLocalVariable(int.class);
context.store(tmp, () -> {
context.load(n); context.load(1); context.add();
});
context.block(asList(tmp), asList(), // I/O variables
() -> compileBar(context));
context.move(true, context.getOutput(0));
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace{-\baselineskip}
\end{minipage}
\hrule height \heavyrulewidth
\end{minipage}
\caption{Code fragments (\emph{left}) and \textsf{LLJava-live} generator (\emph{right}).}
\label{fig:live}
\end{figure}
The overall organization of generated code into methods and the API of the
generated class is handled by an application-specific compiler entry point.
\textsf{LLJava-live} provides a generic service for generating the actual
bytecode, loading the class and instantiating it via reflection.
\endgroup
\begingroup\NEW
\paragraph*{Compilation API}
In order to preserve the modularity of \textsf{Paisley}, the compiler is
distributed over the classes that implement pattern combinators, completely
analogous to the interpreter. Thus, for every method related to interpretation,
we have added a companion method that generates the equivalent code:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial class Pattern<A> {
protected void compileMatch (CompilationContext context);
protected void compileMatchAgain(CompilationContext context);
}
\end{lstlisting}
\begingroup\NEEW
\newml{Calling t}he entry point \lstinline|Pattern.compile()|
\newml{generates} a new subclass of
\lstinline|Pattern| and populates its API methods by invoking each of the
companion methods of the pattern to be compiled with a corresponding context.
In the following, we discuss a few selected issues to be addressed for the
effective compilation of EDSLs in general, and of \textsf{Paisley} in
particular.
\endgroup
\paragraph*{Variable Capture}
As usual in partial evaluation, the program fragments produced by the
construction stage may capture \newml{host language} variables of their context. For
primitive types, a constant corresponding to the environment value can
simply be injected into the target class. But capturing references to
live Java objects is another matter. We use a staged version of the
same technique also employed by the Java compiler for variable
captures in local classes: The target class is
\emph{closure}-converted, that is, captured variables are represented
as \lstinline|private final| fields, and properly initialized with the
environment values when the class is instantiated for proceeding to
the application stage.
\paragraph*{Fallback Strategy: Staged Eta Expansion}
For incremental upgrading of the \textsf{Paisley} core library to compilation,
but also for users who wish to extend the language but not be bothered with
{\NEEEW \textsf{LLJava-live}} code generation, there is a fallback mechanism
that allows any combinator without a specific code generator {\NEEEEW(and its arguments)} to
be embedded in a tree that is compiled as a whole. This fallback is defined as
the default implementation of code generation methods, which can {\NEEEW either}
be overridden specifically or simply inherited.
The technique is essentially a staged variant of eta expansion, or \emph{reverse
stubs} in virtual machine terminology: by default, any API method of a pattern
compiles into a call of itself, thus reverting from compiled to interpreted
mode. This entails the capture of a reference to the original pattern. As a
special case, pattern variables are always compiled in this way, since their
identity is crucial to the external work flow (see Fig.~\ref{fig:usage}), and
must not be ``optimized'' away {\NEEEEW such that remote interactions via observable side effects are severed.}
\endgroup
\paragraph*{Avoiding Code Explosion}
Partial evaluation frameworks typically draw their power from two related
top-down heuristics: The first is \emph{inlining}, where a function call is
replaced by the function body, specialized by substituting the actual parameter
values for the formal ones. The second is ``the Trick''\,\cite{trick}, where a
fragment of code depending on an unbound variable with few distinct possible
values, is replaced by a case distinction over the variable, with the original
fragment specialized repeatedly by substituting one possible value per
branch.
Both involve the duplication of code in environments with more bound variables
than the original place of definition, trading the potential for subsequent
simplification for the danger of combinatorial code explosion. For example in
Fig.~\ref{fig:both}~(\emph{left}), consider the double occurrence of the
inlinable call \lstinline|right.match(target)|, and the parameter variable
\lstinline|boolean again|
that is subject both to inlining globally and to the Trick locally.
Because of the highly self-similar nature of combinator trees, any local
duplication of code can easily lead to exponential growth. In the context of
the JVM, where the bytecode size of a method is tightly limited to 64\,kiB, and
the resource-constrained verifier and jit compiler are liable to choke on far
less, this becomes a problem very quickly. Thus duplication of bytecode must be
strictly controlled for the compilation of nestable combinators.
The \textsf{Paisley} compiler has an all-or-nothing policy regarding code
duplication: when the compilation step for any combinator finds that it would
call the same substep more than once, a \lstinline|private| auxiliary method is
created instead, populated once and called from every occurrence. The decision
whether to inline such methods (where cheap enough) is left to the jit compiler,
which has sophisticated code-size budgeting heuristics anyway.
\subsection{Motif Compilation}
Surprisingly, lifting compilation to the function level, that is from patterns
to motifs, requires hardly any effort. An obvious naïve solution would be to
compile any motif point-wise:
\begin{lstlisting}
partial interface Motif<A, B> {
public default Motif<A, B> compile() {
return p -> this.apply(p).compile();
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
But this would {\NEEEW redundantly} create a \emph{new} class for every application of a motif.
Fortunately, we can do much better
\newml{by reducing {\NEEEEW the general task} to a clever
treatment of lambda abstractions, \lstinline|v.lambda(p)|, {\NEEEEW that escapes the modular code generation scheme in a substantial but transparent way.}}
Assuming that \lstinline|v| actually occurs in \lstinline|p|, the compilation of
\lstinline|p| will
{\NEEEEW include}
the staged eta expansion of \lstinline|v|.
Hence \lstinline|v| will occur in the environment of the compiled closure. All
we need to do is to defer the actual constructor call for the closure, and
return a motif that calls the constructor when applied, substituting its
argument for \lstinline|p| in the environment. In short,
\lstinline|v.lambda(p).compile().apply(q)| should behave equivalently to
\lstinline|p.compile()|, except that the latter's environment reference to
\lstinline|v| is rerouted to \lstinline|q|.
No other motif combinator needs to be implemented manually. Any
complex motif \newml{\lstinline!m!} can be compiled monolithically by
instead compiling its eta expansion,
\newml{\lstinline!m.etaExpand().compile()!}{\NEEEEW, where the above
procedure can be applied to the body}.
\begin{lstlisting}
partial interface Motif<A, B> {
public default Motif<A, B> etaExpand() {
Variable<A> x = new Variable<>();
return x.lambda(this.apply(x));
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
The only catch is that the variable \lstinline|x| is {\NEEEEW naturally}
considered deterministic in
the construction-time analysis of \lstinline|p|, as discussed above. Thus for
non-deterministic patterns \lstinline|q| backtracking glue code needs to be
inserted.
{\NEEEEW The implementation of \lstinline|compile()| for eta-expanded motifs deals with this transparently.}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{eval}
We evaluate the performance of the \textsf{Paisley} compiler and its results by
reiterating previously published benchmarks of (interpreted) \textsf{Paisley}
applications.\footnote{All results reported here have been obtained on the
same test equipment, namely a Core~i7-5600U\,@\,2.60\,GHz CPU with 16\,GiB of
RAM, running CentOS~Linux~7 and OpenJDK~8u202.}
\subsection{Cryptarithmetic Puzzles}
In \cite{crypt} we demonstrated the use of \textsf{Paisley} for embedded
logic programming by considering \emph{cryptarithmetic puzzles}. Given a
natural number $b$, an injective mapping of letters to values in $\{0, \dots,
b-1\}$ induces a $b$-adic notation of natural numbers disguised as words. A
puzzle is a sum equation of $n$ words, and the solutions are the mappings that
satisfy the equation. The classic example is $SEND + MORE = MONEY$, with $b =
10$ and $n = 2$, which has the unique solution $O = 0$, $M = 1$, $Y = 2$, $E =
5$, $N = 6$, $D = 7$, $R = 8$, and $S = 9$ \cite{send}.
Our approach to solving cryptarithmetic puzzles with \textsf{Paisley} is based
on one pattern variable for each letter, and the set of possible digits as the
target object. Various generic non-deterministic combinators from the
\textsf{Paisley} library span the search tree, and a few problem-specific
\emph{constraint} patterns prune it. (Constraint patterns do not examine the
target object, but the bindings of variables, exploiting the dependent nature of
the \lstinline|both| combinator.)
In \cite{crypt} we considered three increasingly sophisticated search-plan
construction algorithms for arbitrary cryptarithmetic puzzles:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A \emph{naïve} generate-and-test strategy that exhausts the Cartesian
space of variable bindings by brute force, and checks the injectivity and
arithmetic constraints for each at the very end.
\item A strategy that exploits \emph{injectivity} by inserting pair-wise
inequality constraints for bound variables as early as possible.
\item A strategy that additionally exploits \emph{modular arithmetic} by binding
variables in right-to-left order of occurrence, inserting approximative checks
for the sum modulo $b^k$, for increasing $k$, as early as possible.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{table}[tp]
\caption{Solving the SEND+MORE=MONEY puzzle with \textsf{Paisley} patterns.}
\label{tab:crypt}
\centering
\def1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction[annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()]}\end{tabular}{1.2}\small\tabcolsep=0.5em
\begin{tabular}{l@{\quad}rrc@{\quad}rrrr}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Strategy}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Run Time}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Speedup}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Compilation}}
\\
& \textbf{interp.} & \textbf{compiled} && \textbf{time} & \textbf{bytes} & \textbf{flds} & \textbf{mths}
\\ \midrule
\textbf{naïve} & 4\,029\,ms & 3\,530\,ms & 1.14 & 17.8\,ms & 8\,339 & 35 & 29
\\
\textbf{injective} & 636\,ms & 279\,ms & 2.28 & 23.4\,ms & 21\,932 & 91 & 85
\\
\textbf{modular} & 1\,719\,\textmu s & 813\,\textmu s & 2.11 & 23.5\,ms & 23\,892 & 99 & 93
\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We have re-run the cryptarithmetic puzzle solver application, using
out-of-the-box compilation support for all generic combinators of the
\textsf{Paisley} core library, but strictly no additional problem-specific
generator code. Table~\ref{tab:crypt} summarizes our benchmarking results.
For each strategy the following data are given:
\begin{itemize}
\item run times of the original pattern and its compiled variant,
and their ratio;
\item times for compilation, including bytecode generation, class loading and
verification and object initialization;
\item size of generated class, measured in overall bytes, number of state fields
and matching-related methods (\lstinline|match|, \lstinline|matchAgain| and
their auxiliaries).
\end{itemize}
All reported times are wall-clock times, each obtained with
\lstinline|System.nanoTime()| precision, as the median of a specific, suitably
large number of iterations to allow for jit compiler warm-up. {\NEEW See
section~\ref{conclusion} for further discussion.}
\subsection{Document Object Model Navigation with XPath}
\begingroup\NEW
XPath\,\cite{xpath10} is a declarative non-deterministic domain-specific
language for navigation in XML document trees, suitable for embedding in various
more high-level XML technologies such as XQuer
\ and XSL
. In \cite{paisley-xpath}, we demonstrated how a straightforward translation of
XPath\,1.0 abstract syntax to \textsf{Paisley} motifs yields a lightweight lazy
XPath execution engine, which is not only highly educational, but even in
interpreted form competes well against the heavyweight XML tools shipped with
the Java platform. As benchmarks, we used a selection of test cases from the
XMark\,\cite{xmark} suite\newml{, see Table~\ref{tab:xmark}.}
\begin{table}
\newml{\caption{Executing XPath queries from the XMark suite with \textsf{Paisley} patterns.}}
\label{tab:xmark}
\label{tab:xpath}
\centering
\def1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction[annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()]}\end{tabular}{1.2}\small\tabcolsep=0.5em
\begin{tabular}{lrrrcccr}
\toprule
\textbf{Test} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{XPath Expression}}
\\ \midrule
\textbf{Q00} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\texttt{//node()}}
\\
\textbf{Q01} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\texttt{/site/open\_auctions/open\_auction/bidder[1]/increase/text()}}
\\
\textbf{Q06} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\texttt{//site/regions//item}}
\\
\textbf{Q15} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\def1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction[annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()]}\end{tabular}{1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction/annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()}\end{tabular}}
\\
\textbf{Q16} & \multicolumn{7}{l}{\def1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction[annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()]}\end{tabular}{1}\tabcolsep=0pt\begin{tabular}[t]{l}\texttt{/site/closed\_auctions/closed\_auction[annotation/description/}\\\quad\texttt{parlist/listitem/parlist/listitem/text/emph/keyword/text()]}\end{tabular}}
\\ \bottomrule
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Test}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Run Time}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Overhead}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Solutions}}
\\
& \textbf{interp.} & \textbf{comp.} & \textbf{baseline} & \textbf{interp.} & \textbf{comp.} & \textbf{speedup}
\\ \midrule
\textbf{Q00} & 99.56\,ms & 64.05\,ms & 13.71\,ms & 6.26 & 3.67 & 1.71 & 1\,877\,979
\\
\textbf{Q01} & 11.16\,ms & 6.78\,ms & 5.44\,ms & 1.05 & 0.25 & 4.27 & 4\,310
\\
\textbf{Q06} & 162.85\,ms & 84.52\,ms & 62.11\,ms & 1.62 & 0.36 & 4.50 & 8\,700
\\
\textbf{Q15} & 7.13\,ms & 4.07\,ms & 3.62\,ms & 0.97 & 0.12 & 7.80 & 68
\\
\textbf{Q16} & 9.43\,ms & 4.55\,ms & 3.92\,ms & 1.41 & 0.16 & 8.75 & 59
\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We have re-run the tests, using compilation support for all generic combinators
of the \textsf{Paisley} core library, as well as for bindings to the standard
Java XML DOM. Table~\ref{tab:xpath} summarizes our benchmarking results. For
each test the following data are given:
\begin{itemize}
\item run times of the original motif and its compiled variant;
\item the baseline run time of a hand-coded eager traversal algorithm that
efficiently implements that particular XPath expression;
\item the relative overhead of the interpreted and compiled \textsf{Paisley}
variants over the baseline, and their ratio;
\item the number of solutions
\end{itemize}
\dots\ in a fixed pseudo-random input document, generated by a tool supplied by
the authors of XMark.\footnote{The official home page is no longer online, but
retrievable from
\url{https://web.archive.org/web/20070810005114/http://www.xml-benchmark.org/}.}
All reported times are obtained as above. The results show that the generic
\textsf{Paisley} implementation of XPath expressions approximates the
performance of specific one-off Java implementations gracefully.
The overhead is noticeable in case Q00, where a trivial query basically matches
all nodes, and thus yields a huge number of solutions. Here the cost of lazy
backtracking, as opposed to eager traversal, has an impact that can not be
compensated {\NEEEW fully} by our compilation technique. On the upside, the
lazy search can be suspended arbitrarily after each solution, at no additional
cost.
For the other cases, where significant amounts of traversal take place between
solutions, the \textsf{Paisley} overhead is moderate. Furthermore it can be
improved to near insignificance by compilation, such that the costs of actually
calling into the target data API completely dominate.
\endgroup
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}
\begingroup\NEEW
We have demonstrated how staged compilation can improve the performance of
\textsf{Paisley}, a modularly interpreted combinator EDSL par excellence. The
compiler mirrors the structure of the interpreter and generates bytecode that
can be immediately loaded and eventually jit-compiled by the JVM. Compiled
and interpreted \textsf{Paisley} interface transparently in both directions, and
dealing with compilation is completely optional for user extensions.
The approach is generally suitable also for accelerating any other declarative EDSL.
Benchmarks indicate that the speedup by compilation is significant, even for
legacy applications, and can approximate hand-written data query code. We
foresee that long-running applications with complex internal data models, such
as information systems and document servers, could benefit the most from this
technology. This is because their usage mode fits the assumptions of staged
compilation perfectly: \emph{construct early, reuse often}.
In a multi-stage pipeline such as the jit-compiled JVM, there is more to
consider than just the run time of the compilation step. For pattern compilation
to pay off in the end, the compiled patterns must be (re-)used often enough for
the jit compiler to consider them worthwhile for machine code generation.
Otherwise they are executed compiled at the level of the embedded language
\textsf{Paisley}, but interpreted at the level of the host, in contrast to the
original patterns for which the situation is the converse. Thus one-off
applications such as the cryptarithmetic puzzles are purely academic, and for
more heterogeneous realistic applications empirical validation is required.
\endgroup
\subsection{Related Work}
{\NEEEEW Many different approaches to pattern matching in Java exist.
We have already compared our approach to the most significant ones,
in particular the historically relevant
\textsf{JMatch}\,\cite{jmatch-padl} in previous papers
\cite{paisley-atps,paisley-kawa}. More modern, quasi-algebraic
solutions, such as \textsf{adt4j}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/sviperll/adt4j}} or
\textsf{derive4j}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/derive4j/derive4j}},
do not properly address object-oriented data abstraction and non-determinism, the
focus of \textsf{Paisley} in general, or compilation, the focus of
the present paper in particular. }
On the JVM, the Scala language supports non-algebraic pattern matching via
dedicated syntax and the magic method \lstinline|unapply|. As a core part of the
language and its compiler, this mechanism is much more tightly integrated than
\textsf{Paisley} can ever hope to be, and naturally compiles both predefined and
custom pattern code. But the comparison is not exactly fair, as Scala patterns
are neither non-deterministic, nor point-free, nor dynamically
meta-programmable.
\begingroup\NEW
A very recent work \cite{parsing} on parser generation has inspired us to
complete the work presented here. They also improve the performance of a
combinator language, often drastically, by intermediate compilation of a
construction stage. Their approach, like ours, combines the benefits of
bottom-up heuristic metadata (a variant of $\mathrm{LL}(1)$ analysis) with those
of top-down code specialization. However, the MetaOCaml host language framework
they use is markedly different in nature: On the one hand, it natively supports
staged meta-programming, for which we have had to build a custom tool onto
Java's dynamic bytecode loading. On the other hand, OCaml does not have the
benefit of a jit compiler that could optimize both combinators and generated
code heuristically, which makes their compilation stage proportionally even more
effective.
\endgroup
\input{compile-bib}
\end{document}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.